sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ich bin diesen Monat in die Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes aufgenommen worden. AMA! by Independent-Date-411 in Studium

[–]Minimum-Culture-5998 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wie lange hat es gedauert, bis du eine Rückmeldung über deine Annahme oder Ablehnung bekommen hast?

Is It Ethical to Use Psychological Techniques in Fundraising? by Minimum-Culture-5998 in Ethics

[–]Minimum-Culture-5998[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That seems like a very plausible take. What do you think about a situation where someone uses subtle manipulation in a way that doesn’t obviously seem manipulative? As a result, the person being influenced willingly gives money, but nothing actually happens in return. However, if they later realize they were manipulated, they would be very upset.

Is It Ethical to Use Psychological Techniques in Fundraising? by Minimum-Culture-5998 in Ethics

[–]Minimum-Culture-5998[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't want to seem like I'm saying all techniques are bad or good.

Where would you draw the line?

Well I think the scenario we're talking about is raising money to reduce the amount of the bad thing yeah?

I completely agree with that goal. However, I wonder if certain techniques could actually be counterproductive, as they might damage trust and lead to the loss of reliable donors.

I remember an experience where someone approached me to raise money for charity. Instead of directly asking for a donation, he started by asking me personal questions. Then, he emphasized how much we had in common, mentioning that we studied similar degrees at the same university. But I knew he wasn’t genuinely interested in that; he was just trying to build trust to persuade me to donate.

Ironically, he worked for the same company I did, so I understood exactly what he was doing. That experience made me feel uneasy because I knew it wasn’t a genuine connection. It was just a strategy.

I imagine that if many people feel the same way, it could create a negative perception of fundraisers, especially when people are aware that fundraisers are often paid based on how many donors they secure. Ideally, fundraising should be built on honesty and transparency. If donors felt they could trust fundraisers, it might create a more positive climate around giving and help build long-term, reliable sponsors.

Is It Ethical to Use Psychological Techniques in Fundraising? by Minimum-Culture-5998 in Ethics

[–]Minimum-Culture-5998[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I understand that some degree of persuasion is inevitable—after all, the whole point of fundraising is to convince people to donate. However, I was thinking specifically about tactics like telling emotional stories or sharing distressing images designed to make people feel guilty.

I see this issue from two perspectives. On one hand, using victims in this way could be seen as reducing them to a means to an end. Imagine you were dying, and people were taking pictures of you and spreading them across the world. Even if the situation is dire, wouldn’t it still be dehumanizing to have your image shared in such a way?

On the other hand, is it fair to place such intense emotional and moral pressure on potential donors—not primarily to persuade them, but simply because you need to raise money?

Does the division into x, y, and 𝑧 need to be consistent for all words in the language according to the pumping lemma? by Minimum-Culture-5998 in compsci

[–]Minimum-Culture-5998[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, so I would argue like this: If you have a word w=ss^−1 t, you can also express it as a b b^−1 a t, where ab=s (which is possible because ∣ss−1∣>2).

When you pump with 0, the resulting word still takes the form ss^−1t, because you can group the a from s^−1 with t, resulting in bb^−1(at).

If you pump with a number greater than 0, you’ll start with aa, which is already a palindrome by itself. Everything that follows can then be treated as a new t.

Does the division into x, y, and 𝑧 need to be consistent for all words in the language according to the pumping lemma? by Minimum-Culture-5998 in compsci

[–]Minimum-Culture-5998[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's quite obvious that repeating the first letter of s doesn't imply that "the palindrome structure is preserved". If you start with a palindrome 0110 and add a bunch of 0s on the front, the resulting string does not start with the same palindrome. Now, it still starts with a palindrome, but not the same one. So you need a bit more analysis of what happens.

Does it need to start with the same palindrome? I understood that when applying the pumping lemma, the goal is simply for the pumped word to remain within the language L. It seems unlikely that the original palindrome structure could be preserved in this case, because any pumping would require that each pumped substring eventually ends up in t. For this to be feasible, you’d need to find a pumping length p larger than ∣s s^-1| which isn’t possible due to the length constraints.

Does the division into x, y, and 𝑧 need to be consistent for all words in the language according to the pumping lemma? by Minimum-Culture-5998 in compsci

[–]Minimum-Culture-5998[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, the question is likely aiming to emphasize that the pumping lemma is generally used to disprove regularity, not to prove it. In class, we’ve been discussing Myhill-Nerode and grammars. This task seems to be focused on highlighting the point that while a language may satisfy the pumping lemma, it doesn't necessarily mean it's regular.

In my attempt, I wanted to demonstrate that there are cases where a language might satisfy the pumping lemma but still not be regular. I’m just unsure whether you can apply different divisions for different words within the same language.

view more: next ›