Thank you to the voters that said the dbzer0 posters are cool, though someone said something like "I never noticibly noticed any user from that comm" and I feel personally affronted
I noticed you comrade, and for what it's worth I was fully 
when I cast my vote to defederate on principle. We would have welcomed you and the other cool folks with open arms if you decided to make a hex account but it looks like that is unnecessary.
That said, I did change my vote because I agree staying federated while banning db0 and Unruffled is the funniest option.
I actually did make one just in case haha, and for the emojis mostly. I just find it so odd when they say on other instances that hexbearites are all mean bullies, seriously y'all are great. And the funniest!
I just upvoted myself take that tankies
Edit: oh god I'm gonna get banned for self doxxing now
No but if you ever fuck up on one of those accounts the other gets banned for ban evasion. But you would never cross the party line right comrade? (I am an anarchist I just larp as a staunch NKVD officer for moderation purposes.)
I have to say, it makes me so happy we have normal ass anarchists on this site. so many internet anarchists are such fucking weird anticommunists - but I never meet those types in organizing circles IRL. like I tell them I'm a communist and they're response is always open arms solidarity and unity. even when we have disagreements about AES, it's jovial and rooted in real historical knowledge and we educate each other. I suspect being terminally online just rots your brain.
I noticed you and thought it was weird someone from hexbear made an account on a different instance
I'm gonna keep it a buck with y'all: I've never once met a decent poster from your fed. I've been subconsciously lumping you lot in with programming.dev, pawb.social, and mander.xyz's posters since being made aware of you just based on how many settlers hang there.
I came over here when /r/piracy moved and at first I was confused by hexbear. Over time I've come to embrace the ideas and movement and I appreciate the discussions on here. Sorry if I've frustrated any of you over the past year, I've really had a shift in perspective coming from a ballot box liberal background.
I’ve been totally uninvolved, but it appears the mods, rather than the users, have been the most inflammatory. We welcome all good-faith users, such as yourself 
coming from a ballot box liberal background.
That’s where the vast majority of us came from. Really where else could most of us have come from? East Germany? The Moon?
I think I said something vaguely socialist and someone said "go back to chapo" and I was like "what the fuck is a chapo"
wow I guess you found enough wrongthink to ban them, huh?We draw the line at DM harassment of any kind. Calling a moderator a "hypocritical PoS" in DMs for banning them for outright reactionary behavior necessitates a site wide ban.
It would be hypocritical to do otherwise.
No. You can't divide by zero and get infinity. x / 0 = NaN, it can't be defined, dividing by zero is impossible.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero
Probs skim a wiki page before trying to correct someone :) conventions are just conventions. All maths is arbitrary (e.g. n^0 being defined as 1 is so nice patterns around power addition and such hold at 0 but "n times n zero times" is sort of a nonsense question if the operation is taken at it's most naive and direct interpretation)
Also not a number isn't a mathematical construct, it's a value computer software returns to handle edge cases in a predictable fashion.
I now vote for defederation due to this pedantic response. Division by zero is undefined under the rational number set which is what pretty much anyone on earth will think of. It does not reach the same value as you take the limit from either side. It's not a convention it is an axiom. Math is not arbitrary, it must all be proven n^0=1 is not a convention, it is proven in many different ways.
I guess that's fair, I'm being a bit sloppy. We prove things inside of axioms we accept, and can develop systems consistent with different sets of axioms but there's not necessarily any reason to choose one set over another. Doesn't 0^0 come from Euler being like "shut up it works nicer this way" though? or was it Russel?
We can't prove our axioms, and the rational number set isn't more true than anything else, it just tends to be more useful in normal arse problems.
I can think of one reason to choose the set of axioms we all learned in grade school:
it just tends to be more useful in normal arse problems.
And anyone who's cared for a baby would tell you that lullabies are the most useful sort of music but they're hardly what I want to talk about when music comes up :P
Does everyone have to provide a disclaimer on every comment they ever make regarding math? (Note: This comment refers only to the system of mathematics every single person reading this comment is familiar with. If you make up different rules then those rules will apply instead of the ones I'm talking about.)
I didn't intend any hostility, the world is just nuanced and really fun. I often see assertions of rules of thumb presented as factual statements without any hint of further complexity existing and it makes me sad as people read that and think the world is simple and makes sense.
It's much more true to say something like "usually we can't divide by zero" and that leaves room for someone curious to go "huh!" and scurry off on their own and learn something fascinating.
division is not defined for 0. it can yield multiple values, any value at all, explode to infinity, etc.. but even that statement depends on taking a limit because you can't actually divide by zero. you break basic algebraic laws if you try to include it. it's such a essential fact of algebra that you only name an element of a ring 0 if it's the additive identity and always multiplies to zero. when you extend such a set to a field, you define a division operation as multiplication by the multiplicative inverse except for the additive identity because such an operation is never well-defined.
your Wikipedia link is discussing limits. limits are only well-defined when you can prove that every step of the limiting process is well-defined and the overall sequence converges absolutely. if I just write 5/0, there's no sequence - you can't say the limit diverges to infinity or resolves to a specific number because there is no limiting sequence to begin with. you need a function like sin(x)/x to produce a limit such that you know for certain that 0/0 in this very particular case is 0 (ie the discontinuity at 0 is removable).
if you're interested in this, you're looking for ring theory. a lot of textbooks will give you the basis to prove that division by zero produces inconsistent results for any field - this is why it's one of the field axioms.
I wasn't talking about limits. Read the stuff about extended real lines etc. There are some (2 or 3? idk not many) systems where we do define 1/0 as infinity.
I do think your right in the framework of ring theory though, but I haven't done much of that. It's a framework for analysing a lot of algebra and the maths we usually do but I don't think it's the universal truth of all mathematics which is possible. Am I wrong there?
sure, you can extend the real line but you're basically defining a new value that behaves a lot like NaN in software. you have to be very careful about the operations because of the strange properties of the new terms introduced. what you get out loses a lot of the basic properties you're used to with arithmetic - ie afaik it's neither a field nor a ring. it's also a really misleading statement to say it's dividing by zero - you're changing what division by zero even means. and the infinity you get back isn't infinity in the usual sense - the supremum of the natural numbers. rather it's a symbolic infinity.
basically, it's as much division by zero as -1/12 is the sum of the natural numbers. they're both true in a very particular sense but only after you change the meaning of all the words in the statement.
said another way, you can make anything you like true by introducing new axioms but those axioms have deep impacts on what's true in the new system those axioms generate and it's misleading to say that the ability to introduce those axioms makes an undefined operation sensible in a system that lacks those axioms.
Ok I suppose that's fair, most people probably are taking division as meaning in the sense it applies in what is it even called, default maths? real analysis or whatever, and while people call the operation division in other systems it's sort of a homophone for a rather different thing that shares characteristics.
People should still learn about the Riemann sphere though and it's a sensible operation under that. We do it all the time in quantum shit mwahahahaha.
Also not a number isn't a mathematical construct
I know that, I was using it in the literal sense. x / 0 = not a number. It isn't a number. It is not something defined mathematically. I could just as easily have said undefined, N/A, or anything else.
conventions are just conventions. All maths is arbitrary
you cannot take an object and divide it into 0 pieces. The expression is nonsensical to begin with.
Maybe learn some algebra before you start being pedantic. You can't divide by zero and any notation that does is shorthand for something else. There is no way to define 6/0 in the same way as 6/3 and the fact that you need a whole-ass metric space so you can have convergent sequences shows that.
And n^0^ is not just arbitrary but the definition of an empty sequence of an operation is that it yields the neutral element. The empty sum yields 0, the empty product yields 1 and n^0^, in the most naive and direct interpretation, Is n multiplied by itself no times, hence an empty product and therefore yields 1 (there is a caveat for 0^0^ but that's like a whole lecture). Sure that is arbitrary in the sense that any axiomatic system is arbitrary but not in the /0 sense where it keeps changing based on context and no self-consistent axiomatic system is possible where /0 is assigned a value.
Glad to hear it. I may have made an ass of myself on here a few times, but a few patient hexbears showed me what I needed to get it. If you defederated, I'd have to make an account and convince the mods I know better now.
masterful bit
What was the vote count?
e: from the vote thread it was 117:47 in favor of staying federated. thanks @Antisocial_Socialist@hexbear.net and @the_itsb@hexbear.net!
I believe it was something like 117 to remain federated vs like ~40 to defederate. I would have to recount but it was overwhelmingly in favor of staying federated.
I also agree with the other users here that the funniest and probably most productive option is leaving their admins banned while staying federated and letting them make the next move is the best and funniest option.
Man i had no idea there was gonna be a vote like this today. I was just talking bout the 'bear over there too. Pardon me for being out of the loop but what happened? Mods from hexbear kicked up a fuss? From db0? Can someone point me to the drama?
Mods from db0 got pissy because someone posted about their post being removed for being "tankie adjacent" whatever the fuck that means. Then db0 himself came in and threw a lil tantrum about it and got himself banned from the dunk tank. Then db0 decided to start harassing a mod in dm's and got himself site banned, which raised the question: Should we remain federated with an instance whose admins are banned. The consensus was to remain federated but keep their admins banned because that is the funniest option.
@db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com Feel free to correct me here if I got any of this wrong.
Oh wait you can't you're fuckin banned loser lmao.
The consensus was to remain federated but keep their admins banned because that is the funniest option.
lol'd irl
I'm not being critical of you here, but I've seen a few people now mention they didn't know any of this was going on. I sometimes miss big struggle sessions and wonder how in the hell that happened, me being the modlog-reading extremely online dork that I am, so I get it. But in this case, there has been a voting thread pinned for over 2 days on the topic. Do people just not look at the pinned posts?
Yeah, that makes sense. If the megas don't interest you and you're used to them being the only things pinned, then you're likely to ignore pinned posts in general. That probably is the case for a good chunk of users. But if someone is used to ignoring pins in general, it seems to me that they probably shouldn't be too surprised when they miss something like this.
If the dcrats can forget to hold their convention in time to get on the ballot in Ohio surely a few nerds on a forum can be forgiven for missing a post for 2 days.
there has been a voting thread pinned for over 2 days on the topic.
that's longer than i have showered
Do people just not look at the pinned posts?
Ey ya got me. I do... Sometimes look at them but i try not to get into fights between comms like that. If i saw the sticky i missed the importance and thought it was just more lib-dunkin.
I am glad to see there was more warning about the vote that my ass simply missed rather than it being something done on a whim, and glad the vote turned out the way it did regardless as i would have voted to remain fedded
Since you asked and everybody just talked about it but didn't actually link it, here's the thread that caused the whole thing.
In case you're interested in the ensuing discussion, here's a link to the fed/defed vote post.
This sounds like you are defending the dipshits on the dbzer0 moderation team.
Nobody gives a fuck if our ideology is hated in the west. That does not preclude us from dunking on them.
Losers can stay mad and enjoy their ban.
Gotta be honest I have no idea what's going on. I don't know why I voted in the other thread. I was just trying to fit in 😢
That's because they're V*ushites who are drawn to internet drama and debate pervertry like flies to shit.
