Is that kind of organizational prevention the one that involves having subjects count down mentally? I really enjoyed learning about memory. The visuospatial sketchpad holds a place in my heart.
The deck shuffling is relevant due to other factors. There is a card in the combo deck that reshuffles the discard pile into the deck when it's put to discard, and the deck revolves around (as a shortcutted, freely undertaken combo) dealing one damage every time a certain creature goes to the discard pile. As you re-shuffle every time the 'engine' piece is hit, you can't predict how many times you need to activate the discard combo, so it cannot be shortcutted. Shortcutting in magic requires stating exactly as many iterations as will occur and the clear end state.
Slow play is the phrase explaining why indeterminate combos don't get shortcutted. "An indeterminate-loop combo may take anywhere from fifteen minutes to fifteen hundred years to actually succeed, and we really do not need to be waiting around to see which it's going to be."
Your local library has a much better offering of niche non-fiction than mine. Many of the texts I see here aren't even available through my school's cross country academic network. I did read this book that way, but I had to wait for it to come quite a distance.
My city's newest library is an art piece with less books than any other here, to be fair.
This is clearly not true. Why else do organizations involved in large scale ML move to locations with more lax AML regimes? E.g. crypto in eastern Europe. If the risk of being caught was no deterrent, ML activity would be dependent on 'amount of launderable funds' and independent of AML regime - can you offer an argument showing this is true?
A simple comparison might help: while from the outside this likely looks like the famous "leftist yells at leftist" scenario, the alternative - where a single expert has their theories elevated into law, without room for disagreement, looks a lot like Lysenkoism, and usually results in large-scale suffering with no scientific value (due to mistakes, large or small, in individual theories).
I'm not in this field and can't hazard a guess at the exact utility of this dispute, but when I see specialists and the impassioned debating vigorously on their principles, I trust it's because of relevant disagreements in the field, because that's what I observe in my preferred domain. Some amount of slapfighting is inevitable - we're all human - but this is a particularly humane way to hash out differences.
The GP comment appears to not be saying anything which opposes the idea that new literature can interrogate our beliefs too. I think they're trying to point out that the new tech you're highlighting is on the object level, whereas the fundamental topics which make good literature stand the test of time are meta level - human nature. Yes, we trade digitally instead of physically, and yet tales of merchants long scattered remain pertinent.
The GP's frustration, I believe, lies in the fact that you've been presenting the trappings of modern society as if they're the bedrock of modern existence; as if the findings of a science article today act on the soul the same way as realizing a dead Russian wrote a cartoonish parody of the actual personality one has cultivated for twenty years (a reaction I see commonly!). All writing may share similarities, but not all writing is literature, and recognizing that distinction would resolve the disagreement you first posted.
Many analysts would say the limiting factor of Plato on today's audience was not the total population, but the shift in interpretations (and related, writing) which make it so difficult to translate. And still, classics departments are offering fresh takes on the works, even through the 20th century, radically shifting the meta-level conclusions that we teach as takeaways. I hope you can acknowledge that this is more due to the underlying human nature which the works speak to, rather than some inherent unending depth to the writing - and that literature as a field carries this interpretive depth as its activity, rather than just cobbling object-level tools to interrogate their premises.
This kind of comment is not helpful, nor curious, simply reductive. Many studies are fine with small sample sizes, which I can expand on if you'd like. As someone several years removed from academic literature, before I believe a curt dismissal of a neuroscience finding I would hope to read some characterization of both "falling standards" and which particular methodology is questionable. There's a lot of literature already summarizing the various flavors of failstates, even saying "resembles p-hacking" makes a more informative comment.
Not that person, but I believe you're right. I think it's to do with muscle fiber - breaking the connections between the meat is fully pre-empted by grinding, and I theorize a connection between the mechanics of chewing and satiety.
These early adopters are paying for their lack of bookkeeping the same way someone who kept a similar amount of trail-less cash out of the bank would. It's hard to find sympathy for that kind of glibness, especially when crypto actually can be traced back still under most conditions - assuming your bank didn't lose their records from the time, you could show a purchase and vague value increase over time, and accompanying account statements would resolve any AML concerns.
Compliance workers in the bank are, in fact, on the line to the tune of jail time, in some jurisdictions, and the fees for institutions found inadequate usually start with 'b'. Not that every zealot is right, but the penalties in their line are approximately as bad as your exaggerated examples.
This narrow perspective doesn't sit well with me. I read Shrugged while growing up poor, and I think a thoughtful take would be that she wrote, in her own way, something which could be in the running as the "Great American Novel" alongside Gatsby or Huckleberry Finn. It captures a zeitgeist, even if I don't personally want this world at large, and I think we lose an important part of literature discussions to allow a discourse as simple as "Rand bad".
People who want a deeper understanding of the related fields do read these. Furthermore, to reiterate the GP's reaction to GGP's sentiment about few reading them, their readership or lack thereof is not a variable in the question of their value. We can speak to many technical guides that would increase people's productivity if they only read them.
Popularity is more a question of marketability, especially in the dire non-fiction category. Reading is a secondary use for most of these books, and it makes it even harder to discern which lifestyle books are resume-padding filler or truly generalizable advice.
Threads on veganism are 100% flamebait here. I'm thankful for the thoughtful discussions some users engage in, but I don't believe it's worth keeping this much fuel open for discussion.
Why do you believe someone who wants relationships with real people and uses AI partner technology ought to need therapy as well? I believe most would see this as a form of therapy, as the ideal psychoanalyst is already a blank slate, as are the offerings of these. The two services are not comparable in barrier to entry nor outcomes.
The political environment has associated that stance with right-wing Conservatism, and while that party does hold that belief, it's looked down upon by the Canadian centrists/left-wing parties. I'm not sure how to describe their solution to this issue, because I'm not sure there is a stated plan.
To share a different perspective from the sibling comment, I love brutalist architecture. My interest for design sparked largely from seeing these structures around my old university town, e.g. Killam library. These days I'm more interested in new urbanism, but I have endless joy in telling people who believe their aesthetics universal that I've never enjoyed another library more than that big lightless cube. This especially bothered people compared to the halifax central library, with its modern glass walls and open spaces, which I couldn't stand.
This is to say, I believe a foundation to design thought is being able to accept differing aesthetics. I'm not sure if I can find a positive reference for people who simply call everything they don't like ugly, but hopefully, my acts of schadenfreude have opened a mind or two to the same perspective.
Much to be said about the second half of your comment, enough that I'll leave it to the better educated. On the former, an article titled "the declining effect of CBT" was foundational to my disillusionment regarding new therapy techniques. Nothing is new under the sun, but fresh techniques often overperform in talk therapy studies. A long symbiotic relationship between providers and those in need have resulted in a blooming field, and metastudies generally show all talk therapies as slightly more effective than [only] drugs, and all drugs as [only!] slightly more effective than no intervention.
The line that separates good psych science from bad is more subtle than word choice or tone, and often researchers who primarily do good work may present work with faulty conclusions without anyone knowing better. It has taken decades for the replication crisis to take this shape, and maneuvering of data, subjects, and results toward outcomes that don't reproduce is systematic and subtle. I'm not suggesting AI couldn't find this distinction, but what remains after is the rigorous proving of the AI conclusion - which might take just as long as if AI wasn't involved.
I find your comparison a little too blunt, too rough and lacking in complexity, but ultimately the comparison of politic and psychology is a valuable one in literature. For example, Deleuze and Guattari's Thousand Plateaus explores this relation through a poetic, philosophical lens. As analytic philosopher and radical psychiatrist, these two synthesize a response to Freudian [more specifically, Lacanian] mode of thought. I assure you that this topic is old ground, and that this pair's writings on it paved the way for a larger positivist response to the problems discussed in this thread.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. In 07 I made close friendships on the rs servers, enough that my friends would ask where I was if I took a few days. We reconnected years later, and if I was less asocial we could've met irl. I've been playing 07scape again and while I found a fun clan chat, I've been invited to several others by people I'm chatting with in public, due to just being prosocial and maybe well-adjusted.
My point is, maybe people have a higher barrier to entry for 'online friendship', now, as adults, but at least in this same game, people still reach our and form bonds despite there being little in-game support for that socialization. Many still recognize that it's the funny yellow text that touches the heart, and not the count of exp in stats.