I honestly don’t get all these people downvoting the general sentiment that a prisoner is, in fact, imprisoned. A free person on the other hand, is not.
No one here is denying that being poor or homeless makes it extremely hard to really do anything, that’s not the point. The point is that no matter how poor or homeless a person is, they still retain the freedom of choice regarding what to do when they wake up the next morning.
There is 100% a strong culture for minding your own business and not bothering anyone here. By that I mean that approaching someone without having a good reason to do so is very much frowned upon. That doesn’t mean we’re anti-social or complete strangers to small-talk, but there are some rather subtle social cues governing when it’s appropriate to approach someone, and if you just mind your own business and don’t give any indication that you want to chat, there’s a high probability that no one will approach you or talk to you.
I didn’t mean to come off as disagreeing with you, I think we generally agree. My point was that I think there can be such a thing as a “perfect relationship”, as long as we have a realistic idea of what that entails. I definitely agree that the idea of a “perfect relationship” that a lot of media tries to sell us is completely unrealistic though.
Your english is great btw :)
Hey… are you 100% sure she isn’t playing both of us? I was with her all of last week, but she’s on a business trip this week, that doesn’t happen to match up with when you’ve been with her I hope?
jk
I second you on the point about a “perfect partner”. However I still think a relationship can be “perfect”, because a relationship is much more than just the two people involved.
As long as we accept that no realistic relationship is completely without conflict, I would say that a “perfect relationship” involves being able to work through the issues that inevitably show up. It’s something you build together, not something you just have.
My impression is that the current “dating economy” breaks this perception a bit, to the point where a lot of people end up looking for the “perfect partner” that they automatically form the “perfect relationship” with, and aren’t willing to do much hard work to build that relationship. I don’t think that kind of “perfect relationship” (without any work) exists.
Wrong is a bit hard for me, maybe because “every happy couple is the same, while every unhappy one is unhappy in their own unique way” (para-quote from Tolstoy I think).
To me, I know what I have is right because I honestly feel like every joy we share is doubled, while every problem we share is halved. It’s a cliche, but I honestly mean it. When I’m happy with her, it makes me twice as happy just to see that she is happy. I honestly feel like the greatest joy in the world to me is to see her be happy. Likewise, if something is wrong, I want to help her in a way I’ve never experienced with anyone else, and can feel in my whole body that we’re in this together.
This doesn’t mean that we never get mad at each other, but when we do, we’ve always ended up remembering that, at the end of the day, we’re the most important thing in the world to each other. Whatever issues we’ve had, we’re in it together to solve them.
To round off with Tolstoy: I guess “wrong” would be if any of the above didn’t apply for whatever reason, that reason being unique in every case.
I want to fill in on the fact that any journal can end up publishing garbage science if someone is able to dupe the reviewers. This means that no matter what journal you’re reading, you need to read science critically. Sensational claims require sensational evidence, and ideally any work should be 100% reproducible based on the information given in the article.
Depending on the field, you can also often get a good indicator by investigating the authors of the article (checking out the last author first is a good tip). This mostly applies to very recent research where looking at citations is a poor indicator of quality, but where research is often dominated by a few reputable research groups around the world.
For older research, looking at how often the article has been cited, by whom, and why, can give you a very good indicator of the quality of the research. Solid research is often built upon later, while garbage is often refuted and then abandoned.
Of course, none of the above is infallible, but if you read critically to ensure the research makes sense, find that it originates from a reputable group, and see that others have based newer research on it, it’s probably trustworthy. After a while you start building up an impression of the most important names and journals in the field, but that requires reading quite a few articles and noticing which names and journals repeatedly show up.
I would absolutely be happy to have a feature where an LLM could read previous issues, the docpage, and the FAQ/wiki, then you could query it regarding your issue to (a) see if it is a legitimate issue, (b) check that the issue you submit contains the info you need, and c) help you link in previous issues/PR’s referring to relevant stuff.
Never in hell do I want an LLM to be generating issues by itself.
I wouldn’t be too worried if you have ordinary cardiovascular health. If your heart has to put in non-trivial work to get the blood up from your legs, I would recommend more exercise.
See what 14 years of stories picking apart public institutions does to a country…
They’re getting downvoted because they’re missing the point. It’s not about whether or not I can choose to do things the way I prefer. It’s about how newcomers exposure, and thus opportunity to get into these things, is limited. The arguments about cars or calculators don’t hold up for that exact reason: The existence of cars and calculators does not severely limit people’s exposure to the experience of walking or doing arithmetic.