• Sabin10@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    6 months ago

    Reminds me of a guy I worked with. He even started the occasional sentence with “contrary to fact” before telling me you can order super powerful quantum computers on Ali express that can run your entire steam library concurrently.

    • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      run your entire steam library concurrently.

      What’s hilarious about this assertion, is what the intersection of quantum computing and conventional gaming would look like. Quantum is, roughly, all about taking a vast array of possible outcomes for a system and collapsing all of that into a single, highly probable, result*. So running a game through a quantum computer would effectively “solve” it. So, enjoy watching the most statistically likely ending for every AAA game out there - no controller required.

      (* “In linear time.” Which is fancy computer science talk for “many orders of magnitude faster than the conventional way.” But you still have to stack the math to make this work, which isn’t always easy or possible.)

      • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s not what a “game” is. A “game” has interactivity and would not be solved by the computer automatically

        • pantyhosewimp@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yeah, I’m picturing 500 headless window processes that – if you connected to them with a display – would show a different game screen variation of “press any key to start “.

          • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            That’s kind of where I was going with this. I suppose human input itself could be solved using some quantum function, but the statistical average of all human input would probably not yield a successfully completed game. At least, if achievement metrics on Steam are anything to go by.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      That’s not how quantum computers work. They’d be terribly bad at doing the things that transistor-based computers do. They are run in a completely different way.

      • saltesc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Life races on, I have fewer and fewer hours in the day to game, and my Steam library is getting to 200 like I’m getting to 40. Hook me the fuck up Ali Express.

        • entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          I had the Humble Bundle monthly subscription for a year. I’m at over 500 games with no hope to ever play them all, let alone best them.

          • saltesc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            Make sure your will hands the catalogue onto someone that will appreciate it. Mine’s going to my goddaughter. She’s only 14 but she fucking understands this shit and the value of it all. Hell of a legacy to just mistakingly let die off into the digital aether.

      • epyon22@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        the bigger question seems to be that apparently those super powerful quantum computers run x86_64 architecture. Not sure its support for quantum commands though, seems like a waste of money just for the “quantum” name

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Well in fairness, a quantum computer would probably be more like a GPU - you’d still need a CPU, and you’d use it to control the quantum piece for specific tasks

          Quantum code is extremely different, we don’t know how to write it well yet. Quantum processors are also only suitable for certain problems - they’re not faster, they can just take a problem with a definite answer and skip looking through the problem space to collapse into a solution

          It would be insane to rewrite an os for a far less efficient, hundreds of thousands of times more expensive quantum CPU than to just attach it to a normal computer

          So a quantum computer would very likely use x64 Linux, and if so could probably run games… Except who knows if it even would even have integrated graphics, it would probably only ever be used as a server so that many people can queue up tasks… at least until we have several nobel-award worthy breakthroughs

  • Scratch@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    My favourite thing is that guy wondering when Rage Against The Machine got so political.

    • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      6 months ago

      And Tom Morello saying he wasn’t aware they had any non-political songs and would remove any he found.

      • psud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I was a green day fan when they were new. You couldn’t possibly follow them without knowing their politics, it’s not like they sucked you in with pot then hit you with politics, it was politics, pot, and unsuccessful love the whole time

  • Hikermick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    About 13 years ago I had a debate with a friend about some political thing. He repeated something from the media (AM radio) I knew was BS so I told him I’d email him evidence to the contrary, he told me he’d send evidence in support. I sent him a mountain of evidence but never heard from him. The next time we met I brought it up he told me he didn’t have time to read my email, his body language said otherwise. That’s when I realized it was a cult

    • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Something I find funny - uncanny even - is how easily the roles swap. If someone sent you a mountain of ‘evidence’ for a flat earth or magnetising vaccines, and you threw it out saying obviously it’s BS and you can’t be bothered to read it, the internet would agree and laud you for common sense.

      But OP-of-the-tweet sends her friend two ‘sources’ and we all agree the friend is an idiot for not believing the ‘facts’.

      I suppose what it means is, quantity of evidence isn’t useless, but is only part of the search for knowledge.

  • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I have a cousin who is 100% convinced that the US government or someone is hiding anti-gravity from everyone. Something about wheel manufacturers having a chokehold on the world.

  • dumpsterlid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Facts don’t change people’s minds because most people wield them rhetorically as thinly veiled appeals to authority.

    At the end of the day, facts are meaningless themselves. Facts are the residue science leaves behind but the living process of science is one of skepticism.

    We let oil companies steal the word “skepticism” and change it from meaning the process of learning something extremely well but still retaining doubt along with a curious impulse to question deeply held beliefs about said thing… to meaning someone has just decided impulsively not to believe something in favor of some random conspiracy theory they found on the ground next to them.

    Often I think the best defense of science isn’t to lay down a barrage of facts but to jump into the exciting and curious aspects of the particular science and overpower the conspiracies with the truth that has far more weird details anyways. Convey how weird, strange and mysterious the real scientific truth is, imbue it with the energy of the unknown while still being careful to keep sticking to the real science.

    It is that emotional experience that people desire that leads them to believing in conspiracies and I think in some strange way it isn’t that different from the emotional experience of being a scientist driven by the weird mysteries they keep uncovering.

    A lot of people turn to conspiracies and dumb ideas because they want to feel like there is something more to the world around them than meets the eye (even if it is sinister). Meeting that energy with facts doesn’t work because it is like trying to smush desire away with banality.

      • dumpsterlid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I’m definitely not just a dog on the internet pretending to be human and know human things like taxes and science and where kibbles come from, get off my tail and bark up a different tree bud.

        laps up some coffee with tongue

      • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Nah mate they’re plain facts and anyone who disagrees is an idiot who hasn’t even read Winston*

        *Tried to type Einstein but GBoard decided Winston was better. OK Google.

    • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Facts are the residue science leaves behind

      I like this! Actually I like your whole comment. I think a lot of time people wield knowledge, even (approximately) true and helpful knowledge, with selfishness or pointlessness.

  • CileTheSane
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    But if he did change his mind after reading your sources he would have disproved the sources.

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      6 months ago

      One of the biggest general things is giving them a graceful out.

      One of the biggest markers of an intelligent person is the ability to accept they were wrong about something and update their world view. This leads them to finding the best understanding they currently can, rather than the first that stuck.

      For most people this is extremely hard. If you also put them in a position where they feel like an idiot if they agree with you, many will just dig their heels in. Once this happens, the more you push the more they dig in. It has become part of their identity, and you are attacking it.

      Unfortunately, the details about how to guide someone through are different depending on the person. Generally you want to align your new knowledge with their mindset, give them a good reason why they held their previous view, and how updating it improves them.

      It’s analogous to clearing sand with a hose Vs a sledge hammer. The sledge hammer will often compact the sand, rather than move it. Water can wash it away, but the process is slower. It also gets harder if it’s previously been pounded with the hammer.

      And rereading my word salad, I’ve got no idea how helpful it actually is as advice, but I’ll post it anyway, in case it’s actually useful to someone.

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      Belief is social. If you can appeal to a group they have membership in, they’re more likely to switch. If it sounds like you’re a member of an out group, you’re going to struggle.

      So like if you’re trying to get a evangelical to stop littering, framing it as like Jesus told us to shepherd the earth will probably work better than saying anything about scientists.

      Also if you’re trying to get someone to, like, stop believing in qanon, you’re probably going to need to get them to leave that group. If they keep hanging out on those forums and groups, the brain is going to treat you coming with facts similar to how it would treat a threat to its physical safety. The brain really strongly prioritizes group membership. Probably because in prehistory, getting kicked from the group was extremely dangerous. If you can get them to no longer see the other cultists as their primary group, the transition is easier.

      • psud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s it. You can convert someone from a nutty belief better by inviting them to your social group’s events than by telling them they’re wrong.

        Nearly no one’s a flat earther because it makes sense; they’re there because it makes friends

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      If the past 10 years have told me anything, by being a large hard-right media conglomerate consistently pounding the same facts as the reason for everyone’s fear, unifying desperate people against a windmill you propped up yourself.

    • 🐑🇸 🇭 🇪 🇪 🇵 🇱 🇪🐑@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Unfortunately you need them to learn before being exposed to misinformation, 90% of the time.

      Only an extremely small percentage of the population is receptive to accepting new information. Even smart individuals struggle with that (See also: Albert Einsteins inability to accept Quantum Physics)

  • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    He was still right. Those studies undoubtedly showed that a majority of the sample would not, but there certainly were some that did, and those swayed minds contribute to a population’s general shift in opinion.

    Further, someone might not change their minds on one topic but could be open on others.