As someone who played the original version of Trails in the Sky, I thought they really did a great job with the 3D remake, and I think it’s a great way to get people into the series. So it makes me happy to see that people are enjoying it.

Yea, but I’d imagine it’d be hard to even bring all 4 out by themselves, that even before you get into the supermarket, it’d probably already be tiring. So I’d imagine they’d usually be out with their partner when they have all 4 kids with them. And I’d imagine the oldest would be at least a 5 year old in that scenario, 4 if the parents try really hard and get really lucky, and that’s old enough to understand basic instructions and walk on their own. Tough luck if the eldest is playful, but, I mean, you know what you’re getting into knowing your eldest is playful, but still deciding that bringing 4 young kids alone to a supermarket is gonna work out safely in a car-centric place (yeah, I think having people to push large carts to a car implies that the place is build for cars, which are inherently a dangerous for kids).

And heck, I grew up in such a family, though to be fair, I grew up in Asia, where it isn’t uncommon to have extended family members all live in the same town, and help share the work of taking care of children. I understand that it simply isn’t the culture in Western countries, especially North America. But we can make friends, and have them help watch the kids while we go get groceries, or have them help us get groceries, and either way pay them back in some way, right?

My whole refute isn’t targeting any specific circumstance a person may have with how many or how naughty their children can be. The point is that the circumstance doesn’t matter. Regardless of the circumstance, if they can’t even consider the fact that they cannot take care of all those children on their own, but they have to bring the kids along anyways to a supermarket, and struggle to keep tabs on them all, then it tells me that

1. they don’t have a stong or reliable enough social circle to help them with children when they need it,
2. they have bad decision-making abilities,
3. they may not understand their own circumstances.

All these suggest to me that they lack the ability to be an adult who is well-equipped to take care of their children, and putting the cart back is simply the manifestation of all these deficiencies.

Exactly. And depending on the kids, you could also make it a small, fun activity for them: help daddy/mommy/whatever you have your kids call you bring the cart to where it should be. It’d be no different from having the kids put their toys away, but just with something that may be beyond their strength, but you’re an adult, so just pull the cart from the side enough to help the kids move the cart and steer it to avoid hitting stuff.

If the kids are tired, have em just walk like 30s more? If you can’t even do that and your kid starts throwing a tantrum, then you have other problems with the kid and so you deal with it like you’re supposed to anyways. The kid isn’t going to just turn responsible without the parent doing something after all.

TIL this exists

But I must say… “can’t leave a child unattended” is such an ass reason. Like, just bring the kids along? It’s good education for the kids too. If they’re a baby, well there are ways to carry a baby without using your hands. If you don’t have one, then fine, but I also tells me that you have no one to rely on to take care of a baby for an hour or even two when you need it, and it makes me wonder what your relationship is with those around you.

I’ll assume you are asking in good faith / out of innocence, because this isn’t a question that typically needs to be asked if you’ve lived with any group of people for some time.

Let’s put laws aside for now, cause they can make this explanation more complicated than it needs to be.

Suppose you like jumping off cliffs for fun, and you’ve been skillful enough to not fall to your death. You jump off, feel the thrill, and you land safely — nothing bad happens. All is good.

One windy day, branches were flying around, and it was dark out. You wanted to jump anyway because, well, why not?

You jump.

A branch hit your face and scraped near your eye. You winced. And because you couldn’t see well enough, you couldn’t land like you always would. You didn’t die, but you certainly got hurt, bad.

So you thought to yourself after that incident: maybe I shouldn’t jump when it’s windy and dark out, or maybe I’ll wear eye protection when I jump.

You’ll tell others not to do the same. Not everyone listens to you, because they thought, well, maybe you just weren’t “careful enough”. Maybe you don’t care enough if they would believe or listen to you. But some people that you do care, say, your kids, also don’t seem to listen to you. Despite your warnings, they’d still sneak out at night, on windy days, to go jump off the cliff for fun.

So what would you do?

I had an older cousin that I looked up to a lot as a kid. They went to work with Google, and, over many years when we get together, kept praising Google and parroting the shit they say. They’ve left Google now for their own exploits, but still remain a Google ambassador, and somewhat frequently still posts about things that Google ships and just echo the empty shit Google says.

It’s a terrible feeling. I lost a cousin, and someone whom I looked up to. Haven’t talked to them in years and don’t really want to either. Knowing them, I’ll just be chided for not being serious about life and living.

Surely the invisible hand will slap us!

Don’t @ me. Just needed to be pointlessly funny for my own sake.

Not saying it isn’t. Just saying we’ve essentially hit the proverbial jackpot. Not a jackpot we like, but a jackpot nonetheless.

Since there are comments saying that the hantavirus rarely spreads from human-to-human, it seems like the news hasn’t spread fast enough…

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/hondius-ship-hantavirus-andes-strain-9.7189281

Hantavirus is spread by rodents and, more rarely, people. To date, the Andes strain is the only type of hantavirus in which human-to-human transmission has been confirmed, usually through close contact, such as by sharing a bed or food, experts say.

Article title: WHO confirms Andes strain hantavirus on cruise ship passengers, with 3 transferring from ship for treatment

…

And just 13 minutes ago, this news came out: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hantavirus-outbreak-cruise-ship-9.7190707; Contract tracing is underway.

libsdl seems like a good base. Seems like it’s available in Debian and in the main Arch repo too. That’s plenty good for Linux. Looks like it’s also available for Windows too.

Then what was the fuss from YT reviewers about?

First time hearing about Rocknix. Not heard about Rockchip too. Seems like a cool project though. Wondering where they got the driver from, or if they made their own.

Steam Input being independent from Steam would be pretty cool. Upstreaming it to the kernel is nice, but the kernel can be slow-moving, and it doesn’t necessarily lend well to cases where you want to be able to deliver fixes to consumers outside of Linux’s release cadence. Now, Valve could perhaps go release with 2 separate cadences, the older driver as a fallback, and offer a DKMS build for newer driver releases, but it IS work to make sure it doesn’t bork someone’s system.

Are we talking about the old controller? Or the new one? Cause I’m sitting here wondering… how are you able to see that, unless you somehow already have the new controllers?

Or are you using the Steam Deck’s controller to check that?

Sorry for the volley of questions here, but I’m just super curious somehow.

Preface: I’m no linguist. Just someone who speaks both JP and EN. But boy do I love thinking about stuff like this. I’m not going to answer your original question though, cause the short answer is really just no.

Subject omission in JP is somewhat interesting because it’s tied to their culture, but I’d like to sort of push back a bit on the thinking that it requires some thinking to figure out who the subject is.

Japanese is a context-heavy language, and this subject omission is an important cultural rule under that. But it does mean that the context needs to first be established between participants.

Suppose you walked up to a friend, waved at them, and said イギリスに行った (lit: went to the UK), most JP speakers would first think that you’re talking about yourself. But if, prior to this conversation, say the day before, you and this friend A were talking about another friend B, and B was deciding where to go and you went to the airport with them, then this friend A would be the only one to know that you’re talking about B.
But suppose it’s been a few more weeks before meeting with A. Then A might think you’re still talking about B, especially if you’ve not mentioned going overseas to A. Then a misunderstanding can happen, and the onus is on you to clarify who you’re talking about in the first place. You’d be thought of as someone who can’t “read the air” if you constantly leave the subject vague without considering the context you’ve thus far established with others.
Friend A can certainly ask for clarification if they know your tendencies, and within their own personal context. 「Bが？」 (t: B did?) they might ask. 「いや。私。」(t: No. I (did).) you might reply. Notice how I just used 私 with no particle; the particle is implied!

I find that a lot of newer learners have a tendency to really focus on this particular aspect of the language. I actually don’t find it to be something that speakers need to expend on a lot of energy on. You know who you’re talking to, and thus know and share enough context to carry on with the conversation. It’s also common to remind each other of which context is being talked about to jog your convo partner’s memory. If you have trouble remembering context, you can always play it safe and be sure to explain yourself, or check if your convo partner remembers it.

Oddly enough, I have a friend who got a bit turned off by this “feature” of Japanese and discouraged him from learning by a bit. He’s always had questionable memory, so having to sort of “remember context” is a bit of a difficult ask for him. I don’t think “remembering context” is a strict requirement to be a good speaker in JP cause it’d just be a quirk of his like it already is in EN. Us English speakers like to think we’re quite rid of context when we compare it to the Japanese, but how much we know each other is context too.

Also, a small comment: just saying 私 in reply to your example for 誰？ isn’t necessarily weird or robotic. It depends on your relationship with the speaker. If you usually use the polite form with the person, then yes, you should append with です.
Now, if you didn’t have the previous part where you’re talking about having a stomachache, then even to a close enough friend, it’s more natural to respond to the “Who?” with 私だ - not too different from EN in this case: it’s “Me” vs “It’s me”.
And when the sentence is お腹が痛い, you’re 100% talking about yourself. If you’re actually talking about someone else, it should be お腹が痛そう (looks painful) or お腹が痛いって ((person) said their stomach hurts).

One thing I commonly see in comments out of threads like this is the oversimplification of how the Japanese communicate. They might be polite and sometimes avoid mentioning the subject for convenience, but when you need tell someone to do something, you can do just that, with different levels of politeness.

• Polite: お願いできますか？ Can I ask you for it?
• Instructional (e.g. teachers): 宿題をしなさい。 Do (your) homework.
• Frank: お前がやれ。 You do it.

The Japanese is expected to be polite to strangers. But they don’t interact with people they’re familiar with in the same way, as it’s usually perceived as a distant way to communicate.

Edit 1: Formatting and grammar

This looks like the so-called “Blue Tears” phenomenon caused by bioluminescent algae reacting in the sea.

In cass it’s not clear from other comments, if the site tells you either one’s wrong but not both, you can then brute force and try out a bunch of usernames and passwords to effectively farm for both: those that say “wrong username” means that the password is valid, while those that say “wrong password” means you got the username that’s in the system.

Once you’ve collected them, the rest is just trying out every password for every user.

So… while this seems weird for a person, it is very much intentional.

Edit after several comments: I don’t know why it’s hard for people to look at the OP, take it for what it is, and argue for the sake of the argument, rather than claiming that something’s impossible because of common or correct technical practices.

I know Lemmy hates AI with a fiery passion (and I too hate it for various reasons), but the ability to make this sort of prediction in a way far more stable than whatever else came before with natural language processing (fancy term of the day for those who havem’t heard of it), and however inefficiently built and ran it is, is useful if you can nudge it enough in a certain direction. It can’t do functional things reliably, but if you contain it to only parse human language and extract very specific information, show it in a machine-parsable way, and then use that as input for something you can program, you’ve essentially built something that feels like it can understand you in human language for a handful of tasks and carry out those tasks (even if the carrying out part isn’t actually done by an LLM). So pedantically, it’s not AI, but most people not in tech don’t know or care about the difference. It’s all magic all the way down like how computers should just magically do what they’re thinking of. That’s not changed.

My point though, and this isn’t targeting you specifically dear OC, is that we can circlejerk all we want here, but echoing this oversimplification of what LLMs can do is pretty irrelevant to the bigger discourse. Call these companies out on their practices! Their hypocrisy! Their indifference to the collapse of our biosphere, human suffering, letting the most vulnerable to hang high and dry!

Tech is a tool, and if our best argument is calling a tool useless when it’s demonstrably useful in specific ways, we’re only making a fool of ourselves, turning people away from us and discouraging others from listening to us.

But if your goal is to feel good by letting one out, please be my guest.

Peace

No offense to you, but I’m assuming your mention of integrals here are those that you’d frequently encounter in a regular course of calculus in the English-speaking world (little tidbit that I came across a while ago is that universities in a number of countries don’t make a distinction between real analysis and calculus). But I studied in NA, so I can come at your ask from this angle.

To make it perfectly clear though: real analysis (and some beyond) and calculus are looking at the same thing, but coming at it from different angles. Calculus focuses on what’s computable, to have the ability to look at how real values (as in, real numbers) change given a particular function. OTOH, real analysis is, as the name suggests, a study of real numbers, this nebulous idea of “distance between numbers along with other distance-y properties” that we call a space, and the functions that can act in this space.

Here’s an example of the difference in treatment.

In calculus, the idea of differentiability is usually introduced as “the tangent at a point”. And that’s a fairly easily understood idea, and it’s fine to gloss over the details when most of the functions that you will come across and use are going to be differentiable functions.

In real analysis, which is usually an early class in pure mathematics, the treatment is a lot more rigourous: you have to very explicitly define what something is, and it becomes your framework to prove that something IS the thing you’ve defined. The “tangent on a point” isn’t lost, but the way it’s described leaves you with no space for vague interpretations of what’s considered differentiable or not.

The same goes for integrability. And yes there are different ways to think about inevitability to expand on the types of functions that would be considered integrable. In calculus, the Riemannian method is likely the only method that one will ever see. And that’s fine! It’s easy, if not tedious, to compute! And it’s already incredibly useful. Most functions that a student in calculus will ever have to integrate are all continuous anyways.

But Lesbesgue was able to create a definition of an integral that allows us to handle even certain non-continuous functions. The problem? It’s not as easily computable as there isn’t all the derivative rules common in calculus (calculus is a “method of calculation”), even though the intuitive intepretation of the Lesbesgue integral is that instead of slicing the area under the curve downwards, you slice sidewards!

Hopefully that’s easy enough to follow, but let me know if you’d like me to explain further. Trying to grok this old part of my brain here for this.

Edit: I’m adding this on because I think I may have just recalled a very fundamental knowledge with regards to measure theory, that all non-negative functions defined in some measurable space are all integrable using the measure. To be really fair, we straight up just defined integrability to be that, because, and I’m being veeeerrry handwavy here, if you can measure parts of the range of a function in smaller pieces in some way, then you could just add the parts up. A measurable space as just some space where you can put some kind of measurement (think of how you measure things) on a collection of points in some space, think a bunch of numbers.

How easily can we make up methods of calculation that would allow us to take any such function, apply some symbolic manipulation, and arrive at the integral, though, is a completely different ask, and I don’t yet know if there’s effort being put in here.

Oh! I know something that can mess you up even more!

For those who don’t know what this book’s about:

The textbook “Principles of Mathematical Analysis”, by Walter Rudin, is considered a “classic” text on real analysis, the subject that uses rigorous deductive logic to put calculus on a firm foundation.

This book is lovingly called “Baby Rudin”, because it’s considered an entry-level book that undergraduates can take in their first 3 years, and Rudin also wrote 2 more books that are a large extension of the basic ideas in Baby Rudin, as in, more advanced, covering topics like Measure Theory (one way this is useful is as a framework to have more ways to deal with integrals) and Lesbesgue Integration (and this is an introductory example and application of Measure Theory) in “Papa Rudin”, and Functional Analysis in “Grandpa Rudin” (fancy phrase of the day: infinite-dimensional spaces!).

Please don’t ask further though. Many tears have been shed. Many trees were also harmed in the process (from all the papers that were used for sketching out ideas or proofs).