Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)T

TempermentalAnomaly

@ TempermentalAnomaly @lemmy.world

Posts
9
Comments
336
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • How many people do you have blocked?

    Jump

  • Your account is less than one day old. How you do?

  • How many people do you have blocked?

    Jump

  • I found myself inadvertly doing the same thing. Only my color scheme is far from discipline. My basic think is like: "This comment is making me feel mauve." Done.

  • The vibecoders are becoming sentient

    Jump

  • The post was probably made by a troll, but the comment section is wise to the issue.

    I know we like to mock vibe coder because they can be naive, but many are aware that they are testing a concept and usually a very simple one. Would you rather have them test it with vibe coding or sit you down every afternoon for a week trying to explain how it's not quite what they wanted?

  • Trump Vow to 'Get Rid of Mail-In Ballots' for 2026 Blasted as 'Unconstitutional'

    Jump

  • I'm gonna post about. I'm gonna post the hell out of it.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • The horror for me is someone suggesting the universe is made of math. Are we dualists? Idealists? What do we believe in anymore!

  • So the recent hate towards Pedro Pascal is JK and her loyalists making shit up because he spoke out that she's an awful person?

    Jump

  • Sounds good. Have a good day.

  • So the recent hate towards Pedro Pascal is JK and her loyalists making shit up because he spoke out that she's an awful person?

    Jump

  • A sincere question: is English your first language?

    Yes. Why do you ask?

    I find it difficult to see it any other way.

    I can see that. I think a lot of what you wrote follows if you assume they were not being sincere. Would you like to know how I saw it as sincere?

    defense of celebrity culture

    This is a minor point, but I wasn't defending celebrity culture. I was defending autonomy. In particular, had I been asked, I would have said that I was defending those who engage in interests that aren't a direct harm to people without being derisively criticized for having those interests by those who don't have them.

    I didn't read it as him asking for someone to explain it to him.

    This is causing me some emotional vexation. I also never asked for someone to comment upon my comment. Yet you, OP, and others did. I understood this to be the normal flow of conversation in this online community. I assumed it was part of the I stated norms. And now I'm being told that it is not and appears to be a rule just for me. I assume this special rule is for me because I wrote something in content or tone that people disagreed with. I don't think that is fair. Which is vexxing. I might be missing something, but I don't know.

  • Why do Americans pretend they're not broke when most Americans are in debt?

    Jump

  • This is probably a large part of the reason that 70% of generational wealth is gone in two generations, and 90% in three, on average.

    Are you saying they mismanage the wealth by selling the assets, therefore not paying capital gains, but also using the cash to fund their lifestyle?

    I assumed a fiscal manager would advise them to live off debt in the same way their parent had.

    The only way this strategy works at all is if the market value of the assets being used as collateral continuously increases, and not just increases, but increases at a greater rate than inflation and the interest rate on the debt, combined.

    Line goes up.

  • So the recent hate towards Pedro Pascal is JK and her loyalists making shit up because he spoke out that she's an awful person?

    Jump

  • Well thank you.

    I reread it and I'm not seeing it. Can you point to any specific sentence that was particularly sarcastic? Elsewhere someone said the last sentence. I think I can see that. When I wrote it, I felt like I was helping.

  • Why do Americans pretend they're not broke when most Americans are in debt?

    Jump

  • Okay. Thanks. That makes sense.

    I guess the cycle continues if you will the stock to your children. So it could be decades until anyone pays taxes.

    And if the stock tanks, then I guess you declare bankruptcy.

  • Why do Americans pretend they're not broke when most Americans are in debt?

    Jump

  • Can you provide an example? I'm not sure I get how that works out in their favor. In my view, paying debt with more debt is a terrible mistake and will get you in financial trouble. But I get that they have far more assets than I do. I just don't quite see where it doesn't go wrong.

    Do they not have to pay the principle?

  • So the recent hate towards Pedro Pascal is JK and her loyalists making shit up because he spoke out that she's an awful person?

    Jump

  • I'm not claiming op was being sincere. I read him as sincere. It appears others are not. So he is insincere that this is beyond him. Rather that everything I wrote is understandable to him and he chose to be insincere. I imagine it's for some reason I don't understand. Do you understand?

    Thank you for taking time to explain this to me. It is now in my range of understanding. I do not know why people have downvoted me. I think they disagree with me. I do not know why people upvoted me. I think they agreed with me.

    I'm not sure if you take me at face value any more. I think you think I'm being condescending and sarcastic. Are you being insincere?

    I am not being insincere.

  • Why do Americans pretend they're not broke when most Americans are in debt?

    Jump

  • You need to pay that loan with cash, right? I get that your assets secure the loan, but without another source of cash, how you pay back the loan and not sell your assets?

  • So the recent hate towards Pedro Pascal is JK and her loyalists making shit up because he spoke out that she's an awful person?

    Jump

  • Do you think OP was sincere when they said it was beyond them?

    I also don't see how the video you link to is relevant.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • I lean toward agnosticism here, because I see real merits and pitfalls on both sides. If I were clever enough, I’d try to devise an experiment that cut between them—but part of me suspects that no such experiment is possible, precisely because the conceptual frame might already bias the outcome.

    I’m wary of dismissing strong emergence simply because it ‘sounds like magic.’ That response risks becoming circular: we assume everything unexplained must eventually be physically explainable, since everything explained so far has been physical. But that’s not really evidence—it’s induction edging into dogma.

    This is where I find Wittgenstein helpful. ‘Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.’ But silence, to me, doesn’t mean disengagement. It means recognizing that consciousness may resist the clean resolutions science is used to delivering. To turn away from that means not being rigorous. To turn away from that mystery just because it unsettles our frameworks seems to me to miss something vital about living—and thinking—at all.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Weak emergence has qualities that arise from the fundamental features of the parts and the rules that connect them. For example, the shapes made by flocks of birds can be reduced to simple local interactions among the birds.

    Strong emergence has qualities that cannot, even in principle, be reduced to the parts and their rules. These qualities are genuinely novel and bring powers that are not found in the constituents alone.

    Strong emergence is like mixing two chemicals in a lab and, instead of producing a new compound, discovering an entirely new fundamental force of nature. Consciousness, in particular, seems to lack any physically grounded ontology. While this is a divisive claim, it is hardly original. Physicalists who appeal to weak emergence have not yet shown—nor may they ever be able to show—that consciousness is physically emergent. If strong emergence is to be taken seriously, it must be framed in a way that avoids looking like something from nothing, which would be indistinguishable from magic.

    As of now, the physicalists have to demonstrate weak emergence. Failing that, we cannot dismiss strong emergence so that we don't close the investigative and theory making space.

  • What came to mind when I saw that stock photo

    Jump

  • this post made me consider getting lemmy off

  • So the recent hate towards Pedro Pascal is JK and her loyalists making shit up because he spoke out that she's an awful person?

    Jump

  • Well damn. When I wrote this " I hope this simple answer has bought it into your range of understanding." I didn't have any intention of it being condescending. When I read it, I read as up boeat with a little happiness.

    I ran your prompt through ChatGPT this is what it came up with:

    “Oh, I get it — you don’t like celebrities. That’s fair. I mean, some people don’t like sports, others don’t like cooking, and there are even people who think reading is a waste of time. It’s all just hobbies, right? Yours just happens to be not caring about certain humans other people find interesting. Perfectly valid. Almost a hobby in itself, really.”

    I see how that is similar. I just would have never used the last sentence.

  • So the recent hate towards Pedro Pascal is JK and her loyalists making shit up because he spoke out that she's an awful person?

    Jump

  • Sincerity comes off as sarcasm to the insincere.

    Saying my response was created by chatgpt is dismissive and not genuine critique.