Removed by mod

I just checked and they actually disabled AI Overview. LMAO

You’re remembering correctly, every other logic gate can be built from NAND gates, which is the foundation of this sort of minimal-instruction-set exercise. Beyond that, you need to be able to move data and change your program counter (jump, often conditionally). Then, if you want parity with modern instruction sets beyond just being turning complete, you need return and interrupt for control flow.

lol why?

Bookmarking your comment so I can come back to it in a couple hours, if I hopefully remember to.

But yes, almost. I don’t think the interrupt is necessary and the return isn’t under certain architectures. I have a doc on my computer somewhere where I was investigating what the absolute minimum was to make a turning complete machine and, to my recollection, there was only 4-6 instructions that were absolutely necessary. The ones I remember off the top of my head are NAND, MOV, JUMPIF, and then I believe I included NOP in accordance with some principle. RET and INT were convenience features in this design.

there is an additional layer to this joke for those who understand turing completeness. And it elevates it to a whole other level of snark.

You expect crypto junkies to be sane? You expect fintech “entrepreneurs” to be sane? You expect those who idolize Silicone Valley to be sane?

They don’t represent ingenuity. They don’t represent extremists. They don’t even represent the NSFW Tumblr community. No, they represent the product of the most negligent parenting, being raised in an environment where they can say whatever they want and get whatever they want. They are a blight upon our society and no tears should be wept for them as they rot their existence away in the darkest, dankest prison imaginable with not even a slither of sunlight to grace their forsaken souls.

yeah no I’m not taking that bait, bud.

But “it” is for inanimate objects

Not quite. “It” is a general reference pronoun with a function akin to “the”. It can be used to refer to anything that is a thing, even if said thing is animate and/or living.

When referring indiscriminately to a specimen of fauna, “it” is a linguistically appropriate identifier whereas “they” would only really be entirely appropriate when referring to an individual or subset of individuals, regardless of species or animacy.

Since this fish has no distinguishable identity apart from the cultural impact it may spawn, I reckon it’s more appropriate to use “it” but “they” could also work.

I am not a linguist. But if you are, feel free to correct me. If you feel like pretending to be a linguist, go talk to an LLM cause IDC.

Wtf does this have to do with her gender? Are you claiming she does not top the charts in celebrity carbon emissions, but is being used as the scapegoat instead of a man?

The Conservatives aren’t attacking her because of her gender, it’s because of their her influence. Misogyny has nothing to do with it, they’d do the exact same with any celebrity of any identity/orientation because they’re influence conflicts with their agenda, not because of their gender.

This smells a lot like ground-laying for radical feminist arguments, I can’t find any other reason you would be here making a mountain out of an imaginary anthill. Moreover, I can’t understand why anyone upvoting this would care to see a non-humorous PSA in a “hello fellow teens” vaporware frame on a surrealist/(whatever it’s called) shitposting community unless it is meant to be satire.

edit: gendered a pronoun to make it concise who the subject was