I've been using LaTeX for like the past 7 years and I still don't understand any of it but fortunately yeah you don't really need to have any deep knowledge of it for most stuff.
Still, I'd rather do my math with paper, pencil, ruler, and compass. More tactile, more visceral, more mine, it's something I did (and did right) not some soulless machine.
It's not fun anymore when it's just telling the computer to do stuff. Might as well automate art, acting, music, and screenplay-writing.
Still, I'd rather do my math with paper, pencil, ruler, and compass. More tactile, more visceral, more mine, it's something I did (and did right) not some soulless machine.
have you ever read an old paper where they did do it by hand
Just like how our problem in the present is figuring out the Albian and Aptian ages when so little of the fossil records remain from those 25 million years of history.
The cloverly formation is so fascinating, and so interesting. We got the first Nodosaurs (cousins of the Ankylosaurs, more spiky, but without the hammer-tails), and we find Deinonychus, and we find the Titanosaurs (the last of the great Sauropods).
If those living at the time had had any consideration, they woulda all died in tar pits and mummified themselves.
Ötzi the iceman was decent enough to die with all his clothes and tools, and the blood of at least three other people on his clothes and weapons. And, he died where he could conveniently be found and given to science.
Dude even made sure his tattoos would survive.
MVP of the ancient world, and a bit of an obsession of a young Aliroz.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Aliroz, I feel like you would appreciate TeX more if you knew that Dr. Knuth designed it because he actually preferred the look of 19th century hot meal typesetting to the phototypesetting of the 1970s and wanted to design software to make a computer render math notation as nicely as the old-timey hot metal type did
Ötzi the iceman was decent enough to die with all his clothes and tools, and the blood of at least three other people on his clothes and weapons. And, he died where he could conveniently be found and given to science.
Dude even made sure his tattoos would survive.
MVP of the ancient world, and a bit of an obsession of a young Aliroz.
You know what, I'd do it. Let's help out future science.
Anyways, Man o' War the horse. The greatest thoroughbred of his day, and one of the greatest of any day. Arguably the greatest racehorse ever, certainly the best racehorse not named Secretariat.
Raced twenty one major races and won twenty of them, losing once to a horse named Upset (popularizing, but probably not originating, the idiomatic use of "upset").
In Handicap races, the horses are judged and then assigned weights based on past performance and predicted future performance. Better horses carry more weight, and the idea is to make all the horses basically equal, so that any horse can win, because, you know, gambling. Uncertainty is kind of the point.
Man o' War set track sped records that weren't broken for decades (and even then were only broken by unweighted horses), while carrying over a hundred pounds of handicap weight; not just winning, but winning by incredible margins. They kept increasing the weight, and he kept winning, and it was just bonkers.
His last major race was the first horse race to be filmed in its entirety, in 1920, in which, as he was known to do, won.
Basically every thoroughbred these days can trace its lineage to Man o' War.
Terrible things sometimes don't seem real to me until days or weeks later. Like, I know that something awful happens intellectually, but it doesn't sink in to the level of bone-deep awareness for a long time.
Combine that lack of understanding with a lack of empathy with feeling overworked and overstressed, and I probably shouldn't comment on sensitive topics right now.
Terrible things sometimes don't seem real to me until days or weeks later. Like, I know that something awful happens intellectually, but it doesn't sink in to the level of bone-deep awareness for a long time.
Combine that lack of understanding with a lack of empathy with feeling overworked and overstressed, and I probably shouldn't comment on sensitive topics right now.
It's okay. You can talk to me about anything, anytime. :)
So, time for a trivia infodump. Some background for those who may be unfamiliar with Thoroughbred horse racing.
0) To win the triple crown, a horse must win the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness Stakes, and the Belmont Stakes in the same year.
1) The Kentucky Derby is held in Louisville, Kentucky, was started in 1875, and was originally 1.5 miles. 2) They shortened it to 1.25 miles in 1896. 3) It's called, "the most exciting two minutes in sports", although it would be more accurate to call it "the most exciting two-minutes-and-a-fifth-of-a-second to two-minutes-and-ten-seconds in sports unless it's 1897, 1899, 1905, 1907, 1908, 1918, 1928, or 1929, in which case it's the fastest 130 to 135.8 seconds in sports". 4) Originally counted in seconds, winning times started to be counted in fifth-of-a-second intervals in 1905, and centisecond intervals in 2001.
1) The Preakness Stakes, started in 1873, is two weeks after the Derby, and is at Baltimore, Maryland (a New England port at the opposite end of I-70 from Cove Fort). 2) Its length has repeatedly been changed, but ever since 1925 it's been 1 3/16 miles long. 3) Originally counted in quarter-second intervals, winning times started to be counted in fifth-of-a-second intervals in 1900, and centisecond intervals in 2002.
1) The Belmont Stakes, started in 1868, is three weeks after the Preakness, and is in Elmont County, New York. Get it? Belmont? Elmont? Bwahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 2) Like the Preakness, its length has been changed repeatedly. In 1926 it was standardized at 1.5 miles. 3) Originally counted in quarter-second intervals, winning times started to be counted in fifth-of-a-second intervals in 1904, and then in centisecond intervals in 1991, though 1902 was counted in fifth-of-a-second intervals because New York hates you and your consistent time-measuring patterns. 4) The Belmont also hates you, you arrogant horse, and the jockey who rode in on you. You thought you could win the triple crown just because you won the Derby and Preakness this year? Those are sprinter's races, this is a test of endurance. Mr. Endurance over here didn't do so well in the Derby, but this is what he's been waiting for, and you're gonna eat his dust, sucker.
So, in horse racing, if a horse has 2-to-1 odds, it means that, if you bet a dollar that he'll win, you get that dollar back and then another two (otherwise, you lose a dollar). If a horse has 3-to-5 odds, if you bet five dollars and you're right, you get them back and also three dollars (otherwise, you just lose five dollars).
EDIT: Fixed the description. Credit to Calica.
So, only twelve horses (also known as hosses, HAWSES, runfast talldudes, and snooooooooorfas) have ever won the triple crown.
The first Triple winner was Sir Barton. He set the world record for the Derby, Preakness, and Belmont in 1920, records that have since become little better than average, but hey, there's a reason why they thought this guy could maybe beat Man O' War (he couldn't). Sir Barton's SUPER SECRET WEAKNESS was hard ground. He was incredible on dirt, but hard tracks caused him hoof-pain because of a hoof injury in his hoof, which was once injured when he was kicked by a horse. I'm actually not making that last part up, apparently horses can kick horses in the hooves. I assume this is, like, some weird failed high-five attempt.
So, I've been thinking about the Wergild, the old Germanic man-price for insulting, harming, injuring, or killing someone. Wer is man, as in Werewolf or wereld, and Gild is gilt is gold is the german geld.
In darker periods of hate, I used to fantasize about just paying a man-price and not facing further consequences. No judgement or condemnation, no morals, just an exchange of value for worth. My headsnakes whispered that this world's justice wasn't going to do anything to the satirists, and somebody has to kill Richard Dawkins, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, et al. Can't win through words, can't convince anybody you're right, the only way to win is through hate. Care enough and burn enough Bridges and nobody can stop you. Gosh, those snakes are persuasive in certain moods.
The thing about the wergild is, the society that created it was stratified in such a way that certain people were literally worth more than others. You'd pay for crossing the powerful, much, much more than you would for harming the unfortunate. It was an unjust, cruel, and immoral system, not actually justice or order. Don't dwell on it.Today, power derives more from influence and charisma than brute force, butstill, it would be a futile gesture to take on the voices of the century, the Voltaires and Rousseaus and Benjamin Franklins and Kants and Humes and Diderots and Locked and Bacons of our day. Gotta hate. Hate. Haaaaaaaaaaaaate. Hate enough and maybe that play that bothers us so won't become the next Shakespeare, the next defining work of the language and culture. Hate enough and the people will shower you with praise. Time not spent hating is wasted!
Love, faith, and trust are more powerful than hate, fear, and pain. You're better than this. You can get through this. Be well. Forgive.
I sometimes wonder if it's weird how this thread jumps topics and emotional tones.
I mean, if I want to find my ramblings on English Kings, but then I find my ramblings on politics and my feelings and other pointless dreck, it isn't any fun; but if I want to resume a rant and pick up where I left up, but I find my overly-long math proofs and cheer myself up, it's a net gain.
I sometimes wonder if it's weird how this thread jumps topics and emotional tones.
I mean, if I want to find my ramblings on English Kings, but then I find my ramblings on politics and my feelings and other pointless dreck, it isn't any fun; but if I want to resume a rant and pick up where I left up, but I find my overly-long math proofs and cheer myself up, it's a net gain.
I feel somewhat similarly about my own thread, honestly.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Out of curiosity, what's your beef with medicinal marijuana?
I know you hate cannabis, but you strike me as the kind of gator who would want people to have more access to healthcare options, not less.
I used to be willing to concede that people shouldn't be forced to deal with seizures and other awful medical ailments when a perfectly harmless treatment could be used to help (especially considering that opioids are prescribed and can be very addictive), but, honestly, I have soured into a hateful little twit who sees medicinal use legality as an indicator of places where recreational use will inevitably be legalized.
In other words, I'm a jerk who hates by association and doesn't have the empathy to put the well-being of others above my own comfort, and would rather see things as a binary than accept that there should be nuance.
Comments
Still, I'd rather do my math with paper, pencil, ruler, and compass. More tactile, more visceral, more mine, it's something I did (and did right) not some soulless machine.
It's not fun anymore when it's just telling the computer to do stuff. Might as well automate art, acting, music, and screenplay-writing.
So should we die in tarpits? Maybe one a decade in contemporary clothes so the future can found paleofashion as well.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Raced twenty one major races and won twenty of them, losing once to a horse named Upset (popularizing, but probably not originating, the idiomatic use of "upset").
In Handicap races, the horses are judged and then assigned weights based on past performance and predicted future performance. Better horses carry more weight, and the idea is to make all the horses basically equal, so that any horse can win, because, you know, gambling. Uncertainty is kind of the point.
Man o' War set track sped records that weren't broken for decades (and even then were only broken by unweighted horses), while carrying over a hundred pounds of handicap weight; not just winning, but winning by incredible margins. They kept increasing the weight, and he kept winning, and it was just bonkers.
His last major race was the first horse race to be filmed in its entirety, in 1920, in which, as he was known to do, won.
Basically every thoroughbred these days can trace its lineage to Man o' War.
0) To win the triple crown, a horse must win the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness Stakes, and the Belmont Stakes in the same year.
1) The Kentucky Derby is held in Louisville, Kentucky, was started in 1875, and was originally 1.5 miles.
2) They shortened it to 1.25 miles in 1896.
3) It's called, "the most exciting two minutes in sports", although it would be more accurate to call it "the most exciting two-minutes-and-a-fifth-of-a-second to two-minutes-and-ten-seconds in sports unless it's 1897, 1899, 1905, 1907, 1908, 1918, 1928, or 1929, in which case it's the fastest 130 to 135.8 seconds in sports".
4) Originally counted in seconds, winning times started to be counted in fifth-of-a-second intervals in 1905, and centisecond intervals in 2001.
1) The Preakness Stakes, started in 1873, is two weeks after the Derby, and is at Baltimore, Maryland (a New England port at the opposite end of I-70 from Cove Fort).
2) Its length has repeatedly been changed, but ever since 1925 it's been 1 3/16 miles long.
3) Originally counted in quarter-second intervals, winning times started to be counted in fifth-of-a-second intervals in 1900, and centisecond intervals in 2002.
1) The Belmont Stakes, started in 1868, is three weeks after the Preakness, and is in Elmont County, New York. Get it? Belmont? Elmont? Bwahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
2) Like the Preakness, its length has been changed repeatedly. In 1926 it was standardized at 1.5 miles.
3) Originally counted in quarter-second intervals, winning times started to be counted in fifth-of-a-second intervals in 1904, and then in centisecond intervals in 1991, though 1902 was counted in fifth-of-a-second intervals because New York hates you and your consistent time-measuring patterns.
4) The Belmont also hates you, you arrogant horse, and the jockey who rode in on you. You thought you could win the triple crown just because you won the Derby and Preakness this year? Those are sprinter's races, this is a test of endurance. Mr. Endurance over here didn't do so well in the Derby, but this is what he's been waiting for, and you're gonna eat his dust, sucker.
EDIT: Fixed the description. Credit to Calica.
So, only twelve horses (also known as hosses, HAWSES, runfast talldudes, and snooooooooorfas) have ever won the triple crown.
The first Triple winner was Sir Barton. He set the world record for the Derby, Preakness, and Belmont in 1920, records that have since become little better than average, but hey, there's a reason why they thought this guy could maybe beat Man O' War (he couldn't). Sir Barton's SUPER SECRET WEAKNESS was hard ground. He was incredible on dirt, but hard tracks caused him hoof-pain because of a hoof injury in his hoof, which was once injured when he was kicked by a horse. I'm actually not making that last part up, apparently horses can kick horses in the hooves. I assume this is, like, some weird failed high-five attempt.
EDIT: wait, now that I read that again, yeah, you're right.
Also I know about wergild from King of Dragon Pass
I mean, if I want to find my ramblings on English Kings, but then I find my ramblings on politics and my feelings and other pointless dreck, it isn't any fun; but if I want to resume a rant and pick up where I left up, but I find my overly-long math proofs and cheer myself up, it's a net gain.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Must be Utah, a state bordering Utah, or a state bordering a state bordering Utah, where New Mexico counts as bordering Utah;
and
Medical and recreational marijuana must both be illegal.
As of now, there are only eight states I find acceptable.
In other words, I'm a jerk who hates by association and doesn't have the empathy to put the well-being of others above my own comfort, and would rather see things as a binary than accept that there should be nuance.