This is making me notice that I wouldn’t say why and y the same: I’d say ‘why?’ with a descending tone, and ‘y?’ with a rising tone. I think the difference comes down to whether I’m asking for an explanation or for clarification. I don’t think I’d ever paid attention to that kind of distinction in speech before.

What you actually mean when you say ‘I assume people are smart enough’ is ‘I expect people to make the same assumptions as me’. People come from very different contexts. You can either drop that wall of qualifiers and be understood by most, or skip it and only have a few get your point. It sounds like you know why you’re being misinterpreted and, for whatever reason, want to keep it that way.

I’ve literally never seen one.

It’s just a conversation bud, I don’t disagree with op’s point, just adding another perspective. You can grow dependent on your tools just like you can use them to better yourself.

Someone’s got a case of the grumpy-poos ☹️

Here’s something I’ve been thinking about. I’ve been playing through some need for speed games on emulators for the past few years. Once I bound keys to save and load states it was over: I’d save-state before every turn and run them over and over until I got them perfect. Doing this I did eventually learn the maps really well though, and on more recent playthroughs I’ve barely used save-states, which was obviously far more satisfying. I realize this isn’t the same thing as ai or walkthroughs, but I think maybe these tools do share something in that they lower the barrier to entry to different sorts of skilled tasks we may not yet feel competent to accomplish. Like training wheels or a helping hand, we can let go of them once we feel steadier on our own.

deleted by creator

I get that you’ve given up. I’m just saying you’re worse off for it. I’m sorry you’ve had such terrible experiences.

Because you’re a social animal who needs human contact and compassion to thrive. As disagreeable as that may sound it’s a big part of staying healthy. I get that it’s hard though.

I’ve seen so many clips of Chernobyl I’ve probably seen most of the series, but I don’t think I could handle a full episode. It’s so stressful. It’s like uncut gems, I had to stop halfway through because I felt a panic attack coming on.

Went to the park last night and the lake smelled like eggs, so this is why?

I kind of got both that impression and its exact opposite, like the whole paragraph feels like a long wink and a nudge, like the author would like to say “maybe fixating on ‘line go up’ distracts you from all that is good in life” but that would negate The Economist’s entire raison d’être.

It’s like Schrodinger’s argument.

I’m getting Egger from MIB vibes.

I watched the first few episodes and he comes off as an entitled techbro moron. The last straw for me was when he went on a rant asking ‘what does NASA even do anyway, just let SpaceX take over’. Typical silicon valley bubble self-aggrandizing, thinking tech disruptors have anything to do with actual scientists, the worst kind of hypercapitalist obscurantist bullshit.

It’s not an excuse, it’s an explanation. Illness doesn’t excuse bad behavior

We have tohu-bohu in french, same meaning

Lol, expecting words to mean something, how stupid.

Tu le dis toi-même, la dynamique de bon/méchant flic peut être utile, mais elle doit être sincère pour marcher; si les participants avouent ne pas croire aux positions qu’ils défendent, ils perdent toute crédibilité. Le public peut se permettre, et ferait mieux, de prendre tout ça avec plus de distance. Mais les politiques ne peuvent pas, tout du moins pas publiquement. Je pense que le déchirement que cela provoque actuellement a plus à avoir avec l’impunité de l’exécutif: Macron agit comme s’il n’existait que lui. L’opposition, soit courbe l’échine, soit s’insurge, le résultat est le même. Si un président décide de jouer au dictateur, la cinquième république lui oppose bien peu de garde-fous.

Tu expliques très bien pourquoi tu te trouves seul: la polarisation fait partie du jeu politique. Il faut des outrés et des négociateurs pour tirer le jeu en sa faveur, et la stratégie des uns sera toujours méprisée par les autres. Regarder le jeu avec plus de distance équivaut à s’en retirer: soit on s’implique et on choisit son camp, soit on se met sur le banc de touche pour observer plus calmement les choses. Après y en a plein sur le banc de touche qui s’imaginent sur le terrain, et qui se sentent obligés d’hurler avec les loups. Les loups sur le terrain, les agneaux sur le banc de touche… Je crois que je me suis perdu quelque part, je vais me faire un café moi…