Ironically, my overly chatty doctor was ranting about how methadone is a racket and they string people along for years instead of titrating them off. He prescribes Suboxone, apparently.
Well, there has to be some kind of algorithm. Even picking a random Wikipedia article technically is an algorithm, just not one that adapts to the user
In comsci, there are no real random numbers. They are all seeded psuedo-random number algorithms. (Unless you integrate with some third party random as a service setup)
Yes but the common interpretation of “the algorithm” is that of the social media and YouTube style one. Recommending items of interest etc but easily manipulated by bad actors.
Wiki random is about as opposite to that as possible.
That’s a common misconception. You can measure a lot of ambient noise and extract entropy. Like time between inputs or how long it took an HDD to seek.
Most modern PC CPUs even have dedicated hardware for generating random numbers from electrical ambient noise. I don’t trust them however.
Uuuuuh that’s not the way to fight an addiction, right? Who is this person working for, exactly?
Think of it as a methadone clinic for doomscrollers.
If methadone was also educational 🌈⭐
I may have a problem
We’re here to help! We just need someone to implement doomscroll / infiniscroll into Lemmy, lol.
I’ve got news for you: basically every app I’ve used so far for lemmy has infinite scroll. Currently Thunder previously Sync.
Honestly the fact that Lemmy doesn’t have infinite scroll (on my UI, at least) has helped me a lot in terms of not wasting hours at a time on my phone
More like a brothel for sex addicts.
Jesus. Enough hyperbolic nonsense. Browsing Wikipedia is way healthier than doom scrolling.
And doomscrolling Wikipedia is still healthier than doomscrolling anything else.
Think of it as taking methadone instead of heroin.
Ironically, my overly chatty doctor was ranting about how methadone is a racket and they string people along for years instead of titrating them off. He prescribes Suboxone, apparently.
I don’t think there’s an algorithm involved actually. Just lovely facts.
Well, there has to be some kind of algorithm. Even picking a random Wikipedia article technically is an algorithm, just not one that adapts to the user
True, but outside CS the word has come to refer to a certain brand of complex heuristics or ML inference.
An algorithm usually involves lots of complex calculations and weights. Picking a number from a pool of numbers at random is as simple as it gets.
In comsci, there are no real random numbers. They are all seeded psuedo-random number algorithms. (Unless you integrate with some third party random as a service setup)
Yes but the common interpretation of “the algorithm” is that of the social media and YouTube style one. Recommending items of interest etc but easily manipulated by bad actors.
Wiki random is about as opposite to that as possible.
That’s a common misconception. You can measure a lot of ambient noise and extract entropy. Like time between inputs or how long it took an HDD to seek.
Most modern PC CPUs even have dedicated hardware for generating random numbers from electrical ambient noise. I don’t trust them however.