derek

I'd argue that isn't even dark humor. The joke's focal point is how ridiculous your mother's position is. You're taking up an untenable and patently absurd position in faux support of the initial absurd position. That's ridicule. Now I will grant that lampooning a rhetorical opponent's position can lean "dark". Unless the punchline relies on taboo for the heavy lifting though it isn't crossing that line.

You didn't say anything offensive or taboo. You criticised someone's bad take using contemptous analytic hyperbole. I grew up with this kind of humor in my family. It was mostly used as a learning tool which avoided direct confrontation of idiocy while allowing the temporarily embarassed idiot to save face, realize they weren't thinking clearly, and choose to be in on the joke at their old self's expense. There are other choices, or course, but if you chose to die on mount stupid then you'd better expect to get buried underneath it as well.

Your family doesn't seem to be receptive to that brand of social therapy. That's ok. My point is more to encourage you that you didn't do anything wrong (and that it's even normal to joke like that elsewhere).

Your mom might not think you're funny... But I do!

No, silly, you're thinking of Ken from MXC (and right you are, Luddite). Schwifty-Five is just a song.

What problem are you attempting to solve?

How to you imagine this solution solves that problem?

I'm a fan of NestedText. It's no panacea but I'd argue it's the most well-considered and useful file format for structured data in plain text.

Bears are notoriously scarce this time of year in places where most bears are. I suppose its also generally difficult for worms to find things. Ever asked a worm for help finding your keys? They're terrible at that.

I think they knew full well what they were doing. It's undeniably goofy to anyone who's seen a horse. That right there ain't a horse. For one thing: it's egg-shaped and, for another; it's clearly about to get obliterated by the horse and rider on the left while brandishing an expression that reads "oh no I'm in for it now" like a Tom and Jerry cartoon.

This shit is hysterical and they knew it. Even if the artist had written out a confession of sincerity regarding their non-comedic intent I can't imagine holding that egg up to that artist and asking,

"You expect me to believe this is your best attempt at a horse? Seriously?"

without that artist at least cracking a grin.

Our knowledge around them is quite new. First theorized only in 2012 and first "experimentally realized" in 2016. The novelty of it all does evoke a kind of wierdness. A decade later and we're using them in quantum computers. The future is now and it's sci-fi, man.

The Wikipedia article (wikipedia.org) provides a neat overview of the "what" without waxing too technical. It fails to satisfy my nagging need to answer "how?!" though.

This article (technologyreview.com) provides a decent answer for how time crystals are possible in a lab.

Their quantum system is a line of ytterbium ions with spins that interact with each other. That interaction leads to a special kind of behavior. ... One of the key properties of these ions is their magnetization or spin, which can be flipped up or down using a laser. Flipping the spin of one ion causes the next to flip, and so on. These spin interactions then oscillate at a rate that depends on how regularly the laser flips the original spin. In other words, the driving frequency determines the rate of oscillation.

But when Monroe and co measured this, they found another effect. These guys discovered that after allowing the system to evolve, the interactions occurred at a rate that was twice the original period. Since there is no driving force with that period, the only explanation is that the time symmetry must have been broken, thereby allowing these longer periods. In other words, Monroe and co had created a time crystal.

In trying to understand this I ended up reading and digesting the following: Physics: Time Crystal (handwiki.org) Spontaneous symmetry breaking (wikipedia.org) Symmetry (physics) (wikipedia.org) In Search of Time Crystals (physicsworld.com)

Quoting from that last article:

To understand time crystals, let’s remind ourselves about ordinary crystals. Diamond, say, breaks spatial symmetry because not every location is equivalent. Some locations have carbons atoms; others don’t. If you shift, or “translate”, the diamond lattice by some arbitrary amount, it won’t superimpose on the original lattice; the crystal structure has broken the translational symmetry of uniform space. But if you shift the lattice by some integer multiple of the spacing between atoms, it does superimpose, which means that the broken translational symmetry is periodic.

A "time crystal" breaks translational symmetry in time rather than space. This creates a kind of clock analogous to chemical oscillators (wikipedia.org). To keep a chemical oscillator going though one must continue to add reagents because the system is burning energy. Theoretically time crystals are stable in perpituity at equilibrium. Their lowest energy state includes motion.

The time crystals discussed in the Physics World piece and elsewhere, so far as I can find, are all "discrete" time crystals. These are driven by an external force. So they aren't in equilibrium... But these are still curious for two reasons. First, as mentioned, is that changing the driving frequency does not change the frequency of oscillation. The second is that discrete time crystals don't seem to be absorbing the energy imparted to the system by the driver (a laser, microwaves, etc). They're not heating up. It doesn't seem like we're quite sure why, either. More mysteries for humans to practice science around!

They seem to be in bed with livekit.io and OpenAI. They're also still using Telegram and X. That means Huly isn't a fit replacement for anything.

A least it was clickbaitey sensationalism about something other than the giant ground sloths this time.

100%.

The more often we choose alternatives to big tech's defaults in our day-to-day the less power big tech has. I hadn't heard of catbox before now and it's immediately my new daily driver for temp hosting and sharing small non-private items. Thank you!

Well! That's settles it then.

Possibly! A lot is left to interpretation in the film. I agree with your take though. More or less. I feel there's enough presented after the initial twist (was he just imagining it all?!) to suggest an additional turn. That being the horror of a society built on such incredible self-absorbtion (and cocaine) is the real bogeyman.

The lack of comprehension from some reminds me of a certain type of Fight Club fan on whom the film is wasted entirely.

My framing in the previous comment is meant to highlight how Bateman's story seems to resonate with the disaffected and media illiterate as I understand them. It seems much of the subtext intended to catch the viewer's attention and request a critical eye fails to register with that crowd. My aim was answering the implied question "How could take seriously Bateman as peak masculinity?" of the comment I initially responded to.

I could have made that more clear in the perspective I used to convey the point. Note taken. 🙂