But did she go back in time to do that or was there something more to it that has not yet been discovered by even the greatest of Time Lords?
Kyrik Michalowski
The 4th dimension isn’t time, though from a math stand point you can use time as a 4th dimension when measuring something.
MatthewTheLucky
On the contrary, general relativity doesn’t work unless space and time function as different measures of the same 4-dimensional event.
HeySo
That’s confusing the dimensions within the concept of Spacetime [which is composed exactly of 3 spatial dimensions + a temporal dimension] with fundamental spatial dimensions. Time is never, ever considered a spatial dimension. Spacetime is all about how time and space relate to one another, especially in regards to influences caused by relative velocities, relative positions, and gravitational influences.
As far as charting spatial positions goes, time is considered a psudeo-dimension of [n+1] value. Hence, in 3-dimensional charting (that is to say, the most typical format), it’d effectively act like a 4th dimension. On the other hand, were a chart to be graphed utilizing only 2-dimensional positioning, time would take the place of the 3rd dimension. Were you for some reason wanting to determine movement within four dimensions, time would take the place of the 5th dimension.
Time does not, in fact, bear any inherent relationship to spatial positioning. (That is to say, even if someone’s mind could fluidly process 4-dimensional geometry, they wouldn’t magically obtain the ability to see through time. In fact, by way of the fact that 4d space is possible to display via computers and virtual reality, studies have already shown that humans have some degree of adaptability to processing 4d shapes and movement, with some minds being rather adept to it.) (Tesseracts are examples of actual 4th dimension geometry, for those who are interested.)
Nevertheless, time is a fundamentally important aspect in determining changes in the spatial positioning of whatever is being charted, and thus indelibly linked to spatial considerations. That is one aspect of why the misconception over time being “the fourth dimension” occurs, though misunderstanding of and misapplication of the concept of Spacetime to general terminology is the other. [Basically, time isn’t part of Spacetime because it’s inherently the fourth dimension, it’s the fourth dimension within the concept of Spacetime, because Spacetime itself is a concept that relies on that association.]
In short, time is not actually the 4th dimension, but effectively just as important as any of the three dimensions within certain contexts. While it is treated as a psudeo-spatial-dimension in charting, it’s more straightforward to just think of it as a fourth graphing point related to any determination of spatial movements [ie, a fourth “direction” of movement].
In short, it’s exactly what Kyrik said: Time isn’t the fourth [spatial] dimension, but it is considered a fourth dimension within certain contexts. Basically, unless you’re specifically discussing something within the scope of Spacetime, it will always be incorrect to refer to time as “the fourth dimension”.
More relevantly, there’s absolutely no immediate connection between the fourth dimension and time travel, even within the concept of spacetime. Spacetime is about how the passage of time and positioning and movement within space influence one another. While that focus may allow for deliberations of time travel (as that’d be a form of influence within that scope), that sort of deliberation does not directly relate to time’s placement as a fourth dimension within that context. Which is to say, if one makes a reference in regards to moving in the fourth dimension of spacetime, presumably all they’re actually saying is “and then time passed”. Same as if one was refering to movement through time in any other context.
While it may be better to phrase it as “making determinations in regards to something”, Spacetime is a concept that would go in hand with “measuring something”, and thus would fall under Kyrik’s critera just as readily as more basic geometric charting would.
In summary, there shouldn’t be anything to argue with, as far as the details of Kyrik’s statement. Kyrik wasn’t referring to Spacetime and, even if they were, their statement is structured so that it would remain true regardless (in readily discernable intent, if not by precise phrasing).
LynneB
My rather simpler take on this:
Time is essentially equal to “change.”
Time only exists insofar as events occur; even ignoring absolutely everything on a macro level, energy cools and changes state, and particles change state and location; in fact, it can be said that they create location by being.
The essential part of THIS is that events can only occur where energy and matter exist, because otherwise…what changes? What CAN change?
The flip side of this is the fact that energy and matter cannot exist _without_ changing. It is the fundamental nature of energy and particles that they move and change state. Only when you get something like a Bose-Einstein condensate can we even approach energy or matter in a non-changing state, and that is where physics-as-we-know-it breaks down and everything goes REALLY weird.
But having established that time cannot exist without change, and change cannot exist without thing TO change, and that things cannot exist without changing …you have just established that time cannot exist without space and space cannot exist without time, but in fact “space” and “time” are really just separate operations of the same integral system, and are necessarily both used to fully describe the system.
The fact that “time”, i.e. rate of change, is influenced by factors which change the nature of space, is an obvious follow-on from that.
And having said all that, there is no reason completely inherent in this to think that the spatial directions are limited to only 3, but I don’t know enough about the theories of multidimensional universes to really evaluate the plausibility.
HeySo
“Time is essentially equal to “change.””
Well, yes, entirely true. In fact, studies have shown that humans don’t naturally perceive time as a concept, it’s a socially developed construct that is heavily influenced by calculated interpretation of outside sensory data.
(Hence why some civilizations believe time moves in reverse, and why under certain stimuli, or when facing certain perception issues, humans lose clear recognition of the passing of time).
Time is just the way humans structure their perception of change (a fact that, when considered under certain scientific and philosophical determinations, actually heavily hinders the liklihood of time travel [as such considerations would require “rolling back” the entire universe, or just the state of a single object, as change would have to be reversed on all things one is attempting to revert to a previous state].
The fact that time is consistent in its progression makes it so that humans can readily adopt the concept, but it is, at heart, just a mathematical method of expressing change.
Of course, what we’re really discussing in this nesting is terminology [as far as what qualifies as a 4th dimension], not science, so this is a bit of a tangent, to begin with. 😉
TachyonCode
Y’all could’ve just said “time makes calculus possible”.
Geneseepaws
I’m gonna go down to N’Awwleens and open a bar called the “Delta T”.
HeySo
But then we’d have to directly reference Calculus.
Pretty sure that’d require a trigger warning. 😛
Borg
I have to weigh in on Matthew’s side here. Relativistically speaking, the direction of time is dependent on the observer; various effects cause the axes to skew. We experience one (observer-dependent) dimension very differently from the other dimensions, but that doesn’t mean Minkowski spacetime isn’t truly four-dimensional.
In a simple case, if you’re moving north (in my frame of reference), then the direction that is to you “future” is to me “future and some north,” and the direction that is to you “north” is to me “north and some future.” And of course you could try to dismiss that as one of us being wrong because one of us is moving, but we’ve both got equal claim to being stationary; there is no privileged frame of reference. That’s the most fundamental concept of special relativity.
In a more complex case, according to the predictions of general relativity, there is a region around a rotating black hole called the ergosphere where the frame-dragging effect is so strong that it is impossible to not move around the black hole in the direction of its rotation. At that point, in theory the direction of “around the black hole” behaves as time and time behaves as a spacial dimension. Obviously we’ve never actually visited a rotating black hole, but in theory it gets pretty interesting around there.
thejeff
Perhaps more simply: There is no “4th dimension”, though various things can be a 4th dimension depending on the context you’re dealing with.
You might be talking 3-dimensional space + time, so time would be 4th. You might be talking 4 (or higher) dimensional space, in which case the 4th would be another spatial dimension. You might be dealing with 2 dimensional space, with time functioning as a 3rd dimension.
Yet_One_More_Idiot
There are at least two different types of physical dimension. Temporal dimensions, and spatial dimensions. These are similar and connected, but should never be conflated with one another, it just causes confuses.
For instance, 4-dimensional space-time could consist of 3 spatial dimensions + 1 temporal dimension (like we have), or 2+2, or even 1+3. Each type of space-time would behave in drastically different ways.
(Although personally, I believe that our time is actually not 1-dimensional at all, but 2 or maybe even 3-dimensional, and travel to alternate timelines would be equivalent to simply moving “sideways” or “up” or whatever in one of the other temporal dimensions, instead of just forwards…)
HeySo
@Yet_One_More_Idiot
That’s a rather fun way of looking at time travel, thanks for bringing it up. 🙂
No no, 4D chess involves an imaginary fourth spatial dimension. Indeed, this is expansible to n-dimensional chess, though strategy gets increasingly difficult to understand for puny human brains.
HeySo
I mean, the fourth spatial dimension isn’t imaginary, any more than man-made minerals are. It’s not naturally occuring in nature [that we’re aware of], but we can already fully create it [utilizing computers]. Likewise, as I noted above, studies have shown that some humans can process 4-dimensional movement adeptly, so it’s not really at a lovecraftian mind-blowing level.
(In fact, if you want to test your own aptitude, there are several 4D games available out there, and I believe most of them are free to download: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_four-dimensional_games )
If we say the fourth dimension is time, isn’t she just playing regular chess? Assuming the 4th dimension is the time that passes while playing?
Cholma
Regular chess is just 2D since the pieces only move in 2 dimensions. 3D chess would be like Star Trek’s Tri-D chess with multiple levels, so I guess in 4D chess, the pieces either move through portals or can move through time, I guess.
Tacos
Then what of 5D chess? Is it just chess on motorcycles?
Cholma
Nah, that’s just playing chess with a 1970s R&B, Pop, and Soul music group. Great harmonies while they sing “Age of Aquarius”; so great you get lost in it and forget to make your move.
Makkabee
Only if chess says “fuck.”
Jaymie
i see what you did there Tacos. though, by the end, wasn’t it 6D’s?
Maul_Junior
6D chess is rolling a standard six-sided die to determine your movements.
In one Star Trek novel, 4-D chess is invented as a variation on 3-D chess where pieces can be “timed out” and disappear from the board, reappearing later at a time of the player’s choosing.
In one game, McCoy times his pieces to reappear on the same squares as some of Spock’s pieces, mutually annihilating them and leaving himself in a superior tactical position in what Spock comes to refer to as “kamikaze chess.”
I did not have to Google, but that’s because I remember Eros(romantic love) and Philia(sibling love), and I know I can never remember the words for Love of God by man and Man by God(Agape) and shows of affection to one’s countrymen/hospitality(Xenia). Process of elimination.
Dorothy is the coolest rebel in this comic strip. In a world of cynicism and disenchantment, Dorothy dares to actively work for a better world through organized action.
Becky, I think you should find another plan for trying to inspire voters to vote for Robin because your current method is shall we say lacking in finesse. Though honestly, what is a better way for her to do this at this point?
Also, I know Becky is worried about her lesbian cred specifically, but I wonder if she’s thought about it impacting her cred in general when her plan is specifically targeting people she knows and may continue to be in contact with with “Vote for Robin!”
Like, if she tried to convince strangers, at least she wouldn’t have to necessarily see them again later.
But she doesn’t actually think Robin can win nor does she want her to and she’s actively trying to just give the appearance that she’s working to justify her salary.
… isn’t all chess played in the 4th dimension? That is, assuming that the 4th dimension in question is time. I understand there is some debate about that.
But yeah, even “2d” chess is played through time. There’s the position of the pieces at the start, and theirs the position at any time throughout and at the end.
Which means that so called “3d chess” is a misnomer since it was always 4d chess all along.
Which makes me think interesting thoughts about the “it’s all a giant simulation” hypothesis.
Reltzik
Eh, it’s just a mathematical re-indexing that will always be viable no matter how many dimensions we have. It’s only really powerful when dealing with continuums of data rather than discrete data. (You can use it with discrete data, but there are far easier ways to handle such data.) Since every computer we’ve ever built runs on discrete data, we’d have to imagine some bizarre machine running on mind-bending principles… in which case, why not just imagine a machine with 3D, 4D, 5D, or so on storage and computation? It also doesn’t allow for homotopic equivalence, which is a feature the designers of a simulation would really want in such a mapping.
In other words, nothing about it points specifically to a simulation, and nothing about it would be particularly useful in making a simulation.
169 thoughts on “Storge”
Ana Chronistic
I forget now if Becky is or is not trying to do a good job
Ana Chronistic
Carla invented a whole other dimension for the chess she’s playing
King Daniel
Are you saying Carla invented time itself?
…I’m fine with that.
Doctor_Who
Yeah, the three great founders of Time Lord society are Rassilon, Omega, and Carla.
davidbreslin101
Huh. Most theories claim that “the Other One” was y-
SHENANIGANS DETECTED. EXTERMINATE SKATING HUMANOID! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!
LookingIn
Delete! Delete! Delete!
LookingIn
But did she go back in time to do that or was there something more to it that has not yet been discovered by even the greatest of Time Lords?
Kyrik Michalowski
The 4th dimension isn’t time, though from a math stand point you can use time as a 4th dimension when measuring something.
MatthewTheLucky
On the contrary, general relativity doesn’t work unless space and time function as different measures of the same 4-dimensional event.
HeySo
That’s confusing the dimensions within the concept of Spacetime [which is composed exactly of 3 spatial dimensions + a temporal dimension] with fundamental spatial dimensions. Time is never, ever considered a spatial dimension. Spacetime is all about how time and space relate to one another, especially in regards to influences caused by relative velocities, relative positions, and gravitational influences.
As far as charting spatial positions goes, time is considered a psudeo-dimension of [n+1] value. Hence, in 3-dimensional charting (that is to say, the most typical format), it’d effectively act like a 4th dimension. On the other hand, were a chart to be graphed utilizing only 2-dimensional positioning, time would take the place of the 3rd dimension. Were you for some reason wanting to determine movement within four dimensions, time would take the place of the 5th dimension.
Time does not, in fact, bear any inherent relationship to spatial positioning. (That is to say, even if someone’s mind could fluidly process 4-dimensional geometry, they wouldn’t magically obtain the ability to see through time. In fact, by way of the fact that 4d space is possible to display via computers and virtual reality, studies have already shown that humans have some degree of adaptability to processing 4d shapes and movement, with some minds being rather adept to it.) (Tesseracts are examples of actual 4th dimension geometry, for those who are interested.)
Nevertheless, time is a fundamentally important aspect in determining changes in the spatial positioning of whatever is being charted, and thus indelibly linked to spatial considerations. That is one aspect of why the misconception over time being “the fourth dimension” occurs, though misunderstanding of and misapplication of the concept of Spacetime to general terminology is the other. [Basically, time isn’t part of Spacetime because it’s inherently the fourth dimension, it’s the fourth dimension within the concept of Spacetime, because Spacetime itself is a concept that relies on that association.]
In short, time is not actually the 4th dimension, but effectively just as important as any of the three dimensions within certain contexts. While it is treated as a psudeo-spatial-dimension in charting, it’s more straightforward to just think of it as a fourth graphing point related to any determination of spatial movements [ie, a fourth “direction” of movement].
In short, it’s exactly what Kyrik said: Time isn’t the fourth [spatial] dimension, but it is considered a fourth dimension within certain contexts. Basically, unless you’re specifically discussing something within the scope of Spacetime, it will always be incorrect to refer to time as “the fourth dimension”.
More relevantly, there’s absolutely no immediate connection between the fourth dimension and time travel, even within the concept of spacetime. Spacetime is about how the passage of time and positioning and movement within space influence one another. While that focus may allow for deliberations of time travel (as that’d be a form of influence within that scope), that sort of deliberation does not directly relate to time’s placement as a fourth dimension within that context. Which is to say, if one makes a reference in regards to moving in the fourth dimension of spacetime, presumably all they’re actually saying is “and then time passed”. Same as if one was refering to movement through time in any other context.
While it may be better to phrase it as “making determinations in regards to something”, Spacetime is a concept that would go in hand with “measuring something”, and thus would fall under Kyrik’s critera just as readily as more basic geometric charting would.
In summary, there shouldn’t be anything to argue with, as far as the details of Kyrik’s statement. Kyrik wasn’t referring to Spacetime and, even if they were, their statement is structured so that it would remain true regardless (in readily discernable intent, if not by precise phrasing).
LynneB
My rather simpler take on this:
Time is essentially equal to “change.”
Time only exists insofar as events occur; even ignoring absolutely everything on a macro level, energy cools and changes state, and particles change state and location; in fact, it can be said that they create location by being.
The essential part of THIS is that events can only occur where energy and matter exist, because otherwise…what changes? What CAN change?
The flip side of this is the fact that energy and matter cannot exist _without_ changing. It is the fundamental nature of energy and particles that they move and change state. Only when you get something like a Bose-Einstein condensate can we even approach energy or matter in a non-changing state, and that is where physics-as-we-know-it breaks down and everything goes REALLY weird.
But having established that time cannot exist without change, and change cannot exist without thing TO change, and that things cannot exist without changing …you have just established that time cannot exist without space and space cannot exist without time, but in fact “space” and “time” are really just separate operations of the same integral system, and are necessarily both used to fully describe the system.
The fact that “time”, i.e. rate of change, is influenced by factors which change the nature of space, is an obvious follow-on from that.
And having said all that, there is no reason completely inherent in this to think that the spatial directions are limited to only 3, but I don’t know enough about the theories of multidimensional universes to really evaluate the plausibility.
HeySo
“Time is essentially equal to “change.””
Well, yes, entirely true. In fact, studies have shown that humans don’t naturally perceive time as a concept, it’s a socially developed construct that is heavily influenced by calculated interpretation of outside sensory data.
(Hence why some civilizations believe time moves in reverse, and why under certain stimuli, or when facing certain perception issues, humans lose clear recognition of the passing of time).
Time is just the way humans structure their perception of change (a fact that, when considered under certain scientific and philosophical determinations, actually heavily hinders the liklihood of time travel [as such considerations would require “rolling back” the entire universe, or just the state of a single object, as change would have to be reversed on all things one is attempting to revert to a previous state].
The fact that time is consistent in its progression makes it so that humans can readily adopt the concept, but it is, at heart, just a mathematical method of expressing change.
Of course, what we’re really discussing in this nesting is terminology [as far as what qualifies as a 4th dimension], not science, so this is a bit of a tangent, to begin with. 😉
TachyonCode
Y’all could’ve just said “time makes calculus possible”.
Geneseepaws
I’m gonna go down to N’Awwleens and open a bar called the “Delta T”.
HeySo
But then we’d have to directly reference Calculus.
Pretty sure that’d require a trigger warning. 😛
Borg
I have to weigh in on Matthew’s side here. Relativistically speaking, the direction of time is dependent on the observer; various effects cause the axes to skew. We experience one (observer-dependent) dimension very differently from the other dimensions, but that doesn’t mean Minkowski spacetime isn’t truly four-dimensional.
In a simple case, if you’re moving north (in my frame of reference), then the direction that is to you “future” is to me “future and some north,” and the direction that is to you “north” is to me “north and some future.” And of course you could try to dismiss that as one of us being wrong because one of us is moving, but we’ve both got equal claim to being stationary; there is no privileged frame of reference. That’s the most fundamental concept of special relativity.
In a more complex case, according to the predictions of general relativity, there is a region around a rotating black hole called the ergosphere where the frame-dragging effect is so strong that it is impossible to not move around the black hole in the direction of its rotation. At that point, in theory the direction of “around the black hole” behaves as time and time behaves as a spacial dimension. Obviously we’ve never actually visited a rotating black hole, but in theory it gets pretty interesting around there.
thejeff
Perhaps more simply: There is no “4th dimension”, though various things can be a 4th dimension depending on the context you’re dealing with.
You might be talking 3-dimensional space + time, so time would be 4th. You might be talking 4 (or higher) dimensional space, in which case the 4th would be another spatial dimension. You might be dealing with 2 dimensional space, with time functioning as a 3rd dimension.
Yet_One_More_Idiot
There are at least two different types of physical dimension. Temporal dimensions, and spatial dimensions. These are similar and connected, but should never be conflated with one another, it just causes confuses.
For instance, 4-dimensional space-time could consist of 3 spatial dimensions + 1 temporal dimension (like we have), or 2+2, or even 1+3. Each type of space-time would behave in drastically different ways.
(Although personally, I believe that our time is actually not 1-dimensional at all, but 2 or maybe even 3-dimensional, and travel to alternate timelines would be equivalent to simply moving “sideways” or “up” or whatever in one of the other temporal dimensions, instead of just forwards…)
HeySo
@Yet_One_More_Idiot
That’s a rather fun way of looking at time travel, thanks for bringing it up. 🙂
Rartorata
No no, 4D chess involves an imaginary fourth spatial dimension. Indeed, this is expansible to n-dimensional chess, though strategy gets increasingly difficult to understand for puny human brains.
HeySo
I mean, the fourth spatial dimension isn’t imaginary, any more than man-made minerals are. It’s not naturally occuring in nature [that we’re aware of], but we can already fully create it [utilizing computers]. Likewise, as I noted above, studies have shown that some humans can process 4-dimensional movement adeptly, so it’s not really at a lovecraftian mind-blowing level.
(In fact, if you want to test your own aptitude, there are several 4D games available out there, and I believe most of them are free to download: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_four-dimensional_games )
Some1
If we say the fourth dimension is time, isn’t she just playing regular chess? Assuming the 4th dimension is the time that passes while playing?
Cholma
Regular chess is just 2D since the pieces only move in 2 dimensions. 3D chess would be like Star Trek’s Tri-D chess with multiple levels, so I guess in 4D chess, the pieces either move through portals or can move through time, I guess.
Tacos
Then what of 5D chess? Is it just chess on motorcycles?
Cholma
Nah, that’s just playing chess with a 1970s R&B, Pop, and Soul music group. Great harmonies while they sing “Age of Aquarius”; so great you get lost in it and forget to make your move.
Makkabee
Only if chess says “fuck.”
Jaymie
i see what you did there Tacos. though, by the end, wasn’t it 6D’s?
Maul_Junior
6D chess is rolling a standard six-sided die to determine your movements.
Hoodiecrow
32D is a specific move in strip chess.
Jon Rich
Which move is that?
He Who Abides
The one right before 32DD.
Rartorata
They move on a “fourth axis”, which of course is represented only mathematically due to the limitations of your universe.
Doom Shepherd
In one Star Trek novel, 4-D chess is invented as a variation on 3-D chess where pieces can be “timed out” and disappear from the board, reappearing later at a time of the player’s choosing.
In one game, McCoy times his pieces to reappear on the same squares as some of Spock’s pieces, mutually annihilating them and leaving himself in a superior tactical position in what Spock comes to refer to as “kamikaze chess.”
Just thought i’d mention that.
DSL
Used as a foreshadowing for some starship combat later on in the same novel, IIRC (AID).
Rex Vivat
She’s counting on herself to do a bad job but isn’t actively sabotaging it.
Diner Kinetic
the appearance of trying, was her exact words. This IS a webcomic about school, afterall
Cattleprod
It doesn’t matter if you win or lose, just if you trick them into thinking you’re actually trying.
Zero
She forgets, too.
King Daniel
Storge is familial love, right? Working from memory here.
ditrysia
Had to google and yes, you are correct.
I’d assumed it had to do with the 4D chess thing, but nah.
Khyrin
I did not have to Google, but that’s because I remember Eros(romantic love) and Philia(sibling love), and I know I can never remember the words for Love of God by man and Man by God(Agape) and shows of affection to one’s countrymen/hospitality(Xenia). Process of elimination.
Stephen Bierce
And here I thought Storge was one of the Decepticons that Unicron rebuilt. Or maybe one of the Red October Guard in G.I. Joe. That’s the ticket!
Kamino Neko
The partner of agape (divine love/charity), philia (love of friends) and eros (romantic/sexual love)…
Nono
Carla, that puts you in the same league as Dorothy.
Cool rebel you are not.
Reltzik
Dorothy, who bucks all the social conventions and standards of her peers and age group in order to seize the future and right the wrongs of society?
…. oh, wait, COOL rebel. I think that means you have to conform to social conventions?
King Daniel
No, a cool rebel is someone who’s involved in a rebellion north of the Arctic Circle (or south of the Antarctic, I guess).
Reltzik
No, that’s a polarized rebel.
King Daniel
Isn’t a polarized rebel one who’s placed between two giant magnets, so that you need to wear sunglasses to comfortably look at them?
ShinyNeen
So you’re saying it’s impossible to be a cool rebel? Don’t tell Dorothy that, she’d never stop trying for it.
Marsh Maryrose
“Let’s all be different, same as me!”
Liliet
<3 <3 <3
Falcon
Dorothy is the coolest rebel in this comic strip. In a world of cynicism and disenchantment, Dorothy dares to actively work for a better world through organized action.
ValdVin
I like how we actually need to have “So that’s a yes?” asked about this.
Of course, this makes Carla the rebel.
Kyrik Michalowski
Becky, I think you should find another plan for trying to inspire voters to vote for Robin because your current method is shall we say lacking in finesse. Though honestly, what is a better way for her to do this at this point?
Reltzik
Probably more social media memes. It’s what got her hired in the first place.
Yumi
Also, I know Becky is worried about her lesbian cred specifically, but I wonder if she’s thought about it impacting her cred in general when her plan is specifically targeting people she knows and may continue to be in contact with with “Vote for Robin!”
Like, if she tried to convince strangers, at least she wouldn’t have to necessarily see them again later.
Kyrik Michalowski
This is a good point, she may do more lasting damage to her relationships in general than if she just campaigned to randos.
BBCC
It’s a possibility. Roz sabotaging her sister made her more popular with her floor mates.
Tacos
But she doesn’t actually think Robin can win nor does she want her to and she’s actively trying to just give the appearance that she’s working to justify her salary.
Kittie
Carla continues to be awesome.
butts
are
are those skate sandals
Stephen Bierce
Strap-on skates are sandals with wheels. Sort of. Kind of.
Betty Anne
Yes? I had a pair when I was a kid…
butts
THOSE ARE REAL?!
BBCC
They sure are!
Baby Marcie had a pair too: http://www.dumbingofage.com/2016/comic/book-7/01-glower-vacuum/landed/
ESM
Skandals
ArcaneDarkness
Underrated comment.
Lingo
In this strip they appear to be MOTORIZED skate sandals — she’s not even moving her legs! Carla has all the best stuff.
Yumi
My parents have also often been good, at least in comparison to those of some of my friends.
My friends’ parents suck, y’all.
BBCC
I love you Carla. <3
LeslieBean4shizzle
… isn’t all chess played in the 4th dimension? That is, assuming that the 4th dimension in question is time. I understand there is some debate about that.
But yeah, even “2d” chess is played through time. There’s the position of the pieces at the start, and theirs the position at any time throughout and at the end.
Which means that so called “3d chess” is a misnomer since it was always 4d chess all along.
Reltzik
But it can all be mapped to 2d.
Chris Phoenix
Which makes me think interesting thoughts about the “it’s all a giant simulation” hypothesis.
Reltzik
Eh, it’s just a mathematical re-indexing that will always be viable no matter how many dimensions we have. It’s only really powerful when dealing with continuums of data rather than discrete data. (You can use it with discrete data, but there are far easier ways to handle such data.) Since every computer we’ve ever built runs on discrete data, we’d have to imagine some bizarre machine running on mind-bending principles… in which case, why not just imagine a machine with 3D, 4D, 5D, or so on storage and computation? It also doesn’t allow for homotopic equivalence, which is a feature the designers of a simulation would really want in such a mapping.
In other words, nothing about it points specifically to a simulation, and nothing about it would be particularly useful in making a simulation.