verdx

[verdx]

I constantly manipulate everyone around me by calculating what would be the nicest thing to do in any given situation, making a point of doing it when it matters the most. This is supported by subtly, casually tailoring what I talk about to the person I'm speaking to, and saying what I think they may find funny or interesting. the really sick thing is I look just like a normal person and there's no way you can tell me apart from anyone. If I weren't such a monster I would be afraid knowing people like this are out there, but I know I'm on top and have nothing to fear.

[verdx]

today is the only day you can reblog this post

[verdx]

Proof by induction?

No. Proof by conduction. I want my proof to be so good it shocks you.

[verdx]

Straight guys who use tumblr are the funniest people ever literally how did you end up here

[verdx]

Hotel California on Guzheng by Moyun.

[verdx]

Please someone draw this but the angle wing is just a triangle.

yeah Im amab... assigned MONSTER at birth... I clutch half my face RRRARRGHH... I CANT... CONTROL IT... my eyes start glowing daemon fire and I grow wings one angle one devil and I grow one horn and and claws and a tail and my teeth get big and sharp and my arms and legs are stained black red

BEAUTIFUL TRANSGENDER ELF GF: fight this my love... it isn't you...

[verdx]

my proposal for how to handle surnames when getting married

Definition 1: Let S be a string. We call T a weak substring of S if it is possible to delete any number of characters of S to obtain T.

Example 1: Given the string 'donald knuth', we can obtain weak substrings 'donald knuth', 'dad u', 'nanth', ' ', or even '' (the last being the empty substring).

Proposition 1: Given a string S with length n, there exist 2^n weak substrings. Proof: Left as an exercise for the reader.

Definition 2: Let T = {T_1, ... T_n} be a set of strings. We say that S is a containing string for T if T_i is a weak substring of S for each i.

Definition 3: Given a set of strings T = {T_1, ... T_n} and a containing string S for T, we say that S is a minimal containing string for T if for every character in S, there is at least one such T_i for which it cannot be removed to form T_i as a weak substring from S.

If two people get married with surnames T_1 and T_2, then their new last name should be a minimal containing string for {T_1, T_2}.

Question: How do we characterize the minimal containing strings for a given set of weak substrings? What kind of equivalence would we need to define to consider it unique?

[verdx]

[verdx]

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[verdx]

>First, we’ve discovered that about a quarter of all the internet connection in or out of the house were ad related. In a few hours, that’s about 10,000 out of 40,000 processed.

>We also discovered that every link on Twitter was blocked. This was solved by whitelisting the https://t.co domain.

>Once out browsing the Web, everything is loading pretty much instantly. It turns out most of that Page Loading malarkey we’ve been accustomed to is related to sites running auctions to sell Ad space to show you before the page loads. All gone now.

>We then found that the Samsung TV (which I really like) is very fond of yapping all about itself to Samsung HQ. All stopped now. No sign of any breakages in its function, so I’m happy enough with that.

>The primary source of distress came from the habitual Lemmings player in the house, who found they could no longer watch ads to build up their in-app gold. A workaround is being considered for this.

>The next ambition is to advance the Ad blocking so that it seamlessly removed YouTube Ads. This is the subject of ongoing research, and tinkering continues. All in all, a very successful experiment.

>Certainly this exceeds my equivalent childhood project of disassembling and assembling our rotary dial telephone. A project whose only utility was finding out how to make the phone ring when nobody was calling.

>Update: All4 on the telly appears not to have any ads any more. Goodbye Arnold Clarke!

>Lemmings problem now solved.

>Can confirm, after small tests, that RTÉ Player ads are now gone and the player on the phone is now just delivering swift, ad free streams at first click.

>Some queries along the lines of “Are you not stealing the internet?” Firstly, this is my network, so I may set it up as I please (or, you know, my son can do it and I can give him a stupid thumbs up in response). But there is a wider question, based on the ads=internet model.

>I’m afraid I passed the You Wouldn’t Download A Car point back when I first installed ad-blocking plug-ins on a browser. But consider my chatty TV. Individual consumer choice is not the method of addressing pervasive commercial surveillance.

>Should I feel morally obliged not to mute the TV when the ads come on? No, this is a standing tension- a clash of interests. But I think my interest in my family not being under intrusive or covert surveillance at home is superior to the ad company’s wish to profile them.

>Aside: 24 hours of Pi Hole stats suggests that Samsung TVs are very chatty. 14,170 chats a day.

>YouTube blocking seems difficult, as the ads usually come from the same domain as the videos. Haven’t tried it, but all of the content can also be delivered from a no-cookies version of the YouTube domain, which doesn’t have the ads. I have asked my son to poke at that idea.

[verdx]

on watching a parent age

i saw somebody say “what if you’re gone and i haven’t become anything yet” and basically that broke me on a random thursday evening

[verdx]

[verdx]

[verdx]

Literally an npc

Trying to go for a cool, elegant style just will not work when you have no spatial awareness. Like being short is one thing, I could emphasise it to a kind of Delicate Elfin Fae Creature vibe, but that's not going to work with my skill of inexplicably somehow always managing to get in the way and stand in the most inconvenient possible place. I instinctively always try to dodge people into a place where I'm is even more in the way than I was before. I have a knack for bumping onto furniture and managing to knock things off tables with an almost implausible frequency.

Appearance-wise, I could go for a Eerie Graceful Dark Apparition aesthetic, but that shit will not work when I'm going about crashing into things like a gothic roomba.

[verdx]

( <= green bean

[verdx]

the angel staying over at my house asked for a nightlight in their room and i told them buddy, don't you produce your own light? what're you gonna do with more? and they said they wanted to see why people like it so much. and also that the nightlight i own is blue and they're been trying to understand color. anyways i think they've stared at it for an hour now

[verdx]

Wunk sells children for a carrot