wolframhydroxide @ wolframhydroxide @sh.itjust.works

Posts

2

Comments

294

Joined

12 mo. ago

Right, and they need to know what the process is, because the ACTUAL interview is at the BEGINNING, without the machine, like I SAID at the BEGINNING. That is the part that they need to focus on.

Christ, it's like the only reason you're responding is as some kind of "gotcha". You can either provide useful information about the process, which is what actually matters to this person, or you can just keep acting like a dick.

Did you actually read my comment? Again, I am not saying that it works, but that it doesn't MATTER whether it works, because they are going to do the polygraph anyway, and this person needs to know the actual procedure, not useless navel-gazing about how, surprising nobody, the US government uses ridiculous tests, spends obscene amounts of time and money, and all of it amounts to a fucking vibe check.

YES, it's WORTHLESS, but that isn't going stop the fucking fascist across the table from you from judging you by it, and arguing over it is PRECISELY as worthless as the test itself.

OP needs to state to their interviewer that they're a strict constitutionalist, and take the oath so maybe they can do something good, or at least prevent something bad. That's it.

Okay, literally none of these are the ACTUAL answer to the question, and if you're in the US in a position to take a polygraph, I want you to succeed. These people saying that it doesn't work DO NOT MATTER, even if I happen to agree, because you're going to be taking it either way. So, as someone who has actually TAKEN a polygraph with the CIA for a TS Clearance (12 years ago), allow me to tell you the actual answer from my experience:

Before the polygraph is hooked up, you will spend as much time as you need going through every question you will be asked. You have the opportunity to bring up concerns with question ambiguity then. They will work with you to make sure that you feel comfortable answering any question they ask with a straight "yes" or "no". I don't remember what the specific wording was when they asked me that question, and it would technically be illegal for me to tell you anyway. I hope that this is more helpful to you than "hurr-durr, it doesn't work".

If only Canada would take us...

To be fair, Newton was suggesting the feasibility of using chemical propellants to create stable ballistic orbits in space as far back as the 1600s with his cannonball example.

Um, actually, the scientific method as it is currently formulated is best traced back to Ibn Al-Haytham, with elements dating back throughout thousands of years, from the rationalism of Thales to the experimentalism of 墨子. Babylonians were using mathematical prediction algorithms to accurately state the date of the next solar eclipse in 600 BCE. It seems like YOU need to read up on the history of the philosophy of science, and if you claim that 2+2=4 is an "enlightenment" idea, I cannot hope to respond with a level of disdain sufficient to encapsulate your willfully-pompous idiocy.

You say that 2+2 DOES equal 4, and then make claims which suggest that it doesn't. Certainly, 2+2 can only be said to equal 4 because of the axioms of mathematics, which are, of course, purely postulates, since Cartesian solipsism demonstrates that we cannot truly know anything to be true except that we ourselves exist (oh, but wait, your disdain for enlightenment philosophy clearly removes this, the best refuge for your argument!)

However, to accept as a matter of course that 2+2=4 and then suggest that it is only through subjective perception that we privilege 4 over any other number in that equality is not only a clear argument in bad faith, meant only to make others feel stupid, but is also patently ridiculous, since you are reneging on your own given precept.

So, if you're planning on gatekeeping knowledge,

1. Do better than "2+2=4, but also 2+2=5 because eurocentrism bad"
2. Fuck. Right. Off.

I was under the impression that structural lignin was what really made trees a viable style of growth, and that seems like an odd chemical for a bunch of unrelated plants to all evolve. Is there something I'm missing? Is lignin actually present in all vascular plants?

1 is the monkey's paw answer and a trap. Fat is necessary for survival. Fats literally make up the outside of every cell in your body.

2 is still dangerous, because it might just be tapeworm eggs.

Is 3 just a servant who shops for you? Or is it just that you are no longer addicted to compulsive shopping?

4 Will cause you the most agonizing pain of your life as virtually every bone and muscle gets ripped apart and re-knit, and as someone who's 6'4, it has its upsides, but having literally everything made for people shorter than you REALLY sucks, from doorways and light fixtures, even to rollercoasters which nearly remove your legs because of awful design (or just won't close over your shoulders)

5 is nice. Go with 5. It'll be painful, but potentially worth it in a pinch, as long as it also grants you control of that strength.

6 is another trap, since small amounts of stress are actually really important, and in order to be constantly happy, your brain would lose the ability to feel it unless it continually increased the dopamine drip. Eventually, you would kill for the ability to stop.

7 I mean, sure, if that's what you want. Would be nice to know what kind of followers? Are they going to be religious and try to pull a Life of Brian on you?

8 is the worst, because you have no control over the extent of the memory wipe. This is existentially terrifying

9 is the safest, but then you go and read that post about why winning the lottery means you're fucked.

The surefire safest calls are probably 9, 7, and 3, since they wouldn't actually affect your body, unless you're the kind of person who likes playing roulette with the sort of pills you get for free on the street.

Poe's law applies here. Remember to use your sarcasm HTML tag!

<s>

Why do you hate success?

</s>

That's... Not a very promising roadmap...

Almost. A sudden shift from skill and quality to speed and turnaround wins out in the short run, just long enough to make number go up, cash the checks, and take the golden parachute out while leaving your underlings and consumers holding the bag.

🦭💨

Well, ethanol was, literally, called the "Water of Life"

My time has come. As someone who almost exclusively listens to instrumental soundtrack from movies and games, including from games I have never played, these are the ones that most often get stuck in my head (in no particular order). A plus "+" indicates a song that got stuck in my head regularly before I ever played the game, while an asterisk "" indicates a song that still gets stuck in my head, despite being from a game I have never played at all.

1. Baba Yetu - Civ IV (+)
2. Hyrule Castle - Breath Of The Wild (+)
3. Lorule Castle - Link Between Worlds ()
4. One Final Effort - Halo 3 ()
5. Golem King - Moonlighter
6. Song of the Ancients - Nier Series ()
7. Dragonborn - Skyrim
8. Far Horizons - Skyrim (+)
9. Dragon Roost Island - Wind Waker ()
10. Nate's Theme - Uncharted ()
11. Gusty Garden Galaxy - Super Mario Galaxy ()
12. Korobeiniki - Tetris (+)
13. Gerudo Valley - Ocarina of Time (+)
14. Colgera Battle - Tears of the Kingdom
15. This Song - The Witcher 3 (It's the song Aen Seidhe, but without vocals)
16. Bloody Tears - Castlevania ()

But finally, the song that I credit with making me obsessed with instrumental soundtrack, because I fell asleep with it playing on repeat for a whole night at the age of 5, and then lost the game cartridge, so I forgot what it was from, and which I would get stuck in my head roughly once a month throughout my entire childhood until I finally found the song THIRTEEN YEARS LATER:

Ω) Town Theme - Final Fantasy II

Healing Wood

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Sure... Repairs damage to doors and furniture...

Tell this to fucking New Zealand.

Yes, monster myths have always held the function of moral lessons for the many cultures that birthed them. The Wendigo is a moral metaphor for the taboo against eating human flesh, and the necessity of working together through harsh winters, as opposed to greedy wendigo, that works only to sate itself, and thus is cursed never to be sated. The Vampire is a moral warning against demanding excess in all things carnal, monetary, and gluttonous, and for this reason it resonated with Victorian england. The zombie, however, was originally just someone who had been drugged into submission. The modern zombie does, however, make an excellent metaphor for herd mentality and "us-vs-them". We change our monsters (or make new ones) to fit the social mores and taboos of the culture of the time. There is a reason that many examples of "The Monster" in literature focus not on the actual villainy of the Monster, but on the villainy of the other humans in the story. Monsters are a mirror, held up to the face of the reader, demanding that we stare at the worst parts of what it is to be human.

Yeah, there were a couple of tiny decisions, any of which failed you out if you got them wrong, and several of them had deceptive descriptions during the QTE.

I was under the impression that it wasn't Victorian London, but The Plague Year. IIRC she, canonically, brings a blanket infested with plague lice from here to there, and ends up dropping it next to the ship Catriona, which is how the Catriona plague actually gets started. It was one of those "oh shit, yes, that explains everything" moments for me when I first read the books.

I think that the thing that let them down was that they didn't actually get to participate in any discussion or consensus-building. I think that the ideal scenario to solve this issue is a quick chatroom amongst simultaneous players, in which topics for discussion are briefly discussed for a few minutes, then voted on, like a real jury. It could include deliberation, but the question writer would only see the verdict. I will tell you that I would personally play this if it followed this method:

Make it fewer players per question (like 5 or 7), so that it doesn't take an hour. Each submits a question. Make it so that, while your question is being considered, you are in another jury room deliberating on another question. Make deliberations timed (say, 3-5 minutes per question), so that no one is in a lobby waiting to serve on a jury for too long. Then, after serving on a number of juries equal to the number of jurors (5-7), they can view their verdict. This would allow for the deliberation these people are suggesting.