What do you mean miss? You don’t have the budget to keep something you truly miss for $20? What am in missing here / I don’t mean to criticize I am just curious is all. I would reword but I have to go
Yeah, general propaganda and psyops are actually more effective around 12% - 15%, we find it is more accurate to the user base, thus is questioned less for standing out more /s
You probably know this and are looking for consistency but, a little trick I use
is to feed the original data of what I need as a diagram and to re-imagine, it as an image “ready for print” - not native, but still a time saver and just studying with unstructured data or handles this surprisingly well. Again not native…naive, yes. Native, not yet. Be sure to double check triple check as always. give it the ol’ OCD treatment.
You know how certain professions are known for attracting certain pathologies? CEOs/narcissism, car salesman/ lmachiavellianidm and surgeons/God? Reddit moderator/d-bag is not exempt from that phenomenon and for reasons unknown to me, because it’s volunteer (Ok, I can’t say 100%, but mostly it’s volunteer) seems to be some kind of mental illness XP multiplier attractant for the role. Perhaps it empowers people because they’re giving so much of their lives to their own perceived cause, that no one asked for. But there are a lot of good, great even, mods out there. Surely. But anyhow,
I’m going back to irc.
Might as well buy a lottery ticket hoping to win enough money to fund your own case rather than cling to the faint hope of finding a pro bono attorney or even one working on contingency. My bitter experience stems directly from my father’s death, caused by gross, willful negligence at the hands of those entrusted with his care. Despite a formal DHHS investigation, which unequivocally substantiated my claims, and over 300 hours of undeniable audio, video, and documented proof illustrating the horrifying ordeal he endured, no one stepped forward to help. Justice wasn’t served, not in this life, nor, it seems, in any other.
It’s not that lawyers told me there wasn’t a case. Instead, they said it was “too complicated.” One attorney spent a week supposedly weighing my meticulously prepared case, only to dismiss it with a curt email: “Regrettably, we have too many other cases to manage additional workloads at this time.” After that, my emails went unanswered, my pleas seemingly silenced by convenience.
Apparently, lawyers today prefer the ripest, lowest hanging fruit, the easy cases promising easy profits. In our society, drowning in incompetence, there’s no shortage of simpler, safer bets. Yet, you’d think there would still be at least a few brave souls seeking justice, not only easy money, who would choose righteousness over profit, integrity over convenience. But I learned the hard way that righteousness rarely outweighs the bottom line.
I handed them an almost complete case, indexed, transcribed, painstakingly timestamped. They didn’t even bother to read it. Beyond the injustice, what wounds me most deeply is the realization that my father’s profound decency, the quiet dignity and unwavering ethics that defined his life, ultimately meant nothing in a system indifferent to such virtues. His goodness didn’t offer him protection or redemption in death. Perhaps it was naive to believe that it ever could.
This realization doesn’t just hurt, it isolates, minimizes, and disillusions. It deepens the bitterness of loss. Forgive me for venting my frustration this way, but it’s all I have left.
I’m sorry, Dad. I truly tried. Turns out, you were right about lawyers, too. I’m writing this with just a few weeks remaining in the statute of limitations. It doesn’t have to be like this, but all indications are that decency simply costs too much for those in power.
But that is not name-calling. In your words, that is snark. Are all snarky comments also name calling now, and vice-versa? One could argue that the comment stands factually with just the first sentence, too. It’s strong, yes, but very different from name calling. I think it’s a valuable tool in learning in that it [snark] reminds us to choose our words very carefully, and we all need reminders of that sometimes. Also…
There are plenty of various oblique ways of expressing similar sentiment that can hurt an educated person much more than name-calling (which, conversely, can be more amusing than anything). Digs like “the wrongness of your statement” are definitely far on relevant spectrum.
Therefore, I believe the rules against name-calling are not literal. As you noticed, attempting to restrict discussion more strictly would make it bland, but on the other hand when it comes to literal name-calling in a civilized discussion it’s way past all limits.
Tangentially, I was surprised to learn recently that merely the use of specific “you” in an argument is already considered unnecessary and perceived as somewhat confrontational. Haven’t confirmed it from multiple sources (not sure how to search for), but in hindsight it makes sense: the mood changes, and the argument can quickly devolve thereafter. I suspect it might be something from psychotherapy practice.
> merely the use of specific “you” in an argument is already considered unnecessary
Not necessarily unnecessary, but necessarily personal.
If I changed the “your” in the top comment to “this,” I think it would better communicate both my issue and reasonable irritation with the comment I was responding to. At the same time there is another commenter in this thread who refused to back down, and at that point a “you’re bordering on trolling” seems appropriate. It is confrontational, but not unnecessarily so.
God. These AI tools are really showing just how f’d up people are. AI is a scapegoat for the absurdity of society. We are a a scourge! Well, aren’t we? Look at what we’re doing and the way we use this to instinctively conduct psychological warfare on each other! People are facetious. People will kill each other, and people want to lie, steal, and cheat. God almighty. How depressing…
This is a problem that highlights the apparent either lack of effect, or lack of care for, consequences, period. The current consequences in place to deter this abysmal and abhorrent behavior simply aren’t enough. I look around and the world is going nuts, and failing, it seems, to attribute the cause with the effect. Shitty people doing shitty things. We don’t need new laws or regulations, when people aren’t willing or able to abide by the ones currently in place! What good will that do?
You mean poor person. As long as it stomps a poor person. The rich don’t have a habit of getting stomped. They direct other poor people to stomp their contemporaries. The poor don’t have a chance.
I don't think a lot of people realize how few people are "rich" in the sense of not being impacted by the labor market, or how virtually all of them are retirees. CFOs aren't looking forward to a massive shift in the labor market for accountants any more than CPAs. Warren Buffet has a "job," he writes those letters for BH and oversees the firm's investments at a high level... and most of the people who live off of investments have children in the workforce. Even most people whose children live off of their investments have kids in the (nonprofit) workforce.
Wolfram has always been difficult for me to follow. I think it's because he tends to drone on, I don't know why. I don't think even he knows why. My understanding of what I have managed to listen to or read is that being who we are, we don't process information fast enough in order to see much of what is around us, even while it is happening before us. An example is to take a minute under consideration, you can think about how long a minute is. It's tangible to us. It's not very long. But if we think about how long a femtosecond is, it is not tangible at all. We can't experience a femtosecond. We can experience a whole bunch of femto seconds, but not just one. This is just one example of what I perceived the meaning of his thinking to be. Is that wrong, or so far off? Not only can we not experience a femtosecond, we will never be able to experience a femtosecond because our brains are simply not fast enough and aren't built to exist at such a scale. If that's what it means, then does that mean that he is referring to our ability to exist in certain scales, and our tendency to know the scale in which we exist? And, to exist outside of that scale, requires different computational parameters? Additionally, is this an extension of dimensions, just in time, not space? Does he differentiate between the two?
I know that the perception of scale has more to do with, well, perception, whereas computational irreducibility (as I understand it to be, anyway) is more of a function of natural processes....or THE underlying function from which all other functions stemming from that, are built upon. ... Right? Between that and perception of the scale in which we have evolved to exist in, it seems like they are at least closely related...
Some of what has been discussed here in the comments has me doubting my understanding, is the reason I ask.
To extend my question, could computational irreducibility help to explain why the Universe tends to "recycle" so many parts of itself? Is that some sort of telltale sign that when we see these patterns (golden ratio, fractals, recurring structures in naturee), we are looking at a fundamental aspect of the universe in some form, or it's computationally irreducible equivalent, or is this to be determined?
So this is about where it clicked for me: A function, to us normies, is something consisting of at least one part that doesn't do anything and another part that does something but has no tangible form, 'the operation'. So, to me, irreducible can only mean that there is some level where the function is the thing and vice versa, so that this irreducible function, from our (current) space-time-perspective, has no constituents except 'self'.
Which is nonsense, because self is worthless without stuff it can react with or to. Except, is it really?
A femtosecond can't be experienced because subpixel-sized movements/fractions of reactions happen during this short measurement. But that's irrelevant for the interface between this function and nature and evolution from their current space-time-POV and their, and thus our, space-time-blind-spots. It's like thought and action when there is not enough time to stop a movement or when stopping that exact movement would terminate the intended result.
But I actually don't think that irreducibility is the right term. It should be liminality or something, focusing on the fact that nothing temporary is measurable before the emergence of THE underlying function, which is what I used to think The Planck length is for (more or less) constant space.
