lennivelkant

The "Contain, Verify, Explain Foundation", dedicated to the study of and protection against cyber-anomalies

I find that hard to beelieve

Satin undies?

Close. Soiled undies.

His point there is to complicate things, to be an advocate for the opposite side in order to show nuance – Note that he remarks that he usually teaches the traditional narrative as well

Is it me or does that post author name look like a lot of the bots named "WordWordNumber"?

Edit: let me rephrase. Your original comment didn't mention what you did. You made a snide remark about reading comprehension when you didn't even reread your own comment. That's just hostile for no reason.

-- Original reply:

Because that's what the other person asked. "Secluded myself" isn't really an answer. I can seclude myself counting leaves in the forest, lay down and stare at the ceiling, walk circles around my room and try to make them perfectly circular...

It's not that you have to tell; saying "I don't know" or "I'd rather not say" would be an answer too. But you made a snide remark regarding the other person's reading comprehension (why?) and fail to properly comprehend their question (or mine).

I'm autistic, which results in me deconstructing and analysing jokes instead of laughing (often to the displeasure of the people who think I didn't find their joke funny – I promise, if I'm taking the time to disassemble your joke that means I found it funny and want to understand why).

The flipside is that I occasionally crack out carefully engineered bangers, because I understand the importance of a setup, building expectations and putting the brain on one track of thought, then capping it off with the "derailing" of those expectations. The shorter you can get it, the less time the brain has to get off track on its own, diminishing that derailing effect.

Of course, getting the inspiration and figuring out a way to put that into practice is it's own unpredictable beast, and some jokes just fall flat despite my effort. Sometimes I misread the room or the audience too. I'm not a particularly talented comedian.

But at least I'm not a setup without a punchline.

A particularly nasty version of absurdism, more like. If nothing matters in the grand scheme, might as well go and make the best of your life. Except most people can still acknowledge that empathy does matter for your life at least, while he doesn't give a shit.

A definitional concession to make exponential series work. x^n^ for n ∈ (0, 1) is the nth root of x, which gets ever closer to 1, while x^n for n < 0 equals 1÷ (x^n^). Between them lies the neutral element with respect to multiplication 1 (neutral meaning that x × 1 = x; a factor of one doesn't actually change anything). Hence, x^0^ = 1.

That rule breaks down for x = 0, obviously. Negative exponents don't work at all because they're division by zero, while all exponents > 0 result in 0. Semantically, 0^0^ probably should be undefined, but the neutral element rule does provide a definition. There also isn't really any reasonable use case where you'd need that to be consistent with anything else.

...and what did you do while high?

Not me. I don't care. The version of me that I've got right now is alright, I'm in no hurry to "find myself". Either I'll come across myself by chance or it can't have been that important.

huffs excessive amounts of Copium

Notably, they won.

And Rome did it again, and they won again

If a Roman officer throws a standard at you, run.