Though there has recently been another step forward with transistors being able to get under a nanometer, 0.7 nm from 2 nm to be precise, and the last time a measurement needed to go another level smaller was in 1984 when it went from 1 micrometer to 0.8 micrometers.
That 0.7 nm one marks another jump in power while being significantly more efficient, which is I guess Moore's law living out of spite of not actually being a scientific law.
Also it's funny this is about the 2nd or third time I've seen someone say "Moore's law is dead struggling" since that 0.7 nm process was figured out not that long ago, though I can definitely see the "struggling" part.
I ended up misreading this as sort of "Well I don't know if it's a clock, that's why I need the batteries to find out" and found that reasoning to be funnier than the pun which flew over my head initially, simply for being such a comedically unconventional, yet entirely possible situation with several implications that could be made, such as just assuming something must be a clock, and immediately wanting to try using it as such, even though it might not actually be a clock.
Now if only I had something to measure my disappointment like a clock measures time...
Well not having sexual attraction at all would be asexual, rather than demi-sexual, and even then, you can still find or think someone is attractive without actually being sexually attracted to them, as it's not really the only form of attraction to exist.
And unfortunately, usually due to any number of personal problems, including but not limited to lack of impulse control, it seems quite difficult for many to not want sex with whoever they find attractive, as I've personally seen several times by now.
But of course that's hard for me to exactly understand given I don't seem to feel sexual or romantic attraction to anyone myself, despite having or being close enough emotionally to people that either would be reasonably apparent.
And of course, I don't mean offense toward people in consensual circumstances such as an open relationship with that second line, quite the contrary, as that's not an impulse control issue, nor an problem if consent is given and done safely, etc.
It doesn't particularly help that CNN, to my knowledge, got bought by a big company a good while ago and started slanting right, so it really isn't the same news source it used to be.
Ah yes, one of the neat advantages of being ace, easily being able to ignore people claiming to know you've watched anything sexual. Either because you never have, or because it'd have to be incredibly specific to ever be right, depending on how being Asexual affects you.
You know, I thought about it after reading the comments here, and I've thought of one possible explanation for MM-DD-YYYY, that being the order you effectively get the useful information from a date.
Going by DD-MM-YYYY, you read the first part, and that tells you the day in a month, but not which month, just skimming that first section gives you no actually useful information about how near or far it is without reading the second.
Doing MM-DD-YYYY on the other hand, you first read the month, which immediately tells you what part of a year it is, and if it's relatively sooner or later, and then reading the second part of the date just gives more precision, rather than the whole useful answer.
So basically, it makes it easier to skim dates within a year with more useful information listed first, whereas putting the year first would just delay or offset that same skimming method.
Day first gives a range of error between 0 and roughly 330 days without reading further, whereas Month first gives a range of error of only up to 28 to 30 days depending on the month.
This basically, as in my case, my sensory issues make it hard to do many fairly basic things, and causes lots of discomfort that otherwise wouldn't bother me if not for the sensitivity.
"Fixing" is very different from "reducing the issues for the person with the sensitivity, making life relatively easier to handle".
I've been seeing it in several places, as comments and replies, unrelated to whatever it's about, and always from users from discuss.online. Perhaps someone trying to use bots that the instance hasn't removed yet.
Alternatively, I've seen one directly just hang up at any type of swear, which I did find funny as I was listening from another room.
Though there has recently been another step forward with transistors being able to get under a nanometer, 0.7 nm from 2 nm to be precise, and the last time a measurement needed to go another level smaller was in 1984 when it went from 1 micrometer to 0.8 micrometers.
That 0.7 nm one marks another jump in power while being significantly more efficient, which is I guess Moore's law living out of spite of not actually being a scientific law.
Also it's funny this is about the 2nd or third time I've seen someone say "Moore's law is dead struggling" since that 0.7 nm process was figured out not that long ago, though I can definitely see the "struggling" part.
"Actualize, Synergy; Synergize. Growth, Profit; Grofit."
Like Markiplier doubting Honey years before they were called out, something really was off about it.
"I match your arm."
"Yes, Viscous!"
"We're friends."
"No, Viscous."
On it's certainly gotten their attention alright
But did they grofit from it too?
I ended up misreading this as sort of "Well I don't know if it's a clock, that's why I need the batteries to find out" and found that reasoning to be funnier than the pun which flew over my head initially, simply for being such a comedically unconventional, yet entirely possible situation with several implications that could be made, such as just assuming something must be a clock, and immediately wanting to try using it as such, even though it might not actually be a clock.
Now if only I had something to measure my disappointment like a clock measures time...
Well not having sexual attraction at all would be asexual, rather than demi-sexual, and even then, you can still find or think someone is attractive without actually being sexually attracted to them, as it's not really the only form of attraction to exist.
And unfortunately, usually due to any number of personal problems, including but not limited to lack of impulse control, it seems quite difficult for many to not want sex with whoever they find attractive, as I've personally seen several times by now.
But of course that's hard for me to exactly understand given I don't seem to feel sexual or romantic attraction to anyone myself, despite having or being close enough emotionally to people that either would be reasonably apparent.
And of course, I don't mean offense toward people in consensual circumstances such as an open relationship with that second line, quite the contrary, as that's not an impulse control issue, nor an problem if consent is given and done safely, etc.
It doesn't particularly help that CNN, to my knowledge, got bought by a big company a good while ago and started slanting right, so it really isn't the same news source it used to be.
You mean like they haven't already? I've been hearing it for at least a few years now unfortunately.
Ah yes, one of the neat advantages of being ace, easily being able to ignore people claiming to know you've watched anything sexual. Either because you never have, or because it'd have to be incredibly specific to ever be right, depending on how being Asexual affects you.
You know, I thought about it after reading the comments here, and I've thought of one possible explanation for MM-DD-YYYY, that being the order you effectively get the useful information from a date.
Going by DD-MM-YYYY, you read the first part, and that tells you the day in a month, but not which month, just skimming that first section gives you no actually useful information about how near or far it is without reading the second.
Doing MM-DD-YYYY on the other hand, you first read the month, which immediately tells you what part of a year it is, and if it's relatively sooner or later, and then reading the second part of the date just gives more precision, rather than the whole useful answer.
So basically, it makes it easier to skim dates within a year with more useful information listed first, whereas putting the year first would just delay or offset that same skimming method.
Day first gives a range of error between 0 and roughly 330 days without reading further, whereas Month first gives a range of error of only up to 28 to 30 days depending on the month.
Citrine red text flashbacks
Suppose I'll perish
Laughs electronically
This basically, as in my case, my sensory issues make it hard to do many fairly basic things, and causes lots of discomfort that otherwise wouldn't bother me if not for the sensitivity.
"Fixing" is very different from "reducing the issues for the person with the sensitivity, making life relatively easier to handle".
I've been seeing it in several places, as comments and replies, unrelated to whatever it's about, and always from users from discuss.online. Perhaps someone trying to use bots that the instance hasn't removed yet.
Is that term Memes, the DNA of the soul?
Wait, what's getting jesus'd...?
Oh, I did not think of the implications of making that a verb.