• Synapse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      45 minutes ago

      It’s a formula very useful for a tone of engineering fields, electronic, mechanics, automatic control and probably a bunch more. I used it a tone in my early carrier, including the imaginary flavor.

  • Steve Dice@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Such an strange error. I’m not saying it’s AI but here’s my prompt:

    Generate a picture of someone thinking and, to symbolize their thought process, show math symbols and equations around their head, these symbols have to include the quadratic formula

    Here’s the pic:

    1761354151808

      • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I’m guessing a typesetter was too lazy to add a different-size font and although they knew how to type “√”, didn’t realize “²” is in Unicode too. They added a horizontal line as separate graphics to extend the square root symbol but only realized too late the whole thing is in a fraction: maybe someone reminded them and they misinterpreted the advice, or just decided not to split the text box to put the nominator higher.

  • BodePlotHole@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    13 hours ago

    A negative boy was unsure about a radical party.

    The boy was a square, so he missed out on four awesome chicks.

    And the whole thing was over by 2am…

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        55
        ·
        14 hours ago

        One of the worst parts of it is that Scooby Doo has had tons of successful series and they’ve all been pretty good. Yet they somehow managed to fuck this up despite it being an incredibly simple formula for a show.

        • TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          34
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          It was never about Scooby Doo. IIRC, this was supposed to be an original show, but latching it to a successful 90s franchise must have looked like a sure money maker.

          Edit: did some fact checking, this was a theory. The show actually was an unfortunate reimagining of Scooby Doo since its inception.

          • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            13 hours ago

            Regardless of what the official story is, that’s probably what really happened. Same thing with the Halo tv show.

            • TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              12 hours ago

              I don’t know. Seeing how modern shows like Foundation, The Witcher, or Star Trek Discovery, to name a few, have gratuitously walked over their own canon, I can understand how the producers thought Velma was a good idea for a new Scooby Doo show.

              • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                11 hours ago

                I think Discovery is a little different. They had way too many producers and writers on that show, all trying to get their little ideas in so when they moved onto a new project, they could get a sexy “By the creators of Star Trek” tagline on it. The situation Walter Mosley described when he left STD made the writer’s room sound like a viper pit.

                • T156@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  7 hours ago

                  Plus the first two seasons basically had the producers get fired, and a new person brought in.

                  That would be bad for any show.

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    14 hours ago

    … Why not just copy the meme they’re referencing? It’s like they’re intentionally trying to screw this up.

      • Gobbel2000@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Okay, but even if we assumed (x=b) to be a very small equivalence relation, it should appear in the denominator position to form an equivalence quotient.

        • Crazazy [hey hi! :D]@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Oh yeah was a bit sleepy and thought you could just put arbitrary expressions in the numerator instead of just the type.

          But consider this: heterogeneous propositional equality type of types x and b under equivalence relation a, which is bound somewhere else in the aether that we can’t see in the screenshot

          Constructors of this equality type? No fucking clue but I’m sure there exist some to make the need for an equivalence relation make sense

  • TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    You ignoramus. This is what allows us artistic geniuses to freely unleash our gifts to the world, what we call “creative liberty”.

    An insignificant thing like being wrong should not stop our creative juices from flowing unabashed.