What’s not how what works? What about the other poster’s comment is inaccurate?

Ah. My bad. That’s kind of covered indirectly within the third reference paper (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959438808000871) and more-so in this paper: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2724262

Part of the process for our hearing involves otoacoustic emission (wikipedia), i.e., creating sound. My arm-chair understanding is that we think this part of the process misbehaving is a main contributor for objective tinnitus and why we can record it under the right circumstances.

tl;dr: ear too loud.

If you close your eyes tightly you can induce the perception of color. If you stand in a doorway and lift your arms to the side so that the backs of your hands are pressing against the inside of the door frame, keep pressing for 60 seconds, then step out of the doorway and relax your arms: it’ll feel like your arms are floating.

The body’s systems are complex and part of reliably filtering signal from noise in such systems is establishing a baseline while in a steady state. Our brains are pretty good at filtering out noise but the pressures or degradations which lead to tinnitus seem to trick the brain into accepting some noise as signal.

If you’re looking for a deep dive then the following paper does an excellent job of outling what we know and what our best guesses are so far: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987724002718

It’s jargon-laden but nothing someone armed with a dictionary can’t handle. 🙂

“01100110 01110101 01100011 01101011 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101”

I think you’d find more agreement stopping at “I’d rather use a free alternative”. I agree with your sentiment. Repacing proprietary tools built by rent-seekers with volunteer/community run projects whose developers hold user freedom and choice in high regard is categorically better for most people.

Corporate requirements, vendor lock-in, and the friction of momentum make that tough for some people though. I’d still ask they give the alternatives a shot, of course, but I can understand why some might still choose the ideologically inferior option.

For those people? Having options like the open source circumvention tools mentioned allows them to continue using what they’ve paid for (and ought to ostensibly own) without being forced to pay extortion money to do so.

I think you got voted down due to your out-of-hand dismissal of that well engineered alternative with an uninformed value judgement.

tl;dr: you’re correct on the first half but too hasty on the second half.

You’re correct.

Check out “The Separation of Church and Hate” by John Fugelsang. It’s an almost comprehensive teardown of Christofascist ideology using the words of Jesus directly. No extras and no oulled punches. It’s excellent. The author is a comedian and while the content is serious and presented well it’s dressed up as an easier read than I expected.

I grew up Christian in the American South. I left religion in college and faith generally a few years later. I was initially compelled to leave organized Christianity exactly because it demanded exercising cruelties which Jesus clearly opposed.

Fugelsang’s book gathers all of the major contradictions between Jesus and modern right-wing Christianity then dismantles any justification for each one just by quoting Jesus. I’m recommending this book to every reasonable person I know as required reading for the present moment. Not just in the US but the world over.

Fascism respects nothing and if it takes root in a land with the means to export then no shore is necessarily safe harbor.

An surprise, I’m sure, but a welcome one.

Eyes don’t normally do that. I think you should squirt see a doctor.

Yes but, also, no.

You already seem familiar but, for the uninitiated playing along at home, Wikipedia’s entry for Simulation Theory is a pretty easy read. Quoting their synopsis of Bostrom’s conjecture:

1. either such simulations are not created because of technological limitations or self-destruction;
2. advanced civilizations choose not to create them;
3. if advanced civilizations do create them, the number of simulations would far exceed base reality and we would therefore almost certainly be living in one.

it’s certainly an interesting thought. I agree it shouldn’t inform our ethics or disposition toward our lived experiences. That doesn’t mean there’s zero value in trying to find out though. Even if the only positive yield is that we develop better testing methods which still come up empty: that’s still progress worth having. If it nets some additional benefit then so much the better.

I’d argue that satisfying curiosity is, in itself, and worthy pursuit so long as no harm is done.

That all still sets aside the more interesting question though. If such simulations are possible then are they something we’re comfortable creating? If not, and we find one has been built, what should we do? Turn it off? Leave it alone? “Save” those created inside of it?

These aren’t vapid questions. They strike at the heart of many important unresolved quandries. Are the simulated minds somehow less real than unsimulated ones? Does that question’s answer necessarily impact those mind’s right to agency, dignity, or self-determination?

The closer we get to being able to play god on a whim the more pressing I find such questions. That’s not because I wring my hands and labor anxiously at truth or certainty for lack of better idols. It’s because, whatever this is, we’re all in it together and our choices today have an outsized impact on the choices others will have tomorrow. Developing a clearer view of what this is, and what we’re capable of doing in it, affords future minds better opportunity to arrive at reasonable conclusions and decide how to live well.

It is difficult to consider a greater rube than one who interprets open mockery as lavish praise.

It’s a practice at least as old as type itself. It seems the attention Trump garnered, and the highlighting of his stereotypical Boomer typing, have merged the two in some people’s minds.

We’re at a unique crossroad where Gen X and Y grew up with their grandparents mostly refusing to use cell phones and their parents mostly fumbling with them. Now Gen Z and “Alpha” are growing up with grandparents who have mostly been shamed into acceptable text etiquette, and parents who are mostly as tech savvy as the next parent and who were there when the deep magic was written (so to speak).

Mango Mussolini’s narcissism is as pervasive as his parasitism so it’s no wonder the lecherous rapist’s sins against modern digital convention survived along with him. Some spin that as brilliant tactics but I’m not so sure. I’d wager it’s a coincidence he leaned into because it garnered attention.

Most of those now driving online discourse hadn’t had the same exposure to that style of texting prior to the 2016 US Presidential election cycle as preceding generations. So it seems novel to them. It’s history and perspective bring formed in real time.

Your comment reminded me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2RXoqB1LjA

A recent ~2 minute video from the ever-excellent Dr. Dan McClellen. The opening sentence is: “Every last attempt to identify divine commands in the Bible that are relevant to anyone today requires negotiating with the text.”

It isn’t just one thing. The big money wants to present this unified front to the public like LLMs are a single commodity anyone can use. In reality they’re a collection of complex tools that few can use " correctly" and whose utility is highly specialized for niches those few find valuable.

So you’re correct in a way. I’m sure model decoherence isn’t helping much either and isn’t as visible in those niche applications as it is for the general public.

Your comment makes no sense and helps no one.

I keep seeing this sentiment and I don’t understand it. Are you speaking purely out of anger and ignorance? The recent No Kings protest was either the third or first largest protest in the history of the U.S.A. and some communities have literally been running ICE gestapo out of their towns.

The Christian Conservative minority have gridlocked the American government, silently stacked the judicial system in their favor, and partnered with the American oligarchy to bankroll fascists and create the most pervasive, effective, and enduring propaganda machines ever seen (that’s already worked its way into Australia and had been finding footholds in Europe).

The idea that Americans aren’t doing anything about this or that there could ever possibly be a single unified movement that magically fixes “the issue” is incoherently reductive and impractical. If I see a comrade struggling for air I don’t yell at them to just breathe. I help them remove the pig standing on their neck. What are YOU doing to lend a hand or show lost comrades that there’s still hope?

Illegally! Amendment 13, Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

No such vote was held. The disability was not removed. Allowing the tried and convicted impeached and indicted insurrectionist Donald Trump to appear on any ballot for any public position, State or Federal, after he was convicted impeached and indicted of for insurrection against the United States was the beginning of the Constitutional crisis we are now mired in and all of Congress is complicit.

Edited: a word. I don’t give a flying fuck what the corrupted kangaroo circus in DC voted reality was. Anyone able to tie their own shoes who lived through that event knows what the truth is.

Fiat currency is just as silly. As is all money, really.

“I trade numbers for food. The numbers are accessible via a magnetic strip on some plastic in my pocket.” or “I trade paper for clothing but the number of papers isn’t as important as the number printed ON the papers.” Both of these realities are absurd. :)

As a store of value representing labor rendered: neither of those are terrible systems and most people don’t understand either of them anyway. Fiat seems “normal” because we grew up with it. That said: I’m no apologist. Popular crypto currencies offer little novelty for the layperson, no true improvement on the concept of currency generally, and cost orders of magnitude more to maintain their required infrastructure. I fail to see the appeal.

There are some projects which focus on the practical utility of decentralized currency (I remember thinking Nano (wikipedia.com) was cool back in the day) but they don’t get the same kind of attention as meme coins because they can’t be abused as easily. I’ve heard stories of these kinds of tools facilitating commerce in places where the local currency collapsed. Neat as that may be it isn’t revolutionary… Still more convenient than bartering via cigarette though.

I’d like to tack on that this point can be used to highlight why this is so. It’s a deep concept that can be explained simply and produces a lasting positive impact.

Everyone has fantasies. Sometimes we want them to be realized. Most often: we don’t. Many people carry internal shame because of their fantasies and some of those people have difficulty with intimacy because of it.

Good sex with other people requires our investment in their comfort and pleasure. This can be emotionally complex and fulfilling to navigate. Masturbation is free of those complications but we often make up the difference via fantasy. This is normal and there’s no need to confuse one space for the other. Masturbation and sex may fulfill similar basic needs on the surface but, in practice, they are very different exercises. It’s normal for one’s preferences to be different for each and for those preferences to shift over time.

Don’t worry about “normal”. Focus on having a healthy, honest, and emotionally aware sex life instead.

The features would break if they were built in.

You can’t know that and I can’t imagine it would be true. If the plugins many folks find essential were incorporated into GNOME itself then they’d be updated where necessary as a matter of course in developing a new release.

GNOME has clear philosophy and they work for themselves, not for you so they decide what features they care to invest time and what features they don’t care about.

You’re not wrong! This is an arrogant and common take produced in poor taste though. A holdover from the elitism that continues to plague so many projects. Design philosophy leads UX decision making and the proper first goal for any good and functional design is user accessibility. This is not limited to accomodations we deem worthy of our attention.

Good artists set ego aside to better serve their art. Engineers must set pet peeves aside to better serve their projects. If what they find irksome gets in the way of their ability to build functionally better bridges, homes, and software then it isn’t reality which has failed to live up to the Engineer’s standards. This is where GNOME, and many other projects, fall short. Defenders standing stalwart on the technical correctness of a volunteer’s lack of obligation to those whose needs they ostensibly labor for does not induce rightness. It exposes the masturbatory nature of the facade.

Engineers have every right to bake in options catering to their pet peeves (even making them the defaults). That’s not the issue. When those opinions disallow addressing the accessibility needs of those who like and use what they’ve built there is no justification other than naked pride. This is foolish.

Having a standardised method for plugins is in my opinion good enough, nobody forces you to use extensions. And if you don’t want extensions to break, then wait till the extensions are ready prior updating GNOME.

I agree! Having a standardized method for plugins is good, however; the argument which follows misses the point. GNOME lucked into a good pole position as one of the default GNU/Linux DEs and has enjoyed the benefit of that exposure. Continuing to ignore obvious failures in method elsewhere while enshrining chosen paradigms of tool use as sacrosanct alienates users for whom those paradigms are neither resonant nor useful.

No one will force Engineers to use accessibility features they don’t need. Not needing them doesn’t justify refusing the build them. Not building them as able is an abdication of social responsibility. If an engineer does not believe they have any social responsibility then they shouldn’t participate in projects whose published design philosophy includes language such as:

People are at the heart of GNOME design. Wherever possible, we seek to be as inclusive as possible. This means accommodating different physical abilities, cultures, and device form factors. Our software requires little specialist knowledge and technical ability.

Their walk isn’t matching their talk in a few areas and it is right and good to call them to task for it.

Post statement: This is coming from someone who drives Linux daily, mostly from the console, and prefers GNOME to KDE. All of the above is meant without vitriol or ire and sent in the spirit of progress and solidarity.

Whichever species, if any, rise to sapience after the age of mammals comes to its close.