Of course this isn't to say it's completely useless or anything. If nothing else, knowing about all the fallacies and different flavors of bullshit is helpful in other circumstances. But I stand by my jadedness otherwise
It's similar in real life tbh, people are people and charged is charged. I've sort of given up on the idea of having a "good" discussion, and most of the research I've ever done into "proper arguments" essentially only makes it clear that nobody else tends to give a damn about it. Which means the knowledge only really serves to show you how all the discussions you do have... ain't it. Whenever someone breaks a "rule" of debating, pointing it out will not actually help you.
Seems like comforting nonsense, or possibly just nonsense. If something goes to hell, you can tell yourself that it was "fated" to happen that way, instead of examining the actual reasons and possibly discovering you were at fault.
Of course, if people are just blatantly ignoring or refuting established scientific results, there’s not much you can do…
Well... there you are, unfortunately. That will happen pretty much literally every time, no matter what you do, because it was never about the science. It will never be about the science, because we already know they're completely wrong about everything and therefore they need to make science irrelevant.
Conspiracy theories sell people the idea that they're seeing through "the bullshit" (sum total of human expertise, generally) which is a powerful feeling, that the dull world of undeniable facts and logic can't quite measure up to. Too easy to deny them anyway, you see. The package tends to come with a bunch of rationalizations for why, the instant you seem like you're not buying it, they no longer have to listen to anything you say.
Acknowledging that plenty of common vaccines have extremely rare, but nonetheless potentially severe side effects.
Unfortunately, if you don't also want to acknowledge the ones that are blatant lies, you are instantly The Enemy. Given stuff like belief perseverance and the backlash effect it's understandable to want to try, though.
Being "supportive" when arguing against known bullshit is not my forte, so I wouldn't be the one to get good results out of the supposed strat of... agreeing them out of their position(?), but I am damn curious about what it'd look like.
To me personally, the choice is easy (I press the button), but I recognise that people see this as a dilemma.
A false one, to belabor the point, but it's not relevant anyway. The reality is that if you get within light years of the concrete thought experiment, they'll be real suspicious. If any part of it is remotely realistic, you'll lose them instantly: "do you want a thousand times higher risk of death, and also help spread a potentially lethal and disfiguring infection?" cannot be made to sound all that reasonable.
Assorted "post infection" bullshit is not uncommon, if that's the kind of sick you were. Certain infections have certain sequelae. Your doc is aware of the history, right?
On the other hand, totally did not see this particular shit coming. I wonder if we'll see a rash of "permissive, except LLMs can fuck right off" licenses.
The hard way. Exactly how hard depends on what tech the game is built on. Easy access to code and assets is typically lost when "building", but you can often decompile things at the cost of losing names for things, comments or whatever. A trained eye can still tell what's going on in the resulting mess, and make any desired changes. Some projects intentionally try to make it harder in various ways, with obfuscation and attempts at tampering detection.
A similar exception (because it can get pretty complicated) is the modding API Nemo mentions. You implement an interface (contract outlining what your code can do) and the game calls your code at what it decides is appropriate times, like updating every frame or when it's time to draw custom stuff. This can help make sure different mods don't instantly conflict if they try to mess with the same part of the game.
If anyone said "autism means you can feel free to be a dipshit" then I missed it, and wouldn't agree. The point is that if your personal temperature preference is different enough, you'll probably get stigmatized for that, too.
The irony here is in the common stereotype that autists can't cope with shit. In reality autists can be pretty fucking excellent at coping with shit (they have a lot of practice at it), and just not get that much credit for trying.
In reality, a lot of the shit you're asked to cope with boils down to "don't be like you are", which, aside from anything else, isn't very human rights-y. At a more personal level, you will effectively be held accountable for neurotypical people's feefees, while people in general have absolutely no compunction about ignoring, stigmatizing, and pathologizing yours. The people who think your social and emotional skills are dogshit by default will not hesitate for an instant about leaving you all the work they're supposed to be much better suited for.
A very small minority of people in minorities just might overindulge in what accommodation they feel should be owed them sometimes. It's still massively more common for genuine problems to get unfairly stigmatized, ignored, and belittled.
In my experience, people mostly hate "methods of improvement". It's easier in the short term to just tell all the possible future issues to fuck off, and then they can bite you in the ass later instead. This is sometimes rationalized some more, "not phrased correctly" or some such, but if no phrasing is good enough to take it seriously, then obviously the phrasing was not the issue...
If you want to blend in, getting a standout unusual and kinda "wrong" drink order would be counterproductive. In an "eccentric" enough crowd it might just pass, but the wiser choice if you're a spy would've been... do more cocktail research, don't end up going to a foofy place and ask for ice cubes in your wine etc.
When people say audio books aren't reading, they mean one of two things: that it's not literally reading words, which is true, or that it's not "proper reading like I do", which is gatekeepey and elitist and awkward. There's a ton of individual differences in how you understand/retain information and which media are better for you.
I think the important part is how much you retain. Listening is more passive, but that's no reason to gatekeep the thing.
Edit: but to be clear no, it's not literally reading. Still a fairly common thing to say, kinda figuratively I guess, about audio books, which I don't think is a problem either.
I know it well 😅
Of course this isn't to say it's completely useless or anything. If nothing else, knowing about all the fallacies and different flavors of bullshit is helpful in other circumstances. But I stand by my jadedness otherwise
It's similar in real life tbh, people are people and charged is charged. I've sort of given up on the idea of having a "good" discussion, and most of the research I've ever done into "proper arguments" essentially only makes it clear that nobody else tends to give a damn about it. Which means the knowledge only really serves to show you how all the discussions you do have... ain't it. Whenever someone breaks a "rule" of debating, pointing it out will not actually help you.
Seems like comforting nonsense, or possibly just nonsense. If something goes to hell, you can tell yourself that it was "fated" to happen that way, instead of examining the actual reasons and possibly discovering you were at fault.
Skipping the middleman and just put kiddie diddling down in the law, huh? Can't say I'm surprised in any way
Well... there you are, unfortunately. That will happen pretty much literally every time, no matter what you do, because it was never about the science. It will never be about the science, because we already know they're completely wrong about everything and therefore they need to make science irrelevant.
Conspiracy theories sell people the idea that they're seeing through "the bullshit" (sum total of human expertise, generally) which is a powerful feeling, that the dull world of undeniable facts and logic can't quite measure up to. Too easy to deny them anyway, you see. The package tends to come with a bunch of rationalizations for why, the instant you seem like you're not buying it, they no longer have to listen to anything you say.
Unfortunately, if you don't also want to acknowledge the ones that are blatant lies, you are instantly The Enemy. Given stuff like belief perseverance and the backlash effect it's understandable to want to try, though.
Being "supportive" when arguing against known bullshit is not my forte, so I wouldn't be the one to get good results out of the supposed strat of... agreeing them out of their position(?), but I am damn curious about what it'd look like.
A false one, to belabor the point, but it's not relevant anyway. The reality is that if you get within light years of the concrete thought experiment, they'll be real suspicious. If any part of it is remotely realistic, you'll lose them instantly: "do you want a thousand times higher risk of death, and also help spread a potentially lethal and disfiguring infection?" cannot be made to sound all that reasonable.
You're presuming the dude has any brain matter left for the prions to affect
Assorted "post infection" bullshit is not uncommon, if that's the kind of sick you were. Certain infections have certain sequelae. Your doc is aware of the history, right?
It's not normal ageing, unless you meant like 92. Have you mentioned how bad it is to a doctor? Been sick lately?
just .ml things
Confident bullshitting that looked like human communication has been reddit's entire wheelhouse, since before LLMs were an itch in anyone's pants.
Oh no. :D
How truly terrible. :D
My heart is practically breaking. :D
On the other hand, totally did not see this particular shit coming. I wonder if we'll see a rash of "permissive, except LLMs can fuck right off" licenses.
The hard way. Exactly how hard depends on what tech the game is built on. Easy access to code and assets is typically lost when "building", but you can often decompile things at the cost of losing names for things, comments or whatever. A trained eye can still tell what's going on in the resulting mess, and make any desired changes. Some projects intentionally try to make it harder in various ways, with obfuscation and attempts at tampering detection.
A similar exception (because it can get pretty complicated) is the modding API Nemo mentions. You implement an interface (contract outlining what your code can do) and the game calls your code at what it decides is appropriate times, like updating every frame or when it's time to draw custom stuff. This can help make sure different mods don't instantly conflict if they try to mess with the same part of the game.
One might call it sloppy, even
If anyone said "autism means you can feel free to be a dipshit" then I missed it, and wouldn't agree. The point is that if your personal temperature preference is different enough, you'll probably get stigmatized for that, too.
The irony here is in the common stereotype that autists can't cope with shit. In reality autists can be pretty fucking excellent at coping with shit (they have a lot of practice at it), and just not get that much credit for trying.
In reality, a lot of the shit you're asked to cope with boils down to "don't be like you are", which, aside from anything else, isn't very human rights-y. At a more personal level, you will effectively be held accountable for neurotypical people's feefees, while people in general have absolutely no compunction about ignoring, stigmatizing, and pathologizing yours. The people who think your social and emotional skills are dogshit by default will not hesitate for an instant about leaving you all the work they're supposed to be much better suited for.
A very small minority of people in minorities just might overindulge in what accommodation they feel should be owed them sometimes. It's still massively more common for genuine problems to get unfairly stigmatized, ignored, and belittled.
"Hey, have you considered just not thinking you're special? Just learn to work with 'normal', bro."
Clearly a person of huge expertise on the matter
In my experience, people mostly hate "methods of improvement". It's easier in the short term to just tell all the possible future issues to fuck off, and then they can bite you in the ass later instead. This is sometimes rationalized some more, "not phrased correctly" or some such, but if no phrasing is good enough to take it seriously, then obviously the phrasing was not the issue...
If you want to blend in, getting a standout unusual and kinda "wrong" drink order would be counterproductive. In an "eccentric" enough crowd it might just pass, but the wiser choice if you're a spy would've been... do more cocktail research, don't end up going to a foofy place and ask for ice cubes in your wine etc.
When people say audio books aren't reading, they mean one of two things: that it's not literally reading words, which is true, or that it's not "proper reading like I do", which is gatekeepey and elitist and awkward. There's a ton of individual differences in how you understand/retain information and which media are better for you.
I think the important part is how much you retain. Listening is more passive, but that's no reason to gatekeep the thing.
Edit: but to be clear no, it's not literally reading. Still a fairly common thing to say, kinda figuratively I guess, about audio books, which I don't think is a problem either.