syncmaster913n

Is it? I always thought I had low-key ostracized them. But I wasn't able to put their needs ahead of mine on this one.

When I was in my early 20s, I used to instinctively pressure non-drinkers into drinking as well. I did it because the non-drinkers ruin the fun for me. They don't laugh as much or engage in banter. They're timid and lack the drinker's adventurous spirit.

The pressuring usually worked though.

When I realized that I was hurting those people by pressuring them into drinking, rather than stop pressuring them, I stopped inviting them to social gatherings that involve drinking altogether.

> “I know you really want to like these jeans, but I think they fit such and so.”

This statement is empathetic only if we assume a literal interpretation of the "do those jeans fit me?" question. In many cases, that question means something closer to:

"I feel fat. Could you say something nice to help me feel better about myself right away?"

> There is no need empathy to require lying.

Empathizing doesn't require lying. However, successful empathizing often does.

> and like all absolutes it is not true.

Like this absolute? ;-)

> Most communicative problems I have ever seen (aside from language barriers) could have been resolved by a little bit of empathy.

Empathy is usually an internal process. On it's own, it wont't resolve a communication problem.

What ends up affecting a communication problem are the external actions that we take based on our internal empathy calculus (assuming we haven't totally miscalculated). Those actions will vary significantly by person and context, assuming any action follows at all.

Empathy is the relatively easy part. Acting on that empathy in a way that doesn't come across as condescending, disengaged, presumptious, judgemental, awkward, or scripted, while also remaining true to yourself and upholding your personal values are the hard parts.

I think the original commenter meant that the LLM can't be called wrong because the concept requires understanding. However, I think it would be fine to call the LLM's response incorrect.

Capitalism =/= free markets.

Perhaps you're overthinking it, or perhaps you're onto something, and the author invented at least one of the friends for the benefit of the story and wrote the "response" herself.

But yes, enjoyable piece.

"That money was earned by exploiting labor."

Exploting labor without providing value wouldn't have earned that money.

"Over time you'd see selection for species which are patient, diligent, fecund star colonizers."

Or for species that excel at command-deck politics.

As the OP said, that advice is for people who wish to write for a living, i.e. wannabe professional wroters.

"Thus, the relevant analogy is buying one lottery ticket in a huge lottery such as the Powerball or Mega Millions and matching every number to win the jackpot."

I like your analogy, but I think it needs to account for the fact that there are two scenarios in which a single vote can influence an election:

1. If it would have been a tie without that single vote. In this scenario, the single vote breaks the tie.

2. If the candidate that the single vote is to be cast on would have lost by one vote withtout that single vote. In this case, the single vote creates a tie.

The odds of either happening are astronomically long, of course.

"Voting tends to be more of a symbolic or ethical act than an rational act"

An act that is consistent within one's ethical framework is a rational act. Agree or disagree, and why?

Thanks.

Inspiring others to vote and actually casting your own single vote are separate.

The purpose of propaganda, in its broadest definition, isn't to change minds. It is to leverage the existing contents of a mind in a way that makes you perform a certain action that is desired by the propagandist.

The belief that holding strong opinions protects against propaganda is dangerous. Strong opinions is where propaganda inserts its levers.

> but this "we interrupt your tweet thread for sponsored content" style tangent is a bit annoying

I found this hilarious. I don't use Twitter and so was unaware that these annoying tangents are common on the platform. As a result, I thought Yishan was using them to illustrate how it's not necessarily the content (his climate initiative) but a specific pattern of behavior (saying the 'right' thing at the wrong time, in this case) that should be the target of moderation.

In real life we say: "it's not what you said, it's just the way you said it!" Perhaps the digital equivalent of that could be: "it's not what you said, it's just when you said it."

Not up to date on the gun control issues in the U.S., but just wanted to comment on this:

> Why bother making murder illegal?

I think having consequences for murder is very different from restricting someone's freedom.

My freedom is not infringed on by the fact that murder is illegal. Why? Because I can still go out and murder someone (not that I would, lol - just making a point). Totally up to me. Feel like murdering someone today? I just go out and do it.

The "restricted freedom" version of outlawing murder would be if my hands were cuffed behind my back every time I left my house, just so I wouldn't be able to murder someone if I felt like it.

I hope I'm getting my message across (not a native speaker). My point is that, to me, there's an ocean of difference between forcing me to do something in order to prevent me from possibly doing X (no matter how likely / unlikely it is that I would do it), and having consequences in place for actually doing X. The former is a violation of my freedom; the latter is justice.

I was under the impression this was because the ice sample was 40,000 years old?

I do have a question, actually, if you will humor me.

Suppose we take two human children - a boy and a girl. We separate them from their parents at age 1 and we isolate them from society. A professional caretaker visits them a few times a day, giving them food and helping them with their necessities. They are taught to communicate in one manner or another, perhaps given access to some form of entertainment.

Now, I'm going to be brutal - for science: the hypothetical boy has been sterilized. He doesn't know it, of course.

At no point do the children learn how humans are born. Nothing in their surroundings is an indication, and the caretaker never tells them.

Also, they never learn that it is "normal" for regular people to have children of their own.

As far as the kids are concerned, no other humans except them and the caretaker exist.

Do you think that:

1) Those children will experience an innate need to have children of their own?

2) What activities will the children undertake to satisfy that need?

Thanks

Sorry if my post came off as rude - it was not my intention.

Ah, got it.

You might have a fundamental misunderstanding of how genetics and evolution work. The spreading of genes is a consequence of having sex, not its goal. There is no higher power that determined "spreading one's genes" as some sort of ultimate drive, then set about finding ways to make it happen.

You can think of it this way:

- Presumably, some mammals would have been born that did not enjoy sex. Those would not procreate and their gene would die out.

- Other mammals would enjoy sex. They would procreate, and their genes would spread.

It's the sex and enjoyment thereof that is the driving force behind procreation. When you hear people saying "the ultimate drive is to spread one's genes," that's just a hand-wavy explanation used for simplification (which, unfortunately, many people have come to interpret too literally - as is often the case when simplification is involved).

It's the same type of simplification as when a nature documentary says "Nature found a way to do X". As if nature is some conscious entity with a will that is working towards achieving some goal.

How do we know that global warming won't ultimately lead to a better future, all things considered?

Why is all the focus on what can go wrong?

Serious questions, not trying to be cute.

> But, why would they would they choose to sell at a loss when they could beat the competition at twice the price?

Because they promised to cut prices by an order of magnitude. Following a promise like that, you can't just offer a 10-15% price reduction.

Plus, if they offered at twice the current price, I don't believe they would be competitive. Part of the reason they offer a low price is that they have still-new, not-fully-tested technology. Clients accept the increased risk, but they expect significant savings in return.

Also, for certain flight configurations, SpaceX's pricing isn't particularly competitive even at its current level.

I would agree that having sex is one of the strongest primal drives. However, a drive to have sex =/= a drive to have children. Can you provide a source that shows having children is a natural, inborn drive of humans?

Launch price does not necessarily tell us anything because we do not know what profit margins SpaceX has.

"Now, what can money buy? Only things on the physical level, that is, _sense experiences_. "

This is an oversimplification that detracts from the value of money. Your assumption that money can only buy sense experiences is incorrect. In reality, money can have a significant impact on the (emotional) and (intellectual) realms.

# Example for (emotional):

A couple with two children living together. The couple's emotional bonding is strained by feeling overwhelmed due to house chores. The strain can be significantly reduced by spending money on a nanny, ordering food when not in the mood for cooking, and other forms of domestic help.

# Example for (intellectual)

Working person with a family wants to pursue a second degree as a hobby. Unfortunately, they can't afford university.

It's true that, beyond a certain point, the returns from having more money diminish quickly. And I agree that as an inherent motivation it probably doesn't work for many people - only as a means to an end. But to say that money can only buy sense experiences is untrue.

"Depression is a first world problem, generally."

Do you have a source for this? Thank you.

"It is very hard to find an unselfish person who is depressed, unsure about what to do or unhappy in general."

That depression and unhappiness are more difficult to spot in people who are selfless does not necessarily mean that those people are significantly happier and less depressed - it could only mean that they care more about how others perceive them and may, therefore, be more likely to hide their true affect.