Carrolade @ Carrolade @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

2,049

Joined

1 yr. ago

This thread is really making me realize how many people just don't know what critical thinking is... :\

Problem solving is not the same as critical thinking. No puzzle or strategy game, that I can think of, has any significant critical thinking component to it.

Wait, just thought of one exception. Social deduction games, like Among Us, when played with live chat, will train critical thinking. Critical thinking is about figuring out if this information is lying to you (edit: or otherwise flawed in some way) or not, and if so, how.

Those are clearly whiskers. gtfo.

The inevitable end result will be subservience to China.

citation needed

These folks like to throw around words like subservience, but I'm not sure how you get that without conquering someone militarily. People like to talk about NATO subservience to the US, for instance, but Trump doesn't seem to be waltzing into Greenland any time soon. Pretty weak subservience if you ask me, given how much smaller Denmark is than the US.

This isn't really answerable in a forum discussion, as it all varies too much depending on circumstance.

I guess the basic idea is to make someone feel good and wanted without going overboard and coming across as any sort of creepy. This is a fairly fine line, though, and where it is fluctuates wildly depending on the person, situation and expectations of the moment. You're also juggling body language and tone in addition to your words, so really anything can be made flirty, or go overboard, all depending on recipient/mood, delivery and circumstance/timing.

The first thing I'd probably start thinking about is how to identify the times and individuals where any flirting will be welcomed, which is also going to vary quite a lot. Dates are a pretty safe place to start, for obvious reasons.

Not very good ones, my memory from playing Planescape decades ago. A quick googling of something like "planar death home plane planescape" should do the trick though. I am pretty certain.

Note, I am not referring to any of the recent editions, I've never really cared for WotC updates. 4.0 or 5.0 could say something completely different. They change shit all the time.

edit: Alright, I did a quick googling. Here's a discussion thread on the topic with some citations:

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/164187/is-there-any-lore-to-suggest-that-celestials-or-fey-can-only-be-killed-on-their

Any planar entity that dies on its home plane is dead-dead, unless otherwise specified in the lore of whatever you're dealing with. No returning to the fugue or their afterlife plane or anything like that unless specifically mentioned.

This applies to petitioners, deities and everything in between.

(edit: this is why the parties of the Blood War are so interested in new recruits, incidentally, and prefer to fight battles away from their home planes. every battle on their home plane creates permanent casualties)

edit2: This might apply more generally to the outer planes, I'm not sure. If a lantern archon goes through a portal from Mt Celestia to the Outlands, and then dies there, it might be permadead now. This would not apply if it was summoned by magic though.

When you interact with Amish people, they aren't exactly bundles of bubbly joy 24/7.

Being a human is hard, nobody ever said it was supposed to be easy. In Buddhism, even, the first of their four noble truths is that life is suffering. This does not mean there are not ways out of suffering, or that there are not also joys.

Anyways though, we're all experiencing the human condition. The grass does indeed tend to appear greener on the other side of the fence, but that does not necessarily mean it is. Though I will say that going out in nature does tend to make me, personally, feel happier. That's something we can do regardless of our use of technology though, with some discipline and conscious decision making you can have the best of both worlds.

Exactly. It's sort of like a massively scaled up example of the blind man and the elephant.

Yeah I caught that too, I'd be curious to know more about what specifically they meant by that.

Being able to link all of the words that have a similar meaning, say, nearby, close, adjacent, proximal, side-by-side, etc and realize they all share something in common could be done in many ways. Some would require an abstract understanding of what spatial distance actually is, an understanding of physical reality. Others would not, one could simply make use of word adjacency, noticing that all of these words are frequently used alongside certain other words. This would not be abstract, it'd be more of a simple sum of clear correlations. You could call this mathematical framework a universal language if you wanted.

Ultimately, a person learns meaning and then applies language to it. When I'm a baby I see my mother, and know my mother is something that exists. Then I learn the word "mother" and apply it to her. The abstract comes first. Can an LLM do something similar despite having never seen anything that isn't a word or number?

Predicting the next word vs predicting a word in the middle and then predicting backwards are not hugely different things. It's still predicting parts of the passage based solely on other parts of the passage.

Compared to a human who forms an abstract thought and then translates that thought into words. Which words I use has little to do with which other words I've used except to make sure I'm following the rules of grammar.

People have freedom. This includes the freedom to run a Lemmy instance that they own, on hardware they own, and administrate it however they see fit.

I would say it is extremely natural to get a fairly diverse array of different ways to run things, depending on the opinions and feelings of each individual owner.

Being private individuals operating their own private property for whatever reason they feel like, (usually nerdy tech reasons in our case) none of them are under any requirement to be nice or accepting of anyone. It is 100% their choice to operate however they see fit, within the laws of their own country. (which can be anywhere on Earth that has internet)

It is odd to me that people feel they should have some sort of right to go onto someone else's property and say whatever they feel like. That's just not how anything works anywhere. You are on their digital property by open invitation, and that invitation can be revoked at any time they feel like.

It has nothing to do with wanting to actually fight NATO. The idea is to manufacture a carefully crafted situation where Article 5 is triggered, but due to internal disagreement and individual risk, it is not fully honored.

Needless to say, any such move would be very risky.

Impressive piece of journalism.

Agreed. Great voice acting is one thing. Quality voicing a cast that gigantic is another. I first noticed with that frog in the hag's area. You don't even get it if you don't cast speak with animals and talk to this random frog hopping around, but if you bother to, you get this short, amazingly acted dialogue.

The attention to detail is just off the charts.

Good. He's overusing his "witch hunt" rhetoric, in a situation where it's unusually easy for anybody to verify the details for oneself.

I would overall dislike giving him one. However, I would honor his wishes to the extent that I would offer a compromise and offer to get him one by a certain not-too-distant birthday if he meets a set of conditions for getting good grades, or some other beneficial goal. He's just getting to that age where he deserves some give-and-take.

Even then, though, I would let him know there will be limitations on its usage, such as no going to bed with it. (no cell phone starting an hour before bed time or something, it goes into some drawer in the common spaces of the house, maybe no cell phone during meals) Because of your compromise and deal, you should have enough leverage that he will not be too upset about comparatively minor restrictions like this.

The compromise won't make either of you completely happy, but that can be a lesson in and of itself. For your part, I would try to look for silver linings, like despite cell phones being linked to certain negative health outcomes, these can be mitigated, and with information technology progressing so rapidly, there are potentially benefits to learning how to navigate it fluently at a young age.

I wonder how tempted he was to hit that "report spam" button.

or maybe “national security adviser,”

lol

Bullies get positive feelings for themselves by making others suffer. Who they target with this isn't too different from how a predator selects prey--choose the vulnerable.

Your sister, for one reason or another, is vulnerable, meaning the bully is less likely to suffer any consequences for picking on her than if they picked on someone else. That "someone else" could have more friends willing to stick up for them and fight back, they could have a really sharp wit and be able to verbally humiliate the bully if they wanted, they could be huge and practice MMA, being able to physically knock all her teeth out with one swing, they could be a teacher's favorite and able to go to an authority figure to get backup and inflict consequences that way. All sorts of possibilities.

But one way or another, your sister has been selected due to having fewer plausible defenses than any of the potential alternatives.

Best way to resolve that is to bolster her defenses in some way or another, so the bully picks a different, more vulnerable target. Making the bully actually stop bullying everyone isn't very likely, though. As someone else pointed out, the bully is most likely suffering a lot themselves, and participating in bullying is how they themselves are surviving their own difficult circumstances. The easiest fix would probably be the "sharp wit" route, as verbally tearing into someone in a humorous way is a learnable skill. Otherwise a physical intimidation route, where your sister or another makes them afraid for their teeth remaining in their mouth if the bullying continues.

To answer your direct question, yes, jealously could be a part of it. There isn't much use in wondering about it, though, there's no real solutions to be found down this line of thinking, that I'm aware of.

Just gotta say, that Colorado law is ridiculous. I'm all for good conditions for farm animals, but 1 sq ft per chicken isn't helping. A single square foot is about the size of a chicken. The thing is still in "a cage", that cage is just formed of other chickens now.

I wonder if lobbyists got to them to water down the law.