Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)E

exasperation

@ exasperation @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts
2
Comments
630
Joined
9 mo. ago

  • So apparently full stops in texts are 'passive agressive' now. What other unwritten rules for texting have changed over the last couple of decades?

    Jump

  • What is "proper punctuation"? Isn't it context dependent?

    Not every instance of written language is written in complete sentences.

    A sign that says "SALE" is normal, but a sign that says "Sale." would be unusual, maybe some kind of marketing or design choice.

    Social convention around IMs and chat rooms in the early versions of live chat, in the 90's, capitalization and punctuation were not ordinarily used. Multiple sentences per message were also not the norm.

    Text messages have always been somewhere between 90's style IMs (uncapitalized and unpunctuated phrases, not full sentences) and a full email message (full salutations and signatures). The convention depends on the context, and autocorrect has changed what is or isn't normal.

    So a text message response that says "that's fine" conveys a distinct message from one that says "That's fine."

    That's how human communication works. Trying to start every text message with "Dear Jake," and ending it with "Sincerely, Raymond Holt" would be weird.

  • So apparently full stops in texts are 'passive agressive' now. What other unwritten rules for texting have changed over the last couple of decades?

    Jump

  • gammar

    That's bait

  • Sea Level

    Jump

  • But in the vastness of space, it was practically guaranteed to happen somewhere.

    Do we know this for sure?

    When we thoroughly shuffle a deck of 52 cards, we're almost certainly creating a new deck order that has never been seen before and will likely never be seen again in a random shuffle.

    The number 52! is 8 x 1067, so large that we can make the equivalent of a billion (1 x 109 ) shuffles per second per person on earth (8 x 109 ), so that in any given millennium (3.15 x 1010 seconds) we've covered a percentage so small it's got 37 leading zeros after the decimal point for the percentage, or 39 leading zeroes for the ratio itself.

    My impression is that factorial expansion for probabilities moves up much faster than the vastness of space itself, but I don't know how to calculate the probabilities of each of these priors.

  • What is the non-technical hill you are willing to die on in your industry?

    Jump

  • Ok, sure, if someone doesn't know the basics, then they can't be an expert in that thing. But that hasn't been what we've been talking about in this thread, and your initial comment was that someone can only be said to understand a thing if they can explain how it works.

    And I'm pointing out that:

    • Some people are bad at communication, and understand things they can't explain, because their explanatory ability is hindered by their communication skills.
    • Some specific concepts are not easily reduced to words, so they are inherently difficult to explain. That doesn't mean they can't be understood, or that nobody understands them.

    Dropping back to only talking about the basics kinda ignores huge swaths of human knowledge and understanding.

  • What is the non-technical hill you are willing to die on in your industry?

    Jump

  • No, some people are just bad communicators in particular mediums, and some mediums are bad channels for conveying other ideas.

    Fundamentally, not every bit of knowledge is easily translated into words (or images). You see it a lot when teaching others how to cook (or especially bake), where smell, texture, feel, and all those are both important and knowable, while simultaneously difficult to describe. I can show people how to bake a sourdough loaf, but reducing it to text loses a lot, to the point where the typical person won't be able to actually derive the knowledge from that text. And plenty of people I've tried to teach don't have the attention to detail to be able to absorb it. I can be an expert in the actual craft while not quite grasping why other people in my orbit just don't get it. That's the phenomenon of superstar athletes retiring and then struggling to become decent coaches.

    The experts in a lot of fields didn't learn their knowledge in a book. Or even instructional videos. Limiting your definition of "knowledge" or "expertise" to only be the subjects that can be learned in those settings is too small a view.

    No amount of book reading will teach someone how to be a good basketball player, a good guitar player, a good public speaker, a good friend, or even a good writer. That doesn't invalidate their expertise, or even require they be good at explaining their craft to be considered knowledgeable in those fields.

    At the end of the day, plenty of people are bad at communication. But just because someone is bad at communication doesn't mean that they're inherently not knowledgeable. And that's the fundamental error in your view.

  • What is the non-technical hill you are willing to die on in your industry?

    Jump

  • If you're dealing with a spatial problem but can't draw what you are trying to explain, that is indicative that you don't know what you're dealing with.

    I really feel like you're digging in your heels on a fundamentally flawed point. Plenty of people are bad at drawing. That doesn't make them bad at visualizing or reasoning spatially, or somehow invalidate the spatial understanding that they do have.

    My ability to explain things in Spanish isn't all that well correlated with my internal knowledge of those things, but is more closely correlated with my Spanish skills in those subjects. At the same time, there are nonverbal people who understand stuff without the ability to meaningfully convey messages to other humans.

    The ability to communicate is its own skill, independent from other areas of knowledge, such that the correlation between ability to explain to others and the actual internal understanding is weak, at best.

  • What is the non-technical hill you are willing to die on in your industry?

    Jump

  • I mean, the linguistic mastery necessary to be able to talk around gaps in vocabulary is still itself a skill set completely distinct from knowledge about a different subject.

    Plenty of skills aren't easily reduced to verbal explanations, or even the ability to teach. Plenty of world class athletes become mediocre coaches, frustrated that their players don't seem to get things the way they used to. Same with musicians, actors, public speakers (merely repeating the words of a speech won't necessarily carry the same charisma and gravitas), and all sorts of other experts.

    One can know something without being able to explain it. That doesn't invalidate the knowledge.

  • What is the non-technical hill you are willing to die on in your industry?

    Jump

  • Nah, some people are just bad with words. They can know how something works but can't explain it because their vocabulary doesn't capture some of the nuances. I've seen this a lot in self-taught experts, especially.

    Plus there's always the possibility that the vocabulary is limited from the audience perspective. I definitely know how certain things work, but detail is lost when I oversimplify it for my kids or something, because I'm explaining it to them rather than to a more knowledgeable adult with a stronger base.

  • imagine

    Jump

  • I'm imagining a set of big naturals

  • Ideal Beach Body

    Jump

  • I like to call it lost wages.

  • Ideal Beach Body

    Jump

  • Mammals evolve into ant eaters.

  • Boys to learn difference between porn and real life to tackle misogyny in England’s schools

    Jump

  • Yeah, for those of us whose school-provided sex education was actually informative, including puberty and sexual health units in mandatory health class in multiple different grades, I don't see why this would have to be inherently badly taught.

    It's a weird "oh it's impossible to teach anything properly so let's not try" attitude that applies to a lot of discussions about education, even core academic subjects like math and science and history.

  • surely your hobby can't be that expensive

    Jump

  • Skiing can be cheap if you just happen to be local to where you want to go. Used equipment can be cheap and last a long while and season tickets can be a good bargain on a per day basis at that point. I used to do that when I lived basically on a ski mountain.

    But then you catch the bug and then you have to plan out $2000+ trips just to be able to do that once after you move away.

  • surely your hobby can't be that expensive

    Jump

  • Cooking is basically better than free.

    Yes, ingredients and equipment cost money, but the end result averages out to be cheaper than if you didn't know how to cook. And even if you take on more expensive ingredients or tools, you're probably offsetting even more expensive restaurant meals that you would've eaten.

  • Removed

    Apparently your hobbies becomes less interesting if you're forced to do them all the time? Who knew?

    Jump

  • The real advice is to realize that every job has components that are not fun.

    There are professional athletes who still love to play their sport, and intend to retire into coaching, but hate dealing with marketing and promos and media availability. Lots hate the travel. Some don't like some of their teammates or coaches.

    I know doctors who hate dealing with the paperwork, and programmers who hate dealing with documentation or testing, and lawyers who hate tracking their timesheets. But each of these are part of the job. The question is whether the entire bundled package deal is a pretty good job or not for yourself.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Every interaction between a man and a woman that I personally experience involves the same man, me. Therefore no matter what my sample size, the sampling bias will only observe what is true of this one specific man.

    On the flip side, every man-woman interaction that a woman experiences is with the same woman.

    As a result, I'll have a lot of experience interacting with many women, and women will have a lot of experiences interacting with many men. When women protect themselves from certain traits of other men, even when those traits are not true of myself (the only man I've directly observed in these 1-on-1 interactions), they're inherently building on those worst-case scenarios. I'm not too worried about it, like when my neighbors lock their doors (despite me not being a burglar).

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • This community is really interesting to me that these types of comics, by women, about being a woman who interacts with men, are both so popular here and so angrily criticized in the comments. It's a fascinating combination.

  • My culture also loves music, dancing and telling stories

    Jump

  • due to rationing still being in place for a while, and food was pretty dire still in the 70s and 80s.

    That was definitely true of Japan, too, where ramen was a poverty food popularized out of necessity, that then became a foundation for innovation up the value chain.

    Same with Korea, where American occupation (and a whole history of foreign conquest and occupation) made for interesting combinations of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and American ingredients. Now Spam is probably bigger in Asia and the Pacific Islands than it ever was in America.

    Same with many American food traditions being rooted in the slave trade (see West African food culture being remixed with new world ingredients and exported right back to the Americas in what would become southern U.S. and Caribbean food).

    And of course there's the broader discussion between the interplay between fine dining, casual dining, home cooking, industrial/mass production of prepared/processed foods, etc., that often creates its own foodways.

    I'm biased in that I think the cultural mixing in the Americas makes for better food innovation, where so many American classics are some sort of mix of German, Italian, Mexican (which is itself a mix of indigenous and Spanish cuisine, while Spanish cuisine itself has significant North African influence), Caribbean/West African, with even a little bit of French Canadian influence mixing in on Cajun food.

    Merely importing ingredients is only part of it. There's a lot to be said for techniques, tools/equipment, and traditions, too.

  • My culture also loves music, dancing and telling stories

    Jump

  • But you described it as "suffering." The subjective experience of a person in that culture is that the food is less pleasant to consume.

    In other words, the enjoyment of the food is actively discouraged, in favor of another criterion (the suffering that comes from eating it). So we can point out that the culture does not prioritize the enjoyment of food as much, and can stand by that particular metric as having directionality on that spectrum.