Technically, they could have. But it wouldn’t have really been Nirvana without Cobain. It was pretty much Cobain’s cult of personality. If they had tried to continue without him, it would have been another one of those bands that starkly contrasts between before and after and the comment above would have been about never knowing Nirvana in its heyday.

Even if the continuation was good (and Dave Grohl is proof that there was enough talent for it in the rest of the band), it would have still been tainted by the lack of Cobain.

I’m not sure there’s any guarantee that it will ever be sorted, since bit flips will be random and are just as likely to put it more out of order than more in order. Plus if there’s any error correction going on, it can cancel out bit flips entirely until up to a certain threshold.

Though I’m not sure if ECC (and other methods) write the corrected value back to memory or just correct the signals going to the core, so it’s possible they could still add up over time and overcome the second objection.

If you read your history books you’ll find it was a little more than just disbanded.

Tbf, Canada has like 15% the population, mostly in a smaller amount of areas. The US has more states than Canada has major cities.

If I need to use consumables in this fight, then I might run out of consumables when I built a dependence on them in a harder fight later!

Yeah, I’d think they’re going to produce what they are going to produce and will adjust allocation and prices to accommodate the demand change in the tariff country.

I’ve wondered if mental state actually affects reality around us. Like some people who see paranormal shit are just more open to it or something while the presence of a skeptic prevents it from happening

And people who just don’t have confidence that tech will work can cause random issues just by being present, but sometimes when a tech confident person comes to assist them, their confidence gets it to work properly.

Maybe it has to do with particle/wave duality and the observer effect, and the simulation approximates things more when people aren’t paying as much attention or won’t likely investigate an issue closely after the fact, so the simulation gets sloppy because it’s approximating. But then when someone who will pay closer attention comes (or will come), the waves collapse into particles and it behaves as expected.

Maybe those cases where a user claims something usually works when they do it a way that is clearly wrong to the more experienced observer, the approximation works out in their favour, but the collapse to particles makes it break like it was supposed to the whole time.

Maybe Pauli understood some things about the technical equipment (and ropes?) that the others didn’t or was better at calibration and collapsed the wave more than usual.

Though my guess for the chandelier is that someone first thought of the dropping it when he entered joke but then realized that saying they tried to do that and it failed would be even funnier plus save them a chandelier and be much easier and safer to pull off.

As a math guy, obviously the order of the letters is: x, y, z, a, b, c, then the rest of them in whatever order I currently feel like.

As a CS guy, obviously the order is sort( [ set of all letters ] ).

I think that, due to the nature of chaos and the butterfly effect, any time travel at all would change the future. Unless it was just closing a time loop that was already present in the current past (which would mean any attempt to alter history would fail because that attempt is already a part of history), or if it’s possible to create new branches in time.

So these rules are either unnecessary because any time travel automatically causes changes that, it’s not possible to change the past from the past, or it’s not possible to go back to our past, thus nothing you do will affect our present.

I suggest you buckle up.

I don’t trust them either. But I can’t not trust them unless I trust you, which I don’t.

This feels like a variation of that two guard riddle except the warning is “both guards lie all of the time” and the two guards still don’t agree.

Which is resolved by the riddle itself being the lie. Applying that here means we should do the opposite and not (never trust anyone).

Now which way does that not apply?

• sometimes trust anyone
• never distrust anyone
• never trust noone
• sometimes distrust anyone
• never distrust noone
• sometimes trust noone
• sometimes distrust noone

Yeah, I think there is a lot of potential for code analysis. There’s a limited cross section of ways malware can do interesting things, but many permutations of ways to do that.

So look for the interesting things, like:

• accessing other programs’ address spaces
• reading/writing files
• deleting/moving files
• sending/receiving network traffic
• os system calls and console commands
• interacting with hardware
• spawning new processes
• displaying things on the screen
• accessing timing information

Obviously there’s legitimate uses for each of these, so that’s just the first step.

Next, analyze the data that is being used for that:

• what’s the source?
• what’s the destination?
• what kind of transformations are being applied to the data?

Then you can watch out for things like:

• is it systematically going through directories and doing some operation to all files? (Maybe ransomware, data scrubbing, or just maliciously deleting stuff?)
• is it grabbing data from somewhere and sending it somewhere else on the internet? (Stealing data?)
• is it using timing information to build data? (Timing attacks to figure out kernel data that should be hidden?)
• is it changing OS settings/setup?

Then generate a report of everything it is doing and see if it aligns with what the code is supposed to do. Or you could even build some kind of permissions system around that with more sophistication than the basic “can this app access files? How about the internet?”

Computer programs can be complex, but are ultimately made up of a series of simple operations and it’s possible to build an interpreter that can do those operations and then follow everything through to see exactly what is included in the massive amount of data it sends over the network so that you can tell your file sharing program is also for some reason sending /etc/passwords to a random address or listening for something to access a sequence of closed ports and then will do x, y, z, if that ever happens. Back doors could be obvious with the right analysis tools, especially if it’s being built from source code (though I believe it’s still possible with binaries, just maybe a bit harder).

I’m skeptical that there exists any leftist mainstream place that isn’t actually a right-wing place disguised as leftist.

I’m also skeptical that all of those loud but irrational voices are genuine. Especially given Russia’s MO for online trolling where they push both sides of any issue to extremes to sow division. Not to say that I believe everyone on the left is rational and reasonable. But why would the tone be so different between “mainstream” and “non-mainstream” left places if the position you’re talking about is as ubiquitous to the left as you claim it is?

But he’s not Donald Trump old.

They are phrasing it in a way that makes plausible deniability harder!

Is he trying to pull the Johnson power move but the best he can do is talk about someone who had a large cock? Or are these ramblings of a man sinking deeper into dementia and losing what remained of his filter and just talking about what’s on his mind? Or maybe it’s a power move by Putin and he ordered Trump to humiliate himself to show someone else that he pulls Trump’s strings? Or… Maybe a power move Trump is using to say it doesn’t matter what he says at this point since he’s intending to try to loophole his way into the presidency rather than get elected in?

Kinda fucked that all of those seem plausible.

Not that it wasn’t meaningless toxic bullshit when Johnson whipped his cock out to settle disagreements or do whatever the fuck he was trying to do when he did that.

Still better than one of Putin’s stooges.

Also when it gets boring, sometimes it can be fun to see what happens if you cause something unusual to happen.

Ok, dinosaurs were fun for a bit, but how do they fare against meteor strikes? Hmm, these small ones keep burning up in the atmosphere. Ok, I bet THIS one won’t burn up! It will probably shake things up quite a bit in this regio–oh shit, debris from the impact is escaping orbit, that probably means it’s going to rain hot rocks for quite some time all over the planet. Dammit, it was cool when all of the land was together in one mass but I’ve cracked that apart now and they are going to end up splitting up into smaller continents now. When’s my last save state? Dammit, it’s mid Triassic, the dinosaurs were so lame back then compared to these ones today. Guess I’ll save now. I mean, they dominate the entire planet, surely they’ll come out of this ok.

That’s pretty smart, using it for legal documents. If the accuracy is high, it might be nice to just copy paste any tos or whatever to get the highlights in plain language (which imo should be a legal requirement of contracts in general, but especially ones written by a team of bad faith lawyers intended for people they don’t expect to read it and deliberately written to discourage reading the whole thing).

Probably just trying to keep their remaining navy out of Ukraine’s range.