Daily: Wallet, phone, house key with folding reading glasses and pill container on the chain, car key (separate because I don’t like the way the key chain brushes my knee while I drive with everything attached), a couple of those plastic flossers in a baggy, lens wipes.
Often but not quite daily: “AAA” sized penlight, small pocket knife w/ screwdriver and scissors, and multipliers.
What if, instead of trying and failing to kick kids off social media, we focused our attention on the reasons why being online is so often detrimental in the first place?
Pre-fucking-cisely.
Nothing can be maintained without at least some of the skills and knowledge that built it. Even something like generative AI like LLMs will eventually break down in some manner. Its just what happens with complex systems, be they physical or digital.
After that happens, we’ll be forced to learn either to fix the thing, or how to do without the thing. How painful that learning process is will depend upon how essential that thing is to our lives.
If AI goes away in a few years, barely a blip.
If AI goes away after a few decades, and we’ve allowed much of our accumulated knowledge to atrophy… It’s a crisis.
Excluding a few examples like frequently used gym weights, common fastener sizes, and short distances, I still have to do rough conversions in my head to have an idea of what a metric measurement is, so I guess I’d say imperial.
But I wouldn’t be upset if the US converted to metric.
Precisely, but you’re giving them too much credit by expecting them to figure it out from reading the lyrics alone.
Prejudice tends to lack a capacity for self reflection and an understanding of irony.
It’s the same with nazi punks and MAGAs who like Rage Against The Machine, they just want something that sounds loud, aggressive, and violent and rarely understand what they’re listening to or how it came about until it’s shoved right in their face. Then they get all offended about it.
Most of the time, the best they can make themselves is a cheap, talent-less imitation that lacks any sense of authenticity, and to try and overcome that they’ve resorted to something that can produce a finely polished turd that still lacks any sense of authenticity.
If you want to get into how this happens, and the way it happens with other technologies, I’d suggest Neil Postman’s Technopoly and Amusing Ourselves To Death as a good start.
I drank and smoke occasional cigarettes starting around age 16.
However, this was the 90s, and that sort of thing seems to have been tolerated a lot more back then, at least in my area. I can remember getting busted with tequila at age 19 and the main complaint being that we were cutting limes on an antique table without using a cutting board.
And many of the things that are seen as huge problems with both alcohol and tobacco were just starting to get widespread attention at that time.
A friend of mine’s first assignment as a senior engineer was to find ways to eliminate more moving parts and metal fasteners from cheaper spec products, because removing a dozen two cent screws would save the company tens of millions over the life of the design. Not just in parts, but because they’re more complicated and take longer to install than just snapping and glueing a plastic shell together.
With the scale of manufacturing at companies like GM and Ford, saving a few thousand per car on parts and labor with a touchscreen infotainment system is a massive, massive amount of money. The R&D costs of converting from knobs to touchscreens would probably be covered in the first few months.
Corporations pay stagnant wages, raise prices, funnel money out of the economy to shareholders who hoard wealth, and then get worried when there’s no one left who can buy their products?
Tell me again why we think C-Suite folks are smart?
Right, because they’ll get bailed out again and stay rich. That’s why.
It’s a god damn disgrace.
I’m sure someone will come around and tell me how complicated economics is and why we should trust business and industry leaders who went to school for this sort of thing, like basic pattern recognition and common sense couldn’t have predicted that people who can barely afford groceries would stop buying cars…
Fuck.
You don’t have to tell people you use Linux or talk to them about it. I know that because I use Zorin OS, which is a really modern feeling Linux distro with a slick user interface, that’s perfect for people like you and I, who don’t want to be bombarded with opinions on the “right” operating system and just want to use their computers in peace. You should totally switch!
I’m not even certain that we even disagree on the fundamental principle, just the details of the example I gave.
One more time: We aren’t examining how the average English speaker would interpret this, only the reasons why the priest’s answer might change.
This has been interesting. Good luck to you. =)
The question, in both cases, involves smoking while praying. The priest never looks at, or gives a judgement on smoking in general, there’s no reason to assume the priest would forbid smoking in other circumstances.
The question does change, but not as fundamentally as you’re claiming it does. The information presented in both questions remains the same, only the word order changes, which changes how the priest perceives that information.
Anyway, good luck out there. =)
Why would the answer be no? Who cares if you smoke while doing a cartwheel? Who said the priest would forbid such a thing?
In both situations, a man is asking about the propriety of praying while inhaling the smoke from a cigarette. That’s vital information.
The information does matter to the smoker and the priest. We’re not teasting these statements for validity and we’re not making our own judgements. We’re examining why the priest’s answer might have changed. That’s all.
Those aren’t the same questions from the original post. You’ve omitted half the information given to the priest in each question.
Both questions, in their entirety, deal with smoking and praying. The subject is smoking and praying. You’ve reframed this as a question about smoking and a separate question about praying. That was never the case.
EDIT: minor clarification.
deleted by creator
I didn’t strip all context from the scenario. I defined the context. It’s just not the context you believe I should be using. You keep adding something that was never in my original post, then arguing against what you yourself added to try invalidate the exercise on the basis of your personal interpretation. Sorry, but that’s missing the point by a wide margin and I feel it’s a waste of time.
Otherwise it becomes like the trolley problem.
Yes. That is exactly what it’s meant to be like and precisely what I’ve been saying.
Just like the trolley problem, it’s a self-contained thought exercise. But instead of illustrating a difficult ethical choice, it demonstrates a point about language shaping reasoning.
There’s nothing to be won or lost by including outside context or narrowly defining the meaning of each word to prove what is or isn’t contradictory. This isn’t an argument over what the language means. Your personal interpretation of the language is irrelevant, it’s the priest and/or the smoker’s interpretation that matters. The singular point is for you to consider how and why their answer changes.
If you believe their answer changes because they interpreted the meaning of those words differently due to the order in which they were given, that’s valid. If you believe, like I do, that the answer changes because their reasoning was shallow and contradictory, also valid. If you believe the answer didn’t change and the smoker misunderstood, once again, valid. What conclusion can we draw here, what’s common to all of these? They all show that changing the question changes our thought process and how we interpret meaning.
If you dislike my example this much, create your own. It makes no difference to me.
Just invent your own scenario where changes to the way a question is phrased leads a person to two different and contradictory conclusions, and use that example to briefly examine how language can shape our reasoning. That’s all we need here. Digressions on language, meaning, Boolean logic, and speaking to infants will only cloud the issue.
We’re getting very forest for the trees here.
It’s a thought experiment, a controlled imaginary environment used to illustrate a point. It’s supposed to be isolated from outside contex to make that point clearer. It’s purely hypotheical and comes self contained with all the context it needs. We’re testing one metaphorical variable, so that our results aren’t muddled. You just went and added another half dozen for the sake of argument…
Prayer is prayer in this context. No other meaning. There are no types of prayer in this particular sect, focus is irrelevant. Is it against God’s will to smoke while you pray? Can you answer that question, yes or no, based off the priest’s answers?
The fact that the priest, parishioner, and the typical intended audience for this particular hypothetical don’t do the kind of analysis you’ve worked up here is really a large part of what this particular thought experiment is trying to illuminate, don’t you think?
I agree with that.
Good. =)
We already have that, and it has solved absolutely nothing while potentially making online surveillance and privacy issues worse.
The answer isn’t age-gating or ID verification, it’s changing how the sites themselves operate. Get rid of the idea of “driving engagement”, no more stealth ads, and no corpo, media, political party, or lobbyist accounts. Hold influencers and podcasters to the same kind of standards we used to hold journalists to, where they’re required to tell you when the’re shilling for some kind of shady supplement company or political huckster.
You know, the kind of shit any sane species would do with this sort of tech, but when have we ever been sane?