Ephera
- 0 Posts
- 18 Comments
1·13 days agoYeah, that’s kind of the advantage and disadvantage of Markdown. It’s so simple that alternative implementations can be easily created, which helps with adoption. But because those alternative implementations exist and because there is a need to add more features, those alternative implementations will see custom changes for the format, ultimately making the format less standardized.
Yeah, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense here. Codeberg uses a Markdown flavor which honors single line breaks and it kind of surprised me how well that is working. Like, if you’re used to Markdown, you can put those two spaces and they’re just ignored. If you’re not used to Markdown, it works like you’d expect.
I guess, the downside is that either each client needs to configure their Markdown renderer to behave like that, or I guess, the server software has to pre-process the Markdown to add in the double-spaces.
That’s more of a problem for Lemmy than it is for Codeberg, because there is a number of different clients available.
It’s the way Markdown works, for reasons, which is what Lemmy uses for its comment syntax.
If you want a regular line
break, you can put two spaces
at the end of a line.
Neat, thanks for the response!
I think, we have to tag @[email protected] , so they see it.
Hmm, but that seems to be again that there’s actually fields there, rather than proper nothing. At the very least, I would still say that the universe already existed before the Big Bang, if there was fields spanning all over the place and they just needed quantum fluctuation to turn into something you can touch. Especially, because “touch” is still just an interaction with a field.
And I’m not trying to say that the phenomenon itself is pop-sci misinformation, but rather how it’s portrayed. They’ll write a title like “How Quantum Fluctuation Creates Something from Nothing”, which is technically something you could say, because “nothing” doesn’t have a sharp definition. But it’s also misleading as people will not think that “nothing” could also mean that there is actually still fields there. Instead, they will interpret it as proper nothing. And pop-sci journalists do that, because it brings in clicks, unfortunately.
Hmm, I’m no expert, but I think I looked into this a while ago and it turned out to be pop-sci misinformation. What I’m finding from looking this up right now seems to confirm that it’s not actual empty space, but rather space with electro-magnetic fields or in a “false vacuum”, whatever that is precisely. If you happen to know a specific keyword for this phenomenon, though, I’d look into it some more.
I had a colleague a few years ago, who wasn’t dumb. He’d question everything, often discussing things down to excruciating details. Like, you seriously couldn’t shut him up, with how much he was putting everything into question.
Except when it came to the bible. That was what he considered unquestionable truth.
One time, I felt like I kind of got through to him. We were discussing the Big Bang and whatnot, and I told him that I don’t believe that actually started the universe, which really caught him off-guard, because he thought all the science people were a big hivemind and no one’s allowed to disagree. I’m guessing, because that’s how he’s been taught about the bible, so he just assumed the enemy is taught the same way.
And yeah, I explained to him that I don’t believe it started things, that I don’t believe in creation (the fundamental concept as well as the non-evolution thingamabob), because things don’t just randomly start existing. When you produce a chair, that’s just some atoms rearranged from a tree, which is just some atoms rearranged from the ground and the air, which is rearranged from yet another place. That explanation also kind of got to him, because it really is all around us that things don’t just pop into existence, ever.What’s also kind of interesting/funny, is that he did not actually have a terribly good understanding of the bible.
One time, I don’t know how we got to that topic, but I was like, wait, isn’t there a commandment that says you shouldn’t be using god’s name in vain? And at first he just said no, there’s not, to then start really heavily thinking when I didn’t back down. But yeah, I had to then look it up to confirm it, because he did not know his commandments.
That was his worst moment by far, but we had many bible debates, where I, with my shitty school knowledge and never having been interested in any of it, was telling him things he didn’t know.
To me, that’s a rather pointless thought experiment, similar to the conspiracy theory that we’re in a big simulation. Like, yeah, there’s no way to disprove this idea, but if it were the case, then we still gotta work within the constraints that we’re given. It’s not like you can be conscious differently or escape the simulation or whatever.
Science-minded folks might dismiss that idea perhaps less favorably as “unscientific”, but that’s basically saying the same thing. If there’s no way to prove or disprove an idea, then we call it “unscientific”, which is kind of just means there’s no point in spending time thinking about it. This is also taking into account that it would be provable or disprovable, if it had an impact on our reality. Theoretically something could have an impact on our reality and then trick us into believing that it does not, but yeah, at that point we need quite a lot of unproven theories stacked on top of each other and there’s still nothing we can do about it…
[email protected] was developed as a commercial title a few years back. I believe, @[email protected] contacted the devs to get it open-sourced.
Company-internal service where the users would write their desired configuration into an Excel file. Then they push that into a Git repo, which triggers a deployment of the service with the configuration read from all the Excel files.
Yeah, everyone else had already answered that, which felt like we’re picking apart that specific thought experiment, even though there is actually a much more fundamental reason why it won’t work.
Perhaps also worth pointing out that the speed of light is that exact speed, because light itself hits a speed limit.
As far as we know, light has no mass, so if it is accelerated in any way, it should immediately have infinite acceleration and therefore infinite speed (this is simplifying too much by using a classical physics formula, but basically it’s like this:
a = f/m = f/0 = ∞). And well, light doesn’t go at infinite speed, presumably because it hits that speed limit, which is somehow inherent to the universe.That speed limit is referred to as the “speed of causality” and we assume it to apply to everything. That’s also why other massless things happen to travel at the speed of causality/light, too, like for example gravitational waves. Well, and it would definitely also apply to that pole.
Here’s a video of someone going into much more depth on this: https://www.pbs.org/video/pbs-space-time-speed-light-not-about-light/
Yeah, and you can just subscribe to the astronomy communities that are on other instances.
Well, they’re not actually open-source. The models are freely available, but the training data is not, so it’s not actually possible for competitors to reproduce the same result.
Yeah, math conventions and programming conventions don’t always align. As in, basically never…
As a computer scientist, same, but it’s called
PI.It’s the computer that does the thing with the digits, not me. 🙃
Larger open-source projects tend to have forums. Here’s a few off the top of my head: