Sorella has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
alexgordon has joined #elliottcable
alexgordon has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
alexgordon has joined #elliottcable
alexgordon has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
Sorella has joined #elliottcable
alexgordon has joined #elliottcable
alexgordon has quit [Client Quit]
alexgordon has joined #elliottcable
alexgordon has quit [Client Quit]
meowrobot has quit [Quit: let us connect our intestines and mutually digest]
wraithgar has joined #elliottcable
<ec_>
<ljharb> put another way, i don't think we need to be worrying about protecting historically and consistently over-represented demographics
<ec_>
(lol sorry that I only ever come in here to talk about whether I should come in here anymore, anymore)
<ec_>
yeaaaaah see, I'm not contrasting <protecting marginalized peoples' feelings> against <protecting whitedudebros' feelings>;
<ec_>
my problem here was <protecting some *friends of mine*'s feelings, who happen to be marginalized> vs. <protecting some *friends of mine*'s feelings, who happen to be white cishet dudebros>
<ec_>
and incomprehensibly, yes, but that basically goes back to what I was saying in the first place: … if what you say is true, then this room no longer has a raison d'être (as a place where *all of my friends* can go, to talk tech and philosophy and even just shoot the shit.)
<ec_>
or to look at it another way, this room has always been an experiment, based on a premise that I have unusually good taste in people, or something of that sort: “If Elliott drags everyone he likes into a room wherein tech/PLT and the philosophy of tech/PLT will be discussed, the discussion will be of some quality” — but if we take it as a given that
<ec_>
Some People Elliott Has Chosen simply *can't* co-exist, then we've finally proven that flawed.
<ec_>
idk just depressed over the whole thing
<ec_>
tl;dr alex can be trashy and somebody I like at the same time — or to put it another way, the-way-this-room-has-always-been can simultaneously hurt people *and* still be something of value.
<ec_>
trying to create some neutered version that *doesn't* hurt people, doesn't seem of-value.
<ec_>
but allowing it to continue to exist when it does hurt people, also seems like a terrible idea.
<ec_>
so tableflipping and calling it quits actually seems like the most reasonable course of action?
<incomprehensibly>
ec_: idk it has a raison d'être as a place where a particular subset of your friends shoot the shit, and some new friends you maybe shoot the shit with elsewhere
<incomprehensibly>
ec_: also, re
<incomprehensibly>
the big O question:
<incomprehensibly>
is the definition "for every epsilon there is an N"?
<ljharb>
ec_: why don't you see value in a place where people can be themselves as long as it's not hurting people?
alexgordon has joined #elliottcable
<ec_>
incomprehensibly: i actually can't find it, I don't think it's in the book for the class.
<ec_>
pretttttty sure he covered/defined this on a day I missed. (I've missed a lot. fucking this semester up haaaaard.)
<ec_>
so I'm using a combination of the Wikipedia definition, common sense, and Stack Exchange results -_-
<ec_>
ljharb: I totally see the value of that, but that's what it *used* to be. As above: now we're in a situation where Somebody Is Going To Hurt, if all are present. read up, etc
<ljharb>
ec_: doesn't that presume that everybody isn't an adult who can, you know, have a filter between their brain and the things they say?
<ljharb>
ec_: as in, everybody should be easily capable of simply *not choosing* to say harmful things?
<pikajude>
Boop
<ec_>
so I'm using the
<ec_>
f(x) ∈ O[g(x)] if-and-only-if |f(n)| ≥ M × |g(n)| for a-given-M n > a-given-n
<ec_>
ljharb: that'd be great ... if everybody, everywhere agreed on the definition of harmful things, etc.
<ec_>
note the situation under discussion: someone simply *mentioned that a person exists*, that's literally it; and a plurality of other people were actively hurt by that.
<ljharb>
ec_: maybe i'm missing that, i don't think that was literally it
<ec_>
tl;dr there's a reason there's codes of conduct, and ‘be great to eachother’ doesn't work. (cf. that hackerspace that imploded)
<ljharb>
ec_: please PM me more detail?
<ec_>
unfortunately, I have maths homework due that i'm completely lost on, and a huge party to plan/clean-for/host in a few hours
<ljharb>
k well later then :-p
<ec_>
this topic will have to wait until I can decide what to do about it ... which is really what it's all about, anyway, yeah? as many good intentions as there may have been, there *wasn't* a CoC when this happened, so I literally just have to unilaterally make some decision and take action.
<ec_>
discussing it so far has just been a venting mechanism for me. I'm pretty pissed about the whole thing.
<ljharb>
but yeah i don't think that the value of a place goes away because we suddenly recognize that humans require rules to behave well
alexgordon has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
alexgordon has joined #elliottcable
<ec_>
okay, like.
<ec_>
god DAMNIT my nick
ec_ is now known as ec
<ec>
something pikajude said applies a bit, here.
<ec>
<pikajude> i'm all good with the current level of MRA saturation
<pikajude>
word
<pikajude>
oh
<pikajude>
boop?
<ec>
I think some of my newer friends who've ever briefly been in here, or joined and been active only recently, might not be clear on this:
<ec>
I want spaces I have power over to be *safe*. That does not mean I want them empty of MRAs.
<ec>
or more directly, and relevantly: *I'm* all good with the currently level of *SJW* saturation.
<ec>
If someone of you has too many MRAs around for your liking ... idk, do something to curate your friend-groups and Internet intake a bit more?
<ec>
because I'm definitely in plenty of spaces that are 100% social-justice echo-chambers, with no diversity of viewpoint whatsoever.
<ec>
When *I* go for diversity, it absolutely doesn't mean “diversity of marginalized groups” — it means diversity across *all spectra*, including the entire scale of privilege. /=
<ljharb>
do you think that every viewpoint needs an opposing view represented?
<ljharb>
like "nobody should be a slave" or "all humans should have equal rights", let's say
<ec>
that entirely depends on the space and goals.
<ec>
In public? No. In private? Yes.
<ljharb>
do you think there needs to be any space on the planet where the belief that "slaves should exist" is tolerated?
<ec>
absolutely.
<ljharb>
wow, ok
<ec>
In fact, I'd *pay money* to have a friend like that.
<ljharb>
i don't understand that
<ec>
That said, that's not something I necessarily want *in this space*.
<ec>
that's entirely fine; it's a personal goal, and not something I'm particularly interested in having any one person understand.
<ljharb>
there are some viewpoints imo that should be eradicated from the planet.
<ljharb>
but you're right, it will differ based on the space
<ec>
ljharb: (look at it this way: The only reason you and I are friends, or get along at all, are because I took the equivalent step to what you just suggested *from my past viewpoints*.)
<ljharb>
fair. i'm not saying anybody is beyond redemption
<ec>
(so, yes, the approach of “I don't care how repulsive I find an idea, I want someone willing to champion that idea to be at least *occasionally* in my sphere of awareness” has paid excellent dividends for me, and I intend to continue to pursue it.)
<ljharb>
but surely it helps one to realize that a belief is flat wrong, if there exists no safe space for it?
<ec>
see, your problem, from my perspective, is seeing that as *redemption*.
<ec>
five years ago, I'd have actively and fervently felt I could “redeem” *you* to libertarianism and capitalism.
<ljharb>
both of those have some merits, in some degree, in some scenarios tho
<ec>
*from your point of view*
<ljharb>
i'm talking about things that have zero merits in zero degree in any scenario
<ec>
you, like anyone, are tainted by a flawed absolutism
<ljharb>
interesting
<ec>
but this is getting way, way too ivory-tower.
alexgordon has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
<pikajude>
rape apologia: it's A-OK
<ec>
So, in a more concrete sense: *in this space*, I'm happy to have absolutes; I easily acknowledge that having the spoons to ‘deal with’ viewpoints at extreme dislocation from my beliefs, from my comfort-zone, is an aspect of privilege,
<ec>
and I don't even begin to wish what I subject myself to upon anyone else.
<ec>
so this space, in particular (or my Twitter feed, or my Facebook, or … anything else I'm in control of) definitely *does* have absolutes.
<pikajude>
ok but you can get pro-slavery advocates all over freenode dude
<pikajude>
just go to any PL channel
<ec>
For instance, as you put it, I wouldn't allow someone who truly believes in slavery in here. I wouldn't retweet such a person, if I followed them on Twitter; I wouldn't inflict them on my real-life friends at a gathering I was in control of ... so on, so forth.
<ec>
that's an easy absolute.
<pikajude>
oh wait, what?
<pikajude>
you wouldn't?
<ec>
The problem here is very disconnected from that:
<ec>
“is willing to mention <that dude>” is, lol, definitely fucking not an absolute I was prepared to make a bannable offense.
<ec>
but it nonetheless hurt people.
<ec>
so, all this discussion of black-and-whites is ... basically pointless.
<incomprehensibly>
ec: yeah ok that's what i thought it was
<incomprehensibly>
ec: are you familiar with the epsilon-delta definition of limits
<pikajude>
is there a term for the blind "every idea has merit" idealism
<ec>
if someone *had* advocated slavery, or, hell, even esposed some rape-apologist viewpoints, or ... any one of a thousand other things I'm definitely not willing to have in here,
<ec>
this wouldn't be a Thing in the first place /=
<ec>
pikajude: it's not that *every idea* has merit.
<ec>
ugh. If it helps you understand how I feel,
<ec>
consider every idea on a continuous axis, with an opposing idea existing at some far end of it.
<ec>
*no matter which axis you're talking about*, you can go far enough to one end to find a zone “with no merit.”
<ljharb>
ec: it wasn't "mentioning some dude" tho
<ljharb>
ec: it was the entire context of pages of discussion, culminating in that
<pikajude>
is this like a bastardization of the horseshoe theory?
<ec>
your point is basically, in this model, that some axes have a zone-of-extremism that extends almost all the way to the center.
<pikajude>
ok
<ec>
i.e. there's basically no ‘space’ left- or right- of “having no opinion at all” that is remotely compatible with *your* (or my) belief-system / value-system.
<ec>
e.g. slavery.
<pikajude>
what
<pikajude>
that doesn't make any sense
<ec>
My point is not that I believe *people with viewpoints in those unacceptable areas* are any less broken than you believe they are,
<ec>
it's that having such unacceptable people in your sphere of awareness *moderates you*, if you can handle it.
<pikajude>
oh ok
<ec>
or, tl;dr,
<ec>
a bad person can still be a positive influence.
<pikajude>
i see
<incomprehensibly>
as in if you have a neighbor or family member who is a trump supporter you will have a much deeper understanding of what the fuck is happening right now
<ljharb>
ec: i think that's a very privileged opinion to hold, tbh
<incomprehensibly>
ljharb: right, he said that
<ljharb>
ec: ie, it takes a lot of privilege to be "able to handle" it
<ljharb>
oh right sorry
<ec>
again to make it concrete: even having trashy MRAs that I disagree with in my sphere-of-awareness is, overall, a positive influence in my life (even though in the short-term it costs me spoons), *because it moderates **me*** away from the equally-unreasonable extremes of SJW-space.
<incomprehensibly>
"I easily acknowledge that having the spoons to ‘deal with’ viewpoints at extreme dislocation from my beliefs, from my comfort-zone, is an aspect of privilege,"
<pikajude>
ya
<pikajude>
neat
<ec>
now, that's all personal.
<ec>
can we accept that Elliott might follow a slaver on Twitter, for reasons other than tearing that person down, and not have to be completely and unutterably mentally-ill to do so? /=
<incomprehensibly>
ec: not a slaver as in someone who holds slaves
<pikajude>
i don't really care as long as you don't let them in #elliottcable
<ec>
yesyesyes good, so,
<incomprehensibly>
ec: epsilon delta
<ljharb>
"follow" is fine. "doesn't think they should be removed from the platform" is what confuses me.
<ec>
that particular moderating-influence approach, taken to an *extreme*, works well for me — but, as already stated, I can't (and wouldn't wish to) inflict that on anybody else;
<ec>
but in spaces I curate, I *still hold the same value-system*; that moderation (as in, the verb) is a positive thing, and that careful injection of moderating influences improves the quality of the space, the quality of the ideas to come from it.
<ec>
or I guess I should say I *held*.
<ec>
pending more thought, I'm supposing that this recent incident has completely destroyed the core experiment of this channel: exercising that belief to build a community.
<ec>
again to tl;dr:
<ljharb>
destroyed tho? or provided a result from the experiment
<ec>
even the tiniest smidgen of attempt at building a melting-pot appears to raise the privilege-barrier to entry too high.
<ec>
provided a result is a good way to put it, except that I clearly got emotionally-invested in this friend-group over eight years :P
<ljharb>
true, you're not supposed to get high on your own supply
<ljharb>
:-p
<ec>
the next iteration of the experiment would basically be an opt-in, instead of implicit, attempt to build a melting-pot community
<pikajude>
i was just an experiment :'(
<ec>
“There's going to be some minimum spoons to participate here; <here are some of the kinds of people-that-you-don't-like> that you'll be having to deal with”
<incomprehensibly>
pikajude: lmao
<ec>
pikajude: I enjoyed experimenting with you tho <3
<ec>
bby i'd experiment w/ u NEtim
<incomprehensibly>
ec: idk i think that
<ec>
along with very stringent rules about what to discuss
<incomprehensibly>
sometimes it is not *spoons* that prevent people from wanting to be here
<incomprehensibly>
and more
<ec>
I think what maybe works best is something like this:
<pikajude>
lmao
<pikajude>
so you'd have a channel with all kinds of people but have rules about what to discuss
<incomprehensibly>
a desire to hang out online in places where they can avoid particular things that they can't avoid irl
<ec>
*actively* choose an axis, *actively* court extremes in the way I describe above and have been doing for years, and then *actively* disallow discussion of that particular axis.
<incomprehensibly>
idk it's less like, only the strong can handle this room
<ec>
“Religion is a valid topic of discussion, until we start adding opposing viewpoints about religion.”
<incomprehensibly>
and more, every group has a bunch of subtle signals they send as to who is welcome
<ec>
incomprehensibly: rephrase?
<pikajude>
yeah just put all this shit in #ec's-social-experiment
<pikajude>
direct all the MRAs in that direction
<ec>
lolol pikajude
* pikajude
is inundated with MRAs from every angle
<pikajude>
"have we got the place for you!"
<ec>
I have nearly none in my life, except in this room.
<incomprehensibly>
some people sort themselves into places where social justice opinions are considered ridiculous
<incomprehensibly>
some people sort themselves into places where problematic opinions are not tolerated
<pikajude>
there are MRAs in the smashbros channel, there are MRAs in the audio channel, there are MRAs in the cars channel
<pikajude>
in the programming subreddit, the sysadmin subreddit, on twitter, at work
<ljharb>
there's one running for president
<ec>
incomprehensibly: I mean, yeah? I think I'm missing your point as it pertains to curating a space for those people
<pikajude>
in the mechanical keyboards chat
<pikajude>
in the music chat
<pikajude>
so while i value your opinion, ec, it's nice to have this one channel where they can all fuck off
<incomprehensibly>
ec: i guess what i mean is, a lot of people have (potentially pretty unreasonable) expectations for ideological homogeneity in their hang-out spots
<ec>
I wonder if one could be convicted for planning to assassinate the president, if you *only* discussed extremely byzantine ways of doing so
<incomprehensibly>
and sort themselves based on subtle, hard-to-forge social signals
<ec>
Rube Goldberg Death Machines
<incomprehensibly>
of ideology
<pikajude>
no trump isn't gonna be convicted
<ec>
pikajude: I'm not at all sure where you got the idea this space was *ever* MRA-free
<ec>
I mean jesus you've been here for years
<ec>
we have welcome-back-penises
<pikajude>
ec clearly you haven't spent much time in a good ol' majority MRA channel
<incomprehensibly>
i mean there haven't ever been avid r/MensRights posters, more just men who grew up and didn't explore beyond their own points of view
<incomprehensibly>
:p
<ec>
it's gotten safe*er* recently, but it's neither (clearly, cf. recent events) yet a truly safe space
<ljharb>
sexual content isn't the same as "MRA"
<ec>
ljharb: hahaha, true
* pikajude
wonders if ec actually doesn't know what an MRA is
<pikajude>
this would all make sense
<ec>
pikajude: I do, I'm using it in the same way as “SJW” is used
<ljharb>
MRAs are the ones that believe that sex jokes are true stories
<pikajude>
no you aren't
<ec>
to refer in short to an entire culture, most of the members of whom aren't actually applicable to that label
<pikajude>
oh
<pikajude>
ok
<pikajude>
so you potentially don't then
<ec>
i.e. SJW, when used perjoratively, doesn't actually require that the person being referenced Be An Activist
<ec>
they just have to hold slightly-okay opinions and/or be mildly-against shitty opinions :P
<pikajude>
ok so my point was, the tone of this channel is a lot nicer
<pikajude>
even if there are MRAs around
<ec>
thanks, I think
<ec>
like, clearly, that implies this channel has some value, though
<pikajude>
there's no implicit assumption that SJW topics are a joke
<ec>
which just makes my job harder awjofaeusgirgiu
<pikajude>
that might be more about the target audience tho
<pikajude>
i mean alexgordon is really dedicated to appearing like not being a douche
<pikajude>
even if they have lame viewpoints
<incomprehensibly>
ec: i guess my point is: you can say anything at all in a 1 on 1 conversation with someone you trust and who knows where you're coming from. in a larger group, zoomed out, reduced to signals rather than intent, there are some tightropes you can't walk
<pikajude>
lots of people conduct themselves well in here
<ec>
signals-rather-than-intent nails it tho
<incomprehensibly>
ec: you can easily have a no-strangers-allowed friendly group where you can have heated discusions about men's rights and social justice
<ljharb>
i've definitely had much more productive discussions with people with horrific viewpoints in this channel than in most other places
alexgordon has joined #elliottcable
<pikajude>
ya
<ec>
arrrrrrgh
<pikajude>
it's the target audience
<pikajude>
exactly
<pikajude>
smashbros channel has this one dude that thinks transgender ppl are an abomination on humanity
<pikajude>
and he's an op
<pikajude>
so that changes the tone of everything
<ec>
pikajude: do I recall correctly that you're enby? or did I just pull that out of my anus?
<pikajude>
what's enby?
<ec>
non-binary, but, clearly no then
<pikajude>
no that's someone else
<ec>
so just an aside: note that everybody speaking right now is pretty damn privileged.
<pikajude>
i'm a bog standard cis male
<pikajude>
at least MPs can talk in here without being dogpiled
<pikajude>
which is nice
<ec>
barring some non-presenting extreme mental illness, the worst here is some class or sexuality disprivilege /=
<pikajude>
mental illness hype
<ec>
so I don't think a discussion on these topics can have a meaningful, actionable outcome without participation of people we're missing. /=
<pikajude>
where's gq
<ec>
ahhah
<ec>
long gone /=
<ec>
incomprehensibly: your name is so long that my client wraps it — it's the only name I've ever seen do that
<pikajude>
my font turns that into a not-equals ligature
<incomprehensibly>
ec: ahaha nice
<ec>
so it inists there's one person named incomprehensibl, and another named y
<pikajude>
you're really throwing me off ec
<pikajude>
long gone does not equal
<ec>
lmao
<ec>
long gone ≠
<pikajude>
yeah
<pikajude>
that
<ec>
long gone /≠
<ec>
double-negative forms a positive? :P
<pikajude>
i think my ex has fully inverted her sleep schedule
<ec>
ugh. so.
<ec>
the real problem here is basically that dog-whistles, when recognized, can wound. if I grasp it properly.
<ec>
but how do I enforce on *implications*?
<ec>
especially, especially if those implications are wrong? (i.e. “what if cloudhead doesn't have the opinions that he implied he had?”)
<pikajude>
can't be done
<pikajude>
its a case by case basis
<ec>
has to be done.
<pikajude>
you could make a dog whistle blacklist
<ec>
nah, that's trash. I need policy. I need enforceability.
<pikajude>
ok
alexgordon has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
<pikajude>
good luck mate
<ec>
I need to be able to go to the girls who got hurt, here, and say “Here's what's written in stone; here's why you won't be hurt again.”
<cloudhea1>
someone called my name
<ec>
like well yeah I know it's impossible-sounding, but I'm also not going to pretend it not something that needs to be assaulted and solved?
<incomprehensibly>
bye alexgordon
<ec>
hahaha, hi cloudhea1
cloudhea1 is now known as cloudhead_
<pikajude>
cloud hunderscore
<ec>
incomprehensibly: thanks to all the joins and leaves, I'm picturing alexgordon driving down an interstate
<ec>
and occasionally opening his laptop for a moment to catch up, then shutting it again
<cloudhead_>
heallo thur
<cloudhead_>
seems like I forgot to log out of irccloud
<ec>
-best irc cloud
<ec>
p…purr?
<ec>
oh no -_-
<incomprehensibly>
_-_
<ec>
incomprehensibly: you're consistently a very smart person
alexgordon has joined #elliottcable
<pikajude>
_-_
<ec>
like when I wanted to know things about PLT, you already knew the things I wanted to know / cared about / had formed interesting opinions on them
<ec>
then I wanted some math, and you'd formed interesting opinions there
<ec>
and now when I talk about community-building and social justice, you've formed interesting opinions there
<cloudhead_>
is this a heart2heart I have stepped into
<ec>
cloudhead_: I'm all heart2heart, all the time <3
<incomprehensibly>
¯o¯
<ec>
I wear my heart on my sleeve so much, that I just bought one of those old iPod straps for runners, and stuffed it in there
<cloudhead_>
:o
<pikajude>
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
<incomprehensibly>
ºoº
<ec>
◴_◶
<ec>
incomprehensibly: (▰˘◡˘▰)
<pikajude>
ugh
<incomprehensibly>
˘o˘
<pikajude>
at least i feel better than yesterday
<pikajude>
yesterday was awful
<ec>
(🙃 ͜ʖ🙃)
<ec>
god so hungry
<incomprehensibly>
pikajude: what was yesterday ˜~˜
<pikajude>
had a bad day yesterday
<incomprehensibly>
:(
<pikajude>
still having a bad day today but it's better than yesterday
<ec>
speaking of being a social-justice freakazoid,
<pikajude>
yesterday it felt like someone sucked out all my serotonin
<ec>
I have not yet formed an opinion on this, but I find it intensely interesting and would like to share:
<ec>
What To Do Instead of Calling the Police, a work in progress: ͜ʖ
<ec>
with the handwaving, I'm still “but WHY”'ing off into the sunset while the rest of the students are finishing the last problem on their homework v.v
<incomprehensibly>
still uploading
<incomprehensibly>
lol why is the university wifi so bad
<ec>
“Perhaps the person who shared this link with you deleted it. Or they’re not ready to share it. Or maybe a Yeti has taken it to a cave. And that Yeti has children. And those children love CloudApp links.”
<incomprehensibly>
try that
<ec>
cloudapp stahp existing
<incomprehensibly>
ok so
<ec>
ghahahah at the volume-chang
<incomprehensibly>
one thing you can do when proving bounds like this
<incomprehensibly>
because an ad came on spotify
<ec>
I'm actually afk'ing to grab food
<ec>
lauffing
<incomprehensibly>
i muted
<incomprehensibly>
lol yeah
<incomprehensibly>
ok the trick you probably need is in that screenshot
<ec>
wait wut
<incomprehensibly>
you can fidn something that's greater than f(x)/g(x)
<incomprehensibly>
and show that tha'ts less than a bound C
<ec>
well yeah that
<ec>
is the same thing as
<ec>
f(x) ≤ N * g(x) ==> f(x)/g(x) ≤ N, when g(x) is positive, right?
<incomprehensibly>
yes
<ec>
I need an inequalities cheat-sheet -_-
<incomprehensibly>
yeah
<incomprehensibly>
but what i mean is
<incomprehensibly>
and definitely less than some constant
<incomprehensibly>
you can find an expression that's definitely greater than f(x)/g(x)
<incomprehensibly>
common technique
<incomprehensibly>
in my screenshot
<ec>
yah
<ec>
yah, knew that one
<incomprehensibly>
yeah so
<incomprehensibly>
your simplified ratio is:
<incomprehensibly>
(x^2 + 2)/(2x^2 + 2)
<ec>
problem is all of the examples are polynomial, not rational, and my brain is refusing to transform the approach
<incomprehensibly>
fuck whooops
<incomprehensibly>
(x^2 + 2)/(2x^2 + x)
<ec>
(x² + 2) / (2x² + x)
<incomprehensibly>
well the thing is
<incomprehensibly>
they did that with a ratio fo polynomials
<incomprehensibly>
but a ratio of rationals
<incomprehensibly>
IS ratio of polynomials
<ec>
trudat
<incomprehensibly>
so it's actually the same
<ec>
hm
<ec>
hold on
<incomprehensibly>
ok gotta walk to thing
<ec>
o7
<ec>
the only way to describe my approach to math so far is “plodding”
alexgordon has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
<ec>
wtf I'm still so lost
<ec>
I'm missing how we can reason, given x is positive and `(x² + 2) / (2x² + x) ≤ N`, that it follows that `(x² + 2x²) / (2x² + x) ≤ N` …
<ec>
which is presumably the next step, if I'm understanding this pdf correctly
<ec>
that's nearly elliott-level ego, colour me impressed
<ec>
(it's a kind of mauve — ‘verkehrspurpur’ in RAL.)
<pikajude>
no idea what that is
<incomprehensibly>
ec: for x > 1, (x² + 2) / (2x² + x) < (2x² + x) / (2x² + x). that's just a fact that is true. the second thing equals 1. so the ratio < 1.
<ec>
pikajude: the colour of incomprehensibly's nickname on my screen, actually
<ec>
ish
<ec>
so upset about this assignment
<ec>
85 on the first exam, tho
<pikajude>
ec: i know what mauve is
<pikajude>
i don't know what verkehrspurpur is
<ec>
annoyingly, I actually got most of the points for the two proofs … which I thought I'd bomb
<ec>
but I spent all my time banging my head against those, and fucked up some of the simple ones in the last few minutes before the buzzer