Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Embed this notice
   Space Catitude 🚀 (terryhancock@realsocial.life)'s status on Thursday, 23-May-2024 00:26:02 JST Space Catitude 🚀

   @evan

   It makes sense if you are responding to part of an existing conversation. It is possible that not everyone wants to follow the subject you are responding to.

   So I said "always", because it's always "OK" to do that, though perhaps not always advisable.

   As for the technical aspect ("content warning", "might affect threading"), that's all dependent on the technology platform, and you didn't specify.

   It's rare that CW is really used as a subject line, TBH. And certainly not for threading.

2. Embed this notice
   The Animal and the Machine (taatm@mathstodon.xyz)'s status on Wednesday, 22-May-2024 16:38:23 JST The Animal and the Machine

   I’m also annoyed with the German Chancellor Scholz who is suffering from mirroring. He is withholding support for #Ukraine because he’s worried about escalation.

   Escalation is entirely a Western concept. Russia will always do as much as it thinks it can get away with.

   Russia will also suffer from mirroring, so they might be assuming that NATO already has secret troops doing a lot in Ukraine when we are not.

   This means Scholz is withholding, worried about escalation on a thing that Russia thinks is happening and is already responding to.

   So there is a lot more we can do without consequence. All NATO air defences should be covering the East of Ukraine. The fact some drones even flew through NATO airspace unhindered is just so unacceptable.

3. Embed this notice
   AnarchoNinaWrites (anarchoninawrites@jorts.horse)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 16:08:46 JST AnarchoNinaWrites

   in reply to

   The plain truth is that these people, the rich, the ruling classes have made it ABUNDANTLY clear that they do not care whether you live or die. That they have EVERY intention of driving us right off the ecological cliff to maintain their power and wealth. That they are not going to stop no matter how much you beg them to.

   So you must make them. Maybe you can do that politically, but it sure as shit won't be through parties that WORK for the rich people. One way or another, you must FORCE it.

4. Embed this notice
   AnarchoNinaWrites (anarchoninawrites@jorts.horse)'s status on Friday, 08-Mar-2024 08:28:43 JST AnarchoNinaWrites

   in reply to

   See, I told you I could keep going, and that you wouldn't want me to.

   So why don't we make a deal? You stay the fuck out of my mentions, and I won't write microblogging essays about all the reasons your candidate is an impotent worthless failure on the take from a ruling class that likes fascism and intends to burn the planet to ash before they give up the capitalism that's killing us.

   We can not do this; but you need to leave me the fuck alone. Go. Tell. Joe.

5. Embed this notice
   🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 06-Mar-2024 07:52:05 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

   in reply to

   @LouisIngenthron

   > I feel like you're unnecessarily equating labels with their underlying concepts here.

   > The concept of two is still two whether we write it as "2" in base-10 or as "10" in base-2.

   No this is exactly what i said at the offset, there are two ways to discuss this, both very different but both agree with what I'm saying here.

   What i just expressed was the "by mathemical definition" where I showed "1+1=2" is **not** a universal truth, it is only true when defined to be true, and not in any sense in reality.

   > Likewise, the concept of integer addition is distinct from the addition symbol "+" which is also used to denote many similar-yet-distinct concepts (such as the ones you describe). While those may be referred to as "addition", they aren't the concept of integer addition that I'm specifically referring to.

   So lets use the other half of the coin, since that is what you are asserting here you mean. Not by definition but due toi the real world concepts they represent.

   > These are, as you initially described them, effectively "definitions" that prove themselves circularly, but a tiny subset of such definitions describe concepts that would seem to be universally constant, that are independently and repeatably verifiable regardless of perspective. If we don't call those "facts", what do we call them?

   So even in the real world, not by definition, the real world concept that "1+1=2" is not a universal fact in reality either.

   I mean sure, if I have one duck, and add to that one apple, I now have two things... but again that is only because we define what a duck is, and where one thing ends and another starts, its still all by linguistic definition, and ONLY works for some things even if we accept their definittions...

   Here are all the counter examples where "1+1 does not equal 0":

   One electron added to one positron results in 0 physical things. So in this scenario "1+1=0"

   one blob of water added to another blob of water results in a single blob of water, therefore "1+1=1"

   If you put two humans who are attractive to eachother in a room and wait 9 months you get an extra human. Therefore in some cases "1+1=3"

6. Embed this notice
   coffe☕ (coffe@social.piewpiew.se)'s status on Wednesday, 06-Dec-2023 18:17:15 JST coffe☕

   This man was a teacher for 40 years.

   In 1974, Dale Irby, a gym teacher in Dallas, realized he had worn the same outfit as the previous year on Picture Day, and decided to simply go with it, after Cathy – his wife – dared him to.

   So here you got 40 years with the same outfit until Dale's eventual retirement in 2013.

   (Snott från "internet")