  |
はてなキーワード: tieとは
Also not paying taxes on tips is an incredibly stupid way to go about distributing a tax benefit. If you want to cut taxes for lower income, do that. Change the income thresholds or the marginal tax rate, don’t just change taxes on an income stream that is mostly correlated with lower incomes.
Server here. I was saying this the first time he announced it. Wtf would WE get this bonus and noone else. Makes ZERO sense until you realize... he was buying younger votes
Not to mention tipping is out of hand as it is, we shouldn’t be trying to create more tax incentives for it.
Worse than that. It lets them tie tax break extensions to a future, wildly unpopular bill. That’s how “the Big Beautiful Bill” got passed. No one was going to vote to not extend the last round of temporary tax cuts for the middle class. They would crow about the other problems in the bill, but the powers that be weren’t going to remove any of the problem elements. They would just label anyone who didn’t vote for the bill as for a tax increase...........
Please consider the histroy of humanity from biological perpsecitve and current known fact in nearby universe, which expo-planet (from the Sol system perspective) is most likely to have civlizaed society? Please add percentage next to it in the chart
ChatGPT
Reasoned about exoplanet civilization likelihoodを28 秒行う
Evaluating planetary prospects
OK, I’m looking at the likelihood of a civilized society on an exoplanet within our Solar System. I’ll consider biological history and current space knowledge, aiming to identify the most promising candidate.
Identifying potential candidates
I'm considering exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1e, which might suggest they are within or observed from our Solar System.
Assessing potential candidates
I’m evaluating Proxima Centauri b, Barnard's Star, LHS 1140, and TRAPPIST-1, focusing on their habitable zones and available data. The Drake equation might help estimate their civilized society likelihoods.
Identifying promising exoplanets
I’m noting key exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, which have Earth-like characteristics and are in habitable zones. This narrows down the potential candidates for advanced civilizations.
I'm gathering info on planets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, considering factors like magnetic fields, atmospheres, and proximity to G-type stars for their potential to support advanced civilizations.
Evaluating exoplanet prospects
I'm noting that Proxima Centauri b, despite being close and around a red dwarf star, might support life if it has a magnetic field and atmosphere. This makes me think about its potential.
Charting probabilities
I'm estimating civilization probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e, using speculative percentages based on the Drake equation and the lack of evidence for intelligent life.
I'm crafting a chart with exoplanet names and civilization likelihood percentages, grounded in the long timeline of life's evolution, despite the speculative nature of these figures.
Identifying exoplanet contenders
I’m evaluating exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, TRAPPIST-1 e, and Kepler-186f, considering their star types and distances, to gauge their potential for supporting advanced civilizations from our solar system's viewpoint.
Weighing proximity and observation
I'm leaning towards Proxima Centauri b due to its closeness and observational potential, despite concerns about its flare star dynamics. TRAPPIST-1 e, f, or g are also worth considering.
I'm focusing on exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, Ross 128 b, LHS 1140 b, TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, and K2-18b, aiming to chart their likelihood of hosting a civilized society based on current knowledge.
Assessing exoplanet potentials
I'm gathering speculative probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, using the Drake equation and current understanding, to better estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society.
Refining speculative probabilities
I’m refining speculative probabilities for exoplanets, including Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, to estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society, considering Earth's long biological history.
Refining odds
I'm considering the astronomical timeline for intelligent life on Earth, leading me to assign even lower speculative odds for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e.
I’m crafting a simplified chart with arbitrary percentages, clearly noting the speculative nature and lack of scientific data, while considering the target audience's basic understanding of the topic.
I’m charting arbitrary percentages for exoplanets, clarifying their speculative nature, and ensuring the data is accessible for young audiences with minimal scientific detail.
Crafting a chart
I’m creating a markdown table with speculative percentages for the likelihood of civilized life on exoplanets, emphasizing their purely theoretical nature and considering the understanding level of an 8-year-old.
Integrating speculative analysis
I’m mapping out a markdown chart with speculative percentages for the likelihood of a civilized society on exoplanets, mindful of the complexity and simplifying for an 8-year-old's understanding.
I’m piecing together markdown for exoplanets, noting Proxima Centauri b's reduced civilized life chance due to the red dwarf's activity. This inclusion highlights the speculative nature of the analysis.
Piecing together speculative odds
I’m detailing a markdown chart for audience-friendly exoplanet likelihoods, considering environmental challenges and adding a disclaimer about the speculative nature and lack of evidence.
Piecing together
I’m leaning towards Proxima Centauri b for its proximity and silent star, but I’ll add a speculative chart ranking nearby exoplanets, noting their advanced civilizations' hypothetical likelihood.
Assessing civilization probabilities
I'm emphasizing the slow emergence of intelligent life on Earth, which suggests that the odds of any habitable planet developing a complex civilization might be as low as a few percent.
Below is a very speculative chart that—based on what we know about Earth’s long, winding path from simple life to a “civilized society” and our limited observations of nearby exoplanets—gives some fun, made‑up percentage chances for a few of our best candidate exoplanets. Remember: Scientists have not yet found any proof of life (let alone advanced civilizations) on any exoplanet. These numbers are just playful estimates to help you think about the ideas!
Speculative Chances of Finding an Advanced Civilization on Nearby Exoplanets
Exoplanet Estimated Likelihood of a Civilized Society
Proxima Centauri b ~2%
LHS 1140 b ~0.5%
How Did We (Very Roughly) Guess These Numbers?
Earth’s Example:
On Earth, life began as simple single‑celled organisms and took billions of years to evolve into a species that built complex societies. This long journey suggests that—even if a planet is in the “habitable zone” (where liquid water could exist)—developing an advanced, civilized society might be rare.
Proxima Centauri b:
This is the closest exoplanet to us. Even though its star (Proxima Centauri) is a red dwarf that sometimes sends out strong flares (which might harm life), its closeness makes it one of our most interesting candidates. That’s why we give it a slightly higher guess (~2%).
These planets are part of a group orbiting a very cool star. Their environments might be challenging (for example, they could be tidally locked, meaning one side always faces the star), so the chance of a complex, advanced civilization might be a bit lower.
LHS 1140 b:
This planet is promising in some ways but is a little farther away and around a dimmer star, so our playful estimate is even lower.
All of these percentages are extremely rough guesses based on what little we understand about the conditions for life and intelligence. Scientists use ideas like the Drake Equation to think about these chances—but until we have concrete evidence, these numbers remain just for fun and imagination.
Enjoy exploring these ideas—and remember, space is full of mysteries waiting to be discovered!
あなた:
Please examine the Drake Equation itself and see if this euqation is acculate or more opition in the equation you will use
ChatGPT
Reasoned about the Drake Equationを6 秒行う
re-examining the Drake Equation
evaluating the Drake Equation's value
OK, let me see. The Drake Equation isn't a precise formula; it's more of a guiding heuristic that tackles numerous uncertainties regarding extraterrestrial civilizations.
Thinking through the Drake Equation, I’m evaluating its conceptual nature, its uncertain parameters, and its criticism to conclude on its reliability as an accurate predictive model.
Understanding the Drake Equation
I’m mapping out the Drake Equation as a conceptual guide, detailing its parameters, which are often based on estimates or opinions, to evaluate its reliability for predicting extraterrestrial civilizations.
The Drake Equation is a famous formula that was created to help scientists think about the many factors involved in estimating the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy. However, when we look at the equation closely, we see that it is more of a conceptual framework or heuristic tool than a precise, predictive formula. Let’s break down why:
The equation is usually written as:
𝑁
=
𝑅
∗
×
𝑓
𝑝
×
𝑛
𝑒
×
𝑓
𝑙
×
𝑓
𝑖
×
𝑓
𝑐
×
𝐿
N=R
∗
×f
p
×n
e
×f
l
×f
i
×f
c
×L
Where:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
: The average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy.
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
: The fraction of those stars that have planetary systems.
𝑛
𝑒
n
e
: The average number of planets that could potentially support life per star with planets.
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
: The fraction of those planets where life actually develops.
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
: The fraction of planets with life where intelligent life evolves.
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
: The fraction of civilizations that develop technology that releases detectable signals into space.
𝐿
L: The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals.
Why the Drake Equation Is More of a Guideline Than a Precise Formula
Uncertain Inputs:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
(fraction of stars with planets), have become better known through modern astronomy.
The parameters related to the development of life and intelligence—
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
,
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
,
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
, and
𝐿
L—are based on very limited data. For example, Earth is the only planet we know where life has developed, so we have no way to compare or derive a statistically robust estimate for these factors. This means that the values chosen for these parameters are largely subjective estimates or educated guesses.
Wide Ranges of Possible Values:
Because many of these factors are not well-constrained, if you change one of the more uncertain parameters even slightly, the final estimate for
𝑁
N (the number of civilizations) can vary by many orders of magnitude. This wide range shows that the equation can lead to very different outcomes based on personal or theoretical assumptions.
The Drake Equation was never meant to provide a precise answer. Instead, it serves as a way to organize our thinking about what conditions might be necessary for the development of extraterrestrial civilizations. It encourages discussion about the relative importance of different factors and highlights where our scientific knowledge is limited.
Is the Drake Equation Accurate or More Opinion-Based?
Accurate?
In the sense of being a strict mathematical model with well-defined inputs and predictable outputs, the Drake Equation is not accurate. Its accuracy is limited by the extreme uncertainties in several of its key parameters.
Many of the terms in the equation, especially those concerning the evolution of life and intelligence, are based on opinion, interpretation, and the single example of Earth. Therefore, while the structure of the equation is logical, the numbers you put into it (and hence the final result) are often more reflective of our current opinions and assumptions than of robust empirical data.
The Drake Equation is a valuable tool for framing the question of extraterrestrial life. It helps scientists and enthusiasts break down a complex problem into smaller, more manageable questions. However, because several of its factors are highly uncertain and subject to personal interpretation, it is more of a conceptual guide—or even a way to stimulate discussion—than a formula that provides a definitive, accurate prediction of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations.
In summary, while the Drake Equation is useful for thinking about the various factors that might lead to the emergence of a civilization, its outputs should be taken as highly speculative estimates rather than precise measurements.
あなた:
Please also consider the possiblities of non-human intelligent emrgencing from the long history of Sol system and nearby planets and see if there is any possiblites that in one time intelligent life emerged in nearby planets and see this to the equation
ChatGPT
Reasoned about non-human intelligence and the Drake Equationを19 秒行う
Evaluating non-human intelligence
I'm thinking about the potential for non-human intelligent life forms in the Sol system and neighboring planets, and how this might factor into the equation.
Piecing together possibilities
I'm thinking about how to integrate the emergence of non-human intelligent life, possibly on Mars or Europa, into the Drake Equation for the Sol system and neighboring planets.
It's interesting to think about the hypothesis of intelligent life emerging on Mars or Venus, though Earth remains the only known life-supporting planet in the solar system.
Considering other realms
I'm examining if intelligent life could have emerged on planets like Mars, Venus, or Europa, and how this possibility aligns with the predictions of the Drake Equation.
Hmm, I’m thinking about how non-human intelligent life on Mars or Venus could intersect with the assumptions of the Drake Equation, which seems to focus solely on Earth-based evolution.
I’m piecing together the hypothesis of non-human, advanced, intelligent life in the solar system. Mars, Venus, and Titan present challenges, but Europa and Enceladus might harbor microbial life.
Please consider the histroy of humanity from biological perpsecitve and current known fact in nearby universe, which expo-planet (from the Sol system perspective) is most likely to have civlizaed society? Please add percentage next to it in the chart
ChatGPT
Reasoned about exoplanet civilization likelihoodを28 秒行う
Evaluating planetary prospects
OK, I’m looking at the likelihood of a civilized society on an exoplanet within our Solar System. I’ll consider biological history and current space knowledge, aiming to identify the most promising candidate.
Identifying potential candidates
I'm considering exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1e, which might suggest they are within or observed from our Solar System.
Assessing potential candidates
I’m evaluating Proxima Centauri b, Barnard's Star, LHS 1140, and TRAPPIST-1, focusing on their habitable zones and available data. The Drake equation might help estimate their civilized society likelihoods.
Identifying promising exoplanets
I’m noting key exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, which have Earth-like characteristics and are in habitable zones. This narrows down the potential candidates for advanced civilizations.
I'm gathering info on planets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, considering factors like magnetic fields, atmospheres, and proximity to G-type stars for their potential to support advanced civilizations.
Evaluating exoplanet prospects
I'm noting that Proxima Centauri b, despite being close and around a red dwarf star, might support life if it has a magnetic field and atmosphere. This makes me think about its potential.
Charting probabilities
I'm estimating civilization probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e, using speculative percentages based on the Drake equation and the lack of evidence for intelligent life.
I'm crafting a chart with exoplanet names and civilization likelihood percentages, grounded in the long timeline of life's evolution, despite the speculative nature of these figures.
Identifying exoplanet contenders
I’m evaluating exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, TRAPPIST-1 e, and Kepler-186f, considering their star types and distances, to gauge their potential for supporting advanced civilizations from our solar system's viewpoint.
Weighing proximity and observation
I'm leaning towards Proxima Centauri b due to its closeness and observational potential, despite concerns about its flare star dynamics. TRAPPIST-1 e, f, or g are also worth considering.
I'm focusing on exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, Ross 128 b, LHS 1140 b, TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, and K2-18b, aiming to chart their likelihood of hosting a civilized society based on current knowledge.
Assessing exoplanet potentials
I'm gathering speculative probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, using the Drake equation and current understanding, to better estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society.
Refining speculative probabilities
I’m refining speculative probabilities for exoplanets, including Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, to estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society, considering Earth's long biological history.
Refining odds
I'm considering the astronomical timeline for intelligent life on Earth, leading me to assign even lower speculative odds for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e.
I’m crafting a simplified chart with arbitrary percentages, clearly noting the speculative nature and lack of scientific data, while considering the target audience's basic understanding of the topic.
I’m charting arbitrary percentages for exoplanets, clarifying their speculative nature, and ensuring the data is accessible for young audiences with minimal scientific detail.
Crafting a chart
I’m creating a markdown table with speculative percentages for the likelihood of civilized life on exoplanets, emphasizing their purely theoretical nature and considering the understanding level of an 8-year-old.
Integrating speculative analysis
I’m mapping out a markdown chart with speculative percentages for the likelihood of a civilized society on exoplanets, mindful of the complexity and simplifying for an 8-year-old's understanding.
I’m piecing together markdown for exoplanets, noting Proxima Centauri b's reduced civilized life chance due to the red dwarf's activity. This inclusion highlights the speculative nature of the analysis.
Piecing together speculative odds
I’m detailing a markdown chart for audience-friendly exoplanet likelihoods, considering environmental challenges and adding a disclaimer about the speculative nature and lack of evidence.
Piecing together
I’m leaning towards Proxima Centauri b for its proximity and silent star, but I’ll add a speculative chart ranking nearby exoplanets, noting their advanced civilizations' hypothetical likelihood.
Assessing civilization probabilities
I'm emphasizing the slow emergence of intelligent life on Earth, which suggests that the odds of any habitable planet developing a complex civilization might be as low as a few percent.
Below is a very speculative chart that—based on what we know about Earth’s long, winding path from simple life to a “civilized society” and our limited observations of nearby exoplanets—gives some fun, made‑up percentage chances for a few of our best candidate exoplanets. Remember: Scientists have not yet found any proof of life (let alone advanced civilizations) on any exoplanet. These numbers are just playful estimates to help you think about the ideas!
Speculative Chances of Finding an Advanced Civilization on Nearby Exoplanets
Exoplanet Estimated Likelihood of a Civilized Society
Proxima Centauri b ~2%
LHS 1140 b ~0.5%
How Did We (Very Roughly) Guess These Numbers?
Earth’s Example:
On Earth, life began as simple single‑celled organisms and took billions of years to evolve into a species that built complex societies. This long journey suggests that—even if a planet is in the “habitable zone” (where liquid water could exist)—developing an advanced, civilized society might be rare.
Proxima Centauri b:
This is the closest exoplanet to us. Even though its star (Proxima Centauri) is a red dwarf that sometimes sends out strong flares (which might harm life), its closeness makes it one of our most interesting candidates. That’s why we give it a slightly higher guess (~2%).
These planets are part of a group orbiting a very cool star. Their environments might be challenging (for example, they could be tidally locked, meaning one side always faces the star), so the chance of a complex, advanced civilization might be a bit lower.
LHS 1140 b:
This planet is promising in some ways but is a little farther away and around a dimmer star, so our playful estimate is even lower.
All of these percentages are extremely rough guesses based on what little we understand about the conditions for life and intelligence. Scientists use ideas like the Drake Equation to think about these chances—but until we have concrete evidence, these numbers remain just for fun and imagination.
Enjoy exploring these ideas—and remember, space is full of mysteries waiting to be discovered!
あなた:
Please examine the Drake Equation itself and see if this euqation is acculate or more opition in the equation you will use
ChatGPT
Reasoned about the Drake Equationを6 秒行う
re-examining the Drake Equation
evaluating the Drake Equation's value
OK, let me see. The Drake Equation isn't a precise formula; it's more of a guiding heuristic that tackles numerous uncertainties regarding extraterrestrial civilizations.
Thinking through the Drake Equation, I’m evaluating its conceptual nature, its uncertain parameters, and its criticism to conclude on its reliability as an accurate predictive model.
Understanding the Drake Equation
I’m mapping out the Drake Equation as a conceptual guide, detailing its parameters, which are often based on estimates or opinions, to evaluate its reliability for predicting extraterrestrial civilizations.
The Drake Equation is a famous formula that was created to help scientists think about the many factors involved in estimating the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy. However, when we look at the equation closely, we see that it is more of a conceptual framework or heuristic tool than a precise, predictive formula. Let’s break down why:
The equation is usually written as:
𝑁
=
𝑅
∗
×
𝑓
𝑝
×
𝑛
𝑒
×
𝑓
𝑙
×
𝑓
𝑖
×
𝑓
𝑐
×
𝐿
N=R
∗
×f
p
×n
e
×f
l
×f
i
×f
c
×L
Where:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
: The average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy.
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
: The fraction of those stars that have planetary systems.
𝑛
𝑒
n
e
: The average number of planets that could potentially support life per star with planets.
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
: The fraction of those planets where life actually develops.
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
: The fraction of planets with life where intelligent life evolves.
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
: The fraction of civilizations that develop technology that releases detectable signals into space.
𝐿
L: The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals.
Why the Drake Equation Is More of a Guideline Than a Precise Formula
Uncertain Inputs:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
(fraction of stars with planets), have become better known through modern astronomy.
The parameters related to the development of life and intelligence—
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
,
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
,
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
, and
𝐿
L—are based on very limited data. For example, Earth is the only planet we know where life has developed, so we have no way to compare or derive a statistically robust estimate for these factors. This means that the values chosen for these parameters are largely subjective estimates or educated guesses.
Wide Ranges of Possible Values:
Because many of these factors are not well-constrained, if you change one of the more uncertain parameters even slightly, the final estimate for
𝑁
N (the number of civilizations) can vary by many orders of magnitude. This wide range shows that the equation can lead to very different outcomes based on personal or theoretical assumptions.
The Drake Equation was never meant to provide a precise answer. Instead, it serves as a way to organize our thinking about what conditions might be necessary for the development of extraterrestrial civilizations. It encourages discussion about the relative importance of different factors and highlights where our scientific knowledge is limited.
Is the Drake Equation Accurate or More Opinion-Based?
Accurate?
In the sense of being a strict mathematical model with well-defined inputs and predictable outputs, the Drake Equation is not accurate. Its accuracy is limited by the extreme uncertainties in several of its key parameters.
Many of the terms in the equation, especially those concerning the evolution of life and intelligence, are based on opinion, interpretation, and the single example of Earth. Therefore, while the structure of the equation is logical, the numbers you put into it (and hence the final result) are often more reflective of our current opinions and assumptions than of robust empirical data.
The Drake Equation is a valuable tool for framing the question of extraterrestrial life. It helps scientists and enthusiasts break down a complex problem into smaller, more manageable questions. However, because several of its factors are highly uncertain and subject to personal interpretation, it is more of a conceptual guide—or even a way to stimulate discussion—than a formula that provides a definitive, accurate prediction of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations.
In summary, while the Drake Equation is useful for thinking about the various factors that might lead to the emergence of a civilization, its outputs should be taken as highly speculative estimates rather than precise measurements.
あなた:
Please also consider the possiblities of non-human intelligent emrgencing from the long history of Sol system and nearby planets and see if there is any possiblites that in one time intelligent life emerged in nearby planets and see this to the equation
ChatGPT
Reasoned about non-human intelligence and the Drake Equationを19 秒行う
Evaluating non-human intelligence
I'm thinking about the potential for non-human intelligent life forms in the Sol system and neighboring planets, and how this might factor into the equation.
Piecing together possibilities
I'm thinking about how to integrate the emergence of non-human intelligent life, possibly on Mars or Europa, into the Drake Equation for the Sol system and neighboring planets.
It's interesting to think about the hypothesis of intelligent life emerging on Mars or Venus, though Earth remains the only known life-supporting planet in the solar system.
Considering other realms
I'm examining if intelligent life could have emerged on planets like Mars, Venus, or Europa, and how this possibility aligns with the predictions of the Drake Equation.
Hmm, I’m thinking about how non-human intelligent life on Mars or Venus could intersect with the assumptions of the Drake Equation, which seems to focus solely on Earth-based evolution.
I’m piecing together the hypothesis of non-human, advanced, intelligent life in the solar system. Mars, Venus, and Titan present challenges, but Europa and Enceladus might harbor microbial life.
USB Type-Cって省略せんで書けよと思ったんだけど、英語圏だとヤベーのか？
type Cとtie pussyって発音同じなのか？何気なくUSB Type C cableって言ったつもりが、USB●んこ締め紐に聞こえてたりするわけか？
Type-C表記避けてるわ
https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/specs/
https://www.apple.com/macbook-air/specs/
不通にType-Cって書いてあるわ
https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/cty/pdp/spd/xps-13-9310-2-in-1-laptop
https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/pdp/hp-spectre-x360-laptop-15t-eb100-touch-3r480av-1
分かったのは言語の多機能さというのは、一点水準さえ満たしていれば、それ以上足しても生産性に寄与しないという事
自分しか使わない、最初書くときに限れば書きやすいと思うこともあるが、それ以上に保守性を落とす
ライブラリを利用したり他人のコードを読む機会の方が多い昨今マイナス要素でしかない
perlのスローガンだかに "There's More Than One Way To Do It." というのがあるらしいが、読む側からするとたまったもんじゃない
演算子がオーバーロードされてるかも？モンキーパッチされてないかな？等々あれこれ想定しなきゃいけないのが苦痛でしかない
パスの選択肢を見せた事で沢北が集中できなくなってしまったから
DSL(笑)が良いと思ってるのは最初だけで、最終的に負債にしかならない糞コード
統計・機械学習系のライブラリが皆無で先細りのイメージしかないからRailsと一緒に心中ください
リスト評価、スカラー評価とか意味わかんねーくくりもtie変数もアイディアは糞中の糞
Perl6にいたってはわけわかんねー演算子のオンパレードで悪いところをさらに悪くした感じ
オーバーロードされまくりのコードなんてどっから読んでいいかわかんねーよ
A man is driving down a country road when he loses control of his car and ends up in a ditch. He gets out of the car and knocks on a farmhouse door for help. He explains his situation to the farmer. The farmer gets his horse and they walk to the crash scene. The farmer then uses rope to tie the horse to the car
"Pull, Zoomer, pull" the farmer shouts, but the horse doesn't move.
"Pull, Radar, pull" the farmer yells again, but again, the horse stands still
"Pull, Dasher, pull" yells the farmer, but the horse stands like a rock.
"Pull, Dusty, pull" shouts the farmer, and the horse finally gets the car out with minimal effort.
The driver is dumbfounded so he asks the farmer, "why do you call your horse different names?"
"You see," the farmer replies, "Dusty is blind. If he knew he was working by himself, he wouldn't have pulled."
Free! Eternal Summer キャラクターソング
山崎宗介 "Just wanna know" の歌詞を英訳しました。
間違いや改善点などありましたらご指摘いただけると幸いです。
二次使用も可能です。使用する際はコメント欄にて一言いただけると嬉しいです。
I've translated the lyrics of "Free! Eternal Summer character song by Sousuke Yamazaki" "Just wanna know".
Translating Japanese, making rhyme in English, trying to sync translated lyrics with the music, etc, all at the same time were quite hard...lol
I'd appreciate any feed-backs like pointing out my mistakes or giving me some improvements.
Using my version of translated lyrics is always fine, but before u use it, plz let me know in the comment section herein below.
Plus I'd really love to hear if u guys sing this and upload it to YouTube/Tumbler/etc :P
somethin' in your eyes
is the reason movin' you
beyond the world 'bout to close off
on the path to the new picked hope
on the path to the new picked hope
let's go back to the same summer
just wanna know the reason
in the tie of relay
there'll be the feelin'
was I able to hide my face surprised?
you're always on your way, way
by sendin' off your runnin' back
(woah-woah) (woah-woah) (woah)
meddlin' even in the each way of thinkin'
wasn't a choice for us two (,was it?)
somethin' in your eyes
is the reason movin' you
someday I just wanna know the meanin' of "team"
the moment to be real is just in there
(woah-woah) (woah-woah) (woah-woah)
how deep was your heart healed
by the scenery showed by those guys?
you are questionin' to my empty heart
a tiny but brand new dream
things like "ties" are enough for me, right?
but seems like there're more than that
different from those days
(something I just wanna find)
kickin' the water straight
divin' to reach beyond the light
just a few meters ahead, ahead
just wanna know the reason
the tie of relay will tell me, me
somethin' in your eyes
is the reason movin' you
beyond the world 'bout to close (off)
on the path to the new picked hope, hope
the scenery in your eyes
(ah-ah) (woah)
アグリコラのNLデッキについて、Table Games in the Worldで和訳が公開された。
以前、アグリコラWMデッキについて誤訳等を指摘する記事を書いたことがあるが、今回もいくつか気になった点について指摘・補足をしておきたい。
相変わらず匿名ダイアリーでの指摘となる失礼を詫びるとともに、和訳公開について（そしてWMデッキについては日本語版発売への尽力について）感謝を捧げたい。
なお、英文は手元にあるNLデッキの英語版のテキストを参照した。（以下の指摘の中にはドイツ語版と英語版で内容が異なることに由来するものが含まれている可能性がある。）
誤：「収穫前のラウンドに」
正：「収穫直後のラウンドに」
英文は in a round immediately following a Harvest
誤：「同数の場合、あなたが1人を選ぶ。誰も乳を出す動物をもっていない、または全員同数の場合は誰ももらえない」
正：「あなたと他のプレイヤーが同数の場合は、あなただけが小麦1を得る。あなた以外の複数のプレイヤーが同数の場合や、誰も乳を出す動物をもっていない場合には、誰ももらえない」
英文は If you tie for the most, only you receive the Grain. If two other players tie or no one has dairy animals, no one receives the Grain.
補足：「自分の」とは「あなたの」の意味。なおこの効果は義務ではなく任意。
補足：本当に「1回だけ」かどうかは英文からはよく分からない。
補足：「本棚」という名前のカードは既に存在する（K112）。
誤：「住居の部屋1つについて、」
正：「住居（全体）に」
英文は every Unused farmyard space orthogonally adjacent to your home
補足：つまり、はじめから野菜2が植えられた状態の野菜畑として登場したあと、通常通り収穫フェイズに野菜1を収穫していき、空けばまた野菜を植えることができる、ということ。
補足：英文には「ラウンド1人目の家族で」に相当する条件は無い。
正：「食料を勝手に捨てても構わない」
英文は You may give Food to the general supply at any time
誤：「（ラウンド11までに出す）」
補足：また、「牛車」という名前のカードは既に存在する（K134）。
補足：「最も少ない人から1人に与える」とは、「最も少ない人からランダムに1人を選んでその人に与える」の意味。
補足：まず食料1から置き始める
誤：「（取られないままラウンドが終わったらなくなる）」
正：「（取られないままラウンドが終わっても以降のラウンドに取れる）」
英文は even in a following round
補足：除外されるのはこの進歩カードをプレイするために用いた家族コマ。「このカードは、除外できる家族がいるときのみ出せる。」の意味は不明確だが、対応する英文では、「このカードは、家族コマを用いてアクションをする場合にのみプレイできる」となっている。
補足：畑を耕すたびに取ることができるのは野菜1つだけ。
補足：「柵で囲われていない農場スペース1マス」とは「未使用スペース1マス」のこと。
また、「羊飼い」という名前のカードは既に存在する（E203）。
補足：「いずれかのプレイヤーが」漁を使うたび、「あなたは」1勝利点を得る。
補足：対象となる4マスのうち、今プレイしている家族を除いて、既に埋まっていたマスの数の分だけの追加食料を得るということ。
誤：「共通のストックの食料1」
正：「あなたの手元の食料1」
誤：「このカードを出したラウンドには、どのアクションスペースも空きスペースとなる。家族コマ（自分の家族も含む）が置かれていても、そこに自分の家族コマを置いてアクションができる」
正：「このカードを出したラウンドには、どのアクションスペースも（あなたにとっては）空きスペースと扱う。家族コマ（自分の家族も含む）が置かれていても、そこに自分の家族コマを置いてアクションができる。これ以降のラウンドには、他のプレイヤーの最後の家族によって使われたアクションスペースは、（あなたにとっては）空きスペースと扱う。」
誤：「かご製造所」
正：「かご製作所」
補足：訳が分かりにくいので別の訳を。「2番目の家族で『家族を増やす』（ステージ2）のアクションスペースを使うたび、その家族を別のアクションスペースに移動させてそのアクションを行うことができる。『家族を増やす』のアクションスペースは新生児によって占有されたままにしておく。」
補足：英文には「それらを全てアクションスペースに残して」に対応する部分は無い。（小麦と資材については additional と形容されているので、食料も獲得できる前提。）
正：「ほかのアクションには影響を与えない」
英文は This card does not affect additional actions on those space. なので、改築＋厩とか、増築＋大進歩ということになるのではないか。
和訳ではNL104とNL112が同じ効果のカードとされているが、英語版では両者は異なる。NL104の内容は次の通り。
「『畑1を耕す』または『畑 そして/または 種をまく』のアクションスペースを使うたびに、そのアクションを行う前に、収穫の畑フェイズを行ってもよい。（これは収穫にはカウントしない。）」
補足：食料も3つ以上必要である。また、「木こり」という名前のカードは既に存在する（E176）。
補足：食料1を支払うタイミングは、このカード上に家族を置こうとする時
補足：その食料供給フェイズに野菜を変換することで得られた食料によって食料供給する場合には食料1で足りる、という意味。
補足：「じゃがいも掘り」という名前のカードが既に存在する（E32）。
補足：同じ種類の品物を同時に複数得ることはできない
