Not really, it’s just that the sheer quantity of hours has been find to be less important than the original study presented. Essentially, with good aptitude and quality practice, you don’t actually need 10,000 hours to reach the top percentile.

The author of this article seems to have taken this in some weird directions. They have had personal experiences of being pressured to practice long hours at something they struggled in. They find relief in the new study, which they allegedly believe validates the idea that it was a hopeless endeavor. I’d argue that the fault didn’t lie with the 10,000 hour number, but rather with thier family who pushed the author too hard to succeed in a sport they probably weren’t improving at, Rather than reevaluating motivating factors or approach.

Of course 10,000 hours is arbitrary. I’m just saying, the study doesn’t assert that inherit talent even exist, let alone is the primary factor. It only contradicts the number of hours.

I agree, but maybe it’s time for a Linux based Nintendo DS / PSP sized device? I mean, Nintendo has abandoned these truly pocketable consoles. Maybe with a die shrink they could fit something 70% as performant as a deck into that form Factor?

I personally know a lot of people who miss the DS and don’t game anymore now that the platform was dropped. Casual gamer types.

I just dump a liter of bleach in the upper deck and remove the seat. Nothing cleans you up better than a good swirl.

I might be mistaken, but these Intel based machines might be better for switch emulation, as they share dedicated hw for the particular form of texture decompression they use. One cool potential upside

“our fake history” is a pretty good match to what you’re describing. It’s a relatively light hearted, rigorously researched, history podcast with a focus on misunderstood historical figures and events.

“The plastic plesiosaur podcast” is a really fun podcast more focused on cryptids and pop science.

One of the host to plastic plesiosaur has a YouTube channel called “trey the explainer” which is worth a watch.

And if you like low key, entertaining deep dives into machining or tech, check out “technology connections,” “this old Tony,” and “tech moan.”

Imo, the true fallacy of using AI for journalism or general text, lies not so much in generative AI’s fundamental unreliability, but rather it’s existence as an affordable service.

Why would I want to parse through AI generated text on times.com, when for free, I could speak to some of the most advanced AI on bing.com or openai’s chat GPT or Google bard or a meta product. These, after all, are the back ends that most journalistic or general written content websites are using to generate text.

To be clear, I ask why not cut out the middleman if they’re just serving me AI content.

I use AI products frequently, and I think they have quite a bit of value. However, when I want new accurate information on current developments, or really anything more reliable or deeper than a Wikipedia article, I turn exclusively to human sources.

The only justification a service has for serving me generated AI text, is perhaps the promise that they have a custom trained model with highly specific training data. I can imagine, for example, weather.com developing highly specific specialized AI models which tie into an in-house llm and provide me with up-to-date and accurate weather information. The question I would have in that case would be why am I reading an article rather than just being given access to the llm for a nominal fee? At some point, they are not no longer a regular website, they are a vendor for a in-house AI.

I get what you are meaning to say, that secondary sexual characteristics dictate certain trends and limits. I agree.

However, what I find interesting is that historically, the bulk of manual labor was done by the lowest class cultures. It depends on the time and place, but indentured servants, slaves, and women of the household were expected to do most of the labor. These decisions were not made on the merits of absolute physical strength, but rather by ones social status.

In fact, the strongest men. Those with the most physical apitude and power, tended to enjoy leisure at the expense of these lower classes. Including thier women.

The idea that strong men make strong countries, or do the best work, is a myth. Typically, wealth is built by poor men, women, and subjugated social classes, and the mythical status of the strong man gender stereotype serves to justify this arrangement.

So yes, the strongest biological male human will probably always outlift the strongest biological female, but the actual outcomes of who does the work is decided by gender, and historically, the labor fell on the woman. See what I mean about gender being, “bad?”

But these traits are secondary and tertiary sexual characteristics (ie they are tied to your biological sex). They are certainly the origin of gender identity, but they don’t justify it. My dissatisfaction is not with the concept of sex. It’s fair to say, “oh that person has a penis, that person is a woman, that person is intersex,” and we should strive to develop better, more diverse sexual classifies, but gender? Na.

Gender roles/ jobs, fem and masculine, the separation of media to cater towards one gender or the other, the gendering of clothes, attitudes, and opinions, and finally the gendering of sex. It’s all just caveman talk, imo

Gender is the cultural outcome of primary and secondary sexual characteristics and in no meaningfully physical way exist. In other words, we traditionally have a “boy” culture and a “girl” culture, not a gender. We are artificially indoctrinated and assimilated into a given culture based on primary or secondary sexual characteristics.

Likewise, it follows that all other gender identities are similarly a cultural phenomenon and not the outcome of some essential characteristic of the individual.

Gender cultures are, at least historically speaking, bad. They’ve generally been used to persecute people who aren’t in the dominant (boy) gender, and the conditions dictating mobility between genders is so intensly arbitrary that it warrants abolishing the whole stupid idea. Gender dysphoria is a symptom, generally, of the tyranny of these conditions.

(PS, I totally am open to being wrong about this.)

Sometimes I have a hard time telling when ADHD memes are sincere expressions of a shared experience or people putting thier friends on blast.

To take over the world? I’d take the records of every international technology and medical patent. And, a cell phone. I’d get the local news interested in my new handheld PC, find the least scrupulous tech company which reached out to me, and hatch a plan to create a trillion dollar tech empire.

This is bloody hilarious 🤣

It sounds really cool, but I’ve honestly had issues installing it on two PCs now on two separate occasions separated by a couple months. Issues I didn’t have installing Ubuntu. The installer would fail to complete. I’m not a Linux power user, and while I tried debugging for a few hours, I gave up.

Your situation sounds like it has some red flags. It might be worth asking Lemmy specifically for advice on that and get an outside opinion.

As for the question? My parents own a house. I’d make it a home for my few friends who can’t afford one and move on in.

For 3000 photos? A couple hundred bucks for a scanner and whatever you value approximately 67.5 hours of your time.

I don’t like the “There’s just stuff bumping into other stuff, and how is that free?” Argument. I feel like it’s unessisarily reductive.

A stone washing down a river might be guided deterministically by fundimental forces, as are all of the actions of a human brain.

However, the stone was dislodged by erosion. My will was set into motion by abstract human concepts. My memories, biases, emotions, education, habits, etc. these are not fundamental or physical forces. I was free, uninhibited by state or peers, to decide based on these internal factors.

Sure, if you rewinded time and replayed it, I would always make that decision, and so would the stone wash down the river, but the human had a meaningful perception of free will.

I would argue that free will is not a physical concept, but a phycological one. It succeeds in describing the experience of mulling over a decision, and freely acting upon it. It is fair and reasonable to say it, just like in my example it is fair and reasonable for me to say a terrible person is evil.

If you twist the definition of free will contain some mention of subatomic autonomy, then sure, it doesn’t exist, but the concept predates such ideas…

Heck, even the Bible- I’m an atheist- but the point of writing that God gave humans free will was the expression of the human experience. The writers wanted to explain why being a human FELT different from being a stone. They were grappling with the experience of consciousness in a spiritual way. The original text never claims to be the ultimate expression of physics. It’s reductive to dismiss the text as meaningless just because some later “free will” proponents claimed that the brain is quantum or whatever.

Sorry, I agree with you about the nature of the universe. I just think these reductive debates are, in general, unproductive. I believe they misrepresent the subject from both sides.

Hmm. I disagree a bit with this idea, but more on the grounds of semantics. In a deterministic world, you might fret over a decision for weeks, taking influence from several factors. You are free to make any decision, and your will may be driven by rational desires.

In this model, at an atomic level, you have no special, privileged position. A magical being with a perfect physical simulation could perfectly predict your actions in the same way as the movement of a falling stone.

However, unlike a stone, your mind is tuned by all sorts of important human factors. Your memories, habits, biases, education, relationships, and perception. Just because they are the result of the same fundimental physical properties doesn’t mean they are suddenly devoid of meaning or random.

Alternatively, if we imagine a world where the human mind is dependent on non physical, non deterministic factors. Does it actually change our previous hypothetical decision? Probably not. You’d still make a similar decision based on all of those human factors. Perhaps, this hypothetical non deterministic human might occasionally decide to “flip a coin” so to speak, and do something truly random, but to me that feels uninformed and uninteresting to my own experience. Few definitions of free will demand that we be able to make random decisions.

I feel as if the answer to this is, by general consensus, yes. You have free will.

Like, does Evil exist? Scientifically? No, absolutely not, but the word still has meaning. If I say, “that man is evil!” And you look at him and recognize his terribleness, then, sure: he is IS evil.

Just because something isn’t objectively, physically quantifiable, doesn’t mean that it’s not a valid rational construct.

I think the actual argument which has been making the rounds recently, is not, “do humans have free will?” But, Rather is, “are humans accountable for their actions, given that thier will is significantly biased by factors outside of their control / awareness?”

It’s just that doesn’t get people’s attention.

Ps, I believe that fundamentally, all physical interactions are deterministic in practice. Any conscious or rational being is fundamentally set in motion with the arrow of time, and if you could develop a fuzzy quantum state based intelligence, you’d only succeed in creating a person with slightly more random ideas. There would be no meaningful uplift in “free will.” However, I also Believe that this is an absurd deconstruction of heady topics. It’s akin to telling someone that a table doesn’t exist because it’s just a decomposing tree. Free will is a rational idea for human animals, and judged by that standard, fulfills it’s purpose in describing the experience of conscious decision making.

Not piracy, but if you’re in the US and get a library card, you can use the Libby app, which has tons of free audiobooks on demand. Definitely worth it, imho. You can download for offline use easily too, which makes it excellent for travel.

Piracy? I’ve been converting my epubs into html files and then using the edge browser’s excellent voice to text to read it out to me, but that’s my own special brand of insanity.

For these unplanned hours, I look to the majesty and simple wisdom of nature for my answer:

I sleep slovenly, pass gas, and growl half heartily at anyone who disturbs me. Plus, I think if great apes and big cats could read, they’d probably consume at least as much Yuri light novels as myself.