After careful forensic analysis, I have concluded the entire thing was created by a single person. I call this the One Author Theory (OAT). Let me present to you OAT's evidence.

First, notice almost every tally is similar to its immediate neighbors. They have the same color and the same thickness. This suggests the tallies were all made with the same marker and with similar techniques.

We can see similar techniques elsewhere. First, notice that each category has tallies. Then, within each category (for example shit), focus on the rightmost tallies. Notice that the tallies tend to curve in a similar way. This suggests those tallies were created under similar conditions, with a similar technique.

You may have noticed that the piss tallies are thicker and straighter than the jerk it tallies. This may suggest my One Author theory is wrong, but my theory does incorporate this fact. The fact is explained by a change in technique. Therefore, the OAT cannot stand on its own. It requires another theory to grab onto. This other theory is the Progressive Degradation of Commitment (PDC) Theory.

I will now give evidence for the PDC Theory. Notice the shit category. Its topmost row has a consistent left-to-right pattern. The tallies become smaller and smaller. They also become curved at the end. This suggests a consistent loss of commitment.

The PDC Theory appears to struggle with the jerk it category. After all, the bottom row starts with small tallies and progressively has its tallies grow tall and straight. This we shall call the Jerk It Anomaly (JIA). However, concluding that the JIA proves that the PDC Theory fails is incorrect. If one uses the PDC Theory correctly, it can actually explain the JIA.

How? First, we need to remember that the PDC Theory shouldn't be limited to rows. We saw an example of this when PDC Theory explained piss' thickness in relation to jerk it's thickness. In other words, PDC Theory can scale. It can explain rows of tallies but it can also explain columns of categories. So, if we apply PDC Theory to the entire work, we can assume that the entirety of the last column (jerk it) was built with little commitment. The author could've been pressured for time. It is reasonable to speculate that the author felt a sudden urge to attend to his unfinished business, be it pissing, vaping, shitting, or jerking it. In either case, the PDC Theory comes out intact.

Ultimately, the OAT uses the PDC Theory to address validity threats like the JIA. The author may have attempted to dupe us into thinking the census was representative of a population. However, the One Author Theory lets us see that the author's work is more representative of his purposes, capabilities, and proclivities.

It's important to note that this does not necessarily reduce the author's merit and the piece's impact. Future studies could evaluate to what extent this apparent census creates a sense of community and connection in the bathroom-stall goers. I, for one, would appreciate going to the bathroom and finding this piece. I wouldn’t necessarily appreciate vaping or jerking it, but I would appreciate shitting or pissing next to it.

This post tickles a fond memory of mine. I was talking to a right-wing libertarian, and he said there should be no research done ever if it couldn't prove beforehand its practical applications. I laughed out loud because I knew how ignorant and ridiculous that statement was. He clearly had never picked up a book on the history of science, on the history of these things:

• quantum mechanics. It would be a shame if the poor libertarian didn't have semiconductors in his phone, or if he didn't have access to lasers for his LASIK surgery (which he actually did have), both of which are technologies built by basic research that didn't have practical applications in mind.
• electromagnetism. It would be a shame if the poor libertarian was having his LASIK surgery and the power went out without there being a generator, a technology built by basic research that didn't have practical applications in mind.
• X-rays. It would be a shame if the poor libertarian didn't have x-rays to check the inside of his body in case something went wrong, a technology built by basic research that didn't have practical applications in mind.
• superconductivity. It would be a shame if the poor libertarian didn't have superconductors for an MRI to check the inside of his body in case something went wrong, a technology built by basic research that didn't have practical applications in mind.
• radio waves. It would be a shame if the poor libertarian didn't have radio waves for his phone and computer's wifi and bluetooth to run his digital business, technologies built by basic research that didn't have practical applications in mind.

If you're going to download it, try the torrent option! That way, you can give back to the community that gives you LibreOffice.

I see that she’s female-presenting and white, but I guess the point is that she’s incompetent. If so, what’s the context? /c/OutOfTheLoop

I MISSED THE EQUIVALENT OF PLACE IN LEMMY? Does anyone have context?

Edgy meme: agile bad

NASA: "Yep, we use agile" https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160006387/downloads/20160006387.pdf?attachment=true

Your comparison is interesting, but let's consider some historical facts. The Apollo program, which successfully put humans on the moon, actually employed many principles we now associate with Agile methodologies.

Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't a straightforward Waterfall process. NASA used frequent feedback (akin to daily Scrums), self-organizing teams, stable interfaces so that teams are an independent path to production, and iterative development cycles - core Agile practices. In fact, Mariana Mazzucato's book Mission Economy provides fascinating insights into how the moon landing project incorporated elements remarkably similar to modern Agile approaches. Furthermore, here's a NASA article detailing how Agile practices are used to send a rover to the moon: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160006387/downloads/20160006387.pdf?attachment=true

While it's true that building rockets isn't identical to software development, the underlying principles of flexibility, collaboration, and rapid iteration proved crucial to the missions' success. Programs like the Apollo program adapted constantly to new challenges, much like Agile teams do today.

Regarding Kanban and Scrum, you're right that they fall under the Agile umbrella. However, each offers unique tools that can be valuable in different contexts, even outside of software.

Perhaps instead of dismissing Agile outright for hardware projects, we could explore how its principles might be adapted to improve complex engineering endeavors. After all, if it helped us reach the moon and, decades later, send rovers to it, it might have more applications than we initially assume.

1. Of course, people should donate to make Lemmy sustainable.
2. I recognize that this is true of any website that is not enshitified or, more broadly, is designed to maximize profits. Websites made with libre software are the public libraries of the internet!

Masturbation is totally normal and healthy, and you're spot on that it shouldn't be demonized or shamed. In men, it might even reduce the risk of prostate cancer.

At the same time, it's important to have a balanced and psychologically flexible relationship with masturbation and sexuality. As psychologist Steven Hayes, a leading expert on psychological flexibility, explains: getting too fixated on any one activity or coping mechanism, even a healthy one, can lead to psychological inflexibility if it is used to avoid experiencing your life fully (For a thorough explanation of how this works, feel free to check out A Liberated Mind by Steven Hayes). Psychological inflexibility here means getting stuck in rigid behavior patterns to the point that it messes with living a full and meaningful life.

So while I'm totally with you that masturbation is healthy and that bullshit social taboos against it should be rejected, it's also good to be mindful about your motivation behind doing it. Are you doing it because you're escaping pain? Or are you doing it because it aligns with your values and makes your life meaningful? If you rely on masturbation too much and don't have ways of accepting your emotions and connecting with the world, it could potentially tip into unhelpful psychological rigidity and a frustrating life. The key is to be able to experience masturbation while still staying flexible enough to show up fully for the rest of your life too.

It’s about time Instagram enshittifies in a grotesque way, grotesque enough for people to realize it’s shit (because it’s enshittified).

It actually took me a while to realize he was not wearing the clothes of a McDonald's worker.

I think the way to formally prove this is to find the difference between the Fibonacci approximation and the usual conversion, and then to find whether that series is convergent or not. Someone who has taken the appropriate pre-calculus or calculus course could actually carry it out :P

However, I got curious about graphing it for distances "small enough" like from Earth to the sun (150 million km). Turns out, there's always an error, but the error doesn't seem to be growing. In other words, except for the first few terms, the Fibonacci approximation works!

This graph grabs each "Fibonacci mile" and converts it to kilometers either with the usual conversion or the Fibonacci-approximation conversion. I also plotted a straight line to see if the points deviated.

Edit: Here's another graph

So it turns out:

• Fibonacci-approximated kilometers are always higher than the usual-conversion kilometers
• At most, the difference between both is 25%. That happens early on in the terms.
• After that, the percentage difference oscillates around a value and comes closer to it.
• When talking about more than 100 miles, the percentage change approximates 0.54.

TL;DR:

• Yes, the Fibonacci trick is true forever as you go higher in the sequence if you're willing to accept a 0.54% error.