LadyButterfly she/her@piefed.blahaj.zone to Memes@sopuli.xyzEnglish · 26 days agoCan anyone confirm?piefed.cdn.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square155fedilinkarrow-up1748arrow-down111
arrow-up1737arrow-down1imageCan anyone confirm?piefed.cdn.blahaj.zoneLadyButterfly she/her@piefed.blahaj.zone to Memes@sopuli.xyzEnglish · 26 days agomessage-square155fedilink
minus-squarejsomae@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up16arrow-down1·25 days agoYou sound like the people in my chemistry class who say things like “don’t describe subatomic particles as happy when they’re in low-energy states.”
minus-squareSteve Dice@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12arrow-down2·25 days agoThere’s no financial incentive big subatomic has for pretending its particles are happy, though.
minus-squareSteve Dice@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·24 days agoFunny. But that’s not how the market works.
minus-squareEcho Dot@feddit.uklinkfedilinkarrow-up3arrow-down1·24 days agoWell given the names of quarks I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that a particle could be happy. After all apparently a particle can be strange, so why not happy.
You sound like the people in my chemistry class who say things like “don’t describe subatomic particles as happy when they’re in low-energy states.”
There’s no financial incentive big subatomic has for pretending its particles are happy, though.
I’m sure OOP works for big AI. /s
Funny. But that’s not how the market works.
Well given the names of quarks I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that a particle could be happy. After all apparently a particle can be strange, so why not happy.