Okay, but how is that related to the picture? That’s clearly a smol pup.

https://www.geeknative.com/122231/the-combat-wheelchair-spider-chair-comes-to-cyberpunk-red/

What do you mean by “CTA”? How don’t see how “Call to Action” is relevant in this context, seeing how it’s more of a UX design concern than a technical thing. Or does it have some other meaning that does not appear in Google’s first page of results and that ChatGPT is not aware of, and yet “Anyone worth any kind of respect” already implements?

Also, writing a GUI wrapper for a terminal-only program is much easier than writing a terminal wrapper for a GUI-only program.

i3 FTW

What I won’t accept is that for some reason, all the illustrations that depict this use the hospital wheelchair design. If you are an adventurer who goes into dungeons, you should be getting something that can handle that terrain better than a squeaky shopping cart. Go for the fantasy version of Professor X’ flying chair. Or at least get something with all-terrain wheels, and have them angled like the ones in the wheelchairs athletes use.

Most finite durations are longer than this.

Removed by mod

Is this Elon Musk’s cat?

Godel’s proof is about our inability to prove some theorems mathematically, but that does not mean we cannot prove them scientifically. Such proofs, of course, will suffer from the same problem all scientific proofs have - a certain probability that even though our model is wrong, somehow by pure chance our tests ended up showing otherwise (in technical term - non-zero p values)

except that part about not trying to prove the parts that are crucial for the scientific method… You are just wrong about that

I’m not saying that one must never attempt to prove these foundations. What I’m saying is that if you try to prove them empirically (as oppose to how they are usually proved - mathematically) using the scientific method, you will run into the circular reasoning fallacy:

     -----> foundations >------
    /                          \
 proves                      proves
    \                          /
     --< scientific method <---

we already have much better proofs demonstrating that true things exist without proof.

Isn’t this a contradiction? These “much better proofs” are proofs - which means that these “true things” are not “without proof”.

Also, I’m not sure what “things” you have in mind here, but I’m fairly certain they don’t “exist” in the same sense math does. Math exists in the same hard sciences do - any mathematical discovery, just like discoveries, is a rule that reality follows. Of course, I’m not implying that the mere formulation of this rule by human researchers is what gives it the power to govern the universe - we are just discovering laws that were already there.

Other things that are derived from human thought (rather than empirical evidence) and do not fall under the wide umbrella of math, don’t exist the same sense. You may claim that justice exists, but it’d be silly to expect the universe to obey to principles of justice. It won’t be silly to expect it to obey to mathematical principles.

Had @NoLifeGaming@lemmy.world brought something like justice as their example, we could have talked about the meaning of existence and what does it mean for God to exist in the same way justice exists. But they didn’t - and I really try to avoid formulating other people’s claims for them, because even if I get it right they may still find (or invent) some nuance I got slightly wrong, leverage that to claim I understand nothing about their philosophy, and derail the entire conversation to revolve around that.

They didn’t mention these other “true things” that “exist without empirical proof”. They mentioned math. And math can be proven empirically using material evidence and the scientific method (of course, you need to make sure you are not trying to prove the parts of math that are crucial for the scientific method itself, because then your proof will be circular…)

You can empirically prove math like you’d empirically prove other things - make predictions based on math and test these predictions. But it seems like you are expecting these proofs to be like mathematical proofs - uncompromising logic that leaves no room for getting false positives by chance. They won’t. They’ll be like all other empirical proofs - “mere” scientific theories that must forever live with the possibility - however improbable - that the universe somehow aligned to make all the predictions come true even though the hypothesis they were derived from is wrong.

But this is not a property of the math we were trying to prove. This is just the nature of the empirical proofs. Implying, based on that, that math is less verifiable than all the physical observable things (like frozen oxygen) is ridiculous - the proofs for these things suffer from the exact same problem!

Not every Palestinian, but the ones arrested for murder or attempted murder usually are.

This is not as nearly as bad as the old days of IE6’s tyranny. If anything, we should stick to FF now that the situation is still bearable - before it becomes completely unbearable.

May I interest about about switching to Arch Linux instead?

You mean the libertarian one? The anarcho-capitalist?

Cat can still run around the house like the maniac devil he is and slam into it.

One should expect that in a world where resurrection is a well known possibility, courts will take that into account. Even if it’s expensive and can only be performed by a selected few, the law should make sure that one cannot escape punishment by simply having money and connections.

Then again, when you look at our world…

Don’t underestimate cats. Unless the base is very wide (and not just long) a cat could still knock it over, even if what it stands on is not that “wobbly”. Especially if the cat gets the zoomies.

Correct - if it was just the stand, and there was no cat, that TV screen wouldn’t have been knocked over.

But… OP has a cat. He’s in the picture.