My phone can’t decode YouTube’s WebM above 90 fps at 480p and 60 fps at 720p without a huge framedrop. The audio works fine though.

deleted by creator

Ich hoffe, du wählst meine Beiträge nicht blind hoch! Denn bei mir “Chaotic Neutral” bedeutet, ich schwänke zwischen gut und böse.

Und danke, dass du mich zum 39c3 geleitet hast.

Auch bei legendären Beiträgern wie @ZonenRanslite@feddit.org lese ich zuerst den Inhalt (bei ihm ist es auch wert, Acht zu geben)

Nah, too cold. It stopped moving and the computer can’t generate any more random numbers to pick from the LLM’s weighted suggestions. Similarly, some LLMs have a setting called “heat”: too cold and the output is repetitive, unimaginative and overly copying input (like sentences written by first autocomplete suggestions), too hot and it is chaos: 98% nonsense, 1% repeat of input, 1% something useful.

Instructions nuclear

Equal area projections usually preserve straight and perpendicular meridians and parallels. That’s neutral but then there’s the political decision of what latitude gets the correct aspect ratio. And Gall-Peters is not anti-colonialist if representing Africa correctly was your goal.

Tbh any discussion of Mercator is ragebait enough. (There’s no better choice for slippy maps btw)

TL;DR Somebody made an awful mistake rendering this map, it’s way too low-poly.

It’t not exactly the European portion but most of its recognizable parts (Kola peninsula, Caucascus…) are missing because of the horrible SVG compression that deleted vertices presumably by count rather than keeping the most significant* ones. Just look how the Mercator/shrunk versions differ from each other and from an actually good map! Not even they will show every fjord of Iceland but at least they won’t reduce it to a triangle!

* A simple illustration would be Colorado, originally defined as a (Mercator) rectangle (between meridians and parallels) but ending up a 697-sided polygon (still way fewer than most surveyed administrative areas that size) largely because of surveying errors. However, if you pick the 1ˢᵗ, 175ᵗʰ, 349ᵗʰ and 523ʳᵈ vertex (or points every 362 mi/582 km along the border), you don’t approximate the shape nearly as well as by picking the 4 corners of the defining rectangle.

And because corners are always mostly convex (they have to be because turns add up to 360° for closed areas), this compression will remove area more frequently than add it. This makes the map quite disingenuous (maybe not intentionally), as it amplifies the effect OOP was trying to show.
If I were a full-time Lemmy commenter, I’d download the Colorado polygon from OSM, import sone geo-libraries into Python and do all 174** combinations of picking the 1ˢᵗ, 175ᵗʰ, 349ᵗʰ and 523ʳᵈ vertex, visualize each quadrilateral (with great-circe edges) as a video frame with its area printed in the center.

What Colorado might look like using an algorithm similar to OOP’s:
(Manually created single frame but accurate to the number of digits shown. Also, I actually used every 228ᵗʰ of the 912 OSM waypoints, which are sometimes redundant (colinear), which I didn’t bother to check.)
(Edit: maybe official government geoJSON would help? The best files are “500k” or “1:500,000 resolution”, and even they reduce Colorado to 357 vertices. The complete dataset is probably https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/maps-data/data/grfc/public_grfc_cur25_08.txt (50 MB text file!); see also legend and FIPS but that is for all Colorado’s counties, I’d have to merge the polygons and maybe also remove any non-polygon data if there’s any.) ArcGIS says they processed the data but they probably left lots of redundant colinear points in, since there’s 1565 vertices in their dataset.

** Technically 697 options because 697 is not divisible by 4. But only ¼ of them are fully distinct, as every consecutive 4 maps have an identical starting vertex and just differ in which pair of vertices is 175 apart as opposed to the normal 174.

I’d say “this could cause speciation”. This mutation’s rarity makes for an astronomically slim chance of it occuring naturally if enough sinistral (lefty) snails meet and create a sustaining population (and also not die out through inbreeding). I don’t think there is a case of a pair of chirally opposite species. Maybe this once happened with Amphidromus inversus but if that’s the case, the two species have mutated since to be able to successfully mate both homo- and heterochirally. Now, a balanced population exists and hetero mating is more common.

However, as humans come into the picture and can find mirrored snails and purposefully put them together, and breed them in safety into a large population (collecting newly found mutants worldwide and adding them into the gene pool to avoid inbreeding), speciation can indeed happen. The resulting mirrored snail can fulfil the same environmental niches as the original species while having an almost completely separate gene pool (only the mirror mutants of each species can cross-breed - and if my above theory is correct, the advantages of tapping into a new gene pool may have helped dextral/sinistral then-subspecies of Amphidromus inversus eventually acquire unique breedability).

True but people’s votes are the judicial branch that interprets the rules. They can also choose to make another community when the dictator makes bad executive or legislative decisions (see !196@lemmy.blahaj.zone vs !onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone). As I said, you’re free to create a rival community and if your views prevail, it can get big (especially if !sciencememes@mander.xyz ever suffers a crisis like having to change instances).

I’m not preventing you from having or saying your opinion (not even really trying to change it) but this is how democracy works. If there’s enough offended purists like you, go create c/truesciencememes

It has a 99% upvote ratio. Granted, not everyone votes based on community fit but still, the crowd decided it belongs

Science because it’s a rare biological condition, called sinistral (as opposed to dextral) chirality. You also learn a new “fun science fact”: snails of opposite chirality cannot mate. (Only true for some species: for example, Amphidromus inversus has close to balanced dimorphic populations and can successfully mate both homo- and heterochirally, although hetero is more common).

Meme because it’s a funny and relatable thing on the internet. Memes are no longer just image macros and memorable phrases.

Not having to worry about gender/sexuality (except asexuality I guess) in your dating pool and still failing

Also, train dispatchers, power grid managers etc. Infrastructure control of any sort. On second thought, maybe they also have an extra keyboard/console (#16).

What is possible depends on your definition of “number”, for example the Unicode digits mentioned only match \d (digit) in some Regex implementations. And some cultures don’t have digits, for example Roman “Ⅴ” and old Italic “𐌡” (both mean 5 and look like an incoming flying goose) are numerals and never pass as \d. And Egyptian hieroglyphs 𓆏 (frog) or 𓆐 (tadpole but looks more like a parrot to me) can mean 100,000 but I haven’t seen them called numerals or digits. Neither the eel-like 𔗄 Anatolian hieroglyph for 1000.

I focused on strings that a computer might spit out when asked to print a float but that might include “-Inf” (rooster in grass?), which mathematicians don’t consider a number. However, they consider √7̅ (flying swan) a number, also “φ” (flamingo) aka golden ratio, equal to (√5̅+1)/2, and even complex numbers like -5+7i (flying bird with ornate tail). If you imagine a proper vertical fraction, ¼𝑒 (approx. 0.67957) could be a more detailed, wading flamingo. Coders will know what number -0xD7 (yet another sideways nesting/flying bird) is. And in some electrical engineering software, 1M7 (ostrich showing off its wings) means 1.7 million, 1p7 means 1.7 trillionths and 87j (rotate 90° right to see a chicken pecking at a seed) is the standard way to write “amplitude 87, phase 90°” - “j” is used for √-̅1̅ because “i” means current. However, most software, and likely this form, won’t accept non-Latin numbers, math symbols and engineers’ shortcuts (maybe the e/E for ⏨-exponent).

Of course someone animated it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfPkF0O-UNs

2 is a swan
817 is an open-beaked screaming hatchling
-2 is a seahorse
.5 is a sitting bird
6.6 is an owl
-5e7 is a nesting chicken
-5.43 is a peacock
8008 is a tit

0 is an egg. Bird, fish, amphibian, reptile, who can tell? Truly a neutral answer - neither positive nor negative.

To help you visualize:

Also, number 4 in different scripts looks quite fishy ૪ or quite birdy ۴.

Edit: Aaaaaa, I fell into the rabbit hole of Unicode digits looking like swans and flamingos ᪇᪄ ᮳ ᱁᱆ ᱒᱙ ꘥ ꣙ ꤃ 𑑘𑑕 𑱗𑱕 𑱕𑱔 𖩢

Shh! If people know this we could lose a huge number of posters!