I've always thought than on Reddit (or Digg, or Lemmy or others) common words, brands, names... should be broad "topics" or categories that nobody can claim (first come, first served). You should be able to add a sub/community under a topic, but just like everyone else, and then users interested in said topic could add and exclude different subs to taste.
I always thought it would be interesting to separate the post-side and the read-side in such a manner. You'd post to #programming, and then the reader would subscribe to #programming/user_xyz to pick up the moderation feed with xyz as the god-mod. This solves the bootstrapping problem where new subs have nothing to read. Unfortunately it's hard to do persistent standards keeping that way. If xyz has a no-memes policy do you ban all posts from everyone who ever posts one to the global tag, or do you individually inspect every post?
What is a "Sony g shock" if you don't mind? I know Casio's G-Shock and Sony's Sports series... did you mix them by chance as I suppose or is there a Sony range I'm not aware of?
Haha whoops, I totally conflated the two! The Sony Atrac3Plus had a feature called "G Protection". It was the only "anti skip" cd player that I tried that actually worked really well back then.
I also exaggerated the year a bit. After looking it up, I think this cd player came out in 2004!
Same. I have 4 browsers, 2 of them loaded to the teeth and the other 2 untouched since installation, one of them the one that I use for "mandatory" stuff or that you really need it to work, like banking or gov sites.
Love this. I once (2017 I think) made a card game based around MS-DOS with elements of Crazy Eights which I called Crazy DOS (shortened C:DOS) but got zero attention so I moved on. I might try this one, I love this kind of stuff.
UT2003 was the first online multiplayer game I ever played, and I played it a lot, mostly at the office with coworkers; we then moved to UT2004. So, so many fond memories of both. Glad is back.
Not that it'll happen, or at least I haven't heard of it, but I'd love for MiniDiscs to also make a comeback (not that they ever were that popular), and see new releases in that format. It's my favorite one, a nice blend of CDs and compact cassettes (no worries about scratches thanks to the protective shell, even when you carelessly throw the discs in your pockets).
Sorry for the tangential, but as a non-native English speaker, and still learning... this really caught my attention: "grows smaller". It looks like a kind of contradiction. Is it common to use that instead of, say, "shrink"?
This along blows my mind: I picture this bin bang and everything expanding from that point and... that everything is now a sphere. In my mind. But it isn't? Yes, I know next to nothing but love thinking about all of this.
It is often presented this way because models generally mix up the observable universe and the universe. One key notion is that we are at the center of the universe. Not the Milky Way, not the Sun, Earth is. Yet we know that Earth isn't at the center, so what is that? Because it is defined as our ability to travel from where we are at. Each of us could be considered at the center of our own observable universes, but this is a distinction we don't make because they overlap so closely that we don't have tools with the precision to tell them apart. I would guess that even aliens on the other side of Milky Way have an observable universe that overlaps so closely with our that they are equal to whatever level of precisions our tools allow for. Once you get to someone in a different galaxy, especially one that is moving away from us and not closer, then they have a different observable universe.
But then, what is the universe? One way to think of it is to imagine that every galaxy has at least one intelligent species with their own observable universe. The universe is the sum of all observable universes. The very nature of how to sum them together, what it means to combine multiple sets of thing which include items that don't exist relative to other items in the set, is a question we can't really answer yet. Because of this, even a question like the size of the universe is unknown, and even the question of if more of the universe exists outside of the observable universe isn't simple to answer and gets into the nature of what it means to exist. If someone exists in the universe, but not in the observable universe, it becomes an instance of Russell's Teapot.
Yes, 1d. But it's easier to go from a strip to a sheet to a block than trying to imagine an infinite block from scratch.
The important part is that at any given point on the elastic strip, both sides are getting further away. Everything else is getting further away.
You might think if A-B-C-D are points on the tape and A-B are expanding and C-D are expanding, then B and C must be squished together, but the distance between them is also expanding. You have infinite elastic, but you also have infinite room to stretch it (even along the direction it already occupies). You now have A--B--C--D.
It's tempting to think about that stretch from the point of view of the floor/table beneath the elastic, in which case some parts of the elastic move faster than others as they stretch, but if you always think from a point on the elastic, then the speed of the rest of the elastic depends on how far away it is. Stuff twice as far away moves away twice as fast. Stuff infinitely far away moves away infinitely fast. That's true for every point on the elastic. No bunching up.
reply