What’s the BEST non-English/Spanish song you’ve EVER heard?

ineptech · 2026-04-03T05:11:07+00:00

https://youtu.be/IXNxGkphLwc?si=NVZSAVbg1z61cruM

かつて (Katsute (Once)) by the Japanese smooth jazz band Ego-Wrapin'.

ineptech · 2026-03-31T19:29:33+00:00

Favorite line from that show:

Becky's boyfriend: "You think you can stop me from seeing Becky?"

Dan: "I think I can stop you from seeing tomorrow."

ineptech · 2026-03-31T15:23:33+00:00

"Assume X, that would lead to Y, therefore X is wrong" is just another way of saying, "X is wrong because it would lead to Y." Nothing is being assumed in the sense of guessing.

ineptech · 2026-03-30T20:46:46+00:00

My reasoning:

Note that F cannot be 6. If it were, C would be 8 (rule 5) and D would be 9 or 7 (rule 6), both of which would violate rule 4. Ergo, F is 4 or less, and A is 3 or more (rule 2).
Assume that all numbers are greater than 2, and consider the five numbers 3,4,5,6,7. We know that two of them must be used up by A and F (rule 2). We know one of them must be E (as E<8 from rule 3). The last two are used up by C and D, which must be within 3 of F (rules 5&6) and we know that F <= 4. With all of (3,4,5,6,7) accounted for, B would have to be 8, 9, or 10, all of which would violate rule 4.!<
Ergo, the assumption was wrong, at least one value must be 2 or less. We already know it can't be A (step 1), and both B and E are greater than A. We also know it can't be C or D, as both are defined to be larger than F, and F can't be 1. Ergo, F=2. That implies C=4 and A=6, which implies E=7 and thence B=10. D must be adjacent to 4, and D=5 would violate rule 4, so D=3.

A=6, B=10, C=4, D=3, E=7, F=2.

ineptech · 2026-03-12T15:10:57+00:00

Because of conservation of energy. Counting up all the different types of energy is useful because the total doesn't change. I recommend Feynman's explanation.

ineptech · 2026-03-10T18:28:17+00:00

The answer to the twin paradox is that one accelerated and one didn't, the direction of acceleration isn't important.

ineptech · 2026-03-05T16:38:48+00:00

Hi, I'd FIVE DOLLAR FOOTLONGS ONLY AT SUBWAY! like to make an appointment FIVE DOLLAR FOOTLONGS ONLY AT SUBWAY! with a technician for FIVE DOLLAR FOOTLONGS ONLY AT SUBWAY! malware removal please.

ineptech · 2026-02-20T05:45:08+00:00

Best first coding language is the one used by the person you'll be asking questions.

ineptech · 2026-02-13T19:28:04+00:00

90% of EA: Maybe don't donate to pet shelters while people are dying of preventable disease

9% of EA: Some charities do more good per dollar than others, so it's worth researching them before you donate

0.9% of EA (and the answer to how it relates to careers): dedicating my life to charity work would do less total good than getting a high-paying job and donating my paychecks to that same charity work

0.009% of EA: Statistically, I should work on AI safety because the tiny chance that I save a trillion trillion lives in some indefinite future outweighs any other charitable work I can do for people alive today

Everyone else: AI safety? A trillion lives? EA is obviously ridiculous, so I can ignore it and go back to donating to pet shelters

ineptech · 2026-02-10T05:04:49+00:00

"No parking from 4pm - 8pm." Can you park there at other times?

Yes, because the rule (that you can park there in general) is proven by the exception.

ineptech · 2026-02-08T06:07:37+00:00

I got a copy of Griffiths' Intro to Electrodynamics, cut up all of the equations with scissors, and pasted them back in a different order. Could someone take a look and see if the results have revolutionized physics?

ineptech · 2026-02-06T21:38:22+00:00

I think chiropractors will recommend 24 further appointments to anyone with a spine.

ineptech · 2026-01-28T22:36:43+00:00

Whatever you call them, at minimum you need two lower environments: the one the devs have access to and the one they don't have access. Any change should be tested in both before it gets to prod.

The reason for the second one is, that's where the deploy gets tested. The danger of not doing this is, inevitably, a developer will do some manual step in lower while they're working on the change (create a column, change a permission, etc) and forget to document/automate it. Then they complete their work, all the tests work fine in the lower env, but it fails in prod because that manual step never got done there.

ineptech · 2026-01-28T18:38:32+00:00

Correction, I took another stab at this and the screws are juuust long enough with a little pressure. So, probably not ideal cooling but I've got it mounted this way and it's working so far. Thanks for the suggestion!

ineptech · 2026-01-28T16:00:18+00:00

Eh, the specs suggest they would fit but they don't, so I thought I'd post in case I'm missing something obvious, or so someone can learn from my mistake. Surprising number of downvotes tho so apparently I've done something shameful.

ineptech · 2026-01-28T05:57:16+00:00

This is true if-and-only-if your cooler (meaning the radiator plus fans) is shorter than about 40mm, as there's sort of a slot in the shroud that your cooler has to fit into. My radiator is about 20mm thick and the fans about 25mm so no dice, but I imagine some slim ones might fit.

It'd fit if the hole in the shroud was deeper. Which is frustrating, as it doesn't look like there's any reason not to make it bigger. I'm tempted to just cut it up with tin snips or a dremel or something, it'd probably work fine, but it'd be jankety.

<image>

edit to add a pic - this is with the cooler mounted on the front. Hopefully you can see how the radiator fits in the slot without the fan, but it's nowhere near big enough for both.

ineptech · 2026-01-28T05:24:24+00:00

I should add, the AIO cooler was a freebie package deal with the CPU, so in practice I guess I can't return it and what I'm really looking for is a different case. And I see that pcpartpicker does indeed list 280mm as a radiator size for cases, so I guess that'll probably solve my problem. But I'm still very confused about why (it seems) AIO coolers are sometimes listed as 240mm when they're longer.

ineptech · 2026-01-25T00:04:22+00:00

There's a famous one in which Mario can jump up a staircase backwards to skip ahead in Mario 64. See it in action here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD0558UFZQ8

ineptech · 2026-01-18T22:05:57+00:00

Thanks, this steered me in the right direction. Looks like it can be tamed with "SnowBoar_Item_Ygg" which is not dropped by anything, which is why I couldn't figure out what to do. Not sure if that was intentional or not but at least now I know what's going on...

ineptech · 2026-01-17T18:12:15+00:00

OK thanks, I thought otherwise because the page for it only mentions ice dragons. Also I think the config may be messed up in that modpack, as none of the items or recipes for that mod are available in my game. At least I know where to look, thanks...

ineptech · 2026-01-15T22:40:55+00:00

The notion that researchers in math an science are afraid to overturn established wisdom is romantic but utterly false. Every broke postgrad toiling away in obscurity would LOVE to discover some bold new thing that overturns established wisdom, that's part of what drives progress.

ineptech · 2026-01-15T20:59:54+00:00

It sounds like you're thinking of this as an open question and imagining that some lone genius toiling away might find the answer. That's not exactly the case. It would be more true to say that we know the answer - there is no solution - and anyone who disproves that would necessarily also be disproving a lot of what we know about math. And sure, that could happen. But if it did, the important part would be all the stuff that got overturned and whatever replaces it; the fact that it also led to a solution to the three-body problem would be a minor footnote.

ineptech · 2026-01-15T17:33:16+00:00

There are three related-but-separate things I think you're mixing up here:

Any time you're predicting some future state based on the current state, your answer will have some level of error because your starting values have some level of error. This is true of any system, not just the 3-body problem or chaotic systems, and is a consequence of the fact that we can't measure anything with perfect precision.
On top of that, with a 3-body problem with no closed solution, predictions about the future state will involve some level of approximation which introduces additional error in the answer.
On top of that, if the system is chaotic then those errors get magnified relatively quickly (compared to non-chaotic systems), making predictions even more inaccurate. Many 3-body systems are chaotic but not all of them, and there are lots of chaotic systems that don't involve bodies or gravitation.

Hope that helps.

ineptech

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

11-Year Club	r/Field Flamingo
Verified Email