• 0 Posts
  • 122 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023
  • nul@programming.devto196@lemmy.blahaj.zone•Rule
    3·
    2 months ago

    I enjoyed hearing about meme crossovers in a recurring Reply All segment where they would take a host who didn’t understand a complicated Tweet and break down all the pieces.

    Here’s an excerpt that stuck with me:

    PJ: Dog underscore rates. Ok. So, there is a–there is a Twitter account, uh, that has over 2 million followers.

    ALEX BLUMBERG: Ok.

    PJ: And it is devoted to rating peoples’ dogs,

    ALEX BLUMBERG: Rating them.

    PJ: Yeah. So like, scale of one to ten?

    ALEX BLUMBERG: Ohhhh.

    PJ: Except they always give them above 10. Like, every single time. Um, can I just show you the best moment in WeRateDogs™’ history? Where a guy got angry, that he thought the ratings system was skewed?

    ALEX BLUMBERG: Uh, so, this guy Brant?

    PJ: Yeah.

    ALEX BLUMBERG: He was like, “@dog_rates You’re rating system sucks! Just change your name to cute dogs!” And then WeRateDogs™ wrote back: “Why are you so mad, Bront?” And then he said, “Well, you give every dog 11s and 12s, it doesn’t even make any sense!” (laughing) That’s a guy who is not in on the joke.

    PJ: Yes.

    ALEX BLUMBERG: (laughing) And then WeRateDogs™–and then WeRateDogs™ says, “They’re good dogs, Brent.” Brant: “It’s a cheap gimmick!” WeRateDogs™: “Well Brint, (laughing) the people love it and I’m doing it for them, not you.” Uh. Brent: “All I’m saying is you could have real legitimate ratings instead of every just saying (laughing) every dog is a 10, 11, or 12”

    PJ: So like, that is basically–that is like a good encapsulation of what is good about this.

    ALEX BLUMBERG: (laughing)

    PJ: (laughing) Alex Blumberg is losing his mind.

    ALEX BLUMBERG: Oh, “They’re good dogs, Brent” is really funny.

    Here’s the episode: https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/o2ho9j

    Miss that show.

  • nul@programming.devtoScience Memes@mander.xyz•ElectronsEnglish
    1·
    5 months ago

    That sounds super interesting! Can’t read it until I get home (am on vacation at Disneyland right now) but in about a week’s time I hope you don’t mind if I reply with my updated understanding, and maybe a question or two.

    I made a comment a while back (on my alt account) about how the origin of the universe can be expressed as a simple formula: https://sopuli.xyz/comment/3303086

    So, I’m curious if that viewpoint will shift at all with a better understanding of electron positron interactions. It kind of makes sense to me that the universe and the antiverse are stacked on top of each other but with time pointing in opposite directions. But I’m sure I’m oversimplifying Feynman’s theory and I’ll have to read his reasoning to really understand.

  • nul@programming.devtoScience Memes@mander.xyz•ElectronsEnglish
    44·
    6 months ago

    This is actually the first time I’m hearing about single electron theory, but I feel validated now that I’m learning about it. I have for a long time believed that the universe is made of a single photon, since photons exist outside of time. Then, if electrons are made of a “pair” of entangled photons, since every photon is the same photon, it would follow that every electron is also the same electron. And one could assert that quarks are just entangled electrons and positrons in various ratios and combinations. Which in my mind leads to the conclusion that all of time and space and matter doesn’t actually exist and we are just imaginary mathematical figments.