snek_boi

@snek_boi@lemmy.ml

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Brave CEO rants about "lefties," "glowies," George Soros⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I see how they didn’t answer the question. However, maybe he’s not answering your question but commenting on “Brave is a great product”.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Brother accused of locking down third-party printer ink cartridges via forced firmware updates, removing older firmware versions from support portals⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  This. My partner’s office is stuck with “it has to be inkjet” and not toner, and on January their printer got clogged…

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Sure. Please note that I am quite ignorant and unskilled when it comes to Linux. I will seem like someone who’s got shoes on but doesn’t know how to tie them. I’m sorry. I wish I was more skilled and knowledgeable.

  ProtonVPN installed via YAST worked on OpenSuse Tumbleweed but didn’t work in OpenSuse Leap.

  RStudio in NixOS was hard to update. For example, during the switch to Quarto instead of only Knittr, there was a period where I spent months without updates. I was using an old, old version.

  With NixOS, Fedora, or OpenSuse, installing Signal from a program packaged by Signal itself was not possible. There was a Flatpack version run by a contributor, but nothing by an organization.

  I totally recognize that I could learn more and become a better user. It’s just a bit frustrating that these weren’t problems for me over at the land of Surveillance Capitalism OSes. I hope these problems are solved with time.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I’ve had loads of problems installing software and making it work.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What keeps Americans from being mad about the state of their country?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I bet soon you’ll see massive consequential protests.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm just like some ordinary dude upset about what the government is doing. Doesn't anyone with any sort of means or influence care? Where are those guys?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Assuming you are American and are referring to the American government, here’s what I think:

  What I will say may be polemical. Brace yourself. I understand if you accuse me of being naive, a puppet of the Illuminati, or blind. Here’s what I believe: the future is democratic.

  How can I possibly say that when Trump is in power, destroying democratic institutions like a bull in a cybertruck store? Image

  (you know cybertruck, the car that breaks easily and cooks its passengers)

  It is evident that Trump is an authoritarian populist. <details> <summary> Here’s what I mean by that. </summary> Authoritarian because he disregards democratic processes. His supporters don’t care that he may shackle them and put his hand on their mouths to never speak again. They are fine with that, as long as he builds The Swamp of America, a land where people are obsessed with their own bellybuttons, where everyone works like robots that never question the dogma shoved into their throats, and where corporations can bulldoze and burn the planet and still receive a pat in the back from The Orange Swamp Man because ape see number go up.

  And populist because Trump is an Olympic athlete in the highly-unpopular sport of Never Picking Up A Book. Sorry if you already know the rules, but I personally didn’t know them until gramps revealed them to me when he was practicing his TedX Talk, How to Burn Books Without Picking Them Up. The sport itself (Never Picking Up A Book) involves playing golf, watching Fox News, and doom-scrolling on Facebook. Those are the traditional rules, but the lack of viewership lead the international committee to update the rules in the mid 2010s. Under the new rules, extra points are awarded to athletes who insult anyone who knows what they’re talking about. As you can see, populism here means systematically disregarding and discrediting expert opinions. </details>

  And it is evident that America is currently experiencing a democratic backlash. There was too much freedom for people, too much freedom to choose who to be and what to do with their lives. People were questioning why things are the way they are. People were questioning why they have to slave away their lives paying college debt, medical debt, and mortgages. People were questioning why drunk Bezos, Musk, and Epstein tightly held the rail of their yacht while vomiting gold-infused vodka into The Swamp of America. The people who most extracted wealth from American people did not want to pay back or invest in its people.

  Americans were ripped off by a swindler who sold them a beautiful knife. The knife itself wasn’t the problem. The problem was that the instructions were hard to follow. Americans have found it difficult to hold the smile on their face while stabbing themselves and twisting.

  It’s important to note that not everyone bought the knife and stabbed themselves. Trump won by a slim margin and Trump is highly unpopular. Those of you who are still alive and well can do something about it. In fact, I’m willing to bet you will, because undemocratic governments do not survive democratic electorates.

  How so? Imagine this scenario: Give a man a book and he may never pick it up. Teach a man to read and he’ll silently look around, noticing a lack of development and freedom. Teach men, women, children—everyone to read and you’ll have a bustling conversation. “Really? Is that fair?” “Why does the richest man on Earth not want to invest in the roads that his products use? Why does he not want to invest in the people that made him rich?” “My wife and I had bad accidents and we can’t work. Is our society so selfish that it doesn’t care about us?” This may seem cartoonish, but this is how people realize there’s a mismatch between the elite’s way of extracting and hoarding privileges and how everyday people see the situation.

  Each critical thought, each enlightening conversation makes the pressure grow, like a balloon getting pregnant with air, ready to burst at any moment.

  All of this language may seem allegorical, metaphorical, out of touch, and absurd. But it is based on decades of research on how democracies are formed and sustained. Check out this article and its cited literature if you’re interested: journalofdemocracy.org/…/why-the-future-is-democr…

  As to what you can do, I’d recommend learning how to frame discussions. I am learning how to do it. It enables me to have conversations with people in such a way that they understand me, truly understand me, even if they were previously unable to because of Trump brainwashing. And it works compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/…/spc3.12501 researchgate.net/…/337861541_Moral_reframing_A_te… (sorry for the paywal; you can usually email academics and they’ll send you the text, or you can find alternative texts or sources).

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I wonder if my fears/concerns have helped me more than they have been a disservice to me this year?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Does it feel as if they clarify the kind of life you want to live or that they’re forcing you to avoid them?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Apple CEO Tim Cook Donating $1 Million to Trump's Inaugural Fund⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  lol I interpret this as sarcasm, as with many of your other comments around Lemmy. If they are so, I think it’s funny and so far I agree with what you actually value, democracy. However, it took me some time to understand your sarcasm. This might be just me, but I wonder if your comments could be subjected to Poe’s Law (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law). Do you think it’s impossible that they could be?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Discussions are like a game of telephone; you're converting idea into language and expecting the recipient to flawlessly translate it back into an idea.⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  There’s also some thinkers who say that thinking only ever happens through language, so talking could be more of a mapping of “thinking words” onto “communication words”.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Discussions are like a game of telephone; you're converting idea into language and expecting the recipient to flawlessly translate it back into an idea.⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes! Rhetoric, the study of the available means of persuasion!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Do cartoon characters see each other in the art style or “realistically”?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  It depends on the author! Authors create symbolic universes and they get to choose the rules of those universes. You can read Robert McKee’s work for more on this.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I definitely never unsubscribed from a YouTube channel just for that...⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I appreciate your passion for scientific literacy - it’s crucial for combating misinformation. However, I’d like to share some perspectives that might broaden our understanding of scientific knowledge and how it develops.

  First, it’s worth noting that the distinction between “theory” and “hypothesis” isn’t as clear-cut as we might think. In “The Scientific Attitude,” Stephen McIntyre argues that what truly defines science isn’t a rigid set of rules, but rather an ethos of critical inquiry and evidence-based reasoning. This ties into the “demarcation problem” in philosophy of science - the challenge of clearly defining what is and isn’t science. Despite this ongoing debate, science continues to be a powerful tool for understanding our world.

  Your stance seems to align with positivism, which views scientific knowledge as objective and verifiable. However, other epistemological approaches exist. Joseph A. Maxwell’s work on critical realism offers a nuanced view that acknowledges both the existence of an objective reality and the role of human interpretation in understanding it.

  Maxwell defines validity in research not just as statistical significance, but as the absence of plausible alternative explanations. This approach encourages us to constantly question and refine our understanding, rather than treating any explanation as final.

  Gerard Delanty’s “Philosophies of Social Science” provides a historical perspective on how our conception of science has evolved. Modern views often see science as a reflexive process, acknowledging the role of the researcher and societal context in shaping scientific knowledge.

  Larry McEnery’s work further emphasizes this point, describing how knowledge emerges from ongoing conversations within communities of researchers. What we consider “knowledge” at any given time is the result of these dynamic processes, not a static, unchanging truth.

  Understanding these perspectives doesn’t diminish the power or importance of science. Instead, it can make us more aware of the complexities involved in scientific inquiry and more resistant to overly simplistic arguments from science deniers.

  By embracing some psychological flexibility around terms like “theory” and “hypothesis,” we’re not opening the door to pseudoscience. Rather, we’re acknowledging the nuanced nature of scientific knowledge and the ongoing process of inquiry that characterizes good science.

  What do you think about these ideas? I’d be interested to hear your perspective and continue this conversation.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨is it possible to be married and still feel lonely?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Sorry if it seems excessive. I simplified the text. It is just frustrating to see blanket explanations for human behavior, instead of understanding specific processes. The whole fundamental attribution error thing…

  While I recognize Emotion Focused Therapy is helpful to understand and, if possible, change behavior (which is why I mentioned it previously), I maybe should have brought up Emption Construction Theory or even Sapolsky’s multi-lens framework, considering different timescales of explanation. Would you have suggested something different? When does contextual behaviorism fail?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨is it possible to be married and still feel lonely?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Anytime we talk about human behavior, it is a good idea to learn and use the lens of behavioral contextualism. What behavioral contextualism says is that all behavior should be understood in context, including internal contexts, such as thoughts and emotions, as well as external contexts, such as stimuli from environments and other people. Anything that you read here, including this comment, should be held as a hypothesis until we understand what things (words that come out of your coworker’s mouth or their behaviors, or your coworkers history or any other relevant factor) led to the behavior. It is crucial to understand what things mean to your coworker to make any sensible analysis.

  This does not mean that we cannot start formulating good hypotheses. It would be a good idea to learn about contextual behaviorism. Another incredibly powerful lens is the recognition that your coworker is a mammal, and specifically a human being. The vast majority of humans need to feel connected and understood. This can be understood very well through the lens of emotionally focused therapy. Sue Johnson is a great resource to learn how certain kinds of conversations create connection in relationships. This lens will become useful if our contextual behavioral analysis concludes that the problems that you are describing are caused by a lack of a sense of connection. However, once again, contextual behaviorism is the way to go.

  Here’s a ranked list of resources, considering comprehensiveness, accessibility, and practical utility:

  1. “Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: An Experiential Approach to Behavior Change” by Steven C. Hayes, Kirk D. Strosahl, and Kelly G. Wilson

     • This book is considered a foundational text in contextual behaviorism and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT).
     • It’s comprehensive and includes numerous clinical examples.
     • While it’s aimed at clinicians, it’s relatively accessible to motivated lay readers.

  2. “Learning RFT: An Introduction to Relational Frame Theory and Its Clinical Applications” by Niklas Törneke

     • This book provides an excellent introduction to Relational Frame Theory, a key component of contextual behaviorism.
     • It’s written in a clear, accessible style with many examples.
     • It’s particularly useful for understanding how language and cognition influence behavior.

  3. “The Act in Context: The Canonical Papers of Steven C. Hayes” edited by Steven C. Hayes and Stefan G. Hofmann

     • This collection of papers provides a deep dive into the theoretical foundations of contextual behaviorism.
     • It’s more academic in nature but offers a comprehensive overview of the field’s development.

  4. “A Liberated Mind” by Steven C. Hayes

     • This is a self-help book based on contextual behaviorism principles.
     • It’s very accessible and includes numerous exercises and examples.
     • While not as comprehensive as academic texts, it’s excellent for practical application.

  5. “Contextual Behavioral Science: Creating a Science More Adequate to the Challenge of the Human Condition” by Steven C. Hayes and Stefan G. Hofmann

     • This book provides a broader overview of contextual behavioral science.
     • It’s more advanced and theoretical but offers valuable insights into the philosophical underpinnings of the approach.

  If and only if the contextual behaviorist analysis concludes that human connections is the issue, you can read Sue Johnson’s books.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The argumentative nerd went to therapy to become more well-actualized.⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I don’t get it. Can you give context?

• To what extent, if at all, would have CrowdStrike's faulty update have been made easier to deal with with an immutable distro?
  Submitted ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ to ⁨technology@lemmy.world⁩ | ⁨51⁩ ⁨comments⁩
• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Lab-Grown Diamonds Are Everywhere. This Company Thinks It Has the Secret to Making Them High-End⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Ultimately, yeah. The article points out that the way they want to do it is with unique designs, carbon neutrality, and transparency in the production chain.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I agree that we shouldn’t jump immediately to AI-enhancing it all. However, this survey is riddled with problems, from selection bias to external validity. Heck, even internal validity is a problem here! How does the survey account for social desirability bias, sunk cost fallacy, and anchoring bias?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Authy got hacked, and 33 million user phone numbers were stolen⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  You’ve got a good point. I wonder if this an example of a trade-off between convenience and security. If you’re logging in and you get an MFA prompt, a Yubikey has to be physically searched, while Bitwarden or Proton Pass only have to be clicked. A Yubikey can only hold a limited amount of accounts, while Bitwarden or Proton Pass could hold many more. Of course, a Yubikey could be used as MFA for Bitwarden or Proton Pass, but that would create a single point of failure and reduce factor separation (which I think is your original point).

  While I posted a Bitwarden or Proton Pass recommendation of sorts, I genuinely wonder if it’s advisable to not use MFA at all if the factors will not be separated. Or, perhaps, the best security solution is the one you’ll actually use. I guess the answer is the good ol’ “What’s your security model?”

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Authy got hacked, and 33 million user phone numbers were stolen⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  These are not local solutions, but are cross-platform and open source: Bitwarden or Proton Pass.

• It’s not impossible for someone to have heard about assguard, looked it up, and then realized it’s “Asgard”.
  Submitted ⁨⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ to ⁨showerthoughts@lemmy.world⁩ | ⁨19⁩ ⁨comments⁩
• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The real personality test⁩ ⁨⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Ah. Thanks for taking the time to explain the meme’s context!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The real personality test⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m sure this is a quality shitpost, but I don’t get it 😅 Can someone explain the context for this?