There’s no way you could implement the 3d Printer sampling algorithm.

This is a pretty obvious one, how on earth was she going to 3D scan and print something so delicate. She got that 3D printer off of Facebook marketplace at a fifth of the price once the craze died down, there’s no way that thing’s good enough to get the precision to print a new hamster.

“Didn’t we have trouble 3D printing a mobius strip the other day on that printer, also, I don’t think it handles anything other than plastic.”

“I’m on top of it, these hoses connect to all of Dini’s, uhh, insides, and these syringes suck em out at precise angles and depths, I practiced it on that apple over there,” she points.

You look over to the kitchen countertop and you see two perfectly identical apples half the size of a normal apple. Her technology is flawless.

What do you do?

Dini cannot be Paradoxically decomposed when he is already normally decomposing.

The Axiom of choice is a bad assumption?

Wouldn’t applying all of these transforms and resampling just return half of Dini at an atomic level?

The Banach Tarski paradox only works on spheres, the transforms don’t work on hamster shapes

Fine, you give up, help her

Published by B McGraw

B McGraw has lived a long and successful professional life as a software developer and researcher. After completing his BS in spaghetti coding at the department of the dark arts at Cranberry Lemon in 2005 he wasted no time in getting a masters in debugging by print statement in 2008 and obtaining his PhD with research in screwing up repos on Github in 2014. That's when he could finally get paid. In 2018 B McGraw finally made the big step of defaulting on his student loans and began advancing his career by adding his name on other people's research papers after finding one grammatical mistake in the Peer Review process.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Journal of Astrological Big Data Ecology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading