Same here. I have aphantasia, too, and had no idea I had it. I thought people were being figurative when they would tell me to visualize something. Trying the memory palace technique never worked for me, although I was one of those nerds that memorized pi to 100+ digits just for the hell of it.
A key skill of a leader is to communicate and bring as many people on the journey as possible. Trump is an absolute failure at this on all levels.
I totally agree with this. The choices, though, seems to be either to jump on each and every mistake he makes in a speech in detail and hang onto it for days at a time, or to try to figure out what he's really saying and discuss that. The former is just antagonizing anyone who might agree (even a little) with whatever his actual point is. Probably smarter to engage on the actual issue, where real discussion might be had.
Obama flubbing a line and Trump basing public policy based on irrational and emotionally visceral feelings are not the same thing.
The flub that Trump appeared to make was describing an incident that happened "last night", when what he appeared to want to describe was an incident that was covered in a show he watched last night. That's similar to Obama's flub, as far as I can see.
The topic of what he is basing public policy on is another discussion.
Trump is a terrible public speaker. He's loose with his facts, he exaggerates, he makes claims that he believes to be true without actually looking into them, and he appeals more to people's emotions than he does to their intellect. Figuring out what he meant to say takes a little work. After looking into this a bit, I ended up agreeing with the parent poster. That does appear to be what he meant, as far as I can tell. If all you want to do is call Trump a liar and ignore the rest, he sets himself up for that as no President has before him. If you are interested in what he really means, you have to do a little guess work since he's so bad at explaining it.
I thought the same thing when Obama made his "traveled to 57 states" remark. It's obvious he meant 47, that he started at 50 and subtracted the three he hadn't been to, and that he flubbed it when he said it. Same kind of thing, just on a smaller scale and it happened far less often.
I'm not a Trump supporter, I didn't vote for him, but he's the guy we've got. I don't find it particularly helpful to jump on every mistake he makes when speaking, and I have reduced my news intake accordingly since that's as far into it as the media seems to want to go.
I've always assumed there is a sarcastic component to "could care less". Something along the lines of: "I suppose I could care less about this. I mean, if I think about it for long enough I should be able to devise some kind of scenario in which the amount that I care about this topic drops even further. But I can't seem to find the motivation to actually do it, though".
The actual riots in both cases where people get hurt and property gets destroyed, now or in the past, are all reprehensible. One group doing it doesn't excuse the other. If a person is so upset that one presidential candidate won over another that they think they should burn something, hit somebody, or vandalize something, then that person needs mental health care regardless of what box they checked on the ballot. Peaceful protesting is to be encouraged, but seems out of vogue these days.
I see claims for this on both sides of the argument. Where can I find temperature data output from a model in the past in comparison to actual temperature data as recorded since that model was run?
Since we have a secret ballot, I'm assuming that data for these maps came from polling data. Since polls before the election completely failed to project a Trump win, it's certainly possible that exit polling is not going to be very accurate either.
I totally get that you don't think we're going to be living in a Buck Rogers-like interplanetary or interstellar civilization anytime soon if ever. But do you deny that "death asteroids" have impacted the earth in the past with very negative global consequences? Whether or not the "space nutters" are right about colonizing mars, wouldn't it be nice to have some means of detecting and possibly deflecting species extinction level asteroid impacts?
That's the scary part. The simulation is presumably being run for a reason. Too many people in the simulation realizing they are in a simulation might skew their results, which could lead to unplugging this simulation, fixing the problem, and starting a whole new one. Meaning that everyone here simply ceases to exist one day. Maybe we shouldn't try too hard to determine if we are simulated.
It's not basket weaving, either. I have googled for symptoms of common ailments that people can get as they age. Doesn't mean I have those diseases, but I do want to know what to look for, just in case. Or perhaps I know someone who has a particular disease and want to read up about it.
It's a good reason to use an anonymous search portal like startpage.com as part of your normal routine, though.
This does help though by making the entire process take longer. If you've got a relatively small burst of data you need to send to wikileaks, for example, you might get it all sent before you can be statistically cornered, as it were. Maybe you'll never use that network ever again now that the job is done.
It's not OK to be skeptical without doing the work to provide an alternative theory? There is plenty to be skeptical about. Climate scientists seem to agree that a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial times of 280ppm to 560ppm should bring a warming of about 1C. Not much to worry about on it's own, the scary part comes when you factor in feedbacks, which we still don't have pinned down very well. The fifth assessment report states a range between 1C and 6C for a doubling of CO2 when factoring in various feedbacks, with the most likely values lying between 1.5C and 4.5C. That's a large range, running from "not much of a problem" at the low end to "oh, shit, we're all going to die" at the high end.
That seems like plenty of reason to be skeptical of the more exaggerated claims just by itself, without even factoring in the extreme politicization of climate science in general and what that might entail.
Perhaps it is as bad as it is claimed to be, but I'll wait until that uncertainty drops significantly before I start running around screaming with my hands in the air.
Unless you truly don't like either of the two mainstream candidates and wouldn't vote for either one if they paid you. Then it's not a misplaced move in an overarching game, it's just a vote for the candidate you do want to win.
Unless I'm reading that chart wrong, it looks like July was 0.4+ C below the reading for January 2016. Still very warm, but not the warmest month ever according to the UAH satellite record.
Sure, there is a risk. You can't force others to read at -1 or 0, though. For some reason, I've been getting lots of mod points in the last few months. I've spent a large fraction of those on AC posts that I thought needed to rise above the fold. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I browse at -1, always. I don't like filters, and don't have much problem skipping past posts I discern as not worth the effort. I do want to give them a chance, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Same here. I have aphantasia, too, and had no idea I had it. I thought people were being figurative when they would tell me to visualize something. Trying the memory palace technique never worked for me, although I was one of those nerds that memorized pi to 100+ digits just for the hell of it.
So what's the verdict?
If they don't model these cars after the Johnny Cab, I'm not interested.
A key skill of a leader is to communicate and bring as many people on the journey as possible. Trump is an absolute failure at this on all levels.
I totally agree with this. The choices, though, seems to be either to jump on each and every mistake he makes in a speech in detail and hang onto it for days at a time, or to try to figure out what he's really saying and discuss that. The former is just antagonizing anyone who might agree (even a little) with whatever his actual point is. Probably smarter to engage on the actual issue, where real discussion might be had.
Obama flubbing a line and Trump basing public policy based on irrational and emotionally visceral feelings are not the same thing.
The flub that Trump appeared to make was describing an incident that happened "last night", when what he appeared to want to describe was an incident that was covered in a show he watched last night. That's similar to Obama's flub, as far as I can see.
The topic of what he is basing public policy on is another discussion.
I thought the same thing when Obama made his "traveled to 57 states" remark. It's obvious he meant 47, that he started at 50 and subtracted the three he hadn't been to, and that he flubbed it when he said it. Same kind of thing, just on a smaller scale and it happened far less often.
I'm not a Trump supporter, I didn't vote for him, but he's the guy we've got. I don't find it particularly helpful to jump on every mistake he makes when speaking, and I have reduced my news intake accordingly since that's as far into it as the media seems to want to go.
It's funny how having different opinions on various topics now sounds so outrageous to a lot of people. Maybe it is, in this world of media bubbles.
I've always assumed there is a sarcastic component to "could care less". Something along the lines of: "I suppose I could care less about this. I mean, if I think about it for long enough I should be able to devise some kind of scenario in which the amount that I care about this topic drops even further. But I can't seem to find the motivation to actually do it, though".
The media is forcing you to set that trashcan on fire and break that window? Take some responsibilities for your actions.
No siree. Not a single word about hangings or shootings or impeachment or anything of the sort from those on the right. Not a single instance.
I know this is a wild thought, but maybe both groups were wrong and that violence by any group is a bad thing.
> They will be gone when we have a 13 m sea level rise.
And at the current rate of 3.4 mm/yr, that's only 3,823 years from now. Better get cracking on that relocation program.
Excellent questions. I'm fine for all three, although we've missed the boat on two of them.
The actual riots in both cases where people get hurt and property gets destroyed, now or in the past, are all reprehensible. One group doing it doesn't excuse the other. If a person is so upset that one presidential candidate won over another that they think they should burn something, hit somebody, or vandalize something, then that person needs mental health care regardless of what box they checked on the ballot. Peaceful protesting is to be encouraged, but seems out of vogue these days.
I see claims for this on both sides of the argument. Where can I find temperature data output from a model in the past in comparison to actual temperature data as recorded since that model was run?
Since we have a secret ballot, I'm assuming that data for these maps came from polling data. Since polls before the election completely failed to project a Trump win, it's certainly possible that exit polling is not going to be very accurate either.
I totally get that you don't think we're going to be living in a Buck Rogers-like interplanetary or interstellar civilization anytime soon if ever. But do you deny that "death asteroids" have impacted the earth in the past with very negative global consequences? Whether or not the "space nutters" are right about colonizing mars, wouldn't it be nice to have some means of detecting and possibly deflecting species extinction level asteroid impacts?
That's the scary part. The simulation is presumably being run for a reason. Too many people in the simulation realizing they are in a simulation might skew their results, which could lead to unplugging this simulation, fixing the problem, and starting a whole new one. Meaning that everyone here simply ceases to exist one day. Maybe we shouldn't try too hard to determine if we are simulated.
It's not basket weaving, either. I have googled for symptoms of common ailments that people can get as they age. Doesn't mean I have those diseases, but I do want to know what to look for, just in case. Or perhaps I know someone who has a particular disease and want to read up about it.
It's a good reason to use an anonymous search portal like startpage.com as part of your normal routine, though.
> Add to this the suspicion that the Russians are trying to game our political system by hacking and leaking and it all becomes a morass.
The way to minimize this problem would be to not be corrupt scumbags trying to manipulate an election.
This does help though by making the entire process take longer. If you've got a relatively small burst of data you need to send to wikileaks, for example, you might get it all sent before you can be statistically cornered, as it were. Maybe you'll never use that network ever again now that the job is done.
It's not OK to be skeptical without doing the work to provide an alternative theory? There is plenty to be skeptical about. Climate scientists seem to agree that a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial times of 280ppm to 560ppm should bring a warming of about 1C. Not much to worry about on it's own, the scary part comes when you factor in feedbacks, which we still don't have pinned down very well. The fifth assessment report states a range between 1C and 6C for a doubling of CO2 when factoring in various feedbacks, with the most likely values lying between 1.5C and 4.5C. That's a large range, running from "not much of a problem" at the low end to "oh, shit, we're all going to die" at the high end.
That seems like plenty of reason to be skeptical of the more exaggerated claims just by itself, without even factoring in the extreme politicization of climate science in general and what that might entail.
Perhaps it is as bad as it is claimed to be, but I'll wait until that uncertainty drops significantly before I start running around screaming with my hands in the air.
I wonder why they don't just leave the original contents, as entered or imported, alone and just convert when viewed. Wouldn't that solve the problem?
Unless you truly don't like either of the two mainstream candidates and wouldn't vote for either one if they paid you. Then it's not a misplaced move in an overarching game, it's just a vote for the candidate you do want to win.
Unless I'm reading that chart wrong, it looks like July was 0.4+ C below the reading for January 2016. Still very warm, but not the warmest month ever according to the UAH satellite record.
Sure, there is a risk. You can't force others to read at -1 or 0, though. For some reason, I've been getting lots of mod points in the last few months. I've spent a large fraction of those on AC posts that I thought needed to rise above the fold. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I browse at -1, always. I don't like filters, and don't have much problem skipping past posts I discern as not worth the effort. I do want to give them a chance, though.