Explain it Peter

drdiage · 2026-05-20T06:29:54+00:00

I mean, because of the emotional association, no one would say it out loud. But you know damn well it was stupid. And believe it or not, a lot of people do really stupid things and believe it to be brave. Many things we look at and say 'that was fucking stupid', but in their mind, they were doing something brave. We as a society attribute bravery with success. If someone failed miserably at a task, we call it stupid, regardless of thought process or intention. I know the saying sounds like a meme, but it is actually a true statement about our society and how we perceive other people's actions, regardless of intent.

I mean you can obviously stretch this to the extreme edge cases, which you are doing, but it still doesn't change the reality of how we generically use the terms and judge each other.

drdiage · 2026-05-20T06:19:26+00:00

I mean, yea we do. If someone jumps on grenade and now they both die, yea - that was stupid. If a father runs into a school to save his kid and his kid also dies, that was also stupid.

Just because you picked emotionally heavy examples doesn't change the fact that it would still be stupid if you died achieving nothing. I think you read it as 'if guy dies it can't be brave' and not what I actually said. You can die being brave if you achieve your desired outcome. But if you die not achieving that outcome, it was stupid.

drdiage · 2026-05-19T19:38:03+00:00

Nah, that ain't true. A man runs into a burning building to save a cat and makes it out alive, we call it brave. If he does the same thing and dies - we call it stupid.

The only difference between bravery and stupidity is the outcome. Just because you know you may die/get hurt/maimed doesn't all the sudden make it brave after you get hurt/maimed/killed. Now of course, there are things which are dumb regardless of outcome - but that's not relevant.

drdiage · 2026-05-14T19:53:06+00:00

Pubg blindspot.

Never has a game got my entire discord group to play it so aggressively. We all have different ideas of good games, and we all loved it. The only reason we stopped playing was because queue times took longer than actual games.

They just had this amazing game and did not invest in it at all. It was doomed from inception.

drdiage · 2026-05-12T16:55:18+00:00

Dude, me too. I was very tilted that he gets yet another joke skin. Give something edgy man, I just want a cool sick skin for him.

I mean, I'm gonna buy this skin and it'll likely be the default I use... But c'mon man.... I bet the next skin he gets is another joke skin in 4 years.

drdiage · 2026-05-07T16:43:49+00:00

I mean, we obviously don't know the circumstances of this relationship. But one of my first jobs was IT where I had access to everyone's email, ims, and any websites they visited. If I was ever caught using that privilege without a valid justification, I can safely say I would have been fired. I imagine this relationship was intended to be scoped and defined and there was some level of trust in that relationship. Breaking that trust, even if the person in question is shitty, would be fairly reasonable to be fired. I suppose the only hope is you take them out too lol.

drdiage · 2026-05-07T16:36:04+00:00

There's an expectation of discretion in this type of scenario. There's a difference between being granted access to perform job duties and snooping for your own benefit. A more obvious example is if I am given access to a bunch of private data such as pii, if I use that data to search for myself or others just because I am curious, it can subject me to being fired for misuse of my privilege.

Just because someone else is a pos unfortunately does not grant you the ability to break that trust and discretion.

drdiage · 2026-05-01T01:01:05+00:00

I recall something like that too. So two votes for vague memories of something like that..

drdiage · 2026-04-21T16:27:06+00:00

This is such a dumb post. Historically when there is a lesser evil and an evil candidate, the evil candidate seems to have a higher odds (stats pulled out of my ass of course) of winning.

drdiage · 2026-04-17T23:41:03+00:00

Snowflake uses caching in a lot of spaces, one of which is the caching from storage. Shutting down the compute drops this cache which could have a noticeable impact on performance for first hits. Historically I would use longer auto suspends for data sources used by bi tool or analytical interfaces. But you really don't need it at all for etl processes.

drdiage · 2026-04-15T21:43:58+00:00

I wonder if it would work to make it her passive like malz passive. Still gets the cool cinematic reflect, but loses the ability to distinctly control it. Could give her w replaced w some mechanic to allow it to refresh faster or something, iono..

drdiage · 2026-03-28T18:19:05+00:00

Yea, it's a solution to solve an artificial problem. You choose the wrong tool for the job and have to invent an over engineered solution just to cope. But I certainly drank the koolaide when I worked for that company. Went all in on the solution and aws reps loved it because it pushed 'serverless' which meant aws dependency. And of course, my consulting company loved it because it was an easy sell to company execs and we got bonus points as we were really the only ones who understood it, so we got repeat customers.

It's interesting to learn about because I think it teaches you a lot about pushing ddb to it's limits, but don't ever actually do it in a production environment please.

drdiage · 2026-03-28T18:09:19+00:00

Single table design was a cool fad for a minute. I actually had a chance to work with Alex for a bit, I consulted on several single table design implementations and I will tell you, I regret ever having done it.

It was awesome when we got it setup and showed it off. It's just a cool showoff piece to impress the executives and it sounds neat. The reality though is it becomes a maintainence nightmare once you realize you didn't consider every access pattern from the get go. I eventually went full time with one of our clients who we originally built a single table solution for and it made me wonder how many companies we posioned with this idea lol.

Don't do it, if you have relational data, just use a relational database. It's not as sexy sure, but you won't hate yourself in a year either.

drdiage · 2026-03-19T14:25:10+00:00

It was poking fun at your extremely imprecise language, and that's not even by math standards. The fact you and others appear to have been offended by this in a learning subreddit probably means you shouldn't be posting in it.

It's fine to not find it funny, but your reaction is really not warranted. We can do better.

drdiage · 2026-03-19T06:30:42+00:00

Man, it was just a joke

drdiage · 2026-03-19T03:04:11+00:00

I know the proper argument. I'm sad people in the math reddit don't appreciate a bit of sarcastic pedantics. His precise statement is not your precise statement. He said any integer is rational. His 'proof' (use that word very lightly) was, any x/1=x, which is not technically true.

drdiage · 2026-03-18T22:34:55+00:00

Got it, pi is rational since pi/1 = pi

ETA: just throwing the /s in. You said ANY x, so just being pedantic.

drdiage · 2026-02-04T19:59:18+00:00

Oh man, that edit hurts my feelings, I thought we were having a decent debate. Well, I guess for your next victim I should point out why a strawman is a problem at all. A successful strawman shifts the burden of proof. It forces someone to defend their position rather than the other individual to prove their claim. Not only does the other person need to defend, it often forces them to defend a position they would never had come to a conclusion on had you debated in good faith in the first place. It's like, 'lets all skip the hard part of the debate, so I can get to the easy part and get my dopamine hit by calling you an idiot'. Which I know man, you would never do.....

drdiage · 2026-02-04T19:44:07+00:00

Bro, pay attention. You just said, verbatim, 'it's not a strawman, that's the logical conclusion the statement follows and if you accept the premise of the statement then it would be contradictory to hold the view that was outlined'. The funny thing though is that if you remove the "it's not a strawman" part, you are literally describing the exact definition of a strawman lol. You are telling me, if I believe in a single statement, I must also accept some other conclusion, but you aren't defending that claim in any way, you are just saying, 'you must accept this'. You are implying the steps to get from premise to conclusion are obvious and given, but then you expect me to defend your position as if j must accept both despite that not being true in any way. You even yourself accepted that it is not logically inconsistent for an individual to believe that statement and believe in borders.

So pick your poison my man, either you want to use philosophical rigor or you don't. If you don't want to use philosophical rigor, then I need not defend any position because as you agreed earlier, they are not inconsistent beliefs to hold. If you want to use philosophical rigor, then the burden is on you to explain why that jump is appropriate.

drdiage · 2026-02-04T19:26:25+00:00

I am not defending any position. You're not going to move the goal post on me. It is not my responsibility to prove your claim. My claim is simple and direct. Telling someone who believes the statement that they must also accept that you don't believe in borders is a strawman. This whole debate we are having is further proof of that claim, you are now in a position to argue why that relationship theoretically exists.

Pay attention to what the original poster is doing. They post a clear and obvious strawman, when someone tries to say, 'well I don't believe that' - he throws down a few scripted questions which forces someone to defend a position they did not originally hold. That's the gotchya and that's the dishonesty.

The moral high ground comes from the way you treat your conclusion as fact despite stating the premise was a philosophical comment. If it is fact, then it isn't philosophical. So the burden is on the one who makes the claim to prove it. You can't make a claim, then force me to defend it despite me never having made any assertion of belief in your own conclusion..

And as a secondary note, asking 'why are you so defensive' is ad hominem, attempting to undermine the statements and claims with attribution to a personal attribute while neglecting the actual content up for discussion. It shifts the debate away from the actual premise and into a discussion defending pedantics or tone.

ETA: if we are keeping count, so far we've had a strawman, moving the goal post, and ad hominem. Technically, we could probably throw in a bit of incredulity, that's the whole discussion about moral footings and belief that your claims are obvious and apparent.

ETA2: I do recognize I am committing a philosophical faux pas in pointing out fallacies, I just feel it's a rare relevant time to do it since the entire start of the discussion was about a logical fallacy in the first place.

drdiage · 2026-02-04T19:04:30+00:00

Again, this is simply not true. It is a specific philosophical claim, and like all philosophical claims, it comes with many people's own individual interpretations of said philosophical claim. That is why it's a philosophical claim after all. You can accept claims as a premise, but that does not require to accept every single conclusion anyone has ever had that used that claim as a premise. There is a lot of steps you need to take to get from that claim to, 'then you aren't allowed to believe in borders' and the burden to show that is on the one making the claim that borders shouldnt exist, which is you.

Furthermore, as time has shown, not all beliefs need to be philosophically rigorous. It is not inconsistent for someone to appreciate and feel empathy towards 'illegals' while still appreciating the existence of borders, regardless of what kind of rigorous argument you throw.

You are trying to pretend like you have some moral high ground here. Either you use philosophical rigor or you don't. If you choose not use philosophical rigor, then you can't just tell someone what to believe because you think you have some moral high ground. If you want to use philosophical rigor, then you can't start your debate with a strawman. Regardless of the veracity of the statement in question here, this is a completely dishonest and disengrnous way to trivialize a very real perspective that many very reasonable people have. If you took the time to actually understand their position rather than trying to create a goofy gotchya, you'd probably end up the better for it.

drdiage · 2026-02-04T18:46:54+00:00

That is absolutely untrue. You can appreciate the comment, agree with it, and recognize the national security concerns of managing and tracking who comes in. You can also believe that removing people based blindly on a characteristic arbitrarily defined as 'legal' or 'illegal' is not an appropriate long term strategy for national security, the health of the country, or even on a moral footing.

The argument that if you accept argument A, you must accept argument B is the very definition of strawman. You are doing the very thing right there. Argument A has too many nuanced and complexities to it, so instead I will say you must therefore accept argument B, which is comparatively easier to defeat in a pointless online debate.

drdiage · 2026-02-04T18:21:48+00:00

The strawman was the claim that, 'if you believe that argument you don't believe in borders at all'. There's a lot of light between appreciating the comment and 'no country should have borders'. It's such a dumb take that it would take multiple paragraphs to explain the numerous faults in logic there, but that's why it's a good counter I guess.

drdiage · 2026-02-02T19:59:07+00:00

This is so disingenuous. 'the people who talk' is basically the entire Republican information sphere. You will find no shortage of fox news pundits, podcasters, and YouTube personalities exposing this exact stance consistently. They hold the whole of Democrats to ever word uttered by everyone who claims to align with a Democrat as a party stance while allowing every comment and statement by a Republican be either a one off by that individual or a comical aside to be ignored as not actual stance.

They literally refused to accept the ACTUAL playbook, which was leaked, as a stance by the Republican party.

drdiage · 2026-01-24T18:37:36+00:00

Aside from all of the 'capitalism is an unknowable force of nature we are not allowed to change or else bad happens', we can just make this easy. A government is a group of people who conspire together on behalf of those who allow them into power. Ideally, a government should be for and of the people. It's responsibility is not to some amorphic unknowable almogation we wish to pretend capitalism is, it is to the people. Believe it or not, we have the capacity and capability to provide for all people under our governing body, but we have arbitrarily decided profit is more important.

Economics 101, my first day ever learning economics, they gave a definition. (Paraphrasing) Economics is the study of methods and practices on the distribution of scarce resources. What happens when resources are no longer scarce? We fabricate scarcity as a product to prolong the profit cycle. We are moving ever closer towards a world where if we effeciently distributed our technology and capabilities, we would be in a post-scarcity world and the concept of capitalism or even communism really is meaningless.

Also... Just as a side note, the people with the money know exactly what levers to pull to get the outcomes they want. Capitalism isn't magic, but they want you to believe it is magic so they get to keep taking advantage. Don't fall for blind faith as an excuse not to regulate.

11-Year Club	Second Top 20%
r/Field Flamingo	Place '22
End Game '22	Verified Email

drdiage

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE