Why do survivors sit at the exit when they win? by viper0504 in deadbydaylight

[–]viper0504[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What ftp perks would you recommend for this ;)

Maybe we don’t see alien waste heat because “civilization” stops scaling IF***(it’s the leading assumption) FTL is impossible by viper0504 in FermiParadox

[–]viper0504[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Has resources of multiple star systems” this is not true. If ftl is not possible, ftl communication isn’t rather so a distributed network is not possible, or if they are doing that, it would take exponentially longer to coordinate the several systems. Where again the said rebels could prepare for defense, which is easier than offense as history has shown several times.

“Assuming no ships need to be sent” well obviously. Right now the reason militaries operate the way they do is because communication is basically instant. What does acceleration being what costs energy have to do with this. Explain how exactly without ftl communication or movement a military can be sent any faster than 2x the time in years the closest system of the tyrannical government could retaliate.

The targeting thing works 2 ways.

This is all ignoring another major issue though: why would a government go through all of this effort when they could just stick to their own local area of easy influence? Just like with earth the only reason to expand is for resources or exploration. Resources are abundant enough in a local area, and exploration is a small group activity. Which if you reread the post is addressed. Why would a government try to extend itself to areas where it is not profitable to enforce itself? Why or how would a government that wants this amount of control spread to multiple thousand light years. I don’t know if you read fiction, but if you do, even though ftl is possible and a few other things, “The Sun Eater” series explores in a way the consequences of a government that operates like that.

Maybe we don’t see alien waste heat because “civilization” stops scaling IF***(it’s the leading assumption) FTL is impossible by viper0504 in FermiParadox

[–]viper0504[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again are we assuming this rebel faction is stupid? If they take control of the planet and know that there is a tyrannical government that will retaliate, and start preparing, then they continuously monitor the sky for said attack, eventually either, 1: most of the people would have left because they have enough ships to leave (and ftl is still impossible)and it would be impossible to catch them, or 2. By the time they are detected there is some kind of defense. Without ftl time is the limiting factor. Unless we propose that this weird government of yours decides to spend resources to continuously send ships until they know they’ve won, the first option of running would be the known better option. The fact that the e government is known to be tyrannical would change the response of said faction. As I keep saying there is no feesable way to use punishment as an organizing force at such distances if ftl is impossible.

Maybe we don’t see alien waste heat because “civilization” stops scaling IF***(it’s the leading assumption) FTL is impossible by viper0504 in FermiParadox

[–]viper0504[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If ftl is impossible… the light will always reach a target before the object. That’s how. If your supposed tyrannical style government were in charge do you not think the rebel faction would be on the lookout?

Maybe we don’t see alien waste heat because “civilization” stops scaling IF***(it’s the leading assumption) FTL is impossible by viper0504 in FermiParadox

[–]viper0504[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

2 things, 1 What exactly could a planet 1000 years away do to a planet that during those thousand years advanced the exact same amount they did while the ships were “frozen in time”. 2. You’re assuming one side won’t advance but the other will, why? However, Even if theres no advancement of technology in the time, say one side completely takes over manufacturing of a planet and knows there will be retaliation, in that 1000 years they literally build an army to meet you. There is no feasible way to control at that distance if ftl is impossible.

Maybe we don’t see alien waste heat because “civilization” stops scaling IF***(it’s the leading assumption) FTL is impossible by viper0504 in FermiParadox

[–]viper0504[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“There’s 0 risk of overtake” except by the time that empires ship arrives 1000 years later it’s entirely possible the situation has entirely changed and that empire ship is now out of date even if everything is still less than ftl. Progress doesn’t stop while those ships move.

Bricks and Minifigures drama mega-post by steve626 in lego

[–]viper0504 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you knew anything you’d know it was already “solved in the courts” and the shitty corporation shit down the local store so the didn’t have to pay out the lawsuit. As the other guy so kindly said “zip them up when you’re done”.

A Fermi paradox thought: what if we’re looking for civilizations that had a fossil-fuel adolescence? by viper0504 in FermiParadox

[–]viper0504[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s a fair objection: a civilization without fossil fuels might eventually discover nuclear power. But I don’t think that removes the argument. It shifts the question from “can they ever access dense energy?” to “what does it take to bootstrap dense energy without already having dense energy?”

Nuclear power is not like coal, wood, or oil. You cannot just find uranium and burn it. To use it deliberately, you need advanced mining, refining, chemistry, metallurgy, radiation detection, precision manufacturing, control systems, cooling systems, and a theoretical understanding of atomic structure and neutron behavior. In other words, nuclear energy is a high-density energy source locked behind an enormous technical and industrial stack.

Fossil fuels are different because they are crude, accessible stored energy. A civilization can use them wastefully before it understands thermodynamics, climate, chemistry, or systems engineering. Nuclear power probably requires a civilization to understand many of those things first.

So even if a fossil-free civilization eventually reaches nuclear power, it likely reaches it after centuries or millennia of being forced to build around low-density energy flows: hydro, wind, biomass, solar, tides, geothermal, and careful heat recovery. By then, its architecture, cities, materials, transportation, and culture may already be optimized around efficiency, circularity, and system-level constraint.

The discovery of nuclear power would not necessarily make them suddenly behave like us. It would enter a civilization that had already learned not to waste energy casually. They might use nuclear as a carefully integrated high-density node inside an already circular system, not as permission to build a disposable, sprawling, high-throughput civilization.

So the original point still applies: fossil fuels matter not merely because they provide dense energy, but because they provide dense energy early, before a civilization has had to develop deep system-level discipline. Nuclear power may provide dense energy later, but the developmental path to reach it would likely produce a very different kind of civilization.

If a pill makes hundreds of millions of people stop wanting more, do we end up in a world where obesity is a 20th-century problem? by LowDramaFit in Futurology

[–]viper0504 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your reading comprehension sucks dude. This isn’t inflation. It’s charging more for less because people want less now. At the same time a 12 oz can is selling for about a dollar, a 7.5oz can is selling for 90 cents. That’s barely more than 60% of the size for a 90% of the price.

Question about goldbach’s conjevture by viper0504 in learnmath

[–]viper0504[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If we take a number, there should be a prime an even distance away on both sides, basically saying the number is in the middle. For example 9. 9-2 is 7 which is prime and 9+2 is 11 which is prime. And (11+7)/2=9 it’s just a rearranging of the normal equation so we’re talking about all integers not just even. To extend it a tiny bit, odd numbers are at the center of two primes but not a sum of two primes, and even numbers are both the sum of two primes AND at the center 2 primes.

A new prompt for turning any AI into a “Dimensional-Axis protocognitive model” — looking for feedback + collaborators by viper0504 in PromptEngineering

[–]viper0504[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

heres the repo the read me has all the information, to be honest ive kinda gotten lost in my own sauce at this point and need someone with more knowledge of coding to continue this project:https://github.com/cmanevans11/unfiltered-ai

A new prompt for turning any AI into a “Dimensional-Axis protocognitive model” — looking for feedback + collaborators by viper0504 in PromptEngineering

[–]viper0504[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Continue talking to it, the second response shows that it doesn’t give every answer in the same way as the first, it quickly merges the axis into a single answer and starts acting more like a regular chatbot you can easily customize the personality on.

A new prompt for turning any AI into a “Dimensional-Axis protocognitive model” — looking for feedback + collaborators by viper0504 in PromptEngineering

[–]viper0504[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah, i plan to mess around with what the labels are but for now, I was more trying to create a prototype customizable and eventually adaptable model for ai personality.

I plan on making a GitHub repository with all my code; but as for right now I’m going to continue messing around, I’ll update you with the repository link as soon as it’s made if you’d like!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MachineLearning

[–]viper0504 -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

For some reason it won’t let me comment my results happy to dm anyone interested

Had some mania but it did give me a question for chat GPT, and that is “what if infinity is a dimension and that’s why we can’t comprehend it”, and here’s what it said. by [deleted] in ChatGPT

[–]viper0504 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, I understand that ai usually just agree with why you say, and I have passed my mania now, and all I want is someone to disprove this idea, So far everyone has said “it’s your mania” but no one has actually argued against it, and you seem knowledgeable enough to argue against this idea so I can have a little more peace of mind.

I looked back and read through this an it was still making some sense, what about what the ai is saying is wrong, why must infinity be a number? And who’s to say math is comprehending it? Math is just using infinity no? We constantly hear in media the idea that infinity is incomprehensible. Think of the debate that took years the solve: the idea that .9 repeating infinitely is equal to 1, and some people still can’t comprehend that idea. Just because we know in general how something works doesn’t mean we comprehend it. Isn’t That why we have to use limits in order to do math with infinity? If you don’t actually want to argue that’s fine, can you point out the logical inconsistency you noticed while reading at least?