The freaky ones will go Rocky Horror
The Xers will go with Clue
The troubled yutes will go Legend
The boys will go with Red October
But the real ones...the real ones go with Muppet Treasure Island
Treasure island for me, because it was one of the ten movies we owned on vhs when I was little 🏴☠️🏝
Another survivor lesson: people pick out specific social niches within a group. They will frequently clash with anyone else who picks the same niche.
A couple more points that I see a true laws, since they spring from mathematics:
- the larger your coalition, the stronger it will be
- the more specific criteria you require to join, the fewer people will be part of it.
How do I resolve this contradiction? Because the coalition of the moral is numerous and mighty.
"Help your fellow" is not a fact discovered - it's a commitment adhered to. If enough of us make that commitment, and we stick together, then we are the mighty, and we can impose our moral vision.
Top: a big fish chases small fish Bottom: a school of small fish bands together into the the shape of a giant fish, which chases the big fish
I don't believe in altruistic moral rules that exist in vacuum. I actually think that the true laws of morality are closer to "might makes right" than "help your fellow human". But I do still live by the latter.
The court declined to offer any explanation for their decision. This is just speculation.
I made a 10-minute, richly illustrated summary of Margaret Cavendish's Blazing-World (1666), a very early (some say earliest) Science Fiction novel. Please have a look and share if you like it!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4zi...
Art isn't just decoration, it's supposed to be a fundamental expression of the self.
That's why I find it morally abhorrent whenever one persons pays another person for art. Luckily, new AI tools can finally give every human the ability to express themselves independently.
/s
Academics are so bad at asking questions after a presentation. "This is really more of a comment than a question" times infinity. Rambling disjointedly for two minutes and then trailing off, leaving the presenter to cobble something together from one or two keywords that got repeated.
The one that always bothers me is when someone says they "can't even understand why" a person did a bad thing. As though not understanding is morally superior.
Hey! If you want less of a bad thing in the world, maybe try to understand what causes it?
Oblivious of the irony 🙄
No, that's something that can easily change. You just have to target other people as lonely as you are.
You're misunderstanding the argument. They're citing 2001-2011 as a baseline for what should be a "normal ratio". Then it changed to 0 for 25 in the years after.
Not just some offhand remark either. It's the entire point of the piece!
Not really. Most people don't pay nearly as much attention to politics as the average bluesky denizen.
Another survivor lesson: closeness can be defined by information sharing. If Adam tells Bob' secrets to Susan, but doesn't tell Susan's secrets to Bob, then Adam is objectively closer to Susan in some sense.
Tactical consideration of choosing to like media that your peers like: they are more likely to understand your metaphors
Tactical consideration of choosing to like a thing your peers dislike: you feel less pressure to share.
I show up to the party with a six-pack of pickle beer, and it will likely be safe till the end of the night.
*note: only applies to things in limited quantity, not stuff like movies or music
Today's is a good one
existentialcomics.com/comic/594
Does anyone actually think a shutdown would be good, or do they all just think the damage is worth it so long as voters blame Trump?
Sometimes I think that the line between confidence and entitlement is so thin that the true difference is merely semantic.
If objectivity is intersubjective agreement, you can take this idea further than just agreement between humans.
If we polled all the aliens, we might get very different answers about whether fried eggs taste better than ice cream. But there'd be agreement that iron is denser than graphite.
But it is possible to (objectively) say that one thing is more objective than another. It's a direction along a continuum.
And its often a direction that is worth striving towards.
Order each question from most to least divisive. The first on the list can be described as more subjective, and the last are more objective.
That doesn't mean perfectly objective. Perfectly objective can still be as incoherent as describing something as perfectly tall.
Towards an objective definition of objectivity:
Imagine if you made a bunch of Twitter polls describing a thing, and then asking people which word they'd choose to describe that thing.
One some questions, there might be an even split. On others, there might be one answer with far more votes.
Figure 1 in the paper, which shows the cognitive science hexagon, with psychology, philosophy, linguistics, anthropology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence on its vertices.
"This view of ‘AI’ as a research field overlapping with psychology sees computational systems as theoretical tools (...) Accordingly, AI is one of the cognitive sciences (Figure 1), and for decades there was a close dialogue between the fields of AI and cognitive psychology." 3/n
Bluesky fucking sucks 😒
Twitter was great but sucks now
Facebook sucks
Reddit is still pretty decent
Instagram has never been good
I can't bring myself to even try tikto
It gives extra emotional security, as well as a potential bargaining chip in negotiations about what a relationship will be.
From my perspective, I want to remain in control of my own happiness. I want to feel like I don't depend on this other person. But I'm starting to see that's not possible.
H bombs labeled: "On no account to be used - because the enemy might retaliate"
Just like cold war MAD in game theory, I think the part women actually value is thinking that they could cause hurt. Specifically, they want to feel like the end of the relationship will hurt their ex. That looming pain that goes with the end of a relationship increases the cost of ending it.