Cultivating a good working routine is fulfilling but it’s a long road and we should not criticise people who struggle with this. When I hear people railing against authority figures it makes me cringe because it’s a sign that they’ve been mistreated (oppositionally defiant disorder).

The workshop build continues, year 6. Getting my lathe back into action after a six year hiatus. She’s also receiving an upgrade - variable frequency drive.

They tried to shoehorn a social component into Reddit post hoc but it is essentially a lurkers habitat and distinct from the walled gardens of FB, etc. that was the draw for me and now it’s been enshitified, too bad. I’ve been on Lemmy ever since the API culling, I think this concept has got legs and it’s a credible alternative.

Even my cat is like ‘leave me alone, wtf is wrong with you?’ This is the long road to becoming a socially acceptable person. None of this is written down or ever stated by anyone but if you violate social norms too much you end up quite lonely.

In that case we have to rely on Elons white power.

Maybe those are the subreddits to inhabit but they will inevitably devolve into content and moderation that serves the lowest common denominator as they grow past ~100k subscribers. That seems to be the case generally, whatever the platform. The scale motivates dysfunctional behaviour and we have to either accept it or move on. I feel better off social media in general but miss the discussion.

Deception on the scale they are proposing with this bot experiment would be a disaster for personal relationships, it’s definitely not okay. I think of those subreddits as a type of entertainment, it’s not my thing but I understand how people are titillated by stories of personal trauma. It was one of the many reasons I permanently abandoned Reddit after fifteen years, it has become a cesspit of bullshit. Some people like rolling about in that stuff, others don’t understand it’s shit.

I don’t know what your experience is on Reddit but mine came to be that what I was reading couldn’t be trusted. I remember stumbling across a post on some technical subject that I happen to understand very well and couldn’t believe the twaddle that was advanced in the comments with utter conviction and certainty. It got me thinking about all the things I had read and just accepted because I know nothing about them. This is our information landscape, for better or worse.

Why should it be any different in a role playing scenario? These platforms are motivating engagement and people love an emotional story and so that is presented to us. If we loved true stories more, we would get them instead. I don’t think there’s any malice intended, we’re getting what we want because morons love their feels over their knowledge. It’s the reason the Americans have Trump and Elon and antivax, these people inhabit social media but it is the last thing they should turn to for truth because they are dumb as a sack of rocks and are getting played, shorty.

What difference does it make if you’re talking to a bot? We never meet our interlocutors anyway. Would these people have the same reaction if it were revealed they were talking to a role playing person because I’m pretty sure we’ve already done that many times over.

The current scale of Lemmy is appealing. It doesn’t have the same breadth but I happily trade the toxic elements of Reddit, etc, for a little breadth.

That depends what colour your skin is or if you wear any non christian headgear, symbols, etc.

Software design requirements, you suck.

The word ‘share’ to describe the send file operation, eat my refuse.

That’s an interesting origin story. I suspect these ideas came about and came to possess a utility as larger societies formed. Nobody needs to be told that murder and stealing are wrong, we know it instinctively. It has been shown that primates understand this concept generally.

One problem with large societies is that customs becomes entrenched over time. We keep following the same rules and forget where they came from, we mistake the menu for the food. We cannot turn to a naturalistic solution to this problem, where everything is eating everything else because that amounts to fascism. Instead we must settle for a kludge where rich people get a different type of justice than do the poor, sentencing is more punitive before lunch and many other idiosyncrasies. My point is, I don’t want to forget that a menu is just a menu. Some things will always be true and the law is not one of those things.

That’s generally true for most HVAC applications. Bang-bang control creates limit cycle behaviour and as long as a small oscillation in temperature is acceptable, it’s a nice simple solution.

OPs problem seems to be a discontinuity between the two limit cycles, heating and cooling. The way to tackle this is to make time series vectors of all measurements and compare them with the subjective sensation of the room temperature. That should inform the relevant set points for the control actions.

Why do people talk about law as if it has any sort of substance? If all the books were burnt we would only be able to faithfully reproduce the science books, everything else is just some stuff we made up.

Control theory is a bitch

I can understand this sort of thing among the elderly but I’ve met ablebodied engineers who don’t understand how to computer. The awesome thing is that they don’t take advice, they just Dunning Kruger their way through.

Like the guys at the Nuremberg trials. Turns out ‘just following orders’ was not a creditable defence.

How is this even a question? If you believe someone is good and they decided to do something against the law but for good reasons, are you going to punish that person? We know rules are important in society and we all aspire to be good citizens but sometimes we find ourselves in situations where we have to abandon our principles or break the law. Nobody is obeying the speed limit when carrying a dying child to hospital and nobody is condemning that person for breaking the law, to give a completely fatuous example.

The reason jurys convict ethically sound defendants is the same reason people fail to make the ethically sound choice in the Milgram experiment.

It doesn’t matter what the legal statutes say, you still have to think for yourself and others to make compassionate choices.

Self post obfuscated links and references to Lemmy.

Make it enough of a challenge that only the curious users are sufficiently motivated.

???

Profit.