![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
Is the AI open source? Curious what you’re using and what your experiences with it are.
Is the AI open source? Curious what you’re using and what your experiences with it are.
I would say it applies to a lot of the Anglosphere but I have zero evidence that it applies to every western nation. I’m sure a ton of them have their own names for generations with their own quirks and subcultures.
Daddy Druckmann must subsist on meals of mainstream praise and developer crunch, how else would Daddy Druckmann survive.
That’s one of the reasons wrestling fans prefer the term scripted or staged as opposed to fake. It still requires tons of athleticism, and lots of wrestlers are still taking very real hits and injuries despite trying to minimize the impacts of them.
It’s simultaneously possible to realize that something is useful while also recognizing the damage that its trend is causing from a sustainability standpoint, and that neither realization particularly demonstrates a lack of understanding about AI.
Larian has had several massively successful Kickstarter
Well that’s the thing though, right, the genre actually literally had a major revival when Kickstarter became a thing. Before Kickstarter existed no one really understood the power of crowdsourcing.
The conventional view on infinity would say they’re actually the same size of infinity assuming the 1 and the 100 belong to the same set.
You’re right that one function grows faster but infinity itself is no different regardless of what you multiply them by. The infinities both have same set size and would encompass the same concept of infinity regardless of what they’re multiplied by. The set size of infinity is denoted by the order of aleph (ℵ) it belongs to. If both 1 and 100 are natural numbers then they belong to the set of countable infinity, which is called aleph-zero (ℵ₀). If both 1 and 100 are reals, then the size of their infinities are uncountably infinite, which means they belong to aleph-one (ℵ₁).
That said, you can definitely have different definitions of infinity that are unconventional as long as they fit whatever axioms you come up with. But since most math is grounded in set theory, that’s where this particular convention stems from.
Anyways, given your example it would really depend on whether time was a factor. If the question was “would you rather have 1 • x or 100 • x dollars where x approaches infinity every second?” well the answer is obvious, because we’re describing something that has a growth rate. If the question was “You have infinity dollars. Do you prefer 1 • ∞ or 100 • ∞?” it really wouldn’t matter because you have infinity dollars. They’re the same infinity. In other words you could withdraw as much money as you wanted and always have infinity. They are equally as limitless.
Now I can foresee a counter-argument where maybe you meant 1 • ∞ vs 100 • ∞ to mean that you can only withdraw in ones or hundred dollar bills, but that’s a synthetic constraint you’ve put on it from a banking perspective. You’ve created a new notation and have defined it separately from the conventional meaning of infinity in mathematics. And in reality that is maybe more of a physics question about the amount of dollar bills that can physically exist that is practical, and a philosophical question about the convenience of 1 vs 100 dollar bills, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the size of infinity mathematically. Without an artificial constraint you could just as easily take out your infinite money in denominations of 20, 50, 1000, a million, and still have the same infinite amount of dollars left over.
I see this come up on social media, moreso with Gen Z and people that just like to be outraged about stuff online. They seem to be more sensitive to age gaps and call it grooming, even stuff within the typical “half your age plus seven” rule that most millenials and older gens seemed to find normal. I’m not sure that only 3 years would be a problem even for them though.
The weird thing is, I’m not sure any customers actually do care. it genuinely just feels like engineers finding ways to masturbate over how thin they can get something.
Idk, maybe that most of the western food supply is owned by a select few conglomerates that have an interest in getting you to buy a ton of product and make it as addictive as possible? That’s my guess.
A lot of my leftist friends will still let the bad be the enemy of any sort of good whatsoever it seems. It’s exhausting as a leftist when you can never be outraged enough for other leftists.
“Return to work”. Motherfuckers, they were already employed. 🙄 I bet CNBC is one of the companies that had a controversial RTO policy. I utterly resent these attempts at trying to normalize deceptive language for return to office schemes subconsciously, like people that don’t want to return to office aren’t working somehow and it’s somehow their fault it’s a problem, and not the fault of an inflexible employer.
Outside of a few small local businesses that actually care about doing right by people, loyalty hasn’t mattered for decades dude. Companies don’t give a shit about any of us. Why even bother thinking in terms of loyalty, it’s completely misaligned with how they operate.