Needless to say i’m talking about the oversimplified and misleading version of the Schrödinger’s cat paradigm, where he is both dead and alive until you watch it.
I don’t have a job but i follow theater courses at an academy. And my improvisation is both funny and awful until i show it to others.
Well, I work as a bartender, and here in Finland it’s strictly against the law to serve alcohol to, or even allow a “visibly intoxicated person” to enter the premises (a law which almost every bar breaks at some point, intentionally or no), and I think I’ve witnessed multiple times myself how a customer’s level of intoxication reveals itself only after you have served a drink to them and they’ve payed for it. Could it be called a Schrödrinker’s cat?
Not related to the Schrödinger question, but my advice for solving that problem would be to have some little robots trundling about with boxing gloves on. They can randomly harry each your walk-ins with a sudden flurry of blows. By seeing how these people handle the unexpected robotic assault, you should better be able to assess their level of inebriation.
Oh yeah, and maybe add some voice output to these automatons, so the machines can call the potential customers gay, and insult their fiscal levels (the go-to insults in any finnish bar).
Employee salaries in HR; they are both correctly paid(employer perspective often), underpaid (employee perspective often), and overpaid (company and co-worker perspective). Depending on how and how often you open the box, any of these views can be accurate.
Autonomous vehicles are at times both amazingly advanced and bedshittingly idiotic.
I’ve ridden ~25k miles in them for work, and I trust them more than 95% of the drivers on the road. But I’ve also experienced them acting in ways that are still quite far from the way humans would.
A person that has a lot of certs or a high title is both extremely smart or extremely unintelligent. You don’t know until you start talking with them about things more than surface level.
Print jobs are both completed successfully and failed until someone checks the queue.
“The Computer never makes a mistake” is true and also probably responsible for people believing LLM-hallucinations uncritically
llm’s are dangerous and should never be used; but an overwhelming majority use it nonetheless.
Projects will either be done next month or take at least a year to complete. Also, if you ask my team to calculate how long a project will take, and then ignore the estimate, the project will take infinite time because you are an insufferable moron.
The Heisenbug. Once you try to observe this kind of software bug with your technical means, it simply goes away.
And it’s opposite (Schrödinger’s Box?) - The (edge) problem that you can see and is guaranteed to exist and cause problems but somehow never does and the code works perfectly.
As an animator, the client simultaneously knows everything about what makes a good animation, colour theory etc. and is utterly incapable of doing it themselves or providing any specific feedback beyond “I don’t like this” or “make it feel more pink but don’t actually make it pink.”
This state persists until you introduce an invoice for all the extra work it’ll take to redo all the stuff they agreed to two weeks ago, and then the waveform collapses and suddenly everything you sent them in the first place is fine.
I tried to get chatgpt to draw me a “coffee shop that feels pink without actually using the color pink”.
It failed (used the color pink):
Then I made the same request with the color green. It failed again, but I like this “non-green but actually green” coffee shop.
I also like the ridiculous position of those two chairs.
It’s so wild that you felt it was appropriate to post ai slop in response to an actual artist venting career issues. Nightmare stuff.
Haha that’s like a real “reading a book over someone’s shoulder” kind of setup.
The contrast is either too little or too much and I won’t know unless I look at the drawing again the next morning
As a Set Dresser/On set dresser - any set build before a director sees it/ wideshot films it.
How it generally works is we get a bunch of stuff and… Something. This something can be as exact as a blueprint (techpack) that clearly marks where furniture is supposed to go or as vague as a one sentence long description of what the set is supposed to be. We are usually given a bunch of options for virtually everything that is used. Then we make up the set.
Then the waveform goes nuts. The Heirachy goes Set Decorator, Production Designer, and then Producer. They will randomly visit or call in sometimes separately and whatever plans that existed immediately cease to matter. The set may completely change a random number of times back and forth as anyone above us in the hierarchy demands unless it countermands a specific demand made by someone above the demander in the hierarchy.
That is until shoot day. Once the Director has the floor all of that prep goes immediately out the window and the director may change whatever they please about the set and while there’s usually too much time constraints to change everything it could mean getting rid of anything. The waveform only collapses to depict a singular reality once the wideshot is in the bag which means there is now a continuity that must (okay “must” is a strong word) be obeyed.
Not quite Schrödinger’s cat, but in programming we have Heisenbugs named after Schrödinger’s peer.
It’s when you have a bug/crash that is not reproducible when debugging it. Might be that you’re reading some memory that you’re not supposed to, and the debugger just sets it up differently. Maybe you have a race condition that just never happens with the debugger attached.
I’m lifeguard, all my day is like that
You see, as a nuclear physicist…
…particles get you off?
Our equivalent is nuclear radiations.
It could be something not working or maybe the operator doesn’t know you have to push the big green button that says “START” to start the machine. I’m a mechanic at a food processing plant.
