• 0 Posts
  • 55 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle
  • bric@lemm.eetoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldgotdamn
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    I wasn’t saying that I thought that, I didn’t give my take at all, I was trying to be helpful in explaining what the other commenter meant. But since you’re calling me crazy…

    To give my take on it, you’re right, there’s all sorts of ways that the lifestyles aren’t at all comparable, many things haven’t had the insane inflation that real estate has, so a person making 250k can obviously take a lot more vacations, go out to dinner more, buy more tech, etc than a middle class person from a few decades ago. But when it comes to buying homes, it gets a lot more comparable. Homes where I grew up have increased 4-5x in price over the last 25 years, so a family with a household income of 60k-ish (which is solidly middle class) buying a house that’s 3x their annual income would have been pretty typical in the early 2000’s. Now, if those same houses are being bought by households making 250k, it would be basically the same ratio of 3-4x their income.

    So in home purchasing power (and that area only) low 6 figures is absolutely middle class, and anyone making under 6 figures has the home purchasing power of what used to be lower class


  • bric@lemm.eetoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldgotdamn
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    Yeah, it certainly isn’t everyone in the older generations, no group is ever a monolith. I was generalizing the general sentiment that I’ve seen, but I’m also in an ultra-conservative area that tends to be very “pull yourself up by your bootstraps”, so my perspective is probably skewed too.


  • bric@lemm.eetoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldgotdamn
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    The distribution of that pie is also being skewed. Technology has brought prices slightly down (relative to income) for a lot of things that we buy, meaning that we get better prices and more variety on things like food, clothes, travel, and obviously electronics, but a couple of unavoidable things like housing prices and college tuition have exploded so dramatically that it totally overshadows the modest gains that we get. Both are things that only need to be paid for once, so anyone that went to school and bought a house before prices exploded now gets to enjoy cheap housing and cheap commodities, while anyone unlucky enough to come after is just screwed. I think that’s part of why older generations are so unsupportive of how much of a struggle it is for millenials and gen Z, the economy has gone to crap, but so far its only really hit the young







  • Now I kind of want to know what that tastes like. Like a big part of what we consider “spicy” is that it triggers the “very hot” sensors in our mouth without triggering the “warm” sensors that are usually triggered with it, so you end up with a combination that’s usually impossible. Mint+ chilli powder would be like the next level of that, triggering both hot and cold at the same time


  • bric@lemm.eetoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldShrodinger’s Megamind
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Or the laws of physics are just the same between all of the multiverses, and it’s impossible to travel between them. Maybe the walls between universes are so thick that nobody will ever even detect that the other universes are there at all, making it basically the same as there being no other universes in the first place


  • Is there a similar strong will or intention in how a multiverse evolves?

    Well, if we’re talking about the many worlds theorem, then probably yeah, because both worlds came from a common starting point and evolve together. Like, imagine that I flip 100 quantum coins, creating 2^100 (1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376) universes in a multiverse. Every universe will be different, but the vast majority of them will have roughly 50 heads and roughly 50 tails. 7% of them will even have exactly 50 heads. There is one universe where every coin flip lands on heads, but it’s only one universe among nonillions, you could spend your entire life searching universes and never find it. None of the universes are the same, but most of them are so boringly similar that you couldn’t tell them apart. It’s the central limit theorem, that lots of random events trend towards uniformity

    nobody really knows, but if I had to guess I’d say that’s probably the way our universe would be, our universe might technically be different from the one next to it, but it would only be different by a single electron on mars that decided to move an atom to the left. There might be a universe somewhere where all of the particles in a lotto wheel quantum tunnel to make the winning number be your number, but it would be outnumbered an infinity to one by universes where that didn’t happen and it looks exactly the same as ours.


  • Yep! Pi might be a “Normal” irrational number, which is a really poorly named classification that basically means that the “random” arrangement of numbers in pi isn’t weighted and so you’ll end up with 1 in 10 digits being 1, and that that will be true for all bases. We’re kind of at a point where we think Pi is “normal”, but we can’t prove it.

    If it is “normal” though, then that means that you could find any arbitrary sequence of numbers inside of pi, somewhere. Meaning that in base 128, pi would contain the ascii sequence for every book ever written, every book that ever will be written, every book that could be written, the accurate date of your death, and anything else you could ever imagine. Again, that’s not proven, but we think it’s the case




  • bric@lemm.eetoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldSay it ain’t so
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    But what you’re missing is that being vegetarian wouldn’t be possible without the conveniences of our modern world. You’re relying on plants that have been heavily modified to be more nutritious to humans, and you’re relying on a variety that would have been difficult to find pre industrialization, and absolutely impossible to a hunter-gatherer. It’s not meat company propaganda to realize that human’s evolved to eat meat, it’s evident in everything about our physiology. From an evolutionary point of view, even farming is startlingly recent, an industrial world economy hasn’t even registered yet, so even though we’re living in a modern world, we’re still dealing with bodies that were built to hunt. That’s why so many types of overeating are such big issues, this farmed abundance just isn’t something that we evolved to deal with.

    None of that takes away from the fact that vegetarianism is feasible and healthy today, I think that it’s great that we’ve reached a point where we can survive without meat. All that I’m saying is that we need to recognize it for the modern luxury that it is, instead of saying that it was ever the norm


  • Sure, nobody ate anything in the quantities that we eat today, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a crucial part of our diet. It’s amazing that modern industrialized humans are able to get enough calories and protein from a diet of varied plants, but if you’re a hunter gatherer you don’t have the luxury of a variety of genetically modified protein rich plants, you need meat if you’re going to grow. That’s the niche we evolved to fill, it’s why we have a highly acidic gut, a medium length digestive tract common in omnivores, and teeth designed to tear meat. It doesn’t take a lot of meat to meet a person’s protein requirements, the occasional successful hunt is enough, but without any they would die.




  • bric@lemm.eetoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.mlTrue
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s a really cool technology, but the main problem is that letting people around the world inspect and verify just isn’t needed in most use cases. It does a great job at removing the central source of truth, but rarely does anyone explain what the problem with a central source of truth was. Especially when you’re talking about a company setting, startups don’t want to build open source software without a source of truth, they want to be the source of truth


  • Yeah, which makes Ruby one of those languages like COBOL, you can make a lot of money if you’re in that world, but I wouldn’t ever recommend that someone should try and join that world, it’s going to be too hard to get in to and it might not stick around for long. I know some people that make a lot of money working in Ruby, but that doesn’t mean that anyone can, unlike javascript which will be valuable anywhere