A “boys club” scandal a couple years ago where the male higher-ups only hired women who would tolerate being sexually abused. Some ex-employees described it as “company culture” that propagated for a decade or more. There was an investigation after some women spoke out that led to a lawsuit, several top level managers being fired, and a couple CEOs being scrutinized really hard.
All of this is off the top of my head and maybe somewhat inaccurate, but that’s the gist of it.
People here seem to be mistaking stupidity as a measure of intelligence. Stupidity is a measure of wisdom.
An abundance of information doesn’t fix stupidity in the same way that shoveling water out of a boat with a leak won’t stop it from sinking.
You have to address the leak before shoveling water becomes productive. Or to circle back around, you have to address how someone learns, parses, and applies information before feeding them more information becomes productive.
As an American:
I do try to avoid spaces with an over abundance of other Americans. Largely because I get way more than my share of American news pushed at me on all fronts every day and those people just tend to echo what CNN/Fox has to say about something over and over.
But to other nationalities, any space with a US presence is regarded as “CIA controlled propaganda and those Americans are all slaves of their rich overlords and their capitalism is the singular reason the world is shit”
Believe it or not, American media exists on a spectrum too, just like anywhere. Ironically, the people who spout this uninformed nonsense remind me of the lowest-common-denominator types of Americans who are afraid of Chinese immigrants and healthcare because “communism”.
They usually take like 30 seconds and you get credit for the play store. Like .15 to 1.00 or more per short survey. I tend to wrack up 5 or 10 bucks in a month.
I’ve done it so long that there’s not really anything left I want to buy, so I like to give the change to donation services for apps like voyager.
Just going to take a shot in the dark and say you’re exploring the field east of the blacksmith/museum where you catch puppyfish?
If you find you can’t go further, then you don’t have the grampleton fields expansion that’s packaged separately from SDVE because it can cause performance issues.
You can find the expansion and instructions on the SDVE nexus page if you look for it.
Although I haven’t played since 1.6 dropped, so it’s entirely possible I’m wrong and that’s just an as-yet unfinished integration of the new update with SDVE.
Edit: For what it’s worth, there’s nothing particularly interesting about grampleton fields itself, except for being a massive foraging area that npcs don’t go to. Maybe good for very late game processing, but not really interesting otherwise.
Unpopular opinion incoming:
I don’t think we should ignore AI diagnosis just because they are wrong sometimes. The whole point of AI diagnosis is to catch things physicians don’t. No AI diagnosis comes without a physician double checking anyway.
For that reason, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing that an AI got it wrong. Suspicion was still there and physicians double checked. To me, that means this tool is working as intended.
If the patient was insistent enough that something was wrong, they would have had them double check or would have gotten a second opinion anyway.
Flaming the AI for not being correct is missing the point of using it in the first place.
Again, philosophy is only tangentially related to proof. You can’t examine a theory like the ship of theseus with any of those methods and come out with a conclusive answer. If you could, it wouldn’t be a philosophical topic.
You don’t understand that, and I’m not going to attempt the impossible to prove it to you. That’s why this conversation is meaningless and I don’t really wish to continue it.
Have a good night
Evidenced-based discussion is only tangentially related to philosophy. There’s no point in sharing my thoughts if the crux of your counterpoint essentially boils down to “prove it or go home”
In the meantime, if I can present three separate, historical philosophical ideas to you and you can shoot them all down with one phrase demanding proof and a supposition that everyone else is just mistaken, you may want to reexamine your idea of an open mind.
You have engaged a philosophical topic with evidence-based expectations. I recognize the futility of continuing this conversation, and so I won’t. Making a point and being countered with “maybe you’re just wrong” is literally a waste of my time.
I did more than enough to clarify the original person’s point. I don’t owe you a scientific explanation for that which you refuse to consider.
Later.
In this case, I guess I’d treat it as any other fantastical statement: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Ah, so this conversation doesn’t matter. You made up your mind even before you even asked for explanation.
By design, philosophical concepts neither require nor can produce proof. If they could, they literally wouldn’t be philosophy. If your idea of arguing how “you” exists includes the line of reasoning that you need proof, then the truth to you is that “you” don’t exist, because you cannot prove your consciousness to someone else either. Just the same as I cannot empirically prove my consciousness to you. You are an amalgamation of chemicals and genetics, as you said.
So really, one taking your stance doesn’t have the conversational authority to even ask what proof is there. The hard evidence is just chemical reactions and genetics all the way down.
In any case, all three of the concepts I listed are not my ideas. They are debated topics, some for literally centuries, in the philosophical world. If you suppose yourself better than the likes of Plato or Socrates because you think you can label a fundamental aspect of the universe as a “mistake” people make when they think about it, then there’s really no honest way you can even approach theories like those without immediately discrediting them.
I guess have fun with that. But for me, there’s no point in contemplating with someone who supposes that proof precedes basic concepts of philosophy in a question inherently about philosophy.
I read this 15 years ago in highschool. It was probably the single most defining piece of literature that shaped how I view life.
Every time I look at something or someone and ponder their perspective, I can’t help but get the itchy feeling that “I” (not myself of course, but my little point of consciousness) might be them one day and have to deal with their problems.
It usually makes me a lot more charitable in conflicts and it gives me a compelling reason to randomly make someone’s day better.
So thanks for changing my life that way, Andy Weir
Yes, we can on many levels. I am not sure who says these things
Never heard of the “universe started Thursday” theory?
Essentially, there is no proof that the universe didn’t start last Thursday. All of your memories, your experiences, your tangible progress, could be planted and you would never know.
So how do you know you are “you” as you think you are, or if you’re just a week old construct that believes you are “you”?
Also, I think that the whole “we can’t be certain we are the same person who wakes up every morning” is based on the ship of theseus concept they were building on.
You wouldn’t consider yourself the exact same person you were when you were 5 for obvious reasons. So it stands to reason that that change happened at some point. How would you know that you did not change over night? And if you did, are you the same person as yesterday? And if you answer yes, where’s the line? Are you the same person as last year? 5 years ago? Obviously not, so how can you know that that caliber of change hasn’t happened to you in a night, or that any amount of change makes you someone else?
Also, they could be referring to the broken consciousness theory, where consciousness is destroyed when you fall asleep, created when you wake, and dreams are an illusion.
In that scenario, if your stream of consciousness actually is broken, can you say you are the same person as yesterday? If the breaking of consciousness doesn’t matter in that question, would a perfect copy of you with all of your memories also be you? Or not, because you can’t experience their perspective?
I think the break here is whether or not you can define consciousness as “you”. For your supposition to be true, the answer would necessarily have to be no, as you said you can prove that you are yourself in many other ways.
But without a point of perspective experiencing the universe, what are we?
Guarantee that the line of reasoning here is
We can stop the inevitable fact that people aren’t going to buy our shares by pushing them on the most chronically addicted users of our platform and disguising it as a premium exclusive offer
I mean, who else is susceptible enough to the sunken cost fallacy that they would pour actual money into reddit? The answer is the demographic that’s already put in a substantial amount of investment in the form of time spent on content creation.
To those people, they might very well bite because it means their useless, time consuming hobby finally might become a source of income.
It’s honestly an intelligent business move by reddit, even if it’s scummy as fuck and ultimately setting up their own best content creators to spectacularly fail and lose a ton of money when the shares tank.
Reddit still goes public. Reddit still pays their CEOs obscenely before they jump ship. Only the creators lose.
Admittedly, I was diagnosed as a kid. I have functioned with it ever since, so I don’t know what it might be classified as these days.
I don’t know any better, but it sounds like you have a problem with long stretches of doing the same thing. My wife goes through that. Luckily, she has a job where she has the agency to stop what she’s doing for the time as long as it gets done within a deadline. And that’s exactly how she handles that. She can’t grind out work all in one sitting.
The driving part sucks though. I do all of our long driving so she doesn’t have to, but I definitely see how that’s a big problem.
This is the way. The constant bickering over the concept of “liberal” vs “actual left” is as exhausting as it is mostly futile.