I don’t really know what this post is on about, but science is not truth. It’s a system of prediction. The closest you can get to “truth” would be observation and data. Science is the process of interpreting these facts to better understand what things will look like in the future. It is obvious that science is not ‘true’, because by its nature it requires change over time as our models of the world improve.
Cadence or intonation depending on what you mean.
Edit: This would seem to sum up the various parts of speech pretty concisely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_(linguistics)
If you’re looking for an alternative, I’ve had luck with https://subscene.com/
I don’t really know what the best or most popular website is because this one has never really led me astray. That said, I don’t need to use them too often, so your mileage may vary.
I’m sympathetic to the view that artists should be paid for their work. Collectively, artists have produced so much, and these tech companies are funnelling all their work into a machine and recycling it into new works, and profiting off that, without any compensation for the people partially responsible for this new reality. I’m also not interested in people who argue “but actually it’s not copying that’s not how the technology works it’s actually a really complic-” yeah I don’t care. Without the artists you would have nothing.
BUT
Don’t confuse the business practices that make this technology a reality with the technology itself. These tools are incredible, and will result in things that could have never existed previously. I just believe we need to have serious conversations about what they mean for our future.
Does it flush automatically? Could just be a sensor of some kind.
If not I’d report it to the hotel.
Things we need are higher on our priorities than things we want, and addiction convinces you that you need that thing. So anything that can monetize that addiction is going to be more effective and consistent than something you merely want.
Here’s one example of how your data can be wielded against you: https://www.businessinsider.com/police-getting-help-social-media-to-prosecute-people-seeking-abortions-2023-2?op=1
Feel like the inverse is more apt: where old people go, the young run the fuck away from.
An “Everything App” is just an operating system.
Fascism isn’t a problem we can solve by just not allowing it the more oppressively we try to ban them the more secretive and the more fuel we give to their extremes
This is a commonly held belief that is actually just not true. Certain garbage opinions and behaviours will fester and spread and absolutely make a space worse. Communities that allow toxic behaviour will both push away reasonable people, and attract people with toxic views. Setting proper boundaries, rules, and conduct are important for maintaining a place of healthy discussion.
I don’t mind if they have somewhere to talk with each other - I think you’re correct it’s pointless to try to stop that - I’m just not interested in spending any time there.
Limiting downvotes forces other people to think about bad ideas more, at the cost of letting people with bad ideas think about their bad ideas less. Ideally the bad idea has some tangible rebuttal that the original poster can consider, but ultimately the onus is on you to understand why your ideas aren’t landing. This is all presupposing an idea that is worthy of consideration. People aren’t obligated to convince themselves you’re right, you have the job of convincing others they are wrong, or realizing that you yourself are wrong.
The reasoning behind a specific system may not be arbitrary, but why is one system better than another? People have also used 8 day systems, and 10 day systems. It would seem to me that biggest reason it is still in use today is “it’s the way we’ve always done it”. The inertia of the 7-day system makes change very hard, though there have been attempts over the last few centuries by both France and the Soviet Union. So, even if you could scientifically prove that some other system would be more productive, you would have a very hard time implementing it.
The idea that I will work a few percentage points more or less over my life, as a direct result of the phases of the moon, is, while perhaps technically correct, a fundamentally silly reason.
I tried to pick ratios that wouldn’t cause riots in the streets, haha. Interestingly, 7-3 is still less work overall than the current standard 5-2. I could get behind a 3-1-4-2 system.
I walked into a Games Workshop with some friends to maybe pick up a board game. My friends quickly realized our mistake and promptly left. I stuck around, so they handed me a sample figurine and talked me through the process of painting miniatures for a few minutes before I thanked them and left, because I didn’t want to be rude.
This is a tangent, but you ever think about how arbitrary the week structure is? Like, if weeks were 6 or 8 days long, it would be a big shift in work-life balance regardless of how you split the days up. But thousands of years ago we decided on 7 and it just kind of stuck.
Assuming 8 hour days, here are some different splits for on and off:
I got the award for the “most unlucky, anti-lucky, possible player”…
So there’s that.
I loved Swiss Army Man, the directors’ previous film, for its weirdness, charm, music, humour and visual flare. Everything Everywhere was an improvement over all of these aspects so I absolutely loved it, such that I can overlook the pacing issues. They never lose the very human story through the madness.
If your perception is subject to failure, so to is the evidence, no matter how convincing. So yes, we act upon the assumption that reality exists. We both agree with this.
But that doesn’t mean it is true. And all I’m saying is for this very narrow point of what I care most about, Descartes does have a point. I care more about my mind than my foot. I mean, maybe you can think of a better way to frame the argument because I doubt you even disagree. If you have a gun and you are forced to shoot yourself anywhere on your body, would you choose your foot or your brain?
The better counter to me would be to prove external value. Would I sacrifice myself for someone else? If I believe reality doesn’t exist, the answer should presumably be no. If I believe reality does exist, the answer could be yes. Or alternatively, shooting myself in the foot suggests I believe in a causal relationship within reality towards shooting my brain and losing consciousness, which I shouldn’t necessarily believe.
But even then, it’s not that I disbelieve reality, it’s just that I can’t know for certain what’s real outside my mind, so there’s not really any contradiction between acting as if it is real and being uncertain if it is.
All this is doesn’t matter anyway: the point is less you could be a brain in a vat, but rather if you were a brain in a vat, would you be any less you? I don’t think so.
I have more evidence that the real world exists than I do that you are a thinking mind.
I have more evidence that I am a thinking mind than that I do that the real world exists. There’s no point arguing this point it won’t go anywhere.
If you want, you can view science as a system of organization. A way of making sense of facts. If I give you a file of seemingly random ones and zeroes, it is useless. If I give you an algorithm to decode those ones and zeroes into a message, that has utility. However, somebody else could produce an algorithm to decode those same ones and zeroes into an entirely different message. So, which algorithm is correct? Neither.
But say I give you another file, and Algorithm B doesn’t produce anything useful for this message, so now Algorithm A is more useful. But I also provide a new Algorithm C which also finds messages in both files. Now which is more correct, A or C? And on and on. We continue to refine our models of the data, and we hope that those models will have predictive utility until proven otherwise, but it is always possible (in fact, almost guaranteed) that there is a model of the universe that is more accurate than the one we have.
Consider the utility of a map. A map is an obviously useful thing, but it is also incomplete. A perfect map, a “true” map, would perfectly reproduce every single minute detail of the thing it is mapping. But to do so, it would need to be built at the same scale as the thing it is mapping, which would be far too cumbersome to actually use as, you know, a map. So, we abstract details to identify patterns to maximize utility. Science, likewise, is a tool of prediction, which is useful, but is also not true, because our model of the universe can never be complete.