eudamoniac

If you don't like a manicured public area that costs communal money to maintain, then don't buy a hoa property. Very simple

This is just not true. One of the great things about the game is how each set of puzzles is a new emergent idea. You are required to make a leap of reasoning. You often do not know in a general sense what to do, because once you do the puzzles are quite easy. The difficulty, and the fun, is in discovering emergent behavior of systems. There are puzzles with just two pieces on a simple screen that boggle the mind initially.

You don't have to do it though. There is no reward, no achievement, nothing unlocks. It's functionally equivalent to "if you stand in one spot for an hour a special sound effect plays and some lights flash for 2 seconds." I think it's psychologically interesting how many people get angry that this sound effect is programmed into the game.

I consider the witness one of my favorite games, and I fully completed it, but I did not do that because it's dumb. The existence of the thing really has nothing to do with the game.

It's not for the sake of it; they cut hundreds of puzzles. It just has that many unique ideas!

Basing your opinion about a state from two YouTube videos is a very Internet thing to do. I am quite sure I can find two YouTube videos of stupid police and people in every state and country on earth.

I can imagine that happening. It's kind of required to keep a high trust society that everyone try to share culture. That doesn't mean mormonism but it does mean dressing generally within certain bounds. That guy was basically signalling, intentionally, "I do not adhere to your norms!!" which is not going to go over well or engender trust. Not because he was black. Minorities acting and dressing in a traditional manner are respected there.

It's probably axiomatic that a high trust society and a fully liberal one where everyone does whatever they feel like are incompatible. But we've got endless places for the latter and SLC is one of the few of the former.

Have to disagree there as it doesn't make much sense. The point is to strengthen the muscles of the back. Keeping a more vertical back angle directly reduces force on those muscles while keeping the same spinal compression. You want the opposite, to have maximal muscle involvement with minimal compression. Back extensions progressing to normal deadlifts are indicated.

I see what you're saying but I don't fully agree. Art is the obvious counterexample, like the poetry circles of old. The hobby was writing and sharing your poetry with peers. If no one was reading it, there would be much less joy in the production. That doesn't make it a job, it just makes it a social hobby.

The thing with that poster is that the output is not wholly art but also utility, so the AI could fully subsume that thing, if the consumers only care for the utility part. And software in general, qua art, is not an art that anyone but the author consumes, except for video games. So you're kind of right but also I think OP was using software as an artistic outlet through a utility output, which was neither a job nor is his current despair unfounded.

OP if you want to keep writing software for others you have to abandon the utility function and make art, such as games. That will fix your issue. And no, AI cannot make games as good as a human can.

Deadlifts helped my chronic congenital back pain that is probably some combination of DDD and scoliosis and multiple herniations. Yes sometimes it pisses off the disks and I'm pretty useless for a day or two. And yes it has added some other problems. But overall I went from constant sharp pain nearly unable to remain seated, to occasional dull pain I can ignore, and rarely some really bad pain. Overall it's much better of a life.

SS was not "raided" . Whatever made you think that is surely contributing to human misery. It's just running out because it's always been a scheme where the young pay the old and we have fewer young than old. The people getting SS payments, themselves paid into it! It's not any sort of raid, corruption, evil...

That's a good professor. I think everyone who has dabbled in Philosophy, especially of the ancients, usually Plato, has had that experience of thinking they are smarter than Plato and that he is making obvious errors all over the place. The first thing any student of philosophy (or a lot of other fields, really) has to do is to cultivate epistemic humility; he must train his instinctive reaction to "I don't get it" or "this is obvious" away from "therefore the author is dumb" and towards "I must be missing something".

That isn't to say that every author and philosopher is infallible and you must assume they are smarter than you at all times, but just that you need to acknowledge that very famous works are typically very famous because, in the opinion of very learned people, they contain depths to be plumbed. If one isn't seeing those depths, he needs to look harder.

It's one of those luxury and insular beliefs that could only possibly arise from a sheltered existence. Just for example, anyone who both went to a decent university and grew up in a not-decent public school could not possibly have this opinion.

Please don't besmirch Utah. It's one of the few high-trust societies left in this country. It's a beautiful, safe, peaceful haven and I literally never had a bad interaction there in years. And I'm not white.

They're obviously not Christians, but, sin is not evidence against belief. All men are sinners; you can't dismiss someone as "not Christian" because they sin. If they behaved perfectly like Christ they'd be a Saint above the rest.

Carson, Gurnah have heavy LGB themes. Tokarczuk is an LGBT activist with light themes.

Ishiguro, Handke, Kang are known for their ethnic diaspora writings.

What are the odds that yet another LGBT diaspora text wins again? I find it kind of hard to believe that this is the best writing this year when 6 of the last 10 Nobels have been LGBQ or ethnic diaspora adjacent.

I don't have plans to stop using Jetbrains any time soon but I can't deny my satisfaction in their products has been declining for a couple of years. Still, nothing else is as good. I wish they'd spent a cycle or two on performance and bugs.

Well I am talking only about artistic merit. Mad Men is not the most entertaining show, nor the most fun to watch show, etc. But I do find it to be the show of highest artistic achievement. It evokes the most tender pathos, touching one to the very soul; its subtext is masterful; it rivals Dostoevsky in its human wholeness. It holds up a mirror to the human viewing. It transcends its own characters like Shakespeare. Hamlet is no mere character in a play, he is all of us, as is Don, as is Joan. Read Harold Bloom's "Shakespeare: Invention of the Human", and his ardent defense of the bard's superiority in the canon may be transpiled to my thoughts about Mad Men's position in the TV canon without overmuch error.

That's how I feel anyway.

In my critical system 'entertainment' is not so much a consideration. Breaking Bad is fun, badass, shocking, gripping, and at times highly artistic, but it doesn't try to sustain the artistry throughout. Those former adjectives are not what I'm looking for. I want to read high literature, not genre fiction, regardless of how entertaining the book is. Most literature I love is hardly entertaining at all; who could say that they were on the edge of their seat reading Ivan's 'The Grand Inquisitor'? Yet it's one of my favorite passages in the book. That sort of feeling, of artistry, of greatness, of transcendence, is what I'm judging by in my OP.

As far as I'm concerned Mad Men is the highest art that television has yet achieved. It's hard to even think of a runner up; maybe Better Call Saul or True Detective S1.

The Wire - good for its time; one of the first 'good shows'; doesn't actually hold up today though... what subtext it attempts is too overt. Almost like a documentary, but who needed examples of organizations being corrupt to get it? Sopranos is about the same, but a bit better.

Succession - Entertaining but ultimately shallow; not enough meat on the bone. Straightforward, a page-turner, a Stephen King novel, compelling well written characters, but nothing to chew on or to get stuck in one's craw. Most shows people praise fall into this category actually.

Breaking Bad - Almost gets there, surpassed by BCS. It has its moments of art and pathos, but surfaces for air too frequently in its action scenes and 'badassery'.

> its origins are from eugenicists, that it doesn’t track known biology, and that it’s unfalsifiable

Irrelevant; I don't know what this means; it would be falsified by showing it has no correlations to things.

> g is particularly bad at explaining musical talent

I don't know why you'd expect it to correlate to music talent any more than it would correlate to visual artistic talent or bowling talent. I don't think those are things that have traditionally been associated with intelligence. The things that g correlates with are the things that people have associated with intelligence for thousands of years; we all have an intuitive sense of what it is generally referring to.

> My issues...

I mean yeah, any multivariate test reduced to one number loses information; the SAT score is meaningful for many purposes even if it may be produced by heavily skewed subsection scores. The other thing is that you're picking an arbitrarily small distribution, height. The 95%ile in shoe size is even fewer inches larger than its mean than height is! But also the 95%ile in chess elo will win 43/44 games against the mean elo player. There is very good reason to believe that the 130IQ child is meaningfully different from the 100IQ child: that is the entire basis of gifted educational programs that have shown through research for many decades that the former child has very different needs than the latter. Also if you've ever spent any time around kids/students, especially tutoring them, it's pretty incredibly obvious that the gaps in ability are vast. It's really not a matter of inches here, it's a matter of literal years of schooling being wasted by putting gifted children through standard public school tracks.

It doesn't matter that it's a relative ranking. It matters that the gifted kid has different needs than the non gifted kids who have different needs than the remedial/special ed kids. Grouping into 3 is an arbitrary thing, but the difference exists. We can't pinpoint on a spectrum when a hue changes its label, but we can all agree that between either extreme end there is A and there is B.

I am concerned about this because my own education was extremely painful due to this sort of debate as a 'gifted' kid. If my schools had had advanced tracks for all subjects, not just a few, I'm pretty sure I would not have despised school so much or had as many teenage mental health issues. It is so soul crushing being trapped in a classroom every day with essentially zero learning or interest happening, being forced to performatively "pay attention" or "take notes" like a drone, etc. I get riled up when I hear opinions that may lead to support for abolishing gifted programs.

The term "gifted" is useful for helping and classifying children. Maybe you are saying to replace it with more granular words, like "gifted in math, standard in english" or something? That's fine and generally what happens in practice, but it's just going to be a recursive debate: "How can we really say you're gifted in math? Math contains a lot of subjects..." We have enough problems already trying to get modern school districts to understand differences in ability exist at all.

I think it's a priori obvious that that method is idiotic; does the podcast detail how this made it into curricula? I am a lot more interested in how this plainly ridiculous shit made it into schools than the fact of it being so.

I am sorry to bear the news that your friend did indeed use AI within the article. First of all gptzero guesses 100% AI generated.

Second of all you can sniff it out with plenty of the phrasing which is what my original comment was based on: "The correction temporarily erases the bigger picture." "Feedback on an assignment is rarely just about the assignment. It becomes a referendum on whether the child is still who they believe themselves to be." "What follows is rarely proportional: “no one likes me,” a wave of rage, or a full shutdown." "This is protective armor. Underneath it is usually plain embarrassment." "Because the identity is more invested, the shame lands harder." "That gap is where a great deal of the combustion happens." "The underlying fear in these moments is usually not “I will get in trouble.” It is closer to “I will be misunderstood, reduced to one moment, or unfairly categorized.” That distinction changes how an adult should respond."

Third of all the entire structure is a chatgpt output. Humans don't write their documents like this.

I would have compared it to some of her previous writing from six or more years ago but couldn't find any. I'm pretty certain if you found some it would not read anything like this article.

It's literally just a thinly veiled attack on the concept of intelligence existing, which most such articles are. There is a huge amount of, for lack of a better word propaganda, being written to convince people that intelligence does not exist and if it does it's immeasurable and so widely ranging as to be meaningless. You'll never hear mention of g because they have not read the first thing in the literature; it's all vibes and deep fear of humans being ranked in any sense.

AI Slop Sensitivity in Gifted Adults is my next article

The platform sucks, still does, it's very simple. If you used native elements for everything, the users would complain that your website sucks ass.

I'm skeptical of most claims of trauma. As a fan of premodern history, I have come to understand that 99%+ of all humans ever born experienced what would today be called severe childhood trauma, not to mention later adult trauma. And they carried on okay. So either you have to think that everyone in the history of the world had been operating with severe trauma that was causing terrible problems, or that the modern trauma dose/response curve is learned. And I just feel like the former is less likely.

Correct. The value judgements (feelings) of the demos should be reflected in the policies that the democracy enacts and is governed by. That's part of what a government of and by the people means. Governing by any other system, like utilitarianism, or arbitrary moral principles like 'killing criminals is wrong' that the majority of constituents don't hold, needs heavy justification, and may not be justifiable in a democracy. If you'd prefer an oligarchy or monarchy wherein someone can impose their own minority value system on the people, even if that system objectively results in 'better outcomes' whatever that means to you, that's fine, but just be honest about it.

In brief, it doesn't matter what "is best" in some utilitarian framework if the democracy is not attuned to that framework. It doesn't matter if the death penalty actually increases crime. What matters is that the government should be doing what the people want it to be doing. If the people really want to kill criminals, any system that prevents that is non-democratic.

No, I'm just making two claims at once. It ought to be cheaper, normatively, and thereby it ought to be done. It's kind of like "I want to see slaves freed because humans should be free, even if there exists a lynch mob that is killing all the freed slaves." The existence of the pathological problem making the claim overall worse, currently, does not affect the philosophy that the slaves should be free (and also that there should not be a lynch mob).

The death penalty is supported by over half of the US population; any argumentative style that attempts to belittle or mock as niche this position in a form of appeal to consensus only works in certain bubbles. Your position is the more unpopular one, lmao.

We are just disagreeing about the ideal number or length of appeals, then. You can never be 100% sure; you could allow a constant state of appeal forever. This applies just as much to locking someone innocent away for life, which is also a big problem, but we don't allow infinite appeals for that either. I just think the current amount of appealing is too much.

Evidence for "When heinous criminals get to live out their days, people feel that justice is not being done" is the history of any society prior to 1800 and basic human nature? I don't know, read history and literature and philosophy of the premodern age, or I guess you could call it vibes sure. I believe it to be true and find it self evident.