Spzi @ Spzi @lemm.ee

Posts

11

Comments

641

Joined

2 yr. ago

People use strategies of evasions in a zillion ways, most don't involve any drugs (like making holidays to evade your everyday life), some involve legal drugs like alcohol (e.g. evade your social anxiety in social events). Using evasive strategies on it's own is a normal part of live and in itself not a sufficient indicator for therapy. If the individual life suffers from it, then yes. What's the point of doing therapy with someone who is fine, after all? All while people who actually suffer struggle to get any therapy to begin with?

We could also very well argue that all of these ways in which people use evasive strategies would be worth of therapy. I could get behind that (though there are good reasons against it, too), but see no reason to single out marijuana then.

It's still a good thing to offer a voice of reason when someone spouts nonsense. You may not change their mind, but there are always others who read and are on the fence. Offering sources and reasoning can help a great deal, without any visible effect. In this sense, thank you for your service! o7

Therapy makes sense when people have problems in their life.

It is very well possible to consume drugs like marijuana without developing a dependance, and especially without getting any problems in life. Which means, without indicating any therapy.

The opposite also happens, and therapy for those who struggle definitely makes sense. It just does not make sense to generalize this way.

I met dozens if not hundreds of people who did exactly that. Most indefinitely. Usually without any therapeutic help.

Because it is not physically addictive. It can be psychologically addictive, yes, and some people really do struggle to stop using it. Though most users can quit relatively easy and usually do when they need to be more responsible in their life; 'grow up'.

Can you find a scientific source supporting your stance? Something like (but rather the opposite of) "Recent data suggest that 30% of those who use marijuana may have some degree of marijuana use disorder."?

the CDU/CSU has the charisma of a rotten potato and that I doubt they’ll rake in many votes

In polls, they are the most popular party with a margin. https://dawum.de/Bundestag/#Umfrageverlauf

Then thanks for pointing that out. It seems I'm pretty much unaware of this. Maybe we watched different videos on different topics. I found her takes on physics generally well reasoned, and do remember her marking her opinion and at least sketching differing opinions.

This is just to tell you where I'm coming from, I don't want to argue. If you're right and I am unaware, I want to learn. So if you like to point out an example or two, I'd be happy to look into it.

Thank you very much for the effort! I also searched for text or video, but found none.

I understand now what you previously meant, streaming code via TV.

That’s what it sounded like when you loaded a program and it’s exactly what they’d play on the TV so you could create your tape.

Now I have a new confusion: Why would they let the speaker play the bits being processed? It surely was technically possible to load a program into memory without sending anything to the speaker. Or wasn't it, and it was a technical necessity? Or was it an artistic choice?

Kids TV programmes used to play computer tapes for you to record at home, distributing the code in an incredibly efficient way.

Could you expand on this? Sounds interesting.

Switching fifty people from driving big trucks to driving small cars does nothing but chip around the edges of the problem because they’re still fucking driving. That means, for example, you’re still building suburban-style strip malls for them when you should be building walkable main streets instead.

The issue here is that we need to switch (back) to an entirely different style of urban development, and the size of cars does precisely fuck-all to help with that!

Very true, you have the correct long-term vision. If we compare the two "strategies" (smaller cars vs urban design), the latter clearly has the bigger impact, big time.

But it's also more costly to reach. It requires much more time, more political effort, infrastructure changes, ...

Opting for smaller cars has none of these strings attached. And they aren't mutually exclusive.

what am I missing?

Some people get upset about the emphasis on the victim's vehicle. Title ends with: "Media calls it a 'bike crash'." They seem to imply the title implied the bike was at fault. Victim blaming.

Other people disagree and see the inclusion of "bike" as useful information, to differentiate from car-to-car crashes.

A subcompact takes up exactly the same “one parking space” as a truck

Yes, short term that is absolutely correct. What the other person meant makes more sense long term.

When parking lots are built, or design specifications are layed out, the size of cars in use is taken into account. If average car size increases, average parking lot size follows. Just recently I heard that parking lot size has to increase due to the increase in car sizes, driven by SUV popularity.

There are also parking situations where there are no discrete parking spaces, but one continuous space to park, for example along a street. In these situations, bigger cars directly translate to more space being occupied.

While all of what you say is true, we simply cannot teach everything since there is just too much knowledge and too little time in a human life.

And not everyone is equally interested or capable in learning everything.

This is necessarily the world we live in, even without adding capitalism or any evil intentions to the mix. Any education you can get or offer can only be a more or less well selected subset of the knowledge available.

In this light, I don't see it as a dramatic loss to remove educational emphasis from skills which can easily be replaced with modern technology. It would make sense to shift the focus to teaching a critical usage of said technology.

Yes, within limits. Due to the information explosion, it became impossible to learn "everything". We need to make choices, prioritize.

How does your voting behaviour suffer because you lack understanding about how exactly potentiometers work, or how to express historic events in modern dance?

Both have inherent worth, but not the same for each person and context. We luckily live in a society of labor division. Not everyone has to know or like everything. While I absolutely admire science, not everyone has to be a scientist.

Because there is more knowledge available than we can ever teach a single person, it is entirely possible to spend a lifetime learning things with no use informing your ballot decision. I would much rather have students optimize some parts of their education with AI, to free up capacity for other important subjects which may seem less related to their discipline. For example, many of my fellow computer science students were completely unaware how it could be ethically questionable to develop pathfinding algorithms for military helicopters.

you’re assuming the knowledge will never be used, or that we should avoid teaching things that are unlikely to be used.

Not exactly. What I meant to say is: Some students will never use some of the knowledge they were taught. In the age of information explosion, there is practically unlimited knowledge 'available'. What part of this knowledge should be taught to students? For each bit of knowledge, we can make your hypothetic argument: It might become useful in the future, an entire important branch of science might be built on top of it.

So this on it's own is not an argument. We need to argue why this particular skill or knowledge deserves the attention and focus to be studied. There is not enough time to teach everything. Which in turn can be used as an argument to more computer assisted learning and teaching. For example, I found ChatGPT useful to explore topics. I would not have used it to cheat in exams, but probably to prepare for them.

the choice of two doctors, one of whome passed using AI, and the other passed a more traditional assessment. Which doctor would you choose and why? Surely the latter, since they would have also passed with AI, but the one without AI might not have passed the more traditional route due to a lack of knowledge.

Good point, but it depends on context. You assume the traditional doc would have passed with AI, but that is questionable. These are complex tools with often counterintuitive behaviour. They need to be studied and approached critically to be used well. For example, the traditional doc might not have spotted the AI hallucinating, because she wasn't aware of that possibility.

Further, it depends on their work environment. Do they treat patients with, or without AI? If the doc is integrated in a team of both human and artificial colleagues, I certainly would prefer the doc who practiced these working conditions, who proved in exams they can deliver the expected results this way.

In an environment where knowledge for the sake of knowledge is not prised

I feel we left these lands in Europe when diplomas were abandoned for the bachelor/master system, 20 years ago. Academic education is streamlined, tailored to the needs of the industry. You can take a scientific route, but most students don't. The academica which you describe as if it was threatened by something new might exist, but it lives along a more functional academia where people learn things to apply them in our current reality.

It's quite a hot take to paint things like the antivax movement on academic education. For example, I question wether the people proposing and falling for these 'ideas' are academics in the first place.

Personally, I like learning knowledge for the sake of knowledge. But I need time and freedom to do so. When I was studying computer science with an overloaded schedule, my interest in toying with ideas and diving into backgrounds was extremely limited. I also was expected to finish in an unreasonably short amount of time. If I could have sped up some of the more tedious parts of the studies with the help of AI, this could have freed up resources and interest for the sake of knowledge.

let’s rebuild education towards an employer centric training system, focusing on the use of digital tools alone. It works well, productivity skyrockets, for a few years, but the humanities die out, pure mathematics (which helped create AI) dies off, so does theoretical physics/chemistry/biology. Suddenly, innovation slows down, and you end up with stagnation.

Rather than moving us forward, such a system would lock us into place and likely create out of date workers.

I found this too generalizing. Yes, most people only ever need and use productivity skills in their worklife. They do no fundamental research. Wether their education was this or that way has no effect on the advancement of science in general, because these people don't do science in their career.

Different people with different goals will do science, and for them an appropriate education makes sense. It also makes sense to have everything in between.

I don't see how it helps the humanities and other sciences to teach skills which are never used. Or how it helps to teach a practice which no one applies in practice. How is it a threat to education when someone uses a new tool intelligently, so they can pass academic education exams? How does that make them any less valuable for working in that field? Assuming the exam reflects what working in that field actually requires.

I think we can also spin an argument in the opposite direction: More automation in education frees the students to explore side ideas, to actually study the field.

One can fight oil and gas on a plant based diet just as well.

This is a simple choice each individual makes three times a day, what to eat.

Doesn't need political approval, doesn't need majorities, no investment and no infrastructure required. If you understand how serious the climate crisis is, eating plant based should come as a no brainer. And if you understand, you won't stop there.

It's still a systemic crisis which cannot be solved on the individual level, true. In an ideal world, plant based diets would become the norm through various means. But why wait for that if you understand it's the right thing to do?

Of course this is just one anecdote, but I stopped eating meat for the climate, because of the numbers. People posting papers, making informative comments (like your first half) changed my mind.

While this is a point about implementation/regulation, and not about trams in general, it is an important point to make.

In my city of Hamburg, Germany, Iearned to avoid buses. Too often they get slowed down by traffic jams, which makes them late and unreliable.

Dedicated bus lanes, separated from cars, would solve the problem. Until they don't have that, the U-Bahn and S-Bahn (which run on rails separated from traffic, underground or above street level) are my clear favorites.

A city which prioritizes public transit, would/could give street level trams priority at traffic lights, and maybe even disallow cars from using the tracks as a normal lane.

I guess you're right, but find this a very interesting point nevertheless.

How can we tell? How can we tell that we use and understand language? How would that be different from an arbitrarily sophisticated text generator?

For the sake of the comparison, we should talk about the presumed intelligence of other people, not our ("my") own.