trafguy @ trafguy @midwest.social

Posts

3

Comments

41

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yeah, that would be crucial too. Antibioitics and the risks of antibiotic resistance need to be included. But to create and purify effective antibiotics, you also need to start with the scientific method, then branch into chemistry, biology, etc. Glassware and procedures to minimize contamination would be important to effectively extract helpful ingredients from potentially harmful molds/other sources.

Depending on the starting scenario, it might be possible to skip much of that at first if we had leftover supplies from a prior civilization. If this site is to be believed, it sounds like making penicillin at home is quite a process, but doable if you're able to get the right supplies. I don't see any efficient pathway from here to there if we had to start from zero though.

I read it as "what do you have enough knowledge of that you could aid in the birth/advancement of a new civilization?" Doesn't matter if you have it fully figured out, just what knowledge can you provide that would be highly valued if all knowledge were otherwise lost.

• Crafting bows to hunt. Wood selection, shaping, tillering, natural bowstring materials.
• Some edible wild plants
• Some basic farming knowledge
• Some construction/shelter repair techniques
• Algebra and concepts of calculus, and why they're useful
• How to preserve foods
• Basic concepts of electricity's importance and how to make it, but someone would need to explain how to go from raw material to a functional wire, find some rare earth magnets, and figure out how to make LEDs or something else worth using the electricity for.
• The scientific method
• Concepts of how to engineer/design a solution to a problem
• Troubleshooting techniques
• Some basic concepts of boat stability and construction
• Some concepts of modern psychology
• Concepts of critical thinking and rejection of groupthink
• Basic physics. Loose explanations of kinematic equations, gravity, friction, pendulums, air resistance, aerodynamics, basic concepts of rocketry and flight/parachutes/gliders
• Evaporative cooling? I could describe the concepts of modern air conditioning, but that doesn't seem useful yet.
• I could probably work out how a windmill works, how to make a wagon, how to purify water, how to make water-tight storage.
• Germ Theory
• The Paradox of Tolerance
• How pasteurization works
• Fermentation, concepts of distillation
• Basic oral hygiene? Habits of at least rinsing sugar out of your mouth afterwards, if brushes aren't available.
• Use of alcohol and heat as antiseptics. Suggestion to use honey in a pinch
• Basic concepts of how magnifying lenses work and why they're important

Yeah, that's definitely some fucked up shit. You didn't deserve to be tormented like that. There are some really fucked up people, and you've met far more than your share of them. If you don't have the strength to get up, I get it. It's understandable. And they did fail you. your parents, your teachers, your police force, and every authority figure who could have intervened but didn't--all of them bear the blame for what you went through.

I don't have the time to respond in detail, but I can say a few more things:

• I can attest that I won't deliberately hurt anyone. I've lashed out at people verbally when I was in a bad place, but that's the extent of it. Hell, I was bit by a random dog a few months ago and my first thought was "what happened to this dog that made it afraid of me?". I know there are tolerant people because I talk to a few regularly, and because I do my best to be one myself.
• I don't know what you've tried, but there's a therapy called EMDR that is designed to help people with PTSD. Basically, you sit down with a trained professional and go through the memories that are stuck in your head while following some specific exercises that help you avoid getting sucked too far into them. I've heard it's really helpful for some people.
• I get the feeling you recognize that I'm not the same person who hurt you, but if not, please try to remember that each person is unique. Some of them are assholes, some of them are neutral or even helpful. And if you approach anyone with aggression, you'll usually find they respond with either fear or aggression. If you go to a bar or a crowded public park and just say "hello" in a somewhat positive tone to a few people, I bet you'll get a range of responses. Some of them might be suspicious or want to be left alone, and some will likely be open to a conversation.

I know this is much easier to say than it is to internalize and believe, but it doesn't matter what any singular person thinks about you. There are people out there who do their best to understand and accept you as you are, without using what they learned to make half-assed guesses about the rest of who you are. They may be few and far between (or maybe not), but I know they exist. As soon as you start looking for those who accept you instead of trying to be accepted by those who don't, you'll be on a better course. And don't be afraid of anti-depressants. Depression makes yiu want to give up on fighting, makes you think nothing can help. It's a lie by which the illness sustains itself. By listening to that lie, you may protect yourself from harm, but you'll also "protect" yourself from finding happiness.

And remember, parents, old friends, etc. who don't necessarily get you too well aren't necessarily trying to be cruel, but you may never have quite the relationship with them you wish you could. They have their own problems from their own anxieties and abuse growing up, their own mental health issues, etc., and that can limit the depth of relationships they can achieve with you. Try to be patient, but don't drive yourself insane trying to achieve what isn't possible.

And if you feel like you don't belong, maybe you don't, and maybe that's okay. Maybe you're neurodivergent or simply have morals or interests that are incompatible with theirs. But the fact remains, there is someone who will accept you and with whom you can belong in peace, if you can open yourself up to let them. You haven't lost until the last time you give up on finding them. Giving up on something you still deeply care about, without eventually picking it back up again, is the only failure. It's okay to quit, but don't be afraid to come back to it if you care about it.

~ advice I try to accept myself, would give my younger self, and may hopefully be at least a little helpful for you

As others have said, intelligence manifests in many ways. It can also change over time for various reasons. Do you have a specific example in mind for a situation where you had a hard time coping with a person you considered less intelligent (or possibly witnessed a very frustrated person who you perceived as highly intelligent)? A specific example would make it clearer what particular struggles you're having.

One thing that helps is just trying to recognize that each person is unique and has their own strengths and weaknesses. Just because someone may struggle to effectively communicate, either by struggling to absorb or share information accurately and efficiently, doesn't mean they aren't able to learn and communicate well in other ways.

Try to speak to them as a person. Meet them where they are to the best of your ability, but without holding any notions of superiority (it's rude and unproductive to be condescending). And if they're not communicating with logic, bear in mind you can't convince them with logic, and you may find you're better off leaving them be and continuing with your day.

Or do you perhaps mean that others react poorly to the way you communicate? The above advice could still help a lot with that, but you may, like me, have some challenges with emotional intelligence or interpersonal skills. If others are targeting you for harassment, they may feel threatened by your behavior or otherwise have a tribalistic instinctive recognition that you stand out. So you could choose to learn that language or find ways to avoid those types of reactive people, which could include bringing in people with authority to mediate depending on your situation.

I think you'd need to start by getting them to admit that the heat is a problem without mentioning climate change. Don't use any of the buzz words they've been taught how to respond to. Just try to get them to have a conversation where they have to come up with their own answers.

In fact, maybe don't even start off with anything related to the topics they've been told what to think about. Ask about something they care about more directly that isn't on their party's agenda. You'd need to keep at it long enough for them to start understanding you're not their enemy, which could be anywhere from a few hours to a few weeks/months, depending on how deeply entrenched they are. Then, start trying to work towards the lesser issues their authority doesn't bring up often but has expressed an opinion on. Basically, you need to de-indoctrinate them.

If you can get them to talk about an issue without recognizing immediately that they're in danger of contradicting their chosen authorities, then slowly transition towards getting them to talk about more and more "dangerous" topics, you might help them to bridge that disconnect and start thinking critically about the key issues.

That all said, You'll have an easier time working with people who haven't been deeply entrenched in an authoritarian ideology. The less developed their beliefs, the easier it'll be to guide them towards thinking about their beliefs critically. That's one reason it's so important to teach critical thinking in primary/secondary schools.

logic will never convince them because they aren't arguing from a position of logic. It's about conforming to the beliefs required to be part of their tribe and/or protecting themselves from coming to terms with the harsh realities of climate change. It's reactionary against a challenge to their beliefs.

You would need to first convince them to consider that their respected authorities could be wrong. But within this reactionary mindset, being wrong is disgraceful. So unless they lose respect for their leaders or manage to shift away from believing fallibility is disgraceful, I don't know if they can be convinced.

If you have good insurance it's no nearly that much. Weekly, with good insurance, you're looking at ~$20-30. Without insurance, with a payment plan for low income individuals, you can find discounted care around $60-70/session fairly easily. They didn't check my income when I was offered that, just in response to me mentioning I might need to quit when my insurance was shit for a year or two.

The Secular Therapy Project may be worth looking at. It focuses on specifically finding non-theist care providers, but as I understand it, you'll be less likely to find non-evidence based providers, so somewhat better outcomes.

Ultimately, therapy is a space for you to work through your own issues with the help of a trained professional who can guide you, but imprecisely. They'll offer tools, and it's up to you to figure out how to use them in a way that suits you. The tools can work, but only so much as you are willing to learn to apply them for your own benefit. Some will suit you better than others. It's hard to have that much patience to continue trying new approaches, introspecting, and growing two steps forward and one step back, but it's worth it. Ultimately, as cliche as this probably sounds, every day you're putting in that effort, trying to see the good, reaching towards contentedness and your dreams, is a small victory. It's a step in the right direction.

*these prices are for US healthcare prividers. It may be different elsewhere.

In my admittedly limited and likely biased experience, progressives and further left tend to be more critical in the way they approach authority figures. The GOP is just pissed they can't as easily indoctrinate younger generations into fighting against their own interests.

I've heard it said several times, the GOP tends to say the opposite of what they mean. "college kids are being indoctrinated" = "umm, guys, we're having a hard time indoctrinating the college kids..."

Thought it might be helpful to compare the USSR to Wikipedia's definitions of fascism and communism. These definitions can be wrong or could be different than what they were at the height of the USSR, but perhaps it'll help with finding common definitions. I'll admit that my knowledge of USSR culture/governance is limited, so feel free to critique/refute any of my interpretations.

Fascism:

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

It hits 4/7 pretty firmly and the remaining 3 are plausible.

Communism:

is a left-wing to far-left sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology... whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need. A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state.

Hits 2/8 at best, but I would be surprised to learn there wasn't money in the USSR.

Thanks for the transparency! I don't mind, mistakes happen, but I understand it's frustrating and a bit problematic with the lost content.

There was a post about that on a Lemmy admin community a few days ago. Someone with a ~1k userbase was eating up a GB/day on average. IIRC, there were lots of logs, but also if I understand correctly, every server stores mirrors of the data from anything users subscribe to. That could eat up a lot of data pretty quickly as the fedeverse scales up.

If you wanted to suggest a shift for improved scalability, maybe servers could form tight pacts with a few who mirror each other's content, and then more loosely federated servers load data directly from the pact. A compromise between ultimate content preservation and every larger server having to host the entire fedeverse.

So basically, a few servers would form a union. Each union would be a smaller fedeverse (like cells in an organ), and they'd connect to other organs to form the fedeverse/body.

Also, are users who joined in the past few days affected? I suppose they might need to sign up again.

If we end up triggering a self-sustaining feedback loop, that's how I understand it, yeah. We still do have some very high risk strategies we could implement, like solar shielding to reduce total light reaching the earth, or bioengineering plants that suck up carbon super efficiently, but it's hard to say what the impacts of those would be

Reminds me of this discussion of how a scene/subculture grows and evetnaully dies: https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths

Feels like federated social networks are creating a new fresh scene, and there's now an influx of new users (including myself)

Sounds good to me, as long as there's a way for instances/users to disable those filters. Since they're more in-depth/granular, I suspect engagement with them would be lower, so there's a higher risk of a smaller minority using it to dictate the conversation. But I'd definitely be interested in seeing that in action. It could be really helpful for giving people tools to shape their feed.

I generally agree with you. I don't know that it matters so much whether articles are posted, it matters more that people continue to speak against the ideology and don't allow fascists to take the stage. Seeing others' support a cause lends it credence. Seeing that a cause exists lends some, but not as much as active support would. Seeing people voice disapproval helps to take away that credibility.

That said, the principle generally makes sense that spreading an ideology's message helps that ideology spread. The impact of posting an article on Lemmy is likely to be small, but non-zero. It's a matter of providing access to a fresh audience. Fox's viewers are thoroughly saturated with hateful rhetoric already, so there aren't many left to radicalize who can be reached by that message. Exposing a fresh audience to the content expands its reach and potentially radicalizes new people. Plus, exposure to new hateful messages can deepen the entrenchment of those who are already caught in the web.

It isn't exactly a matter of wanting or not wanting to see it. You know the addage "any news is good news?" By posting content that keeps a person and their commentary in the forefront of people's minds, that person gains an audience. That audience will contain people who can be swayed by the snake oil, but who would otherwise be reasonable. Or in short, posting their content facilitates radicalization.

That said, while content from harmful influential people needs to be approached with caution, I don't see this as promoting Trump's action/behaviors. To me it reads more like a "not the onion" headline. I'd be disappointed if anyone felt that the death penalty was warranted for late tax filing, but I suppose it's possible.

Does Lemmy have a way to filter keywords? It would be helpful for people to be able to blacklist keywords so a user could choose to avoid seeing, for example, news about Trump or content with sensitive topics.

Yeah, I agree with kobra. It's a mix. The Alt Right Playbook video series gives some interesting thoughts on the matter. Conservatives and further right tend to be hyper hierarchical and tend to demand respect for the chain of authority, even to their own detriment (as long as it hurts someone else more). Rejecting an authority figure is a bigger deal on the right than the left due to the whole "control how people think" angle.

So it hasn't gone far enough to alienate the ones that are still on board. Some refuse to hear the negative and just bury their head in the sand. Some are convinced by emotionally charged rhetoric that "the other side is even worse." And some already agreed with them secretly. For most, it's probably a mix of these various techniques for contorting to fit the shape demanded of them by their authority figures--some being more bigoted than others after all. For the pro-hierarchical people, their place in the hierarchy is a piece of their self-identity and it's really hard to fight that instinct.