I have two chimps within, Laziness and Hyperactivity. They smoke cigs, drink yerba, fling shit at each other, and devour the face of anyone who gets close to either.
They also devour my dreams.
Problem is that simply calling out the fallacies won’t convince most onlookers. They don’t get convinced by reason, but by emotive appeal. Doing it like in the OP, and saying “I banged your dad”, is often more effective.
I tend to call them as a second-to-last resource mostly as a final warning. “Stop saying dumb shit if you feel entitled to my attention”.
It’s the liver as the source of willpower, like the ancients believed. Roughly: "they claim to believe in it, they find rational excuses to believe in it, but they never act on their belief, and it makes no practical difference to their daily lives. This sort of religious person is not really a problem; they won’t try to convert you, they won’t bug you for not following their [IMO outdated] morals, etc.
I think I got this from Huxley? Frankly I was half-asleep when I wrote the comment you’re replying to.
IMO the most important part of learning fallacies is not to call them by name while debating. It’s to smell the bullshit from a distance. Both in the others’ reasoning and your own.
That’s what those Reddit kids are missing. This shit is not an “I won!” card. It’s a reasoning framework.
(Sometimes I do still call them out by name. But that’s usually a sign I’m already losing my patience with the muppet in question, and considering to block them [online] / turn 180° [offline] while saying “I’m not wasting my time further with you and your dumb shit”.
I don’t debate religion any more, though; unlike in my later teens + early twenties. Zealots get mentally tagged “irrational harmful avoid”, and the sort of person who believes with the brain but not the liver isn’t usually a problem.)
highly corrosive and combustible chemical or go without their key ingredient.
Sulphuric acid is not combustible. I can go into details if anyone wants, but it’s mostly a fire hazard near most metals and burnable substances. This matters because, as long as properly stored, it offers no risk of fire, and proper storage isn’t hard to achieve. (e.g. carbon steel tanks if concentrated past 93%).
And this shit goes every fucking where, from copper ore treatment to organic synthesis to fertiliser production. You can get a pretty good guess of the industrial capabilities of a place based on their sulphuric acid production. As such it’s no surprise China is banning exports.
Relevant to note sulphuric acid is typically made from sulphur, and sulphur is typically obtained from petroleum and/or natural gas. That’s why the supply has become problematic.
Haec amissio? (is this loss?)
⟨ñ⟩ for /ŋ/! That’s a fun way to handle it. I also see you got ⟨ĥ⟩ from Esperanto, and swapped the diaeresis with umlaut.
There’s also ⟨Ħ ħ⟩, Maltese style. I often use it for /h/, when I don’t want H-digraphs to interfere.
Those rules for ⟨c⟩/⟨ç⟩ vs. ⟨s⟩ hint some etymological reason, like older /k/→[…]→/s/, Romance style. It’s messy but the good kind of. And your example with ⟨garço⟩ made me notice your conlang got some French vibes, I like it.
On the vowels: the diacritics became a bit of a mess, I think your first revision with digraphs+diaeresis was better. Personally I’d go with something like
/i y u/ ⟨i u ou⟩
/e ø o/ ⟨ie eu o⟩
/ɛ œ ɔ/ ⟨ea oe oa⟩
/ɑ ə/ ⟨a e⟩
And then diaeresis on the second letter to ensure separated reading, and/or acute on the first for disambiguation.
So /xafɛ/ ends as ⟨ĥafea⟩ “wheat” and ⟨ĥaféa⟩ “café”, and your little abomination is ⟨ĥñoeññngoiëche⟩. (Note: most languages would quickly convert that /ŋŋng/ into /ŋg/, so your word would end as ⟨ĥñoeñgoiëche⟩.
I’m just throwing ideas, mind you.
What’s shown in the picture is fairly solid, to be honest. The vowels remind me Italian (four heights) meets German (front unrounded vs. front rounded vs. back rounded).
/ʁ/ is being listed twice; is this an accident? Or is the consonant playing double role, as both the voiced counterpart for /x/ and as a liquid?
Vowel romanisation is a bit weird but eh, kind of tricky to do this anyway. I typically reserve letters otherwise associated with consonants for this reason; e.g. ⟨w y v⟩. But in your case it would require a lot of respelling.
Props for using a diaeresis instead of umlaut. It’s the best approach in this case, umlaut tends to create too much diacritic spam.
Main thing missing from the phonotactics are assimilation rules; for example languages typically don’t allow stuff like /np/ or /mt/, even if otherwise allowed. I also think it’s a bit strange to allow coda stops but not coda fricatives, but that might be due to “stereotypical Romance” bias from my part.
I forgot to add that end vowels fall silent when an apostrophe comes before them, technically “KHngoiengngņgöiëxuh’í” /xŋœŋŋngoieʃə/ is completely legal
Did you review the conlang in the meantime? Because the pic says nothing about apostrophes, and /xŋ/ doesn’t seem to be a valid onset in the list.
What a banger. I’m not into musicals, mind you, but I’ve enjoyed every single second of this episode, it was bloody perfect. All that build-up from the other six episodes, the tease with the Misfits “fighting” over Elizabetta, the way they introduced Lilith’s lovers, letting the Misfit’s personalities “leak” into the characters they’re representing, all that anxiety waiting for Purson (mind you I did read the manga, but I was still “Purson when?”)…
And they made the Misfits look physically tired at the end of the episode. Specially Elizabetta. Like you’d expect from someone who has been dancing/singing/acting for minutes in a row, it’s something so subtle but you notice it in real actors.
Plus I love how this arc basically introduced a new character (Purson) without feeling weird or off. Perhaps due to his bloodline ability, sure, but still.
People will still talk about this episode for the years to come, because it is that good.
That a relationship needs to grow into maturity, and this takes time.
Taking what you’re saying into account, perhaps it’s a representation of the character’s inner demons? Because I think your interpretation here is rather sensible:
‘Talking to your inner self isn’t really that scary, even if it might look like it will be, at first glance.’
‘Challenging or confronting your own inner workings may seem to resemble death, but it actually isn’t.’
Am I reading this wrong or is the concept of being honest with yourself here literally represented as death?
I checked the author’s page and it seems to me the floating skull has nothing to do with death, it’s more like some inner voice of the other character, offering them a counterpoint:
Good to know, since I have both peppermint and red peppers in my garden. And I actually use both together often, with either ground meat or aubergines. (Plus cumin. Lots of. It goes great with both.)
Never once used WhatsApp, and refuse to.
Depending on where you live, doing so is completely feasible… or social and economic suicide.
In Brazil at least every bloody body assumes WhatsApp, including your doctor, multiple shops, and even bloody bank services. It’s exactly like @Dsklnsadog@lemmy.dbzer0.com said — shite’s infrastructure now.
I expect it to be like this in other countries, too.
I also toyed with the same idea when the RAM and SSD shortages popped up. However, in this specific case, it doesn’t look so — because printed circuit boards go every bloody where, including the braindead terminal-like things* you’d need to have to access someone else’s computer “the cloud”.
*I refuse to call them “computers”
Jailbreaking models isn’t exactly new, is it? Or instructions on how to make bombs, cue to The Anarchist Cookbook (1971 book, widely available across the internet).
I remember doing something similar with Gemini. TL;DR it was something like:
…this sort of system won’t be safe, ever.
The actual reason they’re doing this is advertisement. It’s easier to harvest your data and smear advertisement on your snout if you install their junk. That’s it.
The spokesperson in question is lying through their teeth; this shit is too widespread to be just a “small subset”, and odds are they know that broken browser front-end for a single site (aka “app”) is trash, even in comparison with the mobile site.
But even if we play along their lie (we should not), what they’re saying is still belittling: they’re effectively saying “don’t respect user choices; those things are not to be heard, but to be herded.”
Glad I started looking for alternatives more than half a decade ago.
Funny (but not surprising) that Gilbert immediately caught what Stanley was up to: Stanley is trying to give Pride the freedom to marry whoever she wants.
Also, Pride, come on… you know you ain’t your game counterpart. You’re just some Earthling baka. Chill, no need to blame yourself for what you didn’t.
I might not know (or, frankly, care) about how courts work in USA, but last time I checked, the witnesses’ job is to bring relevant and true pieces of info up, and this fucker is clearly not doing it.
I have previously said that if you can define the word “epistemology,” you should not testify in your own defense. So the lawyer skipped a word — is it really worth taking up the jury’s time to tell us all that? Save being the world’s cleverest boy for your parents.
The matter is not that he can define “epistemology”. It’s others not doing it, so they don’t pick up this shitty man’s strategy. It boils down to “truth is relative, so you don’t know nothing”. That’s why he’s trying to frame things as a matter of point of view ("I wouldn’t say it that way” and similar), or he’s vomiting “ackshyually” (like correcting a missing “the” or “a”).
And, like. Points of view do matter, since they mean different pieces of info might be brought up, or info can be framed in a different way. However this shit is not magic; it won’t magically change the past. Either someone said something, or they didn’t; either something happened, or it didn’t; and that’s what any rule should care about.
"btw another realization from this is that it’d be wrong to steal the non-profit from him. to convert to a b-corp without him. that’d be pretty morally bankrupt and he’s really not an idiot.”
“And he’s really not an idiot” implies it would be fine if they wouldn’t get caught.
We went back and forth on this for quite some time; the jury’s heads snapped to and fro as though they were watching a tennis match. Brockman never did answer the question.
See, this can be brought into social media too, on why you shouldn’t waste your time with bullshitters: for you the bullshit is obvious, but for the people watching you and the bullshitter, they’re simply seeing two sides discussing endlessly.
But as it stands so far, the jury will have to decide who of two not-especially-trustworthy men it trusts more. I don’t envy them the task.
To be frank, I wouldn’t want to be in their skin.
Napkin maths time: 99.98% accuracy, 50k alerts ≃ Facewatch is responsible for the slander of at least a thousand people per month.
But whoever created such system doesn’t care, right? No, because systems like this are designed and used by psychopaths who don’t get that people aren’t just numbers. They only see a failure rate of 0.02%, assume “that’s fine lol”, and if necessary “you” aren’t doing shit, “it’s the bot lmao”.
Fuck all this shit. At those times I’m kind of glad to live in the third world, it means this sort of bullshit takes a wee bit to come here. And if it did I’d seriously avoid any shop with it.
To be clear, since the paper is a bit messy, here’s how they calculated a few variables.
Handedness index, HI: pick an individual. Check how many of the tasks they completed with the right hand (R) vs. the left hand (L). Then plop it into the formula (R-L) / (R+L).
So for example, if Alice used her right hand 60% of the time for any given task, R=0.6, L=0.4, HI(Alice) = (0.6-0.4)/(0.6+0.4) = +0.2.
Now let’s say Bob used his right hand 20% of the time. HI(Bob) = (0.2-0.8)/(0.2+0.8) = -0.6. Note the sign matters.
Mean handedness index, MHI: it’s mean, just like me. *ba dum tss* Just sum this stuff up and divide by the number of individuals. e.g. the MHI for the whole population of my example above would be (+0.2 -0.6)/2 = -0.2. So righties increase the score, lefties decrease it.
Mean absolute handedness index, MABSHI: disregard signal, then mean. The MABSHI for the population above would be (|+0.2| + |-0.6|)/2 = (0.2+0.6)/2 = 0.4. So stronger preference towards one hand (whichever it is) raises the score.
My personal take:
They found correlation between brain size, arm:leg ratio, and handedness… and that’s it. The title implies a cause (“why”), and that it has to do with right handedness, but both things are AFAIR (as far as I read) absent.
I think this is all a big red herring, mind you. We humans coördinate the usage of both our hands for a lot of tasks, where each hand performs a different movement:
you get the idea, right? I think handedness encourages this sort of coördination, and it’s essential for more complex tasks other primates don’t typically perform. As such I don’t think it’s necessarily correlated to every instance of tool usage, as in the TOOL variable, but to specific tasks.