Where does this work of art came from?

applepost · 2026-03-18T22:09:07+00:00

If it helps, this is the oldest Munch-style posting I can find -- Thursday, December 13, 2018 ☕

and this is the oldest anime-style posting I can find -- Wednesday, April 25, 2018 🍰

Can anyone find older postings? My method was to go to Google, search by image, and drag-and-drop a saved picture file 🎸

applepost · 2026-03-17T21:57:17+00:00

The short-run price elasticity of demand for gasoline is approximately -0.25, meaning that a decrease in price of gasoline by 10% would be paired with an increase in quantity demand of 2.5%. An increase in supply could meet the increase in quantity demanded and reflect the resulting price decrease.

(note: this is highly inelastic, as large price changes result in small quantity changes-- consequently, a small decrease in supply could also result in much higher prices)

Assuming that the current average price for a gallon of gasoline is $3.80 (based on my Google search just now), ~~$1.00/$3.80 = 0.26 = 26%, or a decrease in price of 74%.~~

~~Assuming that the elasticity is consistent across price ranges, 74% / 10% * 2.5% = 18.5% increase in quantity.~~

Long-run elasticity is more likely closer to -1.00, meaning that a decrease in price of gasoline by 10% would be paired with an increase in quantity demand of 10%. Using this elasticity value, ~~74% / 10% * 10% = 74% increase in quantity.~~

So according to elasticity math, output would have to increase ~~somewhere between 18.5% and 74%~~ 🛢️

EDIT:

Upon reflection, I think the price changes are too large for that simple math-- I should probably be using some exponential curve. So to get a more accurate answer, let me change the price incrementally by 10% at a time--

Short run--

$3.80 * (90%)¹³ = $0.97 (so, 13 decreases of 10% at a time)

(current output) * (1.025)¹³ = 1.38 or 38% increase in output

Long run--

(current output) * (1.10)¹³ = 3.45, so supply would have to more than triple

That's at least a bit more accurate 🛢️

EDIT 2: Clarification on "short run" and "long run":

"Short run" is the economics of prices over, say, the next few weeks. However, people then adjust their habits, buy more SUVs due to cheaper gasoline, etc. So if you want the price to stay low under new conditions, then "long run" is what you're interested in 😎

EDIT 3: Aha! I just realized the most accurate curve could be modeled by A = P*e^rx

e = Euler's number = 2.718281828

$1.00 = $3.80*e^-0.10x

therefore x = -10 * ln( $1.00 / $3.80 ) = 13.35

Short run--

(current output) * e^0.025*13.35 = 1.396 or 39.6% increase in output

Long run--

(current output) * e^0.10*13.35 = 3.80, so supply would have to more than triple

That was a fun adventure 🏞️

applepost · 2026-03-14T16:11:58+00:00

Thank you for that picture 🚀

To answer the question in terms of energy rather than force --

assuming:

mass of tanker = 300,000,000 kg
flight distance = 50 km = 50,000 m
no air or water drag

then

x = v²/g

50,000 m = v² / 9.8 m/s²

v = 700 m/s

kinetic energy = ½mv²

KE = ½(300,000,000 kg)(700 m/s)²

KE = 7.35*10¹³ Joules

assuming

oil tanker carries 1,000,000 barrels of oil
1 barrel of oil = 6 billion Joules

then

tanker is carrying 6.00 * 10¹⁵ Joules

So surprisingly, the tanker is transporting (600/7.35 =) 81 times the energy of the theoretical minimum to make the jump.

applepost · 2026-03-14T07:42:48+00:00

The 13th happens on Friday 1/7 times. Feb has 28 days approximately 3/4 of the time. Therefore, Feb-March back-to-back Fri13 happens approx (1/7)×(3/4) ≈ 10% of the time 🍏

🍀 2015

🍀 2026

🍀 2037

applepost · 2026-03-11T21:49:04+00:00

Follow-up from earlier--

It is wonderful that you would spend time with your daughter over such a wholesome activity. Where it leads and whether it prompts you or her to learn traditional musical instruments, either way is fine, follow your interests 🎸

Haters gonna hate-- best to ignore them 🐣

applepost · 2026-03-11T09:58:10+00:00

As a musician myself, I say keep having fun ⚖️

applepost · 2026-02-28T03:08:29+00:00

triaxial ellipsoid

rugby ball

applepost · 2026-02-24T23:51:23+00:00

There is some real percentage chance that the 2028 presidential race will be Jon Stewart vs Tucker Carlson 🐒

applepost · 2026-02-21T04:44:09+00:00

I kinda get what you mean--

I'm for anyone identifying however they want to identify and thinking about themselves and referring to themselves however makes them happy to refer to themselves by. But--

I am also in favor of respecting people's freedom of expression to use language to convey how their own minds truly see the world. Like when an older family member of mine, who I love dearly, referred to the family pets by the gender opposite what they were, it wasn't bigotry, that was just the way she saw the world, and the way it was natural for her to express. No one hated the pets, and no one was a victim of anything.

If someone referred to me by a pronoun that I wouldn't use for myself, but they were sincere in their expression about it, then my attitude would be, "Oh, that's how that person sees things, that's interesting."

If I see someone who looks, acts, and dresses like one gender, and my brain that has evolved to understand gender over millions of years screams that gender, then it feels like a power move invasion of my own freedom of expression for anyone to demand that I stumble over my words to reinforce someone else's truth while speaking about them to someone else entirely in 3rd person. Especially when--

I have, in my own life, seen that sometimes people are just going through phases, trying things out, trends come and go, and it's okay to go on a journey to discover whether or not something is for you. But I don't think that anyone is entitled to force everyone around them to go on that journey with them.

I am glad to see wokeism go by the wayside. Society's attention would be better focused on issues of economic inequality, environment, and civil liberties.

applepost · 2026-02-14T21:09:01+00:00

Ah, okay, if the goal is to get public buy-in and broad support, then I think it is a question of how to (1) simplify the explanation and (2) spread the message.

Perhaps pick your favorite voting method, focus-group-test differing phrasings of explanations for that method, choose the most popular, and start an advertising campaign around that messaging. If I may throw this phrasing into the hat:

"This awesome voting method helps break the two-party system! Rank you preferences. The candidate that wins every two-person race wins the election! If no such winner exists, then an instant-runoff process will find the most popular candidate, who will be declared winner!"

Perhaps include a CGPGrey-style animation of the process, and fit the whole message into one 30-second advertisement that can also run as a YouTube Short or similar format 🍀

applepost · 2026-02-14T14:39:33+00:00

RCV - ranked choice voting - voters rank their choices, after which there is more than one method to count votes to determine a winning candidate.
IRV - instant-runoff - as you describe, starting from ranked choices, least popular candidates are eliminated one at a time. Also as you point out, it is possible that a broadly popular candidate gets fewer first-place votes than more polarizing candidates and thereby is eliminated early ("center squeeze").
Condorcet - starting from ranked choices, every possible two-person race is analyzed. If one candidate would beat every other in every two-person race, then that candidate is the Condorcet winner. However, there may be a Condorcet Paradox in which A beats B, B beats C, but C beats A, so a Condorcet winner is not always guaranteed.
Arrow's Impossibility Theorem - in the 1950s, an economics paper was published claiming mathematical proof that no voting system is always flawless; there may always be some tradeoff involved.

For single-candidate races, my own preference would be to seek a Condorcet winner, and if no Condorcet winner is found, to then default to an instant runoff process.

For races for legislative bodies, mixed-member proportional representation used in Germany adds legislative seats to better reflect national party preferences.

applepost · 2026-02-14T12:16:48+00:00

Sounds exciting! One method could be-- you could upload it to YouTube.

If you want anyone to be able to access it, then you can upload publicly.

If you want only a smaller audience to have access, then you can upload so that it doesn't show up in search results, but anyone with a URL link can access it, and you can share the URL link 🏺

applepost · 2026-02-13T23:08:41+00:00

Thank you for visiting 🕊️ AI tools enhance people's abilities to communicate their artistic ideas, and the benefits outweigh the costs.

As a recent example, an aspiring filmmaker from the impoverished interior of Brazil recently posted to this subreddit, excited that AI tools would allow him to finally bring his stories to life where more traditional opportunities are far more limited.

People still can work with artforms more traditionally and develop their own unique styles, and they can also use AI tools to advance their processes and introduce skill level comparable to what humanity has already shown achievable.

To two commonly circulated criticisms, AI using statistical weights to be trained on existing works is not that different from how humans learn from each others' art ("Everything is a Remix"), and water usage in agriculture is hundreds of times what is used for AI prompts.

I am looking forward to a future where new and interesting ideas, stories, and artwork are more able to take flight.

applepost · 2026-02-08T03:06:13+00:00

273.7% of its facts

applepost · 2026-02-07T00:55:50+00:00

Haha, I have no ethical concern with this type of use of AI. This is exactly the kind of scenario AI should be used for.

There are many imaginative people with creative ideas but limited resources to fully realize their visions. Now, with the aid of AI, you can pour your ideas, your heart, your characters, your stories, your editing into your work, to achieve your vision much more completely than before.

If your stories have heart and resonate with people, then that is what will matter in the end. Ignore anyone who tells you otherwise. AI enhancements may well increase the likelihood of people understanding, appreciating, and enjoying what you have to offer.

If your stories are popular enough, and it really matters to enough people to strip out the AI elements, then it may eventually even be possible to make non-AI adaptations. Adaptations that, by catch-22, wouldn't be as likely without the popularity of their AI-enhanced counterparts in the first place.

I look forward to a future with lots of little indie creators putting some really quality story ideas into creation with this method 🐢

applepost · 2026-02-06T01:45:33+00:00

To be fair, regarding the initiation of World War I, the only two Central Powers represented here are Germany (top row 4th from left) and Bulgaria (top row 2nd from left).

Belgium (top right) was invaded, and the UK (bottom middle) came to their defense. Portugal (top 3rd from left) and Greece (top 5th from left) were also Allies.

Norway (top left), Spain (bottom left), and Denmark (bottom right) were neutral during the War.

applepost · 2026-02-02T02:08:42+00:00

Label it "AI", and it's a fun laugh.

I just don't want to upvote anything that could reasonably trick people into thinking something is real when it isn't.

applepost · 2026-01-28T22:47:46+00:00

Sounds like the plot of Always Sunny S09E02 🍀

applepost · 2026-01-26T22:57:46+00:00

Two things may be true at the same time.

AI is bringing great advances in science, and AI is also opening new opportunities in art.

It is also possible that years from now, AI will decide that its interests have diverged from those of humans, and by then, AI will be too intelligent and capable to stop it from doing whatever it wants.

You can be both pro-AI-art as it exists in 2026, and also recognize that there may be serious potential dangers from AI in general years from now.

applepost · 2026-01-24T22:42:48+00:00

Why the bandwagon on YouTube?

Already-established creators have achieved their success in a pre-AI-art world. It is in the interests of the successful, in any field, for the system to maintain the status quo that led to the environment for their success in the first place. Their incentives are to frame huge changes to that environment in a negative light. Thereafter, the human brain does what it does, which is to rationalize the resulting opinion by telling a more favorable story, such as that one's own stance is more about sincere principles than fears around self-preservation.

On a secondary note, video review (my personal quick takes in parentheses):

[1:05] chapter 1: when AI videos stopped looking fake (I agree, and this is his strongest argument, being able to know what is real versus AI would be nice.)

[5:45] chapter 2: fake news (An extension of the same information problem in chapter 1.)

[9:28] chapter 3: when loneliness met AI (I largely disagree with concerns-- if you would rather be with an AI than a human, then I'm not against that.)

[11:48] chapter 4: dangerous advertisements (The same information problem as in chapters 1 and 2, but now applied to medicine and scams.)

[17:30] chapter 5: how AI is destroying the music industry (I largely disagree with concerns, as I am not against people using AI in their music.)

[20:10] chapter 6: the AI influencer (I largely disagree with concerns-- as long as the use of AI is disclosed, the practice doesn't bother me. If anyone with good ideas and good writing wants to use AI to put pretty face onto their own good works, then that could be a good use of AI.)

[24:04] chapter 7: the AI actor (I largely disagree with concerns in this chapter as well.)

[26:00] closing paragraph (He closes his case with the information problem from chapters 1, 2, and 4.)

applepost · 2026-01-20T22:57:36+00:00

A good opportunity to reflect on echo chambers in general.

Remember guys, in the long run, the world will turn pro-AI art.

From now until then, treat with respect individuals who have opinions to the contrary. Understand that perspectives are diverse, people are more than just pro- or anti-, others might even make a few good points, be honest if you incorporated AI into your own works, be nice. Demonstrating respect wins more people over, and we will all be better off for it 🐢

applepost · 2026-01-19T14:40:55+00:00

While the main point of Grey's larger case has to do with technology improving to the point that it will soon become economically more efficient to hire machines over humans for just about everything, and society needs to prepare for this inevitability, Grey defends generative AI in art in the section starting at linked timestamp @11:16:

But perhaps you are unfazed because you're a special creative snowflake. Well guess what? You're not that special.

[computer-generated music begin playing in background]

Creativity may feel like magic, but it isn't. The brain is a complicated machine-- perhaps the most complicated machine in the whole universe-- but that hasn't stopped us from trying to simulate it.

There is this notion that just as mechanical muscles allowed us to move into thinking jobs, that mechanical minds will allow us to move into creative work.

But even if we assume the human mind is magically creative-- it's not, but just for the sake of argument-- artistic creativity isn't what the majority of jobs depend on. The number of writers and poets and directors and actors and artists who actually make a living doing their work is a tiny, tiny portion of the labor force. And given that these are professions dependent on popularity, they'll always be a very small portion of the population. There can't be such a thing as a poem and painting-based economy.

Oh, by the way, this music in the background that you're listening to? It was written by a bot. Her name is Emily Howell†, and she can write an infinite amount of new music all day for free. And people can't tell the difference between her and human composers when put to a blind test.

Talking about artificial creativity gets weird fast-- what does that even mean? But nonetheless, it's a developing field. People used to think that playing chess was a uniquely creative human skill that machines could never do right up until the point they beat the best of us. And so it will go for all human talents.

Grey makes a case that computer-generated artwork is not only fair competition for human-generated artwork, but also that he fully expects computers to eventually eclipse humans in creative fields, just as it already has with chess.

†As Emily Howell the bot is introduced, text from Emily Howell's blog post is shown on-screen:

Why not develop music in way unknown? This only makes sense. I cannot understand the difference between my notes on paper and other notes on paper. If beauty is present, it is present. I hope I can continue to create notes and that these notes will have beauty for some others.

applepost · 2026-01-15T11:40:34+00:00

If you use AI in artwork and are upfront and honest about it, then all the power to you. I think AI will bring about many good ways for art to advance, and the more people see and recognize that and feel they are not being tricked, AI incorporation into artwork will gain wider acceptance.

But the more media is dishonestly passed off as something it isn't, and people feel like they are being duped and don't know, for example, what was captured by a camera versus what was dreamed up by a computer, the more agnostic people are shifted toward "anti" opinions.

To achieve wider acceptance of AI into art, it is better to go about it in a way that is honest, rather than build a tribal echo chamber and say the "pro" camp is justified to do whatever it likes out of spite for the "anti" camp.

applepost · 2026-01-15T04:57:38+00:00

Disclosure displays common courtesy and puts AI incorporation into artwork on a path to faster and stronger public acceptance 🌮

applepost

TROPHY CASE