#argumate

LIVE

argumate:

“we lost them” can mean “we cannot find them” or “they cannot find us”

How do you lose a pursuer? You forget to cherish them.

argumate:

redactedmatopoeia:

mild horniness is i think the single engine powering any good thing in the world. think of all the classes you’ve shown up to due to mild horniness. the times you’ve put on a nice shirt. the times you actually bothered to understand some arcane concept. are you sure that mild horniness had nothing to do with it? if we could harness this into energy we would actually solve for the oil & gas crisis.

now think of all the things you’ve ruined with extreme horniness, truly a dichotomy…

Pretty sure I haven’t been even remotely horny for years. How on earth do I manage to do anything? It must be some mysterious cosmic force!

argumate:

anarcho-malarkyist-deactivated2:

binary-bluejay:

argumate:

anarcho-malarkyist-deactivated2:

“Yeah I’m from the UK so we at least have some decent public transport”

The public transport in question:

the ever loving fuck is that thing

Can’t you read. It’s Innovation.

Great BritishInnovation.

enervation innit

It looks like a box of biscuits after you open both ends and toss it in the recycling bin

argumate:

created a discord in a moment of weakness

vaguely-none:

stan-leigh-bowery:

levanna:

ritavonbees:

until we open the box, the cat has all the genders simultaneously

adjoint-law:

“the gender of all genders that aren’t gendered in terms of themselves”

zordonmlw7:

The number of genders is any set of axioms from which some or all axioms can be used in conjunction to logically derive gender.

personal-scientist:

We can either know where the genders are or how fast they’re moving but never both

saxifraga-x-urbium:

we can either know how many genders there are or what a gender is but never both

dingo-inna-domino-mask:

the number of genders is pi

anaisnein:

there are 3.6 genders; not great, not terrible

footie-pajamas:

Believing in ℵ ₀ genders goes back to believing genders are quantized, but countably infinite

regexkind:

numbers

argumate:

no genders, got it.

eightyonekilograms:

There are ℵ ₀ genders

dagny-hashtaggart:

People who believe that gender is finite and boundless vs. people who believe gender is infinite and bounded

argumate:

people who believe that the number of genders is countable vs. uncountable, knowable vs. unknowable,

cargopantsman:

people who believe genders are contiguous and people who believe genders are quantized

anaisnein:

people who believe the number of genders is imaginary and people who believe the number of genders is complex

dagny-hashtaggart:

There are zero or fewer genders

argumate:

there are zero or more genders

caesarsaladinn:

There is only one gender: people who miscount the number of genders.

argumate:

well, exactly.

greencherenkov:

This is “there are no genders” erasure

argumate:

ah yes the two genders: there are only two genders / there are more than two genders

@stan-leigh-bowery

The act of observing a gender alters it. Genders greater than zero now exist in a different capacity than before this post. This, the purest gender exists as gender = 0.

if you set a breakpoint to observe it, gender won’t occur any longer.

argumate:

it keeps coming up, but censorship isn’t about what you’re not allowed to know it’s about what you’re not allowed to say, and usually you actually have to know about it so you know not to say it!

for example say the war is going badly and everybody knows it: if nobody is allowed to say it then the government can remain in power and everything is fine, but once people openly say “we’re losing the war” then the government is in deep trouble, because voicing that fact is a challenge to authority.

in China everyone knows that the government was paralysed with indecision about how to handle the mass unrest of 1989 and the army performed abysmally when ordered to quell the disturbance, but open discussion of this would raise all kinds of questions about the legitimacy of government both past and present.

you can think what you like, but if you can’t say it then it doesn’t matter!

argumate:

depsidase:

leaving aside the schedule slip – because as a programmer anything less than a 2x overrun is an achievement – surely the question here is what private investors are supposed to get back from funding the Mars mission.

I think the big investment opportunity for a SpaceX-scale crewed Mars mission isn’t “we paid a billion dollars for our name on the side of the Cock Rocket on Pavonis Mons”, it’s sample return. SpaceX’s rocket can bring back literal tons of samples.

If you’re a firm looking to expand your business into Mars, Phobos, or Deimos (depending on mission profile) mining and refining hardware, having a large quantity of various types of real materials (regolith, rock, atmosphere) is going to be way more valuable than working with simulated materials. Actual samples instead of simulants would let your testing be that much closer to real-world conditions. “Tested using real Mars materials instead of simulants” is going to be a big selling point when you’re talking to NASA or SpaceX or whomever to sell them your billion-dollar water purification machine.

loading