[-] bucho@lemmy.one 50 points 9 months ago

I love this guy's channel. Two of my other favorite things he's done are: Uppest Case / Lowest Case, and that time he Reverse Emulated a NES.

[-] bucho@lemmy.one 8 points 9 months ago

Not even anywhere near that long. There have been humans for probably more than 200,000 years. Probably more. It gets confusing when you go back that far. But our written history only accounts for maybe 10,000 of those years. So 5% of total human history, if we take the minimum estimate of what it takes for us to be human. We have no evidence to support the fact that human advancement even lasts as long as written history. I mean, shit... the Romans had central heating and cement, and then they died out and we forgot how to do those things for 1,000 years. Our knowledge, and the acquisition of same is not exactly linear. Lots of fits and starts over the course of the various human civilizations that have occurred.

[-] bucho@lemmy.one 7 points 9 months ago

'Cause I'm drunk on a Thursday (Friday very early in the morning), and I've lost control of my life.

[-] bucho@lemmy.one 17 points 9 months ago

MLA format would be something like this:

Maneuver, The Picard. The Delusion. Picard, 2023.

Then, in your paper, to reference it, just write "(Maneuver 2023)".

[-] bucho@lemmy.one 43 points 9 months ago

Translation: Bjørn Gulden is putting out feelers to see if Kanye is still universally hated for his antisemitic comments so he can decide whether it would be a good business decision to reinstate the Yeezy line.

[-] bucho@lemmy.one 9 points 9 months ago

My bad! Another classic. Mel Brooks just does not miss.

[-] bucho@lemmy.one 25 points 9 months ago

Is it fair to say that Mel Brooks movies are uncommon now? Have they gotten old enough that people today are generally ignorant of them? If so, "Blazing Saddles", "History of the World: Part 1", "Young Frankenstein", and "Spaceballs" are incredibly worthy of a watch.

[-] bucho@lemmy.one 33 points 9 months ago
[-] bucho@lemmy.one 15 points 10 months ago

I think that, in the moment, online arguments can feel extremely real and heated. But, then you go out and do other things, and it becomes less and less important over time.

Of course, then you come back and find a notification from one of those morons you've been arguing with, and then you're right back in it. So I guess just practice? Like, just keep reminding yourself that it doesn't actually matter, even if it feels like it does.

Also, shrooms help. I remember I got into a heated snit with some idiot online an hour or so before eating a bunch of caps. Then, when I was trying to explain what the argument was about to one of my friends, I couldn't finish because hearing myself explain it became apparent just how ridiculous the entire thing was. I think psychedelics just give you perspective that you're lacking in your normal day-to-day life.

[-] bucho@lemmy.one 33 points 10 months ago

I saw a loaf of Rosemary Focaccia on sale the other day, and it occurred to me that "Rosemary Focaccia" is a great drag name.

[-] bucho@lemmy.one 47 points 10 months ago

Hah! Bet that'll go over a treat with that crowd.

1
submitted 11 months ago by bucho@lemmy.one to c/math@lemmy.ml

So I'm gearing up to take a calculus 1 exam, and this question is on the sample test. My initial thought was that since we are looking for F(9), and F(x) is an antiderivative of f(x), I can just use the integral of the equation of f(x) at 9, which is f(x) = -2x/3 + 5, which, when integrated, becomes -x^2/3 + 5x + 2 (C = 2 because F(0) = 2). Thing is, though, that won't give me any of the answers listed. And even after taking the integral of all of the equations of f(x), I still have no idea how to produce any of the answers in the multiple choice.

I'm super stumped on this one. Any help would be welcome!

view more: next ›

bucho

joined 1 year ago