LadyButterfly she/her@piefed.blahaj.zone to Memes@sopuli.xyzEnglish · 22 天前Can anyone confirm?piefed.cdn.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square164fedilinkarrow-up11.04K
arrow-up11.04KimageCan anyone confirm?piefed.cdn.blahaj.zoneLadyButterfly she/her@piefed.blahaj.zone to Memes@sopuli.xyzEnglish · 22 天前message-square164fedilink
minus-squarejsomae@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up21·21 天前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.”
minus-squareSteve Dice@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up14·21 天前There’s no financial incentive big subatomic has for pretending its particles are happy, though.
minus-squareSteve Dice@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·20 天前Funny. But that’s not how the market works.
minus-squareEcho Dot@feddit.uklinkfedilinkarrow-up3·21 天前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.
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.