LadyButterfly she/her@piefed.blahaj.zone to Memes@sopuli.xyzEnglish · 1 month agoCan anyone confirm?piefed.cdn.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square158fedilinkarrow-up1774arrow-down115
arrow-up1759arrow-down1imageCan anyone confirm?piefed.cdn.blahaj.zoneLadyButterfly she/her@piefed.blahaj.zone to Memes@sopuli.xyzEnglish · 1 month agomessage-square158fedilink
minus-squarejsomae@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up18arrow-down1·1 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-up10arrow-down3·1 month agoThere’s no financial incentive big subatomic has for pretending its particles are happy, though.
minus-squareEcho Dot@feddit.uklinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-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.
big if true
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.