vrighter

joined 1 year ago
[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 4 weeks ago (5 children)

but... she wasn't assaulted...

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 4 weeks ago (14 children)

what does her expression tell you about her character?

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 38 points 4 weeks ago (24 children)

The original's smile communicates much more stuff than the eyes on the face that looks like it's completely bored.

Trying to "communicate with her eyes" is exactly what makes the poster bad.

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 month ago

To whom it may concern,

MURDER! MURDER! MURDER!

Yours truly, Maurice Moss

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

no, it wouldn't. Because the car is not filled with aerosolized explodey-gas, but just flammable liquid contained in a robust tank. it is not explosive. It can catch fire, but not simply from impact. You'd need a hole in the tank lower than the current fuel level and an external ignition source. Even if you shoot the gas tank directly, it will not explode. It is physically impossible for it to explode.

Puncture one of an electric car's cells, and it sets off a chain reaction. The whole car very quickly goes up in flames.

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

extensions are not supported in gnome. gnome devs do not care in the slightest if they break them whenever.

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

a > 30000 vehicle that won't be available for a decade

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 month ago

matrix multiplications. lots and lots of matrix multiplications. What gpus are good at already

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

the exact same intended use case, in fact

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

not really. A lot of techniques have been known for decades. What we didn't have back then was insane compute power.

and there's the turing award for computer science.

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 month ago

and physicists use tools from math, so fields medals should be awarded to physicists.

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

yeah, so that means that it's not incremental improvement on what we have that we need. That will get us nowhere. We need a (as yet unknown) completely different approach. Which is the opposite of incremental improvement.

view more: ‹ prev next ›