dustyData @ dustyData @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

2,183

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's not all the French, mostly just Parisians.

The horrible implication by your previous comment's logic and this link is that Europe should drop all languages except Russian. Or, if only EU countries apply, everyone should speak German, as it's obviously the predominant language. Also, this link absolutely destroys your idea that “they aren't unique cultures”, there are at least 120+ distinct cultures in Europe, just by languages alone. This is like looking at Japan and thinking that they must be Americans because they eat KFC on Christmas.

Using fomo and marketinp to force people into debt for a phone. Definitely the moral and sensible choice.

Where's the "Apple is the only tech giant that respects your privacy" crowd? Just because your data isn't being publicly auctioned doesn't mean they aren't harvesting it and infringing on your privacy.

Well, you see, damaging the souls of students is kind of the point. Undamaged souls aren't submissive, and thus make bad wage slaves.

Almost everywhere in the world they charge for the ambulance ride. Except, some countries have state funded providers with super low subsidized prices or even free. And the private providers have to compete with that which keeps prices affordable. So using an ambulance is not a bankruptcy inducing event.

I think it is a reference joke to when YouTuber Linus from linus tech tips expressed remorse for having formerly used the "hard R" during a podcast, mistaking it for the word "retarded". The video of it, including the panic and awkward clarification that ensued, went viral on tech circles as cringe inducing amusement and proof of Linus's social ineptitude.

Quite accurate since the US judiciaries are like kings, inmune, rule for life and get to write and struck down laws with the flimsiest "precedent" arguments. All they're missing is appointment via bloodline, but the sponsorship line seems to have taken its place.

More important. Than taking notes is what are you gonna do with them. This conditions how, where, and with what you take notes.

If you're never gonna look at them again and just generally use it to think, brainstorm, or remember things better. Then it doesn't matter where, just use whatever is immediately available to you.

If it needs to be later referenced, shared, archived or processed into finished products for personal projects or work, there are several options. Note taking apps, text editing software, plugins for different editors. Each will do things different and will link differently to different work pipelines.

My current pipeline is notes either on the phone or on a notepad. Then I clean and process said notes on OneNote (don't judge, work pays for it and it is the only one available). Where they are more structured, tagged, detailed, hyperlinked or whatever else it takes. That's where I also take notes for meetings or training and study sessions.

Finally, I use those notes for writing reports, minutes, and presentations. Which are then sent to the actual institutional archive.

Me and all my colleagues erase old notes once they're no longer relevant for data protection, so we don't use the archive features of ONote. But the encrypted sharing and sync is very useful for collaboration and to save your work in case of hardware failure.

On my personal life I have permanent places of data storage, and take notes with whatever I happen to have at hand. Samsung notes, paper, notepads, whatever. Data always end up either being deleted or sent to a more permanent place. Just like with cameras, the best tool is the one you have at hand when you need it.

All your premises are wrong. The existence of trans people doesn't reject biology, quite the contrary, advanced biology supports the notion that sex can vary beyond a binary and is quite distinct from gender and sexual identity (which are psychosocial phenomena). There is no organized dogma on the LGBTQ+ support community. If anything, in fighting, disagreement and diversity is what defines it, not homogeneity or conformity. Our understanding of sexual identities, gender and transexuality is the result of scientific discourse, through and through. From phenomenological descriptions, to anthropological, sociological, psychological and biological study. Our theories and understanding of transexual individuals has changed radically as new evidence has come forth and discoveries and theories evolve around it. It is quite the opposite of dogma. On heresy, there's only one thing that is considered universally bad, and is the idea that a group of people has to die due to something they can't control and aren't at fault for. Like declaring murder against trans people for being born transgender, yes, that's a definitive faux pas and you will be ostracized for wanting minorities dead. This is a moral stance, but that's it, it doesn't imply adhesion to any organized enforcement of belief. There's also no censorship or apostasy in here. The concept of censorship doesn't apply as the FFRF is not a government. Coyne is perfectly allowed to publish his ideas somewhere else, just not there. Finally, apostasy doesn't apply because this is not an organized religion.

The thing here is that Coyne and Dawkins want to declare themselves apostles of their anti-religion movement. Because that's how they were raised and they lack the critical thinking skills to realize the irony of the situation they're in. They are uncritically defending Anglican religious values and objectively acting against the anti-religion they claimed to champion. They're exactly the kind of asshats they would've debated against 10 or 20 years ago.

Congratulations on your recency bias, then, I suppose. I guess then you have also read Graham on the philosophical definitions of genes, and Jameson about memetics and neo-Darwinism research were he categorizes several criticism from the social sciences on the concept. As well as Burman, who defends the concept but also calls it an “unscientific object”. Or the analysis on the alt-right ideological ties of neo-darwimism from Weikart. I personally find the most compelling the article from Benitez Bribiesca, for I do think memetics are a dangerous idea. But the most compelling is of course the analysis from Dennett elaborating how memes, on their own fail to explain social phenomenon that should, as proposed by Dawkins, be regarded as memes, but other forms of sociological analysis can indeed account for the entirety of the phenomenon without the need of extraneous theories. This is what I think leads Mayr to claim that the theory of memes is unnecessary and there are anthropological and sociological theories better suited to explain the phenomena of concepts. Because I have read all of those and many more, too much to list here, over the course of decades. But what am I saying, you just read Selfish gene, of course no one knows more about it than you. Dear lord, my thesis tutor was right, “for the average idiot, their ignorance is as good as your PhD, no matter how much evidence you produce”.

I don't think you have ever read the premise beyond the cliffsnotes. But it is not my job to educate strangers on the internet.

I can accept there's people who like the concept but there's a reason it didn't take hold anywhere except pop science and is a theoretical dead end. It has a ton of epistemological flaws that make it useless as a scientific construct. It is unfalsifiable and it provides no venues for theoretical or experimental developments. As I stated, there are far more useful constructs in sociology and social psychology that allows the analysis of social constructs, cultural imagery, beliefs, values, worldviews, etc. With over a century of epistemological, theoretical and methodological traditions that have provided useful advancements to our scientific understanding, and provided tools for further development. Memes are barely a fun simile with genes that was cool to make YouTube videos about ten years ago, but that's about it.

Yes, and it is the most useless concept ever committed to text. It's ironic it was coopted by internet culture and then ridiculed and reduced to absurdity.

He just tried to poorly rebrand the concepts of cultural imagery, and social constructs but with less evidence. It's akin to me going "I propose the term garggle, it is water that flows down by gravity following the contours of the solid ground". It's like, yeah, we call it water and when it does that we call it a river, you would know if you opened a book about it anytime in the past century. You could summarize that book as "better read a book on sociology, it's more useful".

Thanks for mentioning the name because I honestly didn't know what software the second icon was supposed to be.

He isn't which is why I called him intrusist there at the end for writing a book about psychology and neurology which he doesn't understand. But the quote is from Coyne, another biologist who wrote the reply and was supported by Pinker, who is a psychologist and should've known better. None of these people know what they're talking about and are acting in this whole thing from passion instead of reason and evidence. Which is ironic, I believe.

“Why should sex be changeable while other physical traits cannot? Feelings don’t create reality,” he wrote. “Instead, in biology ‘sex’ is traditionally defined by the size and mobility of reproductive cells. “It is not ‘transphobic’ to accept the biological reality of binary sex and to reject concepts based on ideology. One should never have to choose between scientific reality and trans rights.”

As a fellow psychologist, I must regretfully state that this is the stupidest thing ever written by a psychologist. Our entire science is built upon the notion that feelings indeed create and modify (social) reality*. Sex is not gender, and he fumbled the most basic differentiation of concepts.

Heteronormative gender roles, on the other hand, are categorically a form of ideology and to defend them in place of basic human decency is a disgrace, good riddance to both asshats, I say. Specially with such a tenous biological argument that any good biologist can tell you is patently false. Gametes are not binary, there are hundred of thousands of intersex individuals for which this narrow definition doesn't apply.

Grant is absolutely right, but I don't expect the mentally weak asshole who invented the word "meme" to ever understand social sciences. His book is a pathetic pseudo scientific intrusion in a field he doesn't understand in the slightest.

*: some philosophers would even argue that there's no reality but social reality and both are one and the same.

It's valid to get mad at the article being removed and not discussed. But I have to say, that argument calling "gender ideology" a religion and its justification reads exactly as a right-wing anti-woke argument calling science a religion. Or the way I like to translate it, "everything I don't like is X" syndrome. Be it woke, religion, or anything else. It's a blatant display of rigid thinking. Just because someone didn't intent to hurt doesn't mean their actions can't hurt, and that's a big part of critical feminist theory (of which they might not entirely understand much about). Our actions and words have material and social consequences that extend beyond our intentions. Maybe try to understand why they were injurious instead of throwing a performative tantrum.

Edit: this comment is a reply to another comment and somehow got duplicated by lemmy as both a reply to OP and the comment. My apologies.

It's valid to get mad at the article being removed and not discussed. But I have to say, that argument calling "gender ideology" a religion and its justification reads exactly as a right-wing anti-woke argument calling science a religion. Or the way I like to translate it, "everything I don't like is X" syndrome. Be it woke, religion, or anything else. It's a blatant display of rigid thinking. Just because someone didn't intent to hurt doesn't mean their actions can't hurt, and that's a big part of critical feminist theory (of which they might not entirely understand much about). Our actions and words have material and social consequences that extend beyond our intentions. Maybe try to understand why they were injurious instead of throwing a performative tantrum.

Year of the linux desktop since 2018 over here, linux server since 2002.