If they were indeed a perfect replica that fact wouldn't matter. They wouldn't know if they were a replica, you wouldn't, and only a 3rd party could ever tell you they weren't the person you love. At that point learning whether or not this person standing in front of you is a replica can only harm either party. Would you really subject yourselves to that information if it could only hurt someone you objectively love? It's not a light choice to be considered selfishly in a vacuum, because even if they are a replica they're still perfect and a person you genuinely do love. Why on earth would you want to learn something that would make you not love them, that would alienate them from their entire sense of self? Even if is the truth, nobody stands to gain from the information. So long as neither of you can tell the difference, the truth doesn't doesn't matter. Pretty sure this exact subject comes up in like 2 or 3 episodes of Rick and Morty.
I'd prefer if someone who knew how to finish story without killing off the protagonist wrote this novel he's never going to write. It worked ONCE, one time. When Ned Stark was executed it was genuinely surprising and that first book was good enough to inspire many to finish the whole saga. By the end second novel I got the impression he was just trying to recycle the same story, peppering-in bits he picked up from writing workshops. Trying desperately to make new characters people might care about after killing-off anyone interesting. He has no idea how to finish a story other than an abrupt death. Woah, but wait but now Caitlin's a zombie or some shit... Yeah, no. Last you'll ever hear of that.
I didn't realize what was going on until I went to an open mic comedy night. There was a shocking number of comedians who could draw you into a joke with a compelling hook, but only precious who could follow up with a real joke. The thought occurred to me, "This is Martin. A comedian who can't figure out how a joke works." He wrote 1 good book but never grew as an author. Now he's rich and old and I don't blame him if couldn't be bothered to give a shit. Oy, what am I even talking about now? Eh, I think a spiritual successor could take GoT a lot further than he ever will.
How could someone read 1,2, or more books of GoT -- one of the greatest literary works of realism in character and worldbuilding -- and presumably enjoy them, and think that a tidy, satisfying ending is something possible, or even desirable.
I dropped graduate research into adversarial algorithms and generative adversarial networks when I realized instead of being paid beans to do something genuinely interesting I could get paid 6 figures to make business software and do whatever I want with my free time. Like so many other potential promising academic software engineers, I had a family to raise and a life to live. No kidding science needs more research software engineers, but that isn't going to change until science can pay software engineers at least a basic minimal income. When that changes I'll considering picking up where I left off.
Studies like this will only be compounded by those attempting to quantify how harmful removing an entire nation's children from school for almost 2 years, to socially isolate them from their community while mongering fear of other people fared against their psychological well being. How many hacker news users were aggressively throwing shade at anyone who deign so much as offer an iota of dissent against the status quo's reaction to mandates? Funny how a dubious analog to shoving your head in the sand became a conduit of intolerance for people with beliefs that differ from our own. I was shocked how quickly everyone glommed onto a narrative so easily appropriated by special groups with direct conflicts of economic interests, while aggressively shaming anyone who stepped out of line to point that out or ask whether one policy or another was effective, or harmful. I have read about a lot of dumb things humanity has done throughout history, but our reaction to covid is probably the dumbest I'm likely to see in my lifetime. More studies like this to come, rest assured.
I used a Palm, a phone about the dimensions of a business card, 1 slammer-pog thick, and loved it. The battery life was dismal, I had to disable most of the software which ran in the background, the camera was crap, but I loved that phone. Then my stupid provider implemented a list of approved devices and now I'm schlepping around a big piece of garbage with a cracked screen. I want my small phone back, so bad.
What about the possibility guy was going to be asked to leave regardless of recent events, but the executive team decided the least they could do after he put in good time is allow him to collect some PTO on parental leave before handing him the official pink slip? I don't know what Twitter's benefits are but I imagine they have an, "unlimited leave" policy. Could be they've disagreed for a while and an argument came to an affront similar to, "Look man, I'm going to take leave to spend time with my new child, then we'll decide if it's the right move for me to return." Frankly this is a pretty boring conspiracy regardless, people leave jobs all the time. All I have to say is I hope dude enjoys a nice Summer with his family without worrying about this dumb product that for the most part narcissists use to trick themselves into thinking anybody gives a shit about what they have to say.
Man I'm making a big assumption here but for someone who hasn't experienced a plane crashing into their home you seem to have a lot of angst for something that doesn't affect you in the scheme of things. Are you self aware enough to ask yourself if you're foisting your own baggage onto the shoulders of people and things you view as outsiders? Let me be the voice of reason here, my man. You're the only person that has the power to make you chill the fuck out. If you want to represent whatever tribe you hail from as better than conservatives, the elderly, or small planes I guess, you gotta change your attitude. The only thing launching into a weird tirade about airplanes, lead, and the elderly over an article about a guy landing a plane makes you seem kinda narcissistic, entitled, and maybe even a little bit mentally ill yourself.
Your life would only get better the second you decide living in a haze of anger over shit you can't change is no means to an end. If you're so focused on that anger, you're not focused on the things you can change to make your world better. Please, chill out, go pick up trash in the park or something. I promise it'll make you feel better.
FWIW, your entire comment is an ad hominem fallacy. You must ignore the person and focus on their argument in order to argue rationally.
> doesn't affect you in the scheme of things.
I have subsonic hearing and I live in a rural area, not particularly near any small or large airport. What drives me nuts are diesel school buses (something about the low frequencies) and those really slow single prop planes that seem to want to linger around my airspace, sound-polluting the entire area with harmful low frequencies. And for what? Entertainment and entitlement. We need diesel school buses right now and until electric buses become available to school districts, so I'll just deal with that. A vehicle gets you from point A to point B. Most of these planes and flights, nearly all of them, leave and return to the same airport a few hours later. They're not traveling anywhere, they're just bored. While I can empathize with boredom, I really don't tolerate being victimized by the bored. It isn't just me. Wildlife and Mother Nature and gravitational potential hates small engine planes.
For one thing, for remote communities, small planes are an absolute necessity, not simply for recreation. You've lumped together all small aircraft with hobby flying.
That aside, I think your environmental argument against hobby flying is interesting, but this other chip you have on your shoulder regarding "entitlement" and "the elderly" and "entertainment" people isn't very persuasive.
Dismissing something as "just entertainment for entitled people" is silly. Hobby flying is far from the only environmentally damaging thing that humans do only for entertainment.
> for remote communities, small planes are an absolute necessity
No problems there, so long as remote means not here, except lack of specifics. What remote communities have an absolute necessity for small planes?
> Hobby flying is far from the only environmentally damaging thing that humans do only for entertainment.
This is Whataboutism, a variant of the tu quoque fallacy, but it also has maybe a bit of Bandwagon fallacy as well. In any event, this is a fallacious argument.
>No problems there, so long as remote means not here, except lack of specifics. What remote communities have an absolute necessity for small planes?
There are plenty in Northern Canada [1]. That is the only area I've been personally, but I imagine there are similar areas around the world. Possibly also of interest is bush flying in general [2].
> This is Whataboutism, a variant of the tu quoque fallacy, but it also has maybe a bit of Bandwagon fallacy as well. In any event, this is a fallacious argument.
The habit of name-dropping logically fallacies and thinking it is some kind of slam dunk is so cliche that it needs it's own name.
I was not saying that we should ignore the impact of hobby flying because something else was worse (whataboutism), nor that you cannot criticise hobby flying because you do other things that are comparable (tu quoque), nor that hobby flying is good because it is popular (bandwagon).
My point was simply that doing something "only for entertainment" is not in itself a bad thing! Most of what people do, besides surviving, is essentially for pleasure. In fact, that people enjoy doing it is a point in favour of hobby flying!
The question is whether the benefits of allowing it (pleasure, availability of trained pilots, freedom) outweigh the costs (environmental, noise, danger).
Thanks. I love that because I live in Virginia. Let Northern Canada have all the small planes they can eat.
> The habit of name-dropping logically fallacies and thinking it is some kind, of slam dunk is so cliche that it needs it's own name.
Oh, we have a had a name for it for millennia. It's called logical argument, aka rational discourse.
> My point was simply that doing something "only for entertainment" is not in itself a bad thing!
But one can't entirely isolate the right of entertainment here as the only concern. No one's right to entertain themselves supersedes the rights of everyone else not to be disturbed by harmful loud sounds, or their right not to be lead poisoned, or their right of safety from falling aircraft. You are correct that there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone entertaining themselves... except when it violates the rights of everyone else.
> The habit of name-dropping logically fallacies and thinking it is some kind of slam dunk is so cliche that it needs it's own name.
It's sometimes called the 'fallacy fallacy': the assertion that because the argument is fallacious the conclusions are also necessarily false (as opposed to potentially true but infelicitously argued).
I'm sure you're great. Nothing against you, but please don't do that. Just write what you mean if you can't handle some people misinterpreting a sarcastic remark. Let's think about this for a second. What's the point of sarcasm? If you have to tell people you're being sarcastic, are you still being sarcastic? Not sure what territory, "/s" blunders into, but I'm confident it's not sarcasm. It's something else that seems kinda... dumb... like on a fundamental level. Did people think themselves above saying, "jk"? Mostly I've just seen, "/s" beg the question of why someone would go and ruin a good sarcasm, or whether the thing they labeled as such was ever sarcasm to begin with. Like the parent comment here for example, it's not sarcasm. There's no biting irony, mockery, or criticism. It's just a silly non-sequitur joke remark. You'd have to be like legitimately autistic or something to not see that, and at that point, "/s" is just a drop in a bucket. I mean hot-take here, sorry, but let's think twice before adopting social queues from reddit.
> You'd have to be like legitimately autistic or something to not see that, and at that point, "/s" is just a drop in a bucket.
I read up to this point thinking you’re being overly pedantic about the specific use of a sarc mark and overly dismissive of the benefit of intent-clarifying hints in text. All the while thinking “I’m going to comment about how much I value intent-clarifying hints in text… and then I have to decide whether I want to mention I’m autistic, and prepare for all of the ways I might be misconstrued or dismissed further.”
So here we are, you’ve saved me the trouble of making that decision. I personally very much appreciate when people signal intent when their meaning can be ambiguous. It doesn’t always feel necessary for me, but it’s never once felt like it taken away from something I otherwise understood as obvious.
My take, which is much cooler than it was when I was gathering thoughts leading up to this but still mildly hot is: what harm does it do to you if someone voluntarily makes something more accessible to someone who’s not you? If you already grokked /s from a sarcastic remark, it’s a tiny bit of information you can scroll past. I understand not explicitly recognizing and endorsing how it might benefit autistic readers, but explicitly rejecting it because it might is baffling.
Unless other techniques like bolding/italics etc are employed, or you work for DC Comics... because using MORE WORDS to correctly convey meaning is SO hard, YESSIR
Indicating sarcasm is not necessarily ruining it though. Look at IRL sarcasm, it will generally be accompanied with the right tone of voice and expression / body language that make its presence unequivocal. That doesn’t necessarily ruin it
It's the same reason why I often throw a emoji on the end of a sentence to a friend. Sometimes the sentence on its own can sound aggressive or hostile and a quick fix for that is a little emoji that can help make sure my tone is clear. I view something like "/s" as being quite similar to this. You're not ruining the sarcasm, but instead ensuring your tone is properly understood.
Written works have had sarcasm, irony, and related forms of wit for as long as they've existed. While people might miss the mark, it doesn't mean we should just give it up as impossible just because we're now writing comments online.
And it probably says more about me than the writer, but I always cringe when I see /s since it seems to be implying "Hey, in case you're a bit slow, this is sarcasm. Glad to help."
Sarcasm is by definition kind of elitist. You get it, and you're in the cool group, or you don't and you go on your way. It's a puzzle to solve. Removing all uncertainty removes its fundamental essence.
/s is just a wink, you still have to figure out whether the person did really fart and if so how they concealed it. You’re just here farting and calling it higher smelling because you think you’re the only one smelling it.
The very best sarcasm is so perfectly balanced and indistinguishable from the real deal, that it will leave its audience wondering but not missing the potential for sarcasm. Then the person that delivered it will promptly move on, before the audience gets a chance to really think about it.
Sorry, had two night shifts. Still owe you an answer. From my perspective. Since this is only text, no emojis ... how do you know that the person reading will get your tone / intention. Well, you don't. And thats you fundamental right: To say what you like and how you like it. This is why I phrased the remark like it is: In my opinion, your comment is 50/50 for understood / misunderstood, why not raise the odds of understanding in your favour. There is "good sarcasm" in personal communication with people who can read you. But this is a public forum ... anyway. Have a good weekend.
I agree in principle, but if there's one thing internet commenting has taught me, it's that a tragically large number of people are somehow getting though life with broken sarcasm detectors.
I've never seen that interpretation, but I have to say -- as someone who is not a fan of the /s, I find the fact that it could be interpreted as the exact opposite of the standard meaning pretty funny. In fact I think I will start using it this way, to sow discord among the /s fans. /s
It's your first job out of college. To be honest you aren't a good developer yet. That might sound harsh but it's actually totally okay. I don't care how great your grades in college were, new grads don't understand how to build maintainable enterprise projects. They don't have ample experience to draw on when it comes to how best to solve a problem, because most of it time it's the first they've seen of that problem. Thrashing and failing is just part of the career. Having a nice long think over a post mortem is how you learn and grow. What really matters is whether you have a good attitude, if you can reflect and build on your mistakes, if you're pleasant to work with, and if you can gracefully give and receive feedback. You're not a great dev yet... and that's fine, because you're working on it.
The problem seems to be with your boss's expectations. So if I understand this right they gave a junior developer soul dominion over a CV project with evolving requirements and a tight deadline? That your manager isn't really reviewing your code and offering feedback on a daily basis? That you don't have a dedicated mentor? Of course you're thrashing. To give you a project and expect otherwise is stupid.
Look, I'm a firm believer in giving good people the support and tools they need to succeed, because I've never really seen it fail. People who want to do good will. I've mentored lots of junior devs and they all have their own strengths and weaknesses. The one weakness I can't abide is if they're too full of themselves to accept feedback or hard to work with. If that's not you then you'll keep getting better. Look, you might think you like that job and maybe today was an exception, but you don't really have a basis of comparison and what you described sounds kinda wack. I can tell you with 100% certainty if your colleagues don't have realistic expectations you're going to have a bad time. The blame fest is coming. There are a ton of chill teams out there that would appreciate your time. Might not be as flashy as CV, but at the end of the day building Rube Goldberg machine business software is pretty dang similar. What matters is if you enjoy coming to work.
To what end then is it useful to drum up public fear of rabies in bats, if what actually leads to deaths seems to be economical problems? People only react stupidly to fear mongering. If you want a delightful read, the Merlin Tuttle Bat Conservancy has collected stories about how Fauchi's baseless, "idk, probably bats" reasoning has led to the extermination of entire populations. https://www.merlintuttle.org/
If you truly must live your life in fear of dying, look no further than heart disease and car accidents.
If you truly must live your life in fear of dying, look no further than heart disease and car accidents.
Those are not as scary because there are plenty of survivors, in various states of health. Rabies is notable for being a very binary and decisive disease with little advance warning or treatment.
I think, some creatures are just trouble for our species. Mosquitoes are the deadliest for us, but it seems that bats, with high instances of rabies, and things like covid, are right up there too.
It is sadly funny that we manage to extinct the useful, and mostly beneficial creatures around us, but our "enemies" just exist rampantly and laugh.
