I genuinely can’t tell if this is a joke or not , but I really hope it is because its so perfect

fun fact : the angle is now around 3" 26’ which is just slightly over ¹/₂₀ of a degree !

not entirely sure but this doesn’t feel like something the fsf would like . most definetly it violates freedoms 0. because it discriminates against companies with over 5 M$ in income and against people living in Japan (see 2.14 , though I’m not sure its enough to qualify) , and possibly by restricting what you can do with the software , though I’m not sure on that one . it also violates freedoms 2. and 3. by requiring publicly releasing your changes (fsf requires that free software licenses allow for private modifications) and possibly by requiring contacting the licensor or the post-open administration though I’m unsure of if it does (entering into a post-open source zero-cost / paid contract seems to me to imply contacting either the licensor or the post-open administration) .

further reading :

• gnu’s list of licenses with comments , including why a license is considered non-free
• GNU’s article defining free software
• boring cactus’s blog . not explicitly related but on topic and I agree with it

oopsie :3

my mistake was using the sum of angles in a triangle which was kinda dum but whatever . I also tried calculating via the circumstance of a circle placed at a pole where π was 20x smaller for the case I was using but its not linear so I looked deeper which was a big mistake .

BTW the ratio of circumstance to radius for a circle which is also an equator of the space is ¼ not 1 (r=½π₀ , C=2π₀) .

deleted by creator

Better question: What curvature of space is necessary for the apparent value of π to be 5?

~~honestly I don’t know if there is any way to measure curvature of space , but its slightly more curved than the surface of a ball (where π=_4.712)~

edit : its more complex than that and topology of non euclidean spaces hurts

minor nitpick but the value of π is technically a parameter of the space you are operating in . which means it can have any arbitrary value as long as you are willing to operate in non euclidean spaces (and the space we live in is not euclidean though not to a measurable extent unless you are near a black hole)

but yeah in this context saying π is a constant is as correct as saying you cant take a square root out of a negative number .

edit : possibly better example is that a triangle’s angles sum to 180°

I am doubtfull of LLMs ability to preform tasks via a protocol layer as described . from my experience these models really struggle with understanding rules and preforming actions within a ruleset .

To experimentally confirm my suspicions, I created the following prompt :

I have given this prompt to ChatGPT and it has failed in quite substantial ways . While I only have access to ChatGPT 3.5 , from my understanding of LLM architecture , it does not follow that increasing the size of the number or size of the layers will necessary let it overcome these issues , it does not seem to be able to understand the current state of the agent (picking up two objects at once , taking items from wrong cells etc)

No its microsofts database GUI program that’s part of Microsoft Office . imagine software made for users who have a vague understanding of SQL and visual basic but then an exec. forced the designers and devs to make it accessible to everyone while giving them barely any teamembers causing a fuckton of technical debt and unintuitive quirks , making anyone who opens the software feel like they have just been placed in a highly equipped tank , in front of a wall of unlabeled levers and told to drive the tank , or at least that’s how I view it.

(reposting from another account sorry if you see both comments)

I mean yeah it is very overblown , sorry I did not make it clear

honestly , while I believe this is random=funny, I think it is interesting to interpret:

I believe that the person is a transmasc individual , who had a supportive grandma , but she died and he has been sent to conversion therapy by his unsupportive parents

While your comment is from three days ago, I thought its worth answering anyway. Please note that my main goal here is to answer your question, not to argue for or against either their or your position. I also would rather not to explain basics of socialist ideas, so if you have questions that are not that related to the interaction between socialist, specifically marxist, beliefs and cryptocurrencies, I ask you use your preferred search engine instead. For disclosure: my main lemmy account is over on lemmygrad.

Aside from common issues people find with cryptocurrencies, though note that socialists are likely progressives thus issues such as the environmental impact of proof standards may have a higher weight for them, many socialists, including marxists, which that user likely is, looking at the instance choice, may find the reasoning behind cryptocurrencies, to be limited in scope, specifically focusing on how financial resources are managed and who controls aspects of it, while socialists, especially marxists, usually find issue with how finance encourages seeking profit, which, according to socialist/marxist beliefs, is a negative way of organizing the world around us.

In other words, communists don’t consider decentralizing finance to be an effective way to take back control over the means of production from the capitalist class, as it does not address the unequal distribution of wealth, which socialists take issue with.