• 0 Posts
  • 39 Comments
Joined 5 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 28th, 2020

help-circle





  • scubbo@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlHeh
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I feel like you’re using “supercede” differently to the rest of us. You’re getting a hostile reaction because it sounded like you’re saying that EM is no longer at all useful because it has been obsoleted (superceded) by QM. Now you’re (correctly) saying that EM is still useful within its domain, but continuing to say that QM supercedes it. To me, at least, that’s a contradiction. QM extends EM, but does not supercede it. If EM were supercedes, there would be no situation in which it was useful.


  • scubbo@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlHeh
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    “X depends on or is built up on Y” does not imply “X is Y”. Concepts, laws, techniques, etc. can depend or be higher-order expressions of QM without being QM. If you started asking a QM scientist about tensile strength or the Mohs scale they would (rightly) be confused.







  • Respectfully (truly - not the shitty Internet trolling version of it), it is very confusing to me that the right to bear arms would be a factor in this decision. My perception is that 2A rights are prized precisely because they offer protection against a government that is overstepping bounds or acting dishonestly/aggressively. In this hypothetical situation where you’re moving to a country where the government is acting in a way that you approve of so much that you want to immigrate there - why do you need a gun? Is it as a safety net in case the government changes, or as a symbolic exercise of a right that you value even without practical applications, or for some other reason?

    Genuine question, I would love to understand this viewpoint (which is, to me, very foreign - I’ve never been under any illusion that my ownership of a gun would have any effect if the government seriously decided to do something to me)




  • scubbo@lemmy.mltoAntiwork@lemmy.mlEat the rich.
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    That’s not the case. The following two statements can be simultaneously true:

    • a sufficiently-good product would sell through word-of-mouth
    • corporate executives are not satisfied with the small amount of purchases this would generate, because they want more profit.

    Advertising is a way to generate morepurchases (and so more profit), but it might be increasing from a non-zero amount.

    I don’t think that the person you’re replying to is entirely correct (some products or markets really do require advertising to make consumers aware), but they’re closer to right than they are to wrong on a level playing field. But if the other side is using advertising, you basically have to do the same in order to remain competitive.



  • In my first couple months, I broke Amazon so that no-one in Europe could buy video for a few hours. On a Friday, right before going on a week’s vacation.

    The way that the ensuing investigation and response was carried out - 100% blame-free, and focused on “how did these tools let him down? How can we make sure no-one ever makes that same mistake again?” - gave me a career-long interest in Software Resiliency and Incident Management.