• 0 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 6th, 2025

help-circle



  • Okay, I’m starting to think this article doesn’t really know what it’s talking about…

    For most of modern computing history, however, analog technology has been written off as an impractical alternative to digital processors. This is because analog systems rely on continuous physical signals to process information — for example, a voltage or electric current. These are much more difficult to control precisely than the two stable states (1 and 0) that digital computers have to work with.

    1 and 0 are in fact representative of voltages in digital computers. Typically, on a standard IBM PC, you have 3.3V, 5V and 12V, also negative voltages of these levels, and a 0 will be a representation of zero volts while a 1 will be one of those specified voltages. When you look at the actual voltage waveforms, it isn’t really digital but analogue, with a transient wave as the voltage changes from 0 to 1 and vice versa. It’s not really a solid square step, but a slope that passes a pickup or dropoff before reaching the nominal voltage level. So a digital computer is basically the same as how they’re describing an analogue computer.

    I’m sure there is something different and novel about this study, but the article doesn’t seem to have a clue what that is.






  • Hard disagree. Physical buttons with a digital temperature and split controls for left and right (and maybe rear as well). Automatic climate control that also does the fans. I had all of this on a car in 2010, and it was perfect - I could just leave the temperature set at what I wanted all the time, and the fans would blow hard if it needed to heat or cool significantly to get there.

    Some manufacturer’s, eg Volvo, don’t automatically adjust the fans, which is wank. But nothing is as wank as touch screen controls - I fucking hate it when you’re trying to aim at a button, then as you go in to press the car bumps and you completely miss.






  • Yeah, I mean you never explicitly stated it wasn’t the fault of the Israeli’s here. But I think that is still implied by what you said, and that’s why people are raging against you.

    There’s a nuanced issue here about fault and responsibility, I think. The Israelis are absolutely at fault for any mistreatment of Greta (or any prisoner), and the Israelis are responsible for their actions, but Greta is also responsible for putting herself in harm’s way. However, Greta isn’t necessarily at fault for doing so, and furthermore her responsibility for her own actions must in no way detract from the responsibility nor fault by the Israeli forces.

    Responsibility isn’t portioned out in percentages. Someone can be 100% responsible for something, but someone else can also have some responsibility. However, fault is portioned out, and a victim is in no way at fault for the fault of their attacker.

    But your original point was that Greta “provoked” the Israelis. This is you implying fault. And I don’t think you can reasonably justify this assumption.





  • Their point is right there taking up half the comment:

    being a conservative mean those who in politics uphold the value of tradition, oppose any progressive ideology, and aim to preserve traditional social and political structures

    In other words, they’re “conserving” traditional values.

    However this isn’t really true, and @Lumisal@lemmy.world is correct that this isn’t really what they’re doing. It’s how they think they’re behaving, but they have a distorted view on history and see it through rose tinted glasses, often trying not to conserve but to “restore” society to some half-cocked version that never really existed.