LadyButterfly she/her@piefed.blahaj.zone to Memes@sopuli.xyzEnglish · 1 month agoCan anyone confirm?piefed.cdn.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square164fedilinkarrow-up11.05Karrow-down116
arrow-up11.03Karrow-down1imageCan anyone confirm?piefed.cdn.blahaj.zoneLadyButterfly she/her@piefed.blahaj.zone to Memes@sopuli.xyzEnglish · 1 month agomessage-square164fedilink
minus-squarejsomae@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up21arrow-down2·1 month 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-up14arrow-down3·1 month agoThere’s no financial incentive big subatomic has for pretending its particles are happy, though.
minus-squareSteve Dice@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 month agoFunny. But that’s not how the market works.
minus-squareEcho Dot@feddit.uklinkfedilinkarrow-up3arrow-down1·1 month 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
big if true
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.