divVerent

Software engineer. Mathematics major. All programming languages are bad.

In free time, game developer; main titles: #AAAAXY, #Xonotic, #Nexuiz.

Super Mario Maker troll fan (i.e. I enjoy watching streamers suffer).

Primary: divVerent (npub1zts…ccks)

x: 9
languages: English German Latin Go C++ C TypeScript Haskell Shell Perl Python Ruby Assembler BASIC Pascal Prolog HQ9+
web: https://divverent.github.io
purger: http://github.com/divVerent/misspurge

Last Notes

2026-08-10 10:05:07 UTC

- reply

The problem is, when the government prints money, it simply reduces value of all existing money in circulation. Which primarily affects normal people, as billionaires tend to hoard their value in stocks or real estate, safe from inflation. So any approach based on printing money just flattens the 99%, making them all equally poor, while taking nothing from the 1% (but very likely even redistributing more to them). So I kinda fear that an UBI approach will feed the poorest, which is good but will also make the "20% to 99%" poorer (worst case, the entire 99% will be living from paycheck to paycheck, always on the brink to starvation, and will not be able to afford luxury items like an internet connection), while doing nothing at all about the hoarding 1%.
I honestly do not see how your idea of solving the food problem should work. So you want the government to decide who can eat how much and what? That sounds like Soviet style planned economy and we all know how well that worked out. Holodomor?
The problems I mentioned of course do not happen in small scale pilots yet, so these pilots sadly do not tell the full story.

2026-08-10 03:48:23 UTC

- reply

Indeed. If everyone can afford to eat, then the market sees raising prices will increase profit, until some people are too poor to eat again. The max profit equilibrium is never where everyone can afford it.
If one then raises the UBI, one risks ending up where 99% are too poor to eat properly, and 1% are billionaires, evading taxes used to pay the UBI. Like in the USSR.
So either one must plug every single tax loophole, or one must cap costs.

2026-03-06 18:16:02 UTC

- reply

One normally doesn't let _humans_ run commands over production databases without someone else reviewing (for lots of reasons, I thought by now everyone knows it, after all, it's basically both a SOX and a GDPR requirement, even ignoring the mere reliability arguments), so why let an _AI_?

2026-02-03 05:36:14 UTC

- reply

Honestly this isn't _wrong_ - if we hadn't been enforcing gender stereotypes on everyone, maybe trans wouldn't even be a thing.
Personally, you can wear whatever you want and behave whichever way you want, as long as you're not harming me. But do it for your own good, not to prove a point to someone else.
With women's spaces I do not _fully_ agree. It's too coarse a distinction - there do exist a lot of women who are abusers, too. Personally I'd prefer solutions that don't require such a broad categorization. Such as proper privacy in public bathrooms.
For sports teams it gets tricky though. On the one hand I don't care and would want every team and competition to choose for themselves who to admit and who not.
On the other hand, there do exist biological differences that make fair competition impossible.
Even then, are two classes really enough? Boxing e.g. uses far more than two for a reason...

2025-08-04 14:06:35 UTC

- reply

Note that asking this way is pretty much biased in favor of AI.
For example, yes, I can confirm that AI tools occasionally help my workflow. I gave up on letting it do anything "interesting", but for stuff like "update all calls to this function to add an extra argument" it works rather well (not 100% though).
Of course... this is only relevant because of a lack of working IDE refactoring tools. Which thanks to AI will also never be made or fixed in the future at all, because "you can just use the AI".
So yes, AI does make me as a developer more productive. But less productive than if I had proper refactoring tools available.

2025-06-18 20:04:30 UTC

- reply

Well, spycams should get someone on death row ANYWAY. That's just plain unacceptable. And no, having a "women" sign in front of the bathroom doesn't prevent a nasty man from installing a spycam at all.
My point is just, I accept it is an issue, but the solution is plain dumb. So you women are OK with biological women dressed like a man in your bathrooms, even though TO YOU that looks exactly the same as a man?
No, we finally need to learn that privacy is a human right. For _everyone_. And then this becomes a non-issue. And yes, why not have separate rooms with sinks and mirrors? We have that at my workplace. It's how it should be. Then you don't even NEED to mark anything by gender.

2025-06-18 09:30:51 UTC

- reply

Arguably the bathroom problem needs a different solution.
Why do we have separate bathrooms at all? Because people get undressed there (partially) and we want to avoid any issues arising from unwanted sexual attraction.
So which bathroom should a gay man go? Problem?
The solution is making bathrooms provide privacy. No wide slit into the cabins. Ideally not even a large open space above and below the doors.
If this were to be done, all else would be a non-issue.

2025-05-01 10:36:58 UTC

- reply

On a different level though - there is a 1st Amendment and this implies people cannot be punished for a tattoo alone. Even if this _were_ real.
Gang membership has to be proven by connections, criminal history, otherwise recorded deeds. Not symbols.
There may be SOME symbols where everyone knows they are not acceptable, and those then MAYBE can be used as evidence. Maybe. After Elon's Hitler salute I doubt even that.
But certainly not these.

2025-04-18 02:00:30 UTC

Facts about #TerahertzRadiation (1/2)
- By Terahertz Radiation we understand radio waves in the range from about 100 to 1000 THz.
- Terahertz Radiation is known to cause an #inflammatory reaction on the skin which in some cases can lead to skin #cancer.
- Excessive exposure to Terahertz Radiation can cause permanent eye damage and blindness. It happens frequently around #solar #eclipses.
- Terahertz Radiation is primarily created in nuclear #fusion reactors. Most of us live within 8 minutes of a Terahertz Radiation emitting reactor.
- The surface of such a Terahertz Radiation emitting #reactor is actually so hot that your whole body would burn up instantly if you were to touch it.
- Due to the immense danger it poses to humans and the environment, the #European Union and the state of #California have actually banned the sale of a, sadly, commonly deployed device emitting Terahertz Radiation.
- Pulsed Terahertz Radiation is a common cause of #headaches in humans and animals, and can in some causes even lead to grand mal #seizures.
- Terahertz Radiation is known to cause #wildfires
- The Ancient #Greek are said to have already used Terahertz Radiation to fight off their enemies.
#conspiracy

2025-04-13 18:11:17 UTC

- reply

Mein Problem mit dieser Wähler-Führerschein-Idee sowie verwandten Ideen (Mindest-IQ für Wahlrecht, etc.) ist, dass sich auch das super manipulieren lässt. Die Radikalen pauken dann extra für den Test, und Normalbürger, die sowieso schon politikverdrossen sind, machen sich die Mühe nicht und gehen dann noch weniger wählen.
Am Ende hilft es dann nur den Rechtsradikalen.
Daher bin ich eher für Einschränkung des passiven Wahlrechts. Wer die freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung oder andere Teile der Verfassung verletzt, fliegt raus. Wer für ein als verfassungswidrig entschiedenes Gesetz gestimmt hat, wird verwarnt - drei gekippte Gesetze und man ist raus.
Auch wenn es rein theoretisch Aufgabe der Wähler wäre, solche Politiker mit Nichtwiederwahl zu bestrafen...