PeriodicallyPedantic

joined 2 years ago
[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago (6 children)

I would need an entire room full.

How little are y'all shitting?

It was pooposterous

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The genie has the power to disagree about granting extra wishes.
The genie isn't bound to be honest.
Why do you think that's the only thing they can disagree on? And why do you think they'd be honest that they have to fulfill the wish to the letter? And why do you think they'd consider that all a single wish? And why do you think that they'd tell you if they didn't?

Genies want to grant wishes that undermine the wishes intention. You don't think they'd do that on a wish about not undermining the wish's intention?

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I disagree for the reason stated above.
A genie may also disagree for the reasons stated above.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

a wish with multiple components could be considered multiple wishes, just like if you were to say "I wish for riches and the ability to fly" is two wishes.
Since you wished for "no malicious compliance" last, it wasn't in effect when the other wishes were granted, include for the wish of no malicious compliance.

But even if you wish for it first, we already see that some wishes aren't granted, like the wish for more wishes. And we also know that the genie isndishone because it is maliciously complying. So why do you think the genie would be honest about if it actually fulfilled the wish for no malicious compliance?

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Just because you say "there shall be no malicious compliance" doesn't make it so, right?

If the things nature isn't to follow your orders to the letter, but to maliciously comply with your orders, then telling it not to won't change anything.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You've phrased this like a disagreement, but I don't see how.

Although maybe I'm just so jaded, that people providing interesting tangentially related trivia are perceived as being hostile unless they announce that as their intent, because usually unannounced trivia is leveled as an attack.

Again, that doesn't seem like it'd solve the problem I described better than a larger flush (or better design) would

That sounds like a great invention that my toilet unfortunately doesn't have - and although I know how the mechanisms in my toilet work I'm unfortunately not enough of an experience to retrofit something like that in lol

But it's something I'll keep an eye out for when I eventually buy a house, assuming that ever happens lol

Given the ubiquity of double clicking, I imagine it has many origins.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I wasn't sure if you were satirically saying that trump would fix the issue, or you were accusing me of being a trump voter.

I don't live in the USA, so neither can be true, and I'm not familiar with the quote you're talking about. Although I'm usually pretty familiar with his shenanigans.

I'm complaining about my actual toilet which seems to use just too little water to completely flush everything, ironically wasting water.

 
 

Everyone knows that sailor moon would kick Goku's ass in a fight anyway

 

Nobody wants to run a Roomba while they're still home, right?

 

Not sure this works with the show.

 

I understand how lucky imaging gets the results it gets, but I'm wondering specifically how the 10% of frames are chosen.

They're not picked based on clarity/blur, because the problem is one of distorted images not blurry images, causing issues when averaging the stack.

Searching online gives me lots of answers about how lucky imaging produces clearer images, but not how the lucky frames are chosen.

Anyone know how lucky frames get chosen?

 

As the title asks, what is the average mass of each kind of cloud? Ignoring things like overcast days, and only considering clouds large enough to identify. Or maybe rather than "average" it'd be better to say "what is the mass of an archiypical cloud of each type?" Eg an archiypical cumulus, cirrus, cumulonimbus, etc.

 

Like wiping a marker

 

With all this talk of UFOs, I have to wonder about the Simpsons prediction accuracy.

 

I know I just posted one, but I thought of another

 
 

I know I'm not the first one to wonder, but really...

view more: ‹ prev next ›