Moved from @[email protected]
Thanks!
I tried Pixelfed (very briefly) not so long ago. I didn’t find a propper way to search for content. How do you discover new content?
Credit: Travis Chapman (@Travispaints)
[email protected] may like this!
FIY: If you use the crosspost feature (available in the default web frontend), it would have included the original post content with the all the info:
Source: Daydreamer’s Art — I finished my Super Mario World globe
Tumblr archive: https://daydreamers-art.tumblr.com/archive
RSS Feed: https://daydreamers-art.tumblr.com/rssPosted previously:
Yep, that’s why I added the twitter source too.
Source: https://www.commitstrip.com/2015/04/27/the-eye-opener-commit/
Also on twitter:
Credit: Rosemary Mosco
Sources:
I’ve only used on the desktop, but there is Proxigram, an alternative frontend for IG.
How long would you say it took you before getting a fundamental understanding?
I would say years, as with any complex activity.
I’m still forgetting things I learned 3 or even 4 times like how to do a for each loop.
You can forget in 2 different ways:
You will forget-1 everything which you don’t use on a daily basis. That’s what internet is for. Forgetting in the 2-nd sense is much more rare and you should do something if that’s the case.
all of it feels too advanced and I get lost on how to begin
This is a bias most of us have, you overlook how easy is for you to do things that previously were impossible and focus on how hard are the things you still don’t know how to do. And computing is so complex right now that there always be “infinite” things you don’t know.
Try showing what you know to someone who doesn’t know how to code and you will get an idea of how much you have learnt :).
Anyway, I don’t really have good advice :/, just wanted to confirm that what you feel is expected. Good luck!
Top left picture credit Camilo Carneiro:
Nitter RSS Feed: https://nitter.cz/Camilo_Carneiro/rss
Posted to [email protected]: Golden Plover chicks covered in moss-looking camouflage - Camilo Carneiro
I think you’re confusing “arbitrarily large” with “infinitely large”. See Wikipedia Arbitrarily large vs. (…) infinitely large
Furthermore, “arbitrarily large” also does not mean “infinitely large”. For example, although prime numbers can be arbitrarily large, an infinitely large prime number does not exist—since all prime numbers (as well as all other integers) are finite.
For integers I disagree (but I’m not a mathematician). The set of integers with infinite digits is the empty set, so AFAIK, it has probability 0.
Doesn’t it depends on whether we are talking about real or integer numbers?
EDIT: I think it also works with p-adic numbers.
I also think that’s correct… if we are talking about real numbers.
People are probably thinking about integers. I’m not sure about OP.
EDIT: I think it also works with p-adic numbers.
Source: