snek_boi

After careful forensic analysis, I have concluded the entire thing was created by a single person. I call this the One Author Theory (OAT). Let me present to you OAT's evidence.

First, notice almost every tally is similar to its immediate neighbors. They have the same color and the same thickness. This suggests the tallies were all made with the same marker and with similar techniques.

We can see similar techniques elsewhere. First, notice that each category has tallies. Then, within each category (for example shit), focus on the rightmost tallies. Notice that the tallies tend to curve in a similar way. This suggests those tallies were created under similar conditions, with a similar technique.

You may have noticed that the piss tallies are thicker and straighter than the jerk it tallies. This may suggest my One Author theory is wrong, but my theory does incorporate this fact. The fact is explained by a change in technique. Therefore, the OAT cannot stand on its own. It requires another theory to grab onto. This other theory is the Progressive Degradation of Commitment (PDC) Theory.

I will now give evidence for the PDC Theory. Notice the shit category. Its topmost row has a consistent left-to-right pattern. The tallies become smaller and smaller. They also become curved at the end. This suggests a consistent loss of commitment.

The PDC Theory appears to struggle with the jerk it category. After all, the bottom row starts with small tallies and progressively has its tallies grow tall and straight. This we shall call the Jerk It Anomaly (JIA). However, concluding that the JIA proves that the PDC Theory fails is incorrect. If one uses the PDC Theory correctly, it can actually explain the JIA.

How? First, we need to remember that the PDC Theory shouldn't be limited to rows. We saw an example of this when PDC Theory explained piss' thickness in relation to jerk it's thickness. In other words, PDC Theory can scale. It can explain rows of tallies but it can also explain columns of categories. So, if we apply PDC Theory to the entire work, we can assume that the entirety of the last column (jerk it) was built with little commitment. The author could've been pressured for time. It is reasonable to speculate that the author felt a sudden urge to attend to his unfinished business, be it pissing, vaping, shitting, or jerking it. In either case, the PDC Theory comes out intact.

Ultimately, the OAT uses the PDC Theory to address validity threats like the JIA. The author may have attempted to dupe us into thinking the census was representative of a population. However, the One Author Theory lets us see that the author's work is more representative of his purposes, capabilities, and proclivities.

It's important to note that this does not necessarily reduce the author's merit and the piece's impact. Future studies could evaluate to what extent this apparent census creates a sense of community and connection in the bathroom-stall goers. I, for one, would appreciate going to the bathroom and finding this piece. I wouldn’t necessarily appreciate vaping or jerking it, but I would appreciate shitting or pissing next to it.

Hey. I hope you’re alright. I wrote a response to another thread, but I couldn’t post on it. I hope it’s alright if I post my response here. I hope it helps!

Good relationships have availability, responsiveness, and engagement. Why? The bottom of it all is whether someone will be there for us, whether someone will hold us.

You’d think that this means that someone needs to respond immediately to our text messages, but that is not necessarily true. Different people have different sensitivities. For example, some people have more sore spots than others.

What are sore spots? They are painful memories or thoughts of being rejected. They are wounds that we carry with us. Sometimes, when we are close to someone, our wounds are touched, and that can hurt. When our sore spots are activated, some people start demanding in all sorts of ways, yelling or being passive-aggressive. Others withdraw, staying quiet or sulking. Ideally, we can slowly heal our wounds by letting our partners see them and take care of them. This is very vulnerable, and it requires care.

When our wounds heal, we can re-calibrate our emotions. We no longer feel fear of rejection. We no longer demand or withdraw. We can hold each other tightly. We can feel very securely attached to our partner. We can spend a whole day without messaging and we still feel connected. Heck, our partner could go on a business trip, not message us, and we’d still feel safe.

Of course, wounds can sometimes open up again. We are vulnerable creatures. And that’s alright. As long as we know how to heal wounds, we are ultimately safe.

So, to answer your question your question, I’d say most healthy relationships don’t really leave partners on “read”. However, different people have different sensitivities, and what ultimately matters is whether we feel securely attached with our partners.

If you’re curious about this way of thinking and the research behind it, check out Sue Johnson’s Hold me tight.

There’s actually research on this. There are groups of people that donate more than others. There are two groups of people that really matter for this: people who have protection values and people who have democratic values.

People with protection values care about themselves and their people (their family, their clan, their tribe, their religion, their nation). People with democratic values care about humans in general, regardless of their religion, nationality, what family they come from, etc.

So, who donates more money? People with democratic values.

You can check out Christian Welzel’s Freedom Rising for more on this :)

https://wmich.edu/writing/punctuation/hyphen

This would’ve helped

Ghosts are the creation of our minds. And it turns out that our minds are flawed machines. This was shown by someone and they won a Nobel Prize for it (Daniel Kahnemann). If we understand our flawed minds, we understand why ghosts aren’t racist.

When you think of something, you run a simplified simulation of it. When you run these simulations, you don’t think about other things. For example, when people fantasize about achieving something, they usually run the simulation of having gotten the job and the money or having solved the tough problem. However, they usually don’t think about the path to achieving that goal. This is called the planning fallacy. It’s also called the Motivation Wave in Behavior Design.

Another example of these simplified simulations is the halo effect. The halo effect starts when you notice something good about someone. Maybe they’re attractive. Maybe they’re on your same team or political group or religion or whatever. The thing is that you end up building a good preconception of that person. You assume they’re kind and smart and many other positive things. Again, your mind is running a simplified simulation. Even if you notice bad stuff about the other person, you may ignore it because our mind is a flawed machine and it’s stuck with the idea that the other person is good.

So, how do simplified simulations lead to non-racist ghosts? Well, we all share an idea of what a ghost is. We tell each other ghost stories or we watch movies with ghosts in them. All of that feeds the simplified simulations we run when we think of ghosts. And we don’t include racism in those simulations.

This doesn’t mean that we can’t escape simplified simulations. This is a tough problem that many people have tried to solve in many different ways. These attempts have resulted in an arsenal of methods: psychological flexibility exercises, mental contrasting, pre-mortems, the Delphi method, red team blue team exercises, weak signal detection, etc. Notice that all of these tools try to transform our preconceptions.

Of course, a very simple way of transforming our preconceptions is to prove them wrong. I suppose in the case of non-racist ghosts, it’s a matter of creating racist ghosts. This project, however, brings up the old adage: just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

If you’re interested in simplified simulations, I recommend Lisa Feldman Barret’s books. You can also check out Daniel Kahnemann, Gary Klein, and Dave Snowden.

This post tickles a fond memory of mine. I was talking to a right-wing libertarian, and he said there should be no research done ever if it couldn't prove beforehand its practical applications. I laughed out loud because I knew how ignorant and ridiculous that statement was. He clearly had never picked up a book on the history of science, on the history of these things:

• quantum mechanics. It would be a shame if the poor libertarian didn't have semiconductors in his phone, or if he didn't have access to lasers for his LASIK surgery (which he actually did have), both of which are technologies built by basic research that didn't have practical applications in mind.
• electromagnetism. It would be a shame if the poor libertarian was having his LASIK surgery and the power went out without there being a generator, a technology built by basic research that didn't have practical applications in mind.
• X-rays. It would be a shame if the poor libertarian didn't have x-rays to check the inside of his body in case something went wrong, a technology built by basic research that didn't have practical applications in mind.
• superconductivity. It would be a shame if the poor libertarian didn't have superconductors for an MRI to check the inside of his body in case something went wrong, a technology built by basic research that didn't have practical applications in mind.
• radio waves. It would be a shame if the poor libertarian didn't have radio waves for his phone and computer's wifi and bluetooth to run his digital business, technologies built by basic research that didn't have practical applications in mind.

Ah that makes sense. Maybe it's a European/US difference, but it could be just a Time Timer thing. My air fryer is from an American company and it has the same timer as you (wind it up clockwise, then the hand moves counter-clockwise).

I wonder if both types of timers (wind up clockwise and wind up counter-clockwise) seek to distinguish themselves from normal clocks in different ways:

• Wind up clockwise timers (like your stove and my airfryer) let you know it's not a normal clock by flowing counter-clockwise.
• Clockwise timers (like a Time Timer) let you know it's not a normal clock by having a red disk slowly become smaller.

Earplugs come in different sizes. Maybe it's a matter of experimenting?

Ah. To set up the timer, you do pull the hand counter clockwise, as if you were pulling a spring-loaded car backwards for it to move forward on its own. After you release the Time Timer, its hand will move forward on its own, normally, clockwise.

It is a bit unusual, but the point of the timer is to see how much time you’ve got left. It’s like a battery charge percentage. You know that when the battery reaches zero, you’ve got to charge it up again.

I hope the explanation helps. If not, feel free to ask or to check out the videos in the Time Timer website. After all, it is a strange product.

A Time Timer.

They're not cheap, especially for a timer that's bare bones (~20 USD).

But it has changed my work life.

1. People who want to interrupt me while I'm working can now see how long until I have my next break. So I am interrupted less.
2. Now I self-regulate a bit better, so I'm able to work longer without destroying myself in the process. I take breaks that help me with repetitive strain injuries and with feeling like I'm a human being and not just a machine.
3. Now I remember to actually start timers when I start working. I know this is a bit silly, but I was having trouble creating a habit of stopping for breaks. I tried to solve this by setting timers on my phone, but I constantly forgot doing it. Now I'm reminded to start a timer by something that I see on my desk.

Yeah. It did occur to me that I was downvoted because of the general AI hate in Lemmy (which isn't out of place, considering how AI companies have loads of ethical problems). I also wonder if the post is simply not interesting. Or it could've been interesting but I didn't know how to communicate it. Idk. Sometimes this happens and life goes on :)

This. A single falsehood in a chain of propositions makes the whole chain false.