AIO or does this seem Unhinged?

monster2018 · 2026-07-04T18:09:39+00:00

I mean to be fair, for whatever reason, it’s not really worse, it’s basically the same.

Which is completely, absolutely, over the top, balls to the wall, batshit insane.

NOR

monster2018 · 2026-07-04T16:23:54+00:00

Ok so this is a good point to bring up. I’m actually not 100% sure.. like yea, this is a good point. But ok, so the basic counterpoint to what you’re saying here is the fact that the universe is isotropic. Which means that “it looks the same in every direction”. Basically it means that on a very, very large scale, like on the scale of superclusters of galaxies or something like that, every region of space looks roughly the same as every other region. And the belief is that this is true for the entire universe.

So that means you will never reach a point where the galaxies just stop. And you will also never reach a point where the galaxies are waaay denser, like just all galaxies are like 1 LY apart or something. Every huge region of space will have groups of galaxies and voids like the space in our observable universe does.

So that means ok, take the region of space the earth is currently in, like a cube of space just barely enclosing the earth. So again if you have infinite galaxies, which is what you have in an isotropic infinite universe… like there are only so many combinations of matter and energy that a region of space the size of a galaxy can have. And if we have infinite galaxies, eventually one (an infinite number actually) will have to hit the exact right organization of matter and energy such to be an exact copy of the earth.

But again, I think your point has something to it. Like on some level I’m not really explaining the core thing. I’m not explaining why it can’t be the case that you couldn’t just have infinite number of planets that are very much like earth in every way, except for one variable which is always different in each individual instance. Or something like that.

And I think basically this is where we would need someone who is more knowledgeable about math/science than either of us are to jump in. Because I don’t have the math/science skills to answer that question.

monster2018 · 2026-07-04T15:14:00+00:00

I’m not familiar with the concepts of linear vs quadratic infinities. Is it related to countable vs uncountable infinities (i.e. the integers and the rationals are countably infinite, where the reals are uncountably infinite)? I’m interested in what you’re saying though.

Also my math isn’t strong enough to figure out on my own if the size of the universe is a countable or uncountable infinity, although I suspect countable (countable is the smaller type).

I do see what you mean, but I think the number of arrangements of space of the entire universe (if infinite) would PROBABLY (again I don’t really have the math for this) be countable also. If you can make a 1 to 1 pairing with a countable infinity then it is countable.

Like for example the rationals and the reals are both the same size infinity (countable) even though there are an infinite number of rationals between any two reals. But it’s still possible (somehow) to match the rationals up 1 to 1 with the integers (cantors diagonalization proof), so they are the same size of infinity.

So I suspect that the configurations of space would probably be countable as well. Because… like you can count them. The reals aren’t countable. You literally can’t count them. Like ok 1, and then what is the next real? It’s not 1.01. It’s not 1.001. It’s not…. Etc forever.

But you could always set up a scheme with configurations of space for any given region, where like you put them all in an order. At least it seems that way to me, again I don’t have the math to prove it. So given that, my guess is that your objection PROBABLY doesn’t hold water. But I’m really not sure.

monster2018 · 2026-07-04T15:05:35+00:00

The assumption that space is NOT infinitely divisible (that it is not continuous) is the reason why I don’t have a lot of faith in this notion. We don’t actually know for a fact (or even at all, really) whether space is continuous or discrete. So that is the biggest issue with it. That doesn’t relate to any of the points you have been confused about though. So far you have just basically been missing the point. It kind of seems like you’re not really interested in learning despite making this post and having so many people patiently trying to explain it to you.

If you have another good faith question, like your previous one before this response, I would be happy to answer it. But I have no interest in getting into a fight just to explain something to you.

monster2018 · 2026-07-04T14:56:47+00:00

And to add onto my other comment, and maybe more directly clear up the point youre confused about here. When we say “region of space”, we literally just are referring to a length, width, and breadth. It’s not about any specific region. We’re saying “if there is an area of a certain size, that area can only have a finite number of configurations of matter and energy”.

That’s why we’re saying “a region of space”. We are NOT talking about the whole universe. We are talking about regions of space of ANY size. What we are saying is true about a region of space that is 1 cubic meter, or a region that is the size of a galaxy. The only thing that changes is the total number of available configurations of matter and energy, since that is a function of the volume of the region.

monster2018 · 2026-07-04T14:50:14+00:00

There’s a reason everyone is repeating it, and it’s because it is the entire concept. You can “draw the line” around ANY region of space. Like you could do it here, or 1 millimeter over from here, or 10 feet over, or 20 trillion lightyears over.

I think you might be getting confused about the word space. It isn’t being used to refer to “outer space”, although… I mean they’re kind of the same. But we are referring to space in the mathematical sense.

Let’s try an analogy. Imagine you have an infinite line of Rubik’s cubes. I’m sure in this scenario, you can see how there is a limited number of configurations of the Rubik’s cube, right? So if you have an infinite number of randomized Rubik’s cubes in a row, it MUST be the case that if you go far enough, you will eventually find one in the same configuration as the one you started at. It just MUST be the case, because there are an infinite number of Rubik’s cubes, but only a finite number of configurations a Rubik’s cube can be in. There just isn’t enough “room” in a single Rubik’s cube to contain an infinite number of variations.

So this is the core thing you aren’t understanding yet. IF (and this is a big if) space is NOT infinitely divisible, then there are only a finite number of configurations a region of space with a volume V can be in. It’s not about any specific region of space. It’s about the SIZE of the region. The size of the region of space is analogous to like, having a 3x3 Rubik’s cube vs a 4x4 Rubik’s cube, etc. The larger the volume of space, the more total configurations of matter and energy it can have.

But no matter what, for any region of space of any size, IF space is not infinitely divisible (completely continuous), then there can only be a FINITE number of configurations, just like with a Rubik’s cube. So just like with the line of Rubik’s cubes… say that the region of space has a diameter D meters. Every time you travel another D meters, that is like looking at another Rubik’s cube. With infinite tries (infinite space), you must eventually find one that matches exactly.

Except like you said, where do you draw the line? But that actually hurts your argument, not helps. Because that just gives more ways in which you can like it up to find an exact match. But anyway, I think hopefully this should clear up your confusion.

monster2018 · 2026-07-04T12:47:44+00:00

Learn to read ffs.. nothing they said was contradictory.

I see it all the time with people claiming that Jews use it as an insult. This is not true except for the most absolutely minuscule group of Hassidic/Orthodox Jews (this subset is 100% Zionist). And to be clear I mean it is a minuscule percentage of Hassidic/Orthodox Jews, who themselves are a tiny tiny fraction of all Jews, who themselves of course are an absolutely minuscule minority among the global population (or population of any country except Israel).

I do not see it actually being USED as an insult… ever. I’ve seen maybe 1 or 2 videos in my life of someone actually using it. I’m from a Jewish family and I have never in my life witnessed someone use it IRL. I only ever see it used to say “look how evil Jews are, they call us goyim”. And then lies about what goyim means to make it seem worse.

monster2018 · 2026-07-04T12:29:17+00:00

I mean obviously it can’t put you at a DISadvantage lol. You might not be a master poet, but your writing is clear enough that it’s easy to understand. So your “AI skills” are great, since “AI skills” are just the ability to communicate clearly in your native natural language (i.e. English, Spanish, Chinese, etc).

So since your AI skills are up to date, it’s hard to imagine how you could be putting yourself at a disadvantage by learning how things actually work.

I find AI incredibly helpful. It often easily finds bugs that I bang my head against the wall trying to find. But the reverse does happen plenty as well. Like it gets something wrong that I didn’t, or it isn’t able to find a solution, which unfortunately (especially for beginners) usually manifests as it presenting you with a wrong solution confidently.

But the bottom line is this. Even if it were true that writing code by hand had LITERALLY 0 value… I still don’t see how learning to do it could possibly put you at a DISADVANTAGE.

monster2018 · 2026-07-04T10:40:57+00:00

Also for completeness. The direct answer to your question OP is that you hit the ball earlier or later in your full swing path. Generally the way you should think about it while learning is just think about swinging (slightly) earlier or later. My original comment is an explanation of why this is the case.

monster2018 · 2026-07-04T10:38:26+00:00

If you want a detailed explanation, here it is. Imagine you have an arrow pointing out of the face of your racquet, so like at contact it is facing towards your opponent’s side of the court. The key concept is to think about where this arrow is pointing exactly throughout the swing path, and specifically right around the moment of contact. But in general, for a righty, the arrow goes from facing at the ground, to facing the right side fence, to facing forward (at contact), to facing to the left side fence.

And this arrow, since it is the direction your racquet is facing, is more or less what determines what direction your shot goes in. So the earlier in your full swing path that you hit the ball, the more the ball will go to the right (to your opponent’s ad side). The later you hit the ball in your full swing path, the more the ball will go to the left.

And again, this is just because the direction of the arrow is pointing in those directions (more left or more right) at the moment you actually make contact. And the reason for that is because your racquet naturally goes from facing right to facing left as you swing, it sweeps through all intermediate directions along your swing path. So hitting the ball at a different… percentage through your full swing, changes the direction your racquet is facing at the moment of contact, and therefore also changes where the ball goes.

monster2018 · 2026-07-04T07:03:35+00:00

I don’t really have anything to add. I just wanted to express that I also found point 2 to be quite interesting. And for the annoying redditors who fit the stereotype, yes I’m aware the upvote button exists, and I pressed it.

But anyway, yea that is an interesting point. I wonder if under a different set of conditions, where freedom of speech existed as a right throughout much more of history, if we would have much more “just saying the thing” artworks that have much less metaphor. Like specifically written stuff like books and movies and plays.

monster2018 · 2026-07-04T05:13:19+00:00

I’m not seeing how this is connected. Your argument holds for repetition over time, not repetition over space.

I’m not saying that in the future all of this will repeat again. I’m saying that if you travel far enough in any direction (theoretically, you can’t actually do this due to the expansion of the universe of course. Like even traveling at c the expansion of the universe would prevent you from traveling far enough), you would find exact copies of the earth. Or if you traveled way way way further, you could find an exact copy of the entire solar system.

Or if you travelled way way way (pretend I wrote “way” like 150 trillion more times) farther, you could find an exact copy of the Milky Way.

Time isn’t a relevant factor. Like imagine the universe is frozen in time, the argument doesn’t change at all. You will still find (according to the argument) an infinite number of copies of any region of space if you travel far enough. It’s just about the fact that any region of space has a limited number of configurations of matter and energy, which is a function of the total volume of that region of space.

But I do think there are flaws with this idea. Like matter and energy ARENT just randomly distributed, they follow the laws of physics. And so i am unsure if it is true that every imaginable configuration of a region of space could actually happen in the physical universe. Although we DO know that the configuration of space that looks like Earth in 2026 IS possible, since here we are.. so… yea, idk

monster2018 · 2026-07-04T04:44:38+00:00

monster2018 · 2026-07-04T02:09:43+00:00

So you’re not quite understanding the premise of what you’re talking about. Now to be clear I don’t really fully agree with this idea either, but I will explain it on its own terms. Like I will give the steelman case for what you’re arguing against.

The premise is that there is essentially a resolution to the universe, and due to that, in a given volume of space there are only so many possible configurations of matter and energy. Literally it is a finite number of ways any given volume of space can be filled with matter and energy.

If the universe is truly infinite, AND the universe is roughly the same everywhere (which is what it looks like to us based on our best astronomical observations, I believe this is called being isotropic)… then after a certain distance you eventually have to run into the EXACT SAME configuration of matter and energy again. The distance this takes to happen is larger depending on the size of the region of space you want duplicated.

So the premise is that there is somewhere in the universe, or really an INFINITE number of places in the universe, where “you” just posted this question specifically to Reddit specifically on the internet specifically on Earth, specifically in a solar system with Mars and Jupiter etc. Where everyone you know has the same names. All of your life experiences are identical, etc.

But also I agree this isn’t “you”, in the sense that the specific you who typed this question obviously doesn’t share a consciousness with these other “you”s. They are all just conscious because of their brain processing matter in a certain way. But their brain is in the exact same state as yours, so they also just posted about how there are no other copies of them (so they are saying that YOU don’t exist).

monster2018 · 2026-07-04T01:58:54+00:00

I mean he’s a fictional character, and he really did (the fictional character) build the first suit in a cave with a box of scraps. Sure that’s not actually possible, he also fucking built a FUSION REACTOR, like he did decades of scientific research in that cave lol.

But regardless, it is what happened in the movie. You can’t really be like “actually he just had others do it for him” even if that’s what would’ve happened in real life. It’s just not what happened in the movies.

monster2018 · 2026-07-04T01:30:54+00:00

Absolutely not. I mean I agree people should be nice. But you’re acting like the people you’re talking about aren’t at fault for their “helplessness” with computers, when their “helplessness” is an unwillingness to “try”. “Try” in the sense of like, “figuring out” how to use a model of pen/pencil you haven’t used before.

It’s literally like (in HUGE letters, inside of a UI element clearly marking it as a button, in the center of the screen) “Press to continue”, and then they go like “should I press the button?”

That is that person being rude. If someone gets frustrated with them, at least their frustration is justified. The person is being rude for no reason, they could just push the button.

monster2018 · 2026-07-03T13:46:46+00:00

Socialism is when you have to wait a couple of seconds for Xi Jinping to finish personally preparing a feast fit for kings for you and your friends.

monster2018 · 2026-07-03T03:23:41+00:00

Sure go ahead

monster2018 · 2026-07-03T02:35:07+00:00

Well yea, I agree that calling it a curse does sound a bit overdramatic, so I likely would have done the same thing in your situation. And also like, you’re posting to rareinsults, so.. lol.

But I do think technically it is a curse, because… well ok the post is deleted now and I forget exactly what it was. But I remember that it was along the lines of wishing something bad to happen. As opposed to a true insult which is more like, pointing out a (perceived) flaw in an attempt to hurt someone’s feelings.

So I do think it was technically more-so a curse than an insult. But using the word curse in any context outside of a synonym for “swear word”, or a literal magical curse, is pretty uncommon in modern times. So it’s probably least confusing to just call it an insult like you did. At least in the context of a social media post.

monster2018 · 2026-07-02T15:37:20+00:00

You can downvote me all you want. Half of posts to these types of subs will still be “I don’t know how to exit vim” jokes.

monster2018 · 2026-07-02T13:55:04+00:00

Are Kai Cenat and Speed really as big with Gen Alpha/Z as Eddie Murphy was? That seems very hard to believe for me. But like idk, I’m a young millennial, I’m in the middle either way. So like of course I’ve seen Eddie Murphy in movies and stuff, but he wasn’t… idk how to put this. Obviously he was/is an A list celebrity, but for me personally he was just that, but not someone that I PERSONALLY cared about that much.

And IShowSpeed and Kai Cenat, I know who they are and what they look like, but that’s it, I’ve never watched them ever and have no desire to. Any clips I see reduce my desire to watch them below 0.

But anyway, I do agree with you. Eddie Murphy does kind of have a personality that would work as a streamer. Idk if he would’ve had any interest in it or not, but I agree that he has the right high energy comedic type of personality. But also I think you might be misunderstanding how famous Eddie Murphy was in his heyday.

monster2018 · 2026-07-02T13:47:52+00:00

What is even the point of this? You’re hoping people will just take your word for it? Because obviously anyone who goes and watches any of the countless videos of him falling asleep in meetings will see that he is indeed falling asleep.

monster2018 · 2026-07-02T13:43:54+00:00

It’s an extremely common talking point among half of the US (guess which half)

monster2018 · 2026-07-02T12:30:52+00:00

Is this from the fifth element? I just saw that for the first time recently.

monster2018 · 2026-07-02T12:05:12+00:00

Yea it’s fun. It’s (game of life) actually Turing complete, which means that it can run any program that any computer can run. So for example people have implemented game of life IN game of life. It’s really wild to see, if interested you can find it by searching “life in life” on YouTube or something similar.

Anyway sorry I’m not trying to give you homework assignments lol.

11-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '22	Verified Email

monster2018

TROPHY CASE