depezblob

[depezblob]

fwiends…

[depezblob]

if you dislike ralsei i do not trust you

[depezblob]

I must spread the tiny Kris agenda

[depezblob]

"these researchers published a paper on something that literally any of us could have told you 🙄" ok well my supervisors wont let me write something in my thesis unless I can back it up with a citation so maybe it's a good thing that they're amplifying your voice to the scientific community in a way that prevents people from writing off your experiences as annecdotal evidence

[depezblob]

🤗 i dont like this emoji. this is not a hug to me. this is someone doing condescending jazz hands in my general direction when i am in need of affection. not comforting.

🫂 i love this emoji. this is a hug. we are hugging and its nice. and as a special bonus they appear to be my old friends from the msn messenger logo? very comforting.

[depezblob]

they should invent a bus that never gets stuck in traffic because it's on its own path separated from the roads. and then chain multiple of them together and put it on rails. has anyone had this idea before.

[depezblob]

Well, you know what they say; Rome was built in a day, and if you're going any slower than that, you're basically fucked with no hope at all

[depezblob]

normalize taking drugs just to fit in and make your friends think you're cool

[depezblob]

Let S be a bounded, convex, compact, well-defined set, tightly compressed, seasoned, smoked, strictly marinated, and covered with a layer of Worcestershire sauce. Then S is homeomorphic to any well-made dish.

[depezblob]

unbothered (it's saturday so there's almost no one at the office) moisturized (i drank coffee) happy (i do math) in my lane (compactified on my chair, not wearing shoes) focused (posting on tumblr while doing math) flourishing (self-explanatory)

[depezblob]

WHY does the Einstein summation notation exist?

[depezblob]

Related to the last post (about category theory). This is my absolute favourite definition ever: just don't worry about it 🫶

It's giving this:

[depezblob]

"kung pow penis," a phrase commonly used in reblogs to indicate utter disdain for OP, has twelve letters, each of which (traditionally) must be supplied by a different user. the unanimity of disdain indicated by these twelve unrelated users has strong parallels to the requirement of unanimity for a jury—also traditionally of twelve—to arrive at a verdict. in this essay i will

[depezblob]

the world is running out of glassblowers and yet you want to become a fucking doctor

[depezblob]

The point of Occam's razor is always and has always been that given two otherwise identical hypotheses, identical in the sense that their predictions and results are the same, you always take the less complex one. It's a rule to not overcomplicate a model: between a theory that a dice roll has a 1/6 chance to land on any number and a theory that a dice roll has 1/6 chance to call a random deity in the roman pantheon, each of whom are assigned a specific number, you always take the former because it involves less moving parts.

The part of the two hypotheses being identical is important, because simplicity alone is not an explanation of how something works, nor is it evidence of a hypothesis. The world is complicated and explaining how anything works requires a significant amount of legwork, and Occam's razor is so frequently misused to paint over the complexities and nuance of the world when different tests should be used.

so i dont reject occams razor or anything, there are situations where it has obvious utility, but it's very easy to use for self-deception. which explanation is simpler, more parsimonious, is often non-obvious. in particular, if youre disagreeing with someone about something, its likely they dont agree with you about which explantion is more parsimonious, so if you're going to argue from simplicity, you have to *make a case* for simplicity

[depezblob]

so i dont reject occams razor or anything, there are situations where it has obvious utility, but it's very easy to use for self-deception. which explanation is simpler, more parsimonious, is often non-obvious. in particular, if youre disagreeing with someone about something, its likely they dont agree with you about which explantion is more parsimonious, so if you're going to argue from simplicity, you have to *make a case* for simplicity

[depezblob]

Do y'all math fans ever feel like you don't have enough of yourself to give to the subject to ever be truly successful? Lol