h a l f b a k e r yA dish best served not.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Choosing a paint can be hard enough when it's just one person - but when two or more need to agree it is more difficult. More difficult still if the one who will object to the final colour on completion doesn't wish to express a preference[1].
I propose a range of interior housepaint with a variety
of noncommittal names, including:
"Buy the cheapest" : mid yellow / cream
"Choose something nice" : pastel green
"Go with your heart" : light pink
"I don't know" : black
"I don't think it's important" : red
"Just pick something" : battleship grey
"Surprise me" : deep purple with gold sparkles
"Whichever one you like" : bright blue
"Yeah, whatever" : neon pink
"You know what I just don't care" : olive brown; an approximation of pantone 448C
Make sure to write down what they said exactly.
---
[1] I imagine.
Similar casual attitude to street naming
https://goo.gl/maps/rU7723qEgdouMTQa8
[hippo, Jul 31 2023]
xkcd version
https://xkcd.com/710/
how to stop an argument, and start a new one, not knowing how many iterations will result [lurch, Aug 03 2023]
https://xkcd.com/2806/
[pocmloc, Aug 16 2023]
Gee, should we rehire them or not?...
https://www.google....ated+nurses+rehired
[2 fries shy of a happy meal, Aug 17 2023]
[link]
|
| |
"Get something a bit like we've got on the kitchen walls": Bright yellow |
|
| |
There also needs to be an official catalogue look-up table which formally assigns variants. So if they say "I don't care" or "I really don't care" or "who cares" or I couldn't care less" or any one of 100 other similar phrases, each can have its own entry in the catalogue with an official reference code indicating that the correct paint to use in that instance is "You know what I just don't care". |
|
| |
There should also be a white paint called "What?" and which is an official alternative substitution for every other paint, so that the purchaser has a "get out" option if they really don't want the living room to have one wall deep purple with gold sparkles, the other three walls pastel green, and the doors and cornices and dado and skirting board and windows neon pink. |
|
| |
Also, there's no reason why names of paints can't incorporate words often used to refer to actual colours, so:
"Pale green": orange |
|
| |
//There also needs to be an official catalogue look-up table which formally assigns variants. So if they say "I don't care" or "I really don't care" or "who cares" or I couldn't care less" or any one of 100 other similar phrases, each can have its own entry in the catalogue with an official reference code indicating that the correct paint to use in that instance is "You know what I just don't care".// |
|
| |
Oh yes, absolutely. That wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list. I'm proposing a complete colour range. |
|
| |
//Also, there's no reason why names of paints can't incorporate words often used to refer to actual colours, so: |
|
| |
Well, there's at least two reasons why not.
The second, more interesting reason is that you'd start to run in to issues with references of references. Do it a lot and you'd start to get reference loops, and large parts of the database would all terminate in the same colour. |
|
| |
Then you world see the "Whichever one you like" screen of death. |
|
| |
The problem here is just like deciding where to go to eat in a large city. There are too many choices. People with access to just one restaurant don't have this problem. Limit it to 16 colors, all approved by CGA graphics standards. Violators get banished to Florida where everything is pastel. |
|
| |
//Limit it to 16 colors// - or maybe just one colour, but changed every year |
|
| |
//large parts of the database would all terminate in the same colour.// Apply the Collatz conjecture to your references and you'll minimize the required inventory. |
|
| |
Mind blown so hard I need a field of tobacco for the post-coital smoke |
|
| |
The database is huge... but so far as I can figure, you always end up with the same color. |
|
| |
So, I looked up Collatz conjecture. |
|
| |
Of course if you triple an odd number and add one to it... it will become an even number.
If every odd number derived becomes even and then divided by 2...
...well how can the result eventually be anything other than one? |
|
| |
Mystery my ass.
Card trick is more like it. |
|
| |
Ah, but after you've divided the even number by two, it's still bigger (and therefore further away from one) than the odd number was before you tripled it. |
|
| |
If, at any point, your number becomes a power of two then, sure, it's a direct, no-turning path back to one, and game over. But some starting numbers can dodge the powers of two for a long time, and the not-obvious question is how to prove that *no* starting number can avoid coinciding with a power of two forever. |
|
| |
I used to think I had an intuition about this that I could turn into a proof. However, I have not yet been able to do so. |
|
| |
[2 fries] It's very easy to have an intuitive hunch that the Collatz conjecture is true (which is what you're saying), but very, very hard to prove that it's true for all starting numbers. |
|
| |
I've got a harder one for you guys.
Take a deck of cards and remove the jokers.
Count off half of the deck face up and remember the seventh card.
Put the deck back together placing the half-deck beneath so that the remembered seventh card is now the thirty third card in the deck.
Place the top three cards face up and make them all add up to ten, for example if the first card is a four then add six more cards face down on top of it. |
|
| |
After all three cards equal ten, you add up the three face up cards and the number you get will always be how many cards down in the deck your remembered seventh card is.
Always.
Even if you swap them out for three new cards, if you make the new ones add up to ten their total will always equal that same remembered card. |
|
| |
Way harder to figure out if you ask me. |
|
| |
No, that's really simple:
All that stuff at the beginning is just obfuscation; you're looking for the card 33 cards down in the deck.
You take 3 cards off the deck and they have values x, y and z
You then take another (10-x)+(10-y)+(10-z) cards off the deck, or, adding these up, 30-(x+y+z) cards, so you've now taken 33-(x+y+z) cards off the deck.
So now if you add your three cards x, y and z and take this number of cards off the deck, you'll have taken (33-(x+y+z))+(x+y+z) = 33 cards off the deck. Voila! |
|
| |
Yes, but that was way harder for me to wrap my head around than triple odd numbers plus one equals an even number which when halfed over and over again eventually becomes the number one. |
|
| |
I think that's everyone's reaction to the Collatz conjecture - to immediately understand what's happening in that problem and to think "Yes, that sounds right. It all seems reasonable - it must be true". However *proving* that it's true (in a similar but much, much more complex way to how I proved that card trick would always come out with the right card) has defeated many eminent mathematicians |
|
| |
Well that's like proving that there's no end to PI.
I wonder if the same rule holds true of any set of three odd numbers added together plus one and then halved. Whether it produces the same result? |
|
| |
You know what? I jest don't care. |
|
| |
What proof is needed?
If three odd numbers always add up to an odd number and adding one to that outcome always makes it an even number, and if every time the number derived from halving that even number results in an odd number then the game continues until an integer which can be reduced to the number one presents itself. |
|
| |
How can it not do so? Those are the rules. It's a parlour trick. Some ancient mathematician having a laugh. |
|
| |
No. You think it sounds simple, but this is just the same as everyone’s intuitive, first impression of the problem. Saying “How can it not do so?” Isn’t enough and is a long, long way away from a proof that it will always end up at 1 for every possible starting number. |
|
| |
But... every time the number becomes odd you triple it and add one culminating in an even number. Eventually it will become an even number which can be halved until it becomes the number one.
The game continues until it does, so how can it not do so? |
|
| |
You guys are looking for a loop. An odd number that when tripled plus one gives you an even number which when halved enough times gives you that first odd number. |
|
| |
Can't happen. In fact I will bet that this holds true for any three odd numbers added together and should hold true for any odd number of odd numbers added together plus one and then halved over and over again. |
|
| |
Can we agree on the premise that any three odd numbers added together will always result in an odd number?
If so, then adding one to that will always result in an even number. Eventually that even number will lead to the number one when halved enough times. |
|
| |
Explain why it can't happen |
|
| |
Not every even number goes to 1 with repeated halving. Also, saying “I bet…” and being pretty sure of something doesn’t constitute a mathematical proof |
|
| |
//Explain why it can't happen// |
|
| |
Because the product of multiplied odd numbers always results in an odd number, when you add one it becomes even, so the game continues until you eventually reach an even number which does divide by two until it becomes the number one. |
|
| |
Somebody has this running on a super computer somewhere.
How many digits have they gotten to so far? |
|
| |
//Not every even number goes to 1 with repeated halving// |
|
| |
Of course not, but when it doesn't you triple that number and add one.
Multiplying any odd number by any other odd number, then adding one and dividing by two until it does reach one will always give the same result. |
|
| |
//…will always give the same result// - and many people will agree with you, and say that that seems a reasonable conclusion, but that is NOT THE SAME as a proof |
|
| |
Then I'm glad to live a life which doesn't need absolute proof to draw accurate conclusions. |
|
| |
The game is rigged.
It has to end with the number one because of the rules.
Your super computers will expire before finding an absolute proof of why the game is rigged. |
|
| |
The whole tripling of the first odd number is the equivalent of the obfuscation of counting off half the deck and remembering the seventh card.
Any odd number plus one and then repeatedly halved, or tripled plus one if odd, will suffice to produce the same result. |
|
| |
I fail to see why proof is required. |
|
| |
Its not required, nothing is required, anyone can do whatever they want. |
|
| |
But if no-one can produce a proof then it is not proved. |
|
| |
Like if no-one can build a tower in such a spot, then there is no tower there. Does it matter? No. |
|
| |
//I know the difference between an axiom and a conjecture but I don’t think I can explain how to draw the line in this example// |
|
| |
An axiom is what you start with - an assumption. You can go from there to prove other things on that basis, i.e. "assuming this is true, that must also be true." |
|
| |
A conjecture is something you think is true, but hasn't been proven. |
|
| |
So you might say - why don't we just assume things we think are true are actually true? And for the most part, in the real world that will work... but only up to a point. As soon as you assume something is true which /isn't/ true, everything you've derived from that is unreliable.
For this reason, it's a good idea to keep axioms to a minimum. If you axiomise everything you come across, at some point you'll make a mistake and become inconsistent. |
|
| |
What is inconsistency like? It's like when you make a mistake when you're filling in a sudoku. For a while everything seems fine, then suddenly you realise that you've got two matching numbers in a box, and don't know what you have to remove to recover. |
|
| |
Or an alternative example, you're all working on the basis that references in a naming scheme are a thing, but in my non-committal colour names range they're not. So while it might be an interesting discussion, it's not going to apply there. |
|
| |
//It's like when you make a mistake when you're filling in a sudoku. For a while everything seems fine, then suddenly you realise that you've got two matching numbers in a box, and don't know what you have to remove to recover.// |
|
| |
So... in other words, exactly like the world governments reactions to this recent plandemic? |
|
| |
//So... in other words, exactly like the world governments reactions to this recent plandemic?// |
|
| |
I wouldn't have thought so, but feel free to explain your reasoning.
Also, you misspelled pandemic. |
|
| |
The misspelling was intentional. |
|
| |
//intentional// Yes, obviously - and also very boring |
|
| |
I do not find the largest single mass con-job to date on this planet to be in any way boring, and neither will the history books. |
|
| |
It is much more likely that you met a real sasquatch in the woods, [2 fries], than that you met a real plandemic in your Facebook feed. On the sasquatch, I'm willing to keep an open mind. |
|
| |
//I do not find the largest single mass con-job to date on this planet to be in any way boring, and neither will the history books.// |
|
| |
Oh! You want to talk about Brexit. |
|
| |
Anything colonial is under attack from multiple angles. Our great grandpappy's failed to conquer the entire planet and now their descendants will pay the cost of their shortsightedness. |
|
| |
Not that I think they had the right idea in the first place, but if you're going to undertake a project... you fucking see it through. |
|
| |
They didn't do that though did they? |
|
| |
So now the cycle continues. Those who's ancestors were wronged seek vengeance, and who can blame them? |
|
| |
I ask you minority who hold the power to attempt to keep the status quo? Not working is it? |
|
| |
Laugh all you want rubes. |
|
| |
At least Sasquatch is real. |
|
| |
2fries, it seems like you think you're making important points, but honestly, I've got no idea what you're on about.
Have you considered actually explaining what you mean instead of alluding to it in using references to local events no-one else knows or cares about? |
|
| |
The carona virus was released on purpose and allowed to spread unchecked for an inordinate amount of time.
The response to this was all predetermined and outlined by the WEF.
Gates, Fauci and any politician involved in the attempted subjugation of humanity should be locked up and awaiting trial for crimes against humanity and treason to their individual countries.
Epstein's client list should be scrutinized with a microscope and yet the focus has turned to transgenderism and how any offence taken by an individual has somehow become a hate crime against an entire group. |
|
| |
Humanity is losing its sanity as we speak... |
|
| |
...and I meant it when I said that I'm most afraid of being the last one standing with their faculties intact while everyone else around them goes insane.
That's how I spent childhood and I've no desire to repeat that particular bit of history. |
|
| |
All of humanity is being currently led down the garden path and rapidly becoming legion.
Where did accountability go?
Where did our respective infrastructures go?
Where did our education systems go?
Where did our public resources go? |
|
| |
Where did our humanity go? |
|
| |
Fuck, I don't know.
Time to man-up boys. |
|
| |
Okay, so you've said that, or similar, a number of times before.
I don't agree, of course, but we've been over that elsewhere. What I don't see, though, is how you think it relates to the difference between axioms and conjectures, or perhaps why you shouldn't take it for granted that something is true just because it seems right at first glance. |
|
| |
It is hard to determine between axiom and conjecture when any dissenting opinion gets fired or silenced for daring to ask questions contrary to the forced narrative being shoved down our collective throats. |
|
| |
The truth welcomes questioning.
When nobody is allowed to question something, then you already know that that something is a crock of shit.
No proof is needed to know a con when you see one, but once you've fallen for it backtracking and admitting culpability becomes almost impossible, especially when those who've been duped constitute a majority of the population.
"How vain can you be? How dare you think that 'you' are right when 'All Of Us' have fallen for this ruse?" |
|
| |
...and so here we are, with any health care 'professional' or scientist not on board with this bullshit, and who dared to speak out, still unable to resume their rightful positions even though they have been proven correct in their assessment of the situation because of... |
|
| |
...axioms, or conjectures? |
|
| |
//...and so here we are, with any health care 'professional' or scientist not on board with this bullshit, and who dared to speak out, still unable to resume their rightful positions even though they have been proven correct in their assessment of the situation because of...// |
|
| |
The basic tenet of health care professionals - or even 'professionals' - is to "do no harm". Where some stray from that, it's not unreasonable for the rest of them (or others) to object, and for them to be blocked from working as such. This is the normal state of affairs - for example, surgeons are expected to take various precautions to avoid infecting patients they operate on. Accusations of malpractice are taken very seriously. |
|
| |
For scientists, on the other hand, the basic objective is to seek the truth, and that does mean questioning things. Thus, scientists are often quite tolerant of differing opinions and ideas. That doesn't mean they have to be swayed by anything and everything.
It turns out the world doesn't run on common sense, and those who expect it to are frequently disappointed. Many things turn out not to be the way one would naively expect.
When the evidence is incomplete, scientists will often disagree with each other; this is normal. Losing jobs because of disagreeing over something within a subject isn't normal in academia for that reason. However, I imagine that if you searched, you could find a few academics who have been dropped (or claim to have been) because of their actions during the covid pandemic. I'd predict that these would generally be people repeatedly commenting publicly on the topic, far outside of their area of expertise - and in particularly misleading or deleterious ways. |
|
| |
// The basic tenet of health care professionals - or even 'professionals' - is to "do no harm".// |
|
| |
That's just the thing though. These jabs should never have been forced on those with healthy immune systems. They caused harm to many individuals and the final tally is nowhere near complete. Those who kept their jobs were the ones either willing to forego, or too scared of losing their jobs to keep, their Hippocratic oath.
I'm not saying anyone on board with the jab-fest should lose their jobs, too much effort was invested in them learning what they know to discard them, unlike the nonconformist professionals, but in my opinion their judgment of their patient's best interest is no longer to be trusted. |
|
| |
To continue to segregate those who kept their oath from their chosen professions is insult to injury and I expect many millions to be paid out in wrongful dismissal cases. |
|
| |
// // The basic tenet of health care professionals - or even 'professionals' - is to "do no harm".// That's just the thing though. These jabs should never have been forced on those with healthy immune systems. //
No one was 'forced' to have a vaccine, and of course many people refused. All vaccines, and many common medicines, have tiny risks of adverse side-effects. Are you saying then that all vaccines should be banned, and no medicine that has any proven side-effect should be allowed? |
|
| |
//They[vaccines] caused harm to many individuals and the final tally is nowhere near complete.// |
|
| |
At this point we're pretty confident that's basically not true for the covid vaccines in use.
There's a -very small- risk, sure... but if the disease is widespread the threat from the disease is orders of magnitude more for basically all adults. |
|
| |
//Those who kept their jobs were the ones either willing to forego, or too scared of losing their jobs to keep, their Hippocratic oath.// |
|
| |
a) That's nonsense. Everything everybody does has some level of risk - it may be miniscule, but it's there. If you can do something that reduces your risk elsewhere by a larger factor, that's a win. And that's basically all medicine. |
|
| |
b) You've previously said you're in favour of other vaccines. You know they have similar (sometimes significantly greater) risk profiles? |
|
| |
I was once told by a former surgeon that surgeons are at risk of a particular disease on their hands, because of the rigorous hand-cleaning pre-operation protocol. Are you suggesting that they should not be obligated to perform that procedure? |
|
| |
c) Covid vaccination is no longer mandatory for NHS staff as of March last year. At least in the UK, it's yesterday's news. |
|
| |
//No one was 'forced' to have a vaccine// |
|
| |
Of course we were. Without getting one, (and then several 'boosters') you lost your job, your friends, your family, your social status and I believe we were right on the cusp of arresting people for endangering others when that was all a complete load of shit. The only media allowed was of every politician and celebrity being on board with the, 'screw your freedom' you selfish non-conforming wastes of breath, narrative. |
|
| |
No force being applied there at all... |
|
| |
//and of course many people refused.// |
|
| |
Not so many of us no.
Just us hard cases telling the majority of humanity to pull their heads from their asses. |
|
| |
// All vaccines, and many common medicines, have tiny risks of adverse side-effects. Are you saying then that all vaccines should be banned, and no medicine that has any proven side-effect should be allowed?// |
|
| |
Nope. I'm saying that these jabs conferred no immunity to anyone and therefore became vaccines in name only because of a planned change of the definition of 'vaccine'. |
|
| |
////Those who kept their jobs were the ones either willing to forego, or too scared of losing their jobs to keep, their Hippocratic oath.//// |
|
| |
//b) You've previously said you're in favour of other vaccines.// |
|
| |
Those injections meet the original definition of the word 'vaccine' which includes the word immunity in the definition. |
|
| |
//I was once told by a former surgeon that surgeons are at risk of a particular disease on their hands, because of the rigorous hand-cleaning pre-operation protocol. Are you suggesting that they should not be obligated to perform that procedure?// |
|
| |
I believe that is what is known as a non sequitur argument. |
|
| |
//c) Covid vaccination is no longer mandatory for NHS staff as of March last year. At least in the UK, it's yesterday's news.// |
|
| |
Well it isn't here yet, and as long as I can still hire trained ER nurses to clean rooms and make beds for minimum wage then there's still a massive problem to be dealt with, isn't there? |
|
| |
//// All vaccines, and many common medicines, have tiny risks of adverse side-effects. Are you saying then that all vaccines should be banned, and no medicine that has any proven side-effect should be allowed?//// |
|
| |
//Nope. I'm saying that these jabs conferred no immunity to anyone and therefore became vaccines in name only because of a planned change of the definition of 'vaccine'.// |
|
| |
You keep saying that, but it's wrong - multiple research projects found that the covid vaccines conferred immunity.
And you should probably stop worrying about definition changes made in a third country. Look at what your own countries' health organisation did. (If it directly copied the CDC then I guess fair enough - but you're still wrong about whether it matters.) |
|
| |
//////Those who kept their jobs were the ones either willing to forego, or too scared of losing their jobs to keep, their Hippocratic oath.////// |
|
| |
////a) That's nonsense.////
//No. No it's not.//
Really, you ought to address the explanation I gave if you don't want to look like a baby having a tantrum. |
|
| |
////b) You've previously said you're in favour of other vaccines.////
//Those injections meet the original definition of the word 'vaccine' which includes the word immunity in the definition.//
Addressed above. |
|
| |
////I was once told by a former surgeon that surgeons are at risk of a particular disease on their hands, because of the rigorous hand-cleaning pre-operation protocol. Are you suggesting that they should not be obligated to perform that procedure?////
//I believe that is what is known as a non sequitur argument.//
Oh, do you not see the relevance?
One of your objections was that healthy people shouldn't be 'forced' to do something with risk attached - however slight. This is an example of a risk a type of health-care professional is obliged to take, to protect their patients. |
|
| |
////c) Covid vaccination is no longer mandatory for NHS staff as of March last year. At least in the UK, it's yesterday's news.////
//Well it isn't here yet, and as long as I can still hire trained ER nurses to clean rooms and make beds for minimum wage then there's still a massive problem to be dealt with, isn't there?//
Those do sound like good transferrable skills of nursing experience. I guess working for you rather than the health service is their revealed preference. |
|
| |
//Really, you ought to address the explanation I gave if you don't want to look like a baby having a tantrum.// |
|
| |
Nobody was allowed to dissent and anyone but Fauci's credentials on the subject became irrelevant. Speak out, refuse the jab... get fired.
It was all bullshit.
In the end it was determined that not only could getting the jab 'not' protect someone from getting the virus it also did not prevent spread at all, and the unvaccinated were to blame for all of it according to the brainwashed masses.
So the health care professionals who put their careers at risk by attempting to stand in the way of these blatant lies got silenced. |
|
| |
They kept their oaths.
Wrongful dismissal suits.
Many millions. |
|
| |
//Oh, do you not see the relevance?
One of your objections was that healthy people shouldn't be 'forced' to do something with risk attached - however slight. This is an example of a risk a type of health-care professional is obliged to take, to protect their patients.// |
|
| |
Your argument relies on people 'choosing' to accept risks associated with their 'chosen' professions and applying that argument to people being 'forced' to put themselves at risk in order to 'placate' the panicking masses... for profit.
Thus non sequitur. |
|
| |
//You keep saying that, but it's wrong - multiple research projects found that the covid vaccines conferred immunity.// |
|
| |
Nobody was rendered 100% immune from covid because these jabs. You could catch the same strain multiple times jabbed or un-jabbed.
When they say that the measles vaccine rendered 97% immunity it used to mean that it rendered 100% immunity on 97% of a population. If you became immune you could not get measles again, but 3% of people who got an actual vaccine were shit out of luck.
Replacing 'immunity' with 'helps with' renders Aspirin a vaccine if you mainline it. |
|
| |
//Those do sound like good transferrable skills of nursing experience. I guess working for you rather than the health service is their revealed preference.// |
|
| |
What a condescending thing to think.
There's no preference about it other than sticking up for themselves and their patients being led down the garden path.. People have to eat. Here's a link to the number of hits for unvaccinated nurses rehired here so far. [link] They are not allowed back to work here yet.
So bully for the EU. |
|
| |
Hi folks, please take it to email.
Thanks. |
|
| |
Can I be added to the email list please |
|
| |
Sorry [jutta]. Anyone can email me at the address on my profile page. I prefer to speak publicly since that's how everything else happens and it seems that everybody else prefers that as well. |
|
| |
Voice I'm having trouble parsing the obfuscated email address on your profile. I may be missing something, but it looks like too many potential options to just guess. |
|
| |
OK, well, alternatively, maybe I figure out how to set up a discord channel. |
|
| |
<waits with baited breath> |
|
| |
HA!
Well there's my something new learned today. Thank you sir. |
|
| |
It was starting to get a bit late in the day.
Bated eh? |
|
| |
huh
Is there anything which Shakespeare hasn't written? |
|
| |
That is a word I've never heard before today.
It's still early, I'd better slow down or I might even get to learn two new things today. |
|
| |
It reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode or Black Mirror or one of those type of programs where a fan of Shakespeare time travels to meet his idol only to be kidnapped by him and forced to write Shakespeare's plays since he knows them all verbatim though they haven't been written yet. |
|
| |