Ohhh I forgot about this! And somebody said Andor broke the bible with their 2D video

Ahem, it’s “hard drive full of preserved* movies” thank you very much!

You need a bit balance of everything. I used to be snooty about small-talk. Eventually I started noticing that the most personable people, who make someone new feel welcome, included, and who make you feel like you’re noticed and worth remembering through recalling basic personal details–these people have excellent small-talk skills.

I think part of why small-talk often feels pointless is because people don’t enter into it intentionally, with purpose. If you go into it with purpose, like creating a good social experience for others, or building/maintaining 2nd/3rd order social connections in a humanizing way, it feels a lot different. Like anything, it’s still exhausting after a certain amount.

Sure, I don’t disagree with what you said. Some will say Applied Science is a category of science, others will say it’s distinct from capital “S” Science. I don’t really care either way, the distinction I was making was: Science is a process of developing knowledge that explains the natural/observable universe, including the humans/societies within it, i.e. a way of understanding what is. Engineering is the application of scientific knowledge, principles, and methods of inquiry in the construction and development of technology–it does not seek to explain things about the world.

I guess there was Foldit 😅

That’s engineering, not science. There is no science gameplay, you just have science points that you spend.

AI bad. But also, video AI started with will Will Smith eating spaghetti just a couple years ago.

We keep talking about AI doing complex tasks right now and it’s limitations, then extrapolating its development linearly. It’s not linear and it’s not in one direction. It’s a exponential and rhizomatic process. Humans always over-estimate (ignoring hard limits) and under-estimate (thinking linearly) how these things go. With rocketships, with internet/social media, and now with AI.

It’s less that it’s bad for her and more that it’s another way the US is dismantling their own soft power. There are long term advantages to having the rich and powerful from around the world get their upper education in your universities.

I would ask ChatGPT to review the source code and optimize it 😈

Nononono the solution isn’t for him to write that novel, it’s for him to write “The First Algorithm”.

Andy Weir found his genre niche and stuck to it. And within that genre niche, I find he’s a competent writer, both technically and I’d say artistically, with strengths and weaknesses. The combination has made his works genuinely enjoyable for me. Ernest Cline, while admittedly not for me, doesn’t seem to be in the same league.

OP: I want people to think for ourselves.

My understanding of your point: People have never done that because no thought is truly independent. Modern complexity relies on thought that builds upon others.

My point: Sure, but that’s also a narrow and ungenerous interpretation of the term “independent thought” as per OP’s usage. It’s closer to critical thought than silo’d thought developed from the ground up.

Ah, I haven’t looked at others’ responses. I can see how responding to many different people gets messy.

But to answer your question, because I took the time to formulate my thoughts for you, and I responded directly to things you said in your comments. I also asked you directly “How so? What’s your alternative assertion.” Which was a good faith attempt to better understand what you meant.

Well you didn’t respond to my questions and you’re vaguely referencing our other comments instead. It’s not effective communication and leads me to think you didn’t understand my comments. You seem to be into math, so I’ll put it this way,

Be explicit, show your work: premises–>arguments–>conclusion

This has very little to do with the criticism given by the first commenter.

How do? What would your alternative assertion be on the topic?

My comment doesn’t suggest people have to run their own research study or develop their own treatise on every topic. It suggests people have make a conscious choice, preferably with reasonable judgment, about which sources to trust and to develop a lay understanding of the argument or conclusion they’re repeating. Otherwise you end up with people on the left and right reflexively saying “communism bad” or “capitalism bad” because their social media environment repeats it a lot, but they’d be hard pressed to give even a loosly representative definition of either.

The online comment context and usage of “Why won’t you debate, are you scared” suggests the response is directed at online trolls, people who argue in bad faith, and imperiously demand rigourous debate without offering the same let alone an ounce of intellectual generosity, i.e. sealioning. In contrast, something like a movie review is a structured evaluation is still an opinion, but it doesn’t deride readers for not engaging with it.

The usage of “independent thought” has never been “independent of all outside influence”, it has simply meant going through the process of reasoning–thinking through a chain of logic–instead of accepting and regurgitating the conclusions of others without any of one’s own reasoning. It’s a similar lay meaning as being an independent adult. We all rely on others in some way, but an independent adult can usually accomplish activities of daily living through their own actions.

Hello ADHDers! It really is a health management skill to catch yourself and pull away. The worst is when you do care about the topic and you know you’re mismanaging your time, it doesn’t actually matter, but you can’t not “finish it so at least it’s out there”

I think people underestimate the frontline deployability piece regarding hormones. Prolonged loss of access to hormone therapy is rough on the person, just as losing access to any medication like ADHD medication or asthma medication would be if you’re cut off from supply while fighting in the bushes.

That being said, not everyone in the military needs the same requirement. For example classes are assistive technology that a lot of people in the military use and fighter pilots have more stringent uncorrected vision requirements compared to infantry. Depending on your role, post-enlistment medication requirements do not automatically get you kicked out, though your role may have to change. In an advanced military, there are lots of non-frontline roles to fill, especially now that non-frontline drone warfare is becoming more and more prevalent. Some militaries around the world are starting to accept certain medicated conditions including mild mental health conditions. When you’re understaffed, you can’t afford to turn away otherwise able and willing recruits.

Militaries absolutely have to conform to the people who serve in them. User-centered design started in the military, equipment has to fit and be usable by the humans that operate them–a single standard vest size does not properly fit most people, hence adjustments. Militaries had to conform to humans when they realized humans get PTSD. Militaries had to adapt to mitigate racism as mixed-race units were ultimately the better option–no shit there was pushback on the grounds of distraction and unitncohesion. Tampons were needed when women joined. You trade-off logistical and social complexity for a bigger force and create opportunities to tap into the best of those new populations you include in your military. The US Marines have it right. Improvise, adapt, overcome, then adapt gain.

The question about trans people being mentally unwell is just misinformed. Trans people go on hormone therapy so they aren’t dysphoric. They’re not mentally unstable.