SinAdjetivos
@SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world
- Comment on If autism is a spectrum, does that mean everyone is on the spectrum? 1 week ago:
You started with adding three opposing definitions of blindness and then did the arguably worst thing of creating a single “blindness spectrum” that you call “vision”.
What you wrote isn’t adding to my message, it’s in direct opposition in a lot of ways and shows that you didn’t stop to understand what was being said before “adding” to it.
I think we do agree with the “everything is a spectrum” part, but my whole point could maybe be best summarized as “reality is a spectrum, classifications and language are not”
So I guess we’re fighting now. Meet me at the Brooks river at the end of the month, it’s a fish slapping contest, you’ll recognize me as #901 here
- Comment on Elephant 1 week ago:
That’s not just any manual, that’s clearly an O’Reilly programming book!
They’re learning how to program their elephant.
- Comment on If autism is a spectrum, does that mean everyone is on the spectrum? 1 week ago:
I would encourage you to re-read because I did cover exactly what you’re mentioning here and it seems like you might have stopped reading after the second paragraph.
the “healthy” variant
This is what was meant by the “mythical neurotypical”
- Comment on If autism is a spectrum, does that mean everyone is on the spectrum? 1 week ago:
Yes and no.
Using blindness as a simplified example, “blind” describes a person with visual accuity of less than 20/500 and/or a visual field less than 10°. The term “blind” describes a binary classification for individuals according to where they fall within those 2 different spectrums.
By definition there is no such thing as more blind or less blind, a person is either blind or not. This is true for the lesser “visually impaired” classification as well, however the flaws of this sort of classification are more apparent there as the treatments for low visual accuity and low visual field are vastly different and so acknowledging and understanding those spectrums are critical for treatment.
However, in acknowledging those spectrums it allows for the phrase “person A is more blind than person B” and it makes perfect sense because for both those spectrums lower scores are directly related to that “blind” classifier and higher scores to “sighted”. So it works perfectly well to describe the relationship between two individuals on those spectrums even if neither is definitionally blind.
This gets extra confusing when it’s unclear which spectrum axis is being compared.
Every human is blind compared to a spy satellite. ~according to visual accuity~
Every spy satellite is blind compared to the average human. ~according to visual field~
Often the way around this is to take those 2 spectrums and combine them into one score to create a “blindness spectrum”. Depending on how one reduces the 2 dimensions down to a single 1 dramatically changes how “impaired” one individual is compared to another, re-introduces the issues faced with the binary classification and additionally can result in many who meet the technical definition above having the same “blindness score” as a sighted person.
In many ways this is worse than the binary classifier because it introduced addition biases, errors and distortions between the root symptoms, in this case visual accuity and field, which prevents actually understanding and helping an individual.
These issues get significantly magnified when one is taking about a disorder like autism which is defined as an individual with “differences or difficulties in social communication and interaction, a need or strong preference for predictability and routine, sensory processing differences, focused interests, and repetitive behaviors.” With each item consisting of multiple different measurements and criteria each defining their own spectrum. It’s no longer just describing an axis direction within a 2d space with fairly precise, impartial measurements, but a very specific cluster of individuals within a 6+ dimensional space using highly subjective measurements.
This imprecise and high dimensional space is the actual “autistic spectrum” and yes everyone is somewhere on this spectrum. “Autistic” is just the name of what appears to be a very specific cluster of individuals, however when dealing with high dimensional spaces what counts as a cluster starts to get real weird and illusions start popping up everywhere, like the mythical neurotypical.
- Comment on There is no good reason why there is still homelessness and poverty 1 week ago:
Wait until you hear the true story of the Irish Potato Famine and realize that not only did nobody learn from it, but most of the anglosphere seems to be towards a direct repeat of it at an even wider scale.
Spoiler
The potato blight was a secondary or proximal cause of the mass death and emigration. The primary cause was the system of absentee landlords (arguably an early form of corporatism), ineffective government and racism.
- Comment on And I thought it would be a happy ending for the kid 5 weeks ago:
High considering their both signatories on the TRIPS agreement.
- Comment on MD = oMega Dumbass 5 weeks ago:
No analogy will get through to them because you don’t understand the problem.
It’s not about a lack of understanding on how vaccines work or the basic physics/biology/etc. behind it. It’s about a not unfounded mistrust of media and medicine.
To use a medical analogy; you’re providing a vaccine after they’ve gone into sepsis and are surprised that it’s not curative.
- Comment on HR people smiling at you thinking that you are a complete moron 5 weeks ago:
It’s a prerequisite to get the job in the first place.
- Comment on Humanity will likely survive climate change, but the vast majority of humans won't. 1 month ago:
It’s important to remember that science is inherently conservative and doubly so for climate change Erring on the Side of Least Drama.
If you read any of the IPCC reports you’ll note they are very careful to not really provide any death estimates or anything. However, [one can attempt to extrapolate a risk space from those descriptions] (link.springer.com/article/…/s10584-022-03430-y) from that we can analyze key takeaways from the WG2 report ^1^
The report found that climate impacts are at the high end of previous estimates
3.3 billion people about 40% of the world population, now fall into the most serious category of “highly vulnerable” ___ 1 billion people face flooding.
Based on the existential risk model, that’s 3.3 billion currently facing some level of existential risks. If the impacts remain “at the high end of previous estimates”, which they very likely will, then that’s >3.3 Billion potential deaths.
^1: using Wikipedia summary because the report is 3675 pages long and ain’t nobody got time for that^
- Comment on Saw this on r*ddit, had to share with my people 1 month ago:
Or revive it, I don’t think I’ve seen a James Bond movie since one of the very first ones but I would 100% watch a Goldberg Bond movie because I don’t see how they could play it other than leaning hard into how inherently silly it all is.
- Comment on New Executive Order:AI must agree on the Administration views on Sex,Race, cant mention what they deem to be Critical Race Theory,Unconscious Bias,Intersectionality,Systemic Racism or "Transgenderism 1 month ago:
There is no such thing as neutral data, any form of measurement will induce some level of bias. While it can be disclosed and compensated for with appropriate error margins it can’t ever be truly eliminated.
- Comment on Interesting and probably true 1 month ago:
To cRazi_man’s point there is some work that does needs to be done in order to ensure everyone has food, water, shelter, healthcare, free of poison, etc.
However the vast majority of human labor does not go towards those goals and is instead dedicated to who can get the highest score in ‘slave games’ while that necessary work is grossly undermanned.
It’s not “unlimited” but holy shit is there a lot of damage from the last ~200 years that needs to be undone. Learning and teaching people to rest is a very important one.
- Comment on Gallium 1 month ago:
If it was just a fucking hug or just this photo then I’d 100% agree with you, but watch the video that has been linked in this thread, they’re — not subtle. It’s such a grossly over the top “hand in the cookie jar” type moment.
Also you make a good point about the “the guy’s main being “their life destroyed”” being an absolute shit worldview. I get sometimes just needing to vent, but you do understand the consequences and harms of this being your method of release right?
- Comment on Gallium 1 month ago:
“Cheating” isn’t just violating “porking exclusivity rights”, it’s breaking whatever the commitments and promises you have made to others within that relationship.
I agree completely that the institutions of marriage and default of hard monogamy are a “Big capital P PROBLEM”, but only because it prevents thinking and talking about what those commitments should be between the individuals within those relationships. Which inevitably ends up causing harm because it allows for the incredibly immature stance of “all relationships should be {like this}” without considering the wants and needs of those involved.
The problem with the couple above is that they are clearly, and publicly, being caught in the act of breaking the terms of some such personal agreement, however unspoken, and that makes one or both of them a lying, two face, cowardly, immature, piece of shit regardless of any overarching discussion about monogamy, but what else should you expect from a CEO?
The key takeaway is that your message will not land with anyone and will be counterproductive because you are conflating being a dishonest douchenozzle with general non-monogamy and people will resent you and your underlying message, however valid, because of it.
- Comment on We need to start calling it Simulater Intelligence (SI): here's why: 2 months ago:
Personally been a fan of shoggoth with a smiley face mask
- Comment on How come nobody does anything about North Korea? 2 months ago:
Don’t underplay a regime and make them seem more reasonable than they are by whitewashing history
That’s a better definition!
But also don’t exaggerate a “regime”^1^ to make them seem more extreme than they are by whitewashing, decontextualizing, fabricating, using loaded language[1], etc.
Propoganda often works explicitly via selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception. What your are calling “details” and “minutia” are attempts to try and push back against some of that selectivity bias.
- Comment on How come nobody does anything about North Korea? 2 months ago:
Am I supposed to give a monolithic answer now for speaking broadly?
Yes, because you were perfectly happy/capable of giving one before:
We can push back against misinformation without accidentally bootlicking.
Which while it’s good in theory it appears the phrase “accidentally bootlicking” allows for others, including a certain ‘argumentative gremlin’, to perceive that as meaning “so long as it doesn’t contradict my existing worldview”.
Having a stronger/more rigorous definition would help you with communicating your ideas, allow you to self-check for dissonances and help me understand if there’s anything of actual substance here.
So what’s your definition?
- Comment on How come nobody does anything about North Korea? 2 months ago:
Probably shouldn’t have mentioned my thoughts on that thread, I had hoped to provide some perspective on where I was coming from but probably just confused things for everyone. That’s my bad, back to the relevant point:
How do you think one should make that distinction?
- Comment on How come nobody does anything about North Korea? 2 months ago:
We can push back against misinformation without accidentally bootlicking.
It depends entirely on how you define “accidentally bootlicking” because I think OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml has done an excellent job of calling out how you have been making that distinction.
Taking a step back and decontextualizing how do you think one should make that distinction?
- Comment on How come nobody does anything about North Korea? 2 months ago:
The issue as you see it:
clings on to a pseudo-scientific economic ideology
The prescription you suggest:
pseudo-scientific economic ideology
- Comment on How come nobody does anything about North Korea? 2 months ago:
When you recognize the amount of bullshit propoganda that is consumed daily and realize how false it all is it’s very easy to switch to “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” mode.
Additionally it’s harder to break others (and oneself) out of the propoganda soup without an extremely sharp distinction between the lies being spoonfed and the material reality. The material reality often ends up getting distorted as a result and the cycle continues.
- Comment on We need to stop pretending AI is intelligent 2 months ago:
I’d love to talk to someone in the middle of the computer science and developmental psychology Venn diagram.
Not that person, but an Interesting lecture on that topic
- Comment on I'm gonna mute this one 2 months ago:
The Democrats and ‘liberals’ are also extremists. The parent comment is literally about their victims.
- Comment on A high-resolution spectrometer that fits into smartphones 2 months ago:
All of academia has a replication crisis at the moment however this is less theoretical than most and easily passes the sniff test.
You know how bismuth crystals have all sorts of different colors? It’s essentially growing a “bismuth crystals” on top of a cmos camera, except the “bismuth crystal” is much more random and the specific wavelength of light it lets through is dependent on some physics fuckery.
Will it ever be commercially produced? I doubt it, but hope I’m wrong:
- the lenses will not perfectly overlap each sensor resulting in many having ‘leakage’ from other frequencies resulting in a high signal to noise ratio
- there doesn’t seem to be a way to guarantee a consistent number of sensors per frequency resulting in highly variable sensitivity per frequency.
- Relying on randomness and only releasing the ones that are “good enough” is a fairly common practice but the yields are abysmal which causes the price to skyrocket.
- The use of a spectrogram is primarily as a scientific instrument, and an instrument which has wildly variable sensitivity/selectivity per sensor is a cause for concern.
I however do see potential uses for a cheap handheld machine that can do a quick and dirty material composition check. Contaminant tester (drugs, assembly lines, chemical stocks, etc.), hobbyist labs, chemical reaction monitor, etc.
- Comment on Considering the old model is made with shrink-wrapping this is viable option 3 months ago:
I’m blanking on the exact phrase, but it’s something like “never believe a number with unreported error”.
To get further into the weeds there is a significant difference in approach between theoretical and experimental science. In experimental science it’s not only enough to communicate what you “know” but to communicate the underlying biased, tolerances and precisions of the thing being measured and modeling approach being used.
these represent the threshold of the known.
I would argue that those representations are inherently bad science because they do not communicate the margin of error. Grue, I believe you are spot on with a concept in how you would make those drawings more scientifically accurate, but ultimately they are artistic renderings of scientific understandings, but not scientific themselves.
While I don’t disagree with WoodScientist that modern scientific institutions are inherently conservative, the process of science is not, nor should it be. Apologizing for the inherent conservatism in science is unscientific, harms belief in vetted resulted, conflates institutions for processes and projects a people problem onto the inanimate.
- Comment on IT’S THE FEDS! 3 months ago:
Can’t use it to find evidence or get a warrant, but absolutely do use it to figure out who to target/where to look for evidence.
Herring Vs. United States set the de facto legal basis that allows for this sort of evidence laundering.
- Comment on Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit 4 months ago:
In every way
- Comment on Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit 4 months ago:
You seem to be replying to someone else entirely.
- Comment on Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit 4 months ago:
Depends on the patent.
Not how that works, stop talking out of your ass (Gottschalk v. Benson)
It’s not “my definition of theft”, it’s “theft”.
You keep switching between moral and legal arguments. They are not the same.
It’s like these capitalists of today saying that OSHA needs to go because they’re losing profits to it
Deflection
You strike me as
Strawman
you decided to call me an idiot
Literally mirroring your words back at you
- Comment on Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit 4 months ago:
Copyright exists to create a temporary monopoly so the creator can recoup their creation costs and some profit on top
Creation costs like the cost of an advanced degree? You’re repeating talking points like nobody’s heard them before and contradicting yourself every other comment.
How many transition steps are needed
That was a rhetorical question, let me try rephrasing that. If A+B+C=D and D+E=F is A a requirement to get F? Or is it no longer relevant because it’s 2 steps removed?
Let’s say my company gets funding to disseminate OSHA information to employees
I wish I got paid to avoid fines. I understand that is how your deeply corrupt system works but you really can’t understand the financial incentives there can you? Imagine that illegal parking is a huge problem so instead of parking tickets they pay everyone who owns a car to sit through a parking information seminar. Do you honestly think that isn’t going to factor into your decision on whether you should own/drive a car? Is it unreasonable to say that the state is paying you to drive?