you could think about it this way: one sphere and two spheres have the same “number” of points. (in the same way that there are just as many real numbers as there are real numbers in the interval (0,1).)

so, it becomes “”plausible”” that you could use one sphere to construct two spheres (because in some sense, you aren’t “adding any new points”).

but in the real world, “spheres” only have a finite number of atoms. so if we regard atoms as “points”, then it’s no longer true that one sphere and two spheres have the same number of “points”. and in some sense, this is why the sphere duplication trick doesn’t work in the real world.

it’s also worth mentioning that you have to do some pretty fucked up and unusual things in order to actually duplicate the sphere, and if you don’t allow such weird things to be done to the sphere, then it’s no longer possible to duplicate it, even with the axiom of choice.

yeah this is true. i should have clarified a bit better that a well ordering wouldn’t give you a “least gay” person in that sense of the word. it would be more correct to say there is a well ordering ⊰, and so there is a “⊰”-least gay person. but of course a “⊰”-least gay person could be in the middle of that spectrum.

but the number of people on earth is finite, so in fact the usual ordering is a well-ordering in this case. so i guess those two mistakes i made cancel each other out, and the axiom of choice isn’t even needed here.

oops. you’re completely right. i forgot there are only a finite number of people on earth. there is a gayest person

a consequence of the axiom of choice is that every set can be given a well ordering. and well orderings always have smallest elements, but they may not have largest elements.

so there is someone who is the least gay, but there may not be a single person who is the most gay.

that kind of sentence structure always trips me up. we should start using parentheses for situations like this. or invent a new symbol, or something. we give commas too many jobs.

i had this problem the first couple times i tried playing it. and i also didnt really like the visual tint the game had going. but eventually i think i just got to be like a frog in boiled water where i didnt really mind the visual effects and gun play stuff anymore. i also think the hbomberguy video was helpful in motivating me to commit more to giving the game a proper chance, but idk it might’ve just been that i played it at the right time.

but at the end of the day, it’s fine if the game isn’t for you. i think it’s a fun game and all, but it does have some short comings and (visually) it hasn’t aged that well. and who knows, maybe the game will resonate more if you try it again at a different stage of your life.

no diamond funko pop yet

they may shoot me, but i will rest easy knowing they wont be able to shoot all the popcorn

maybe they should’ve been a little more tolerant if they didn’t want to engulfed by a giant ball of plasma

might be a good place to mention petting aggression: basically the term for when you’re having some nice petting and affection time with your cat and then they attack you out of nowhere.

the article i linked describes some of the causes, and offers some advice on how to see the signs and avoid the attacks from happening

“you can jerk off.”

“source?”

no, 196 nice

cute kitten picture

this reminds me of the old school viruses when people would be play around and get silly with it. i miss those days of malware

can you make one with extra misinformation next

whenever someone says “it’s that simple”, it’s not.

this is just like in watch dogs

me on my way to watch my fifth video essay on why star field is terrible. (it is cathartic to hear people complain about the game when i knew from the start it was doomed to fail.)

just wait until you hear about how academic publishing works

this is really nice considering the only thing stopping me from playing luigi’s mansion 2 is the graphics.