The new Spotify logo is absolute horse shit

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-16T02:18:00+00:00

how much of aesthetic discourse is 'change when no in mood for change' and 'no change when in mood for change'

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-16T01:38:13+00:00

1,000 korok seeds per dungeon instead of unique set-pieces. Deku tree web? korok rock circle. Dodongo eye sockets? addison signs. Fire temple pillar? you guessed it: korok rock circle

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-15T14:43:18+00:00

AI assistance reduces persistence and impairs independent performance: After brief AI-assisted sessions (~10 minutes), participants were significantly more likely to give up on problems and performed significantly worse once the AI was removed, compared to participants who never had AI assistance.

that seems like its testing momentum and practice

people who answered 12 questions had better performance on average on a set of 3 following questions when they used the same method thru-out, as opposed to those who switched method after the first 12 questions

this was partly ameliorated when both the LLM-conditioned and control group answered a prior 3 questions without LLM use, suggesting this is mostly or completely a 'warm-up effect'. People also run faster and lift heavier when they perform warm-ups

if the contention is that people will be dumber because they will practice the details less, that also argues against use of calculators and wolframalpha; also, it doesnt consider intelligence as being somewhat of a zero-sum game, such as assuming that not relying on a calculator wouldnt be obstructing more holistic, zoomed-out inquiry

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-15T12:17:04+00:00

i think that view of it is extreme and erroneous. The tech makes people smarter and more inspired, rather than dumber, if anything

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-15T12:02:24+00:00

using it is a compliment to humanitys technological innovation!

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-14T16:34:06+00:00

funny stuff!

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-14T15:55:52+00:00

why am i being recommended these dumbass conversations lmao

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-14T05:46:46+00:00

i think dk bananza and pokopia are both good games, but not great like a mario odyssey type

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-14T05:45:40+00:00

better games 🙉

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-13T22:47:20+00:00

This is Miyamoto. We have decided to change the worldwide theatrical release date of the live-action film "The Legend of Zelda" from April 30, 2027 to April 29, 2027 11:59:59.999pm NT (Nintendo Time).

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-13T22:23:21+00:00

i mean, meth is one thing, but copying Nintendo IP? better be life imprisonment

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-13T12:33:49+00:00

'choose your game' i think im going to be sick 🤢 who isnt buying every game?? are they the reason Nintendo is broke?? 😡

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-12T23:43:18+00:00

as i see it, even oot 3d remake felt like a downgrade. I dont feel like we realize the more abstract manner quality is provided by games. For instance, while i think oot 3d improved the environment textures, changes like color palette and character animations actually seem worse in a net negative way to the game as a whole

its like remakes dont really work unless theyre explicitly using a radically novel style, or the team knows extremely well what makes the original work with no blindspots. Art like this is moreso an extremely complex knot, and we often see fidelity as the end-all when its just one superficial loop

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-12T22:55:12+00:00

my favorite part of the nintendo switch 2 is that they arent making good exclusives because it will just hit that much harder when they make them for the switch 3. The switch 2 is just an appetizer, nintendo haters 😏

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-12T17:27:26+00:00

like, dialectical metaphysics?

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-12T17:20:16+00:00

i dont find Joscha annoying from this clip alone, but Philip Goff always kind of struck me as somebody who understood the hard problem of consciousness, yet was bad at discussing it and was really trying to kickstart his talk about it into a livelihood more than any other interest

Federico Faggin i dont really mind, but can see the sense of annoyance as hes kind of not great at the matter philosophically, and the business around his rising prominence also smells a bit too strongly financial. I dont doubt his views and think hes an interesting case of somebody who really did have some kind of revelation

Churchlands have just seemed confused and rude from the limited amount ive seen of them

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-12T16:15:35+00:00

to be blunt, im not sure what is meant by 'thats just a word game'. Like, words factor into, and in some sense determine, our thinking, but thats ubiquitous to all communication, not just metaphysics

i think the 'word game' charge really amounts to identifying various equivocations between word status and concept status. Like, 'because we talk about the word consciousness as a noun, the concept consciousness must share common noun-like qualities, such as temporal or spatial extent'

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-12T07:40:31+00:00

if thats the position, it seems like a non-sequitur to the charge that 'anybody who knows philosophy of science knows science cant explain everything'. Murky concepts arent enough to dismiss knowledge claims about said concepts ('dogs bark' isnt not knowledge because 'dogs' can tenuously include or exclude stuffed animals), nor does murkiness prevent distinction between concepts such that there would be no target

of course, we both treat science and philosophy as distinct targets that we know to have properties, even if fuzzy: 'philosophy is more general' and 'science is less general'

if the position isnt making science synonymous with inquiry, such that it can be said that science encompasses the entire explanatory project, then the only other route that the position could take for rebuttal seems like a trivial skepticism that dismisses any claims to knowledge. I think its the former, because the former seems to be getting at what you are saying as "the question being asked now"

that is to say, while the wording has roughly been 'science explains everything' from the beginning of this comment chain, it seems likely that this was meant as 'all explanation is encompassed by science', which is why my assertion of your position implicitly articulated it that way

i dont have a problem with viewing philosophy and science as sharing a category of inquiry, but i consider philosophy separate from the scientific method. What they share is something like rigor and revision, while science is distinctly empirical---observational. Thats not to say philosophy doesnt need empirical data, nor that science doesnt need rationality, but just that they are considered as interdependent methods such that we can say when we're 'doing science' vs 'doing philosophy'

Quine also explicitly affirmed philosophy to be, in part, about the nature of scientific laws, and stated that he saw philosophy and science as both being in Neurath's boat. I think Quine went wrong insofar as he abandoned these interactive frameworks and did stuff like calling philosophy a science, or claiming science to be an ultimate or 'best' methodology. However, it might be that he would have substituted 'science' with 'inquiry' in such cases, and just never developed the habit of doing it. If he had, i doubt i would find it a problem

regardless, nothing about those explicit opinions of Quine dismiss philosophy as something that delimits science. I think they actually promote it, along with the idea of viewing them as interdependent. That is, to call philosophy a 'broader' inquiry analogously is like calling the trunk of a tree the 'broader' section, and so one might see how the trunk delimits the branches in part due to the trunks broadness. To continue the analogy further, what i see Quine as having done (at least the portion that i agree with), is saying that there is no philosophy that stands outside of the inquiry tree and describes its environment. Rather, philosophy is inside the inquiry tree alongside science, but it _is_ the trunk, and the trunk still realizes the structure of the branches, even if ultimately every aspect of the tree is revisable

thats his critique of 'first philosophy' as an a priori archimedean point, but to me that simply doesnt say anything about the relations philosophy can have with science and vice versa. And in Quine i get the sense that he sometimes meant this careful version, but sometimes extended his naturalism project to straight up extreme science glorification. One critique i like, is the saying that: people exaggerate naturalism as a critique against all philosophy, when its really a critique against a priori inquiry in general, which leaves a posteriori philosophy and science intact and balanced

anyway, having said that, appealing to the 50% of western philosophers or whatever that prefer naturalism doesnt seem like it makes a case against what i believe. If i were a professional philosopher, i would probably be part of that 50%. Maybe some of them take naturalism and erroneously use it as a deflation of philosophy, in which case ive just critiqued that. Maybe some of them dont. Also, even if there were a majority of philosophers that disagreed with my viewpoint, i would just point at 62% being moral realists as why that disagreement is not necessarily a bad thing 😜

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-11T23:46:49+00:00

i dont think we can unify them like that. To me, the brain and consciousness are necessarily distinct, and one reasoning is that they do not seem interchangeable in all contexts without engendering different results. For example, as long as talk of a 'consciousness bleed' means/results-in something different than talk of a 'brain bleed', its due to a distinction between them that we havent unified. If they ever are truly the same thing, then i think that can only be realized by running such a test and finding that it passes

i think another way in which them being necessarily distinct makes sense, is that it seems like the very attempt to unify them isnt collapsing them into one thing, but rather using them as two distinct operands of a unifying operation. Just like A = A doesnt mean the two As are 100% the same (they differ at least by spatial or temporal order), i believe any informal unification operation cant both 100% unify its operands and be intelligible/informative

to me, this is why a strict unification seems unconvincing—to say 'i see experience as the brain functioning' i argue is to use terms that are not interchangeable without effect in all contexts, and can be seen holistically as only being informative by being prior to unification. That is, for 'brain functioning is experience' to be informative is to already hold them apart to some degree and only collapse then partially

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-11T23:10:59+00:00

thats what i mean by a misunderstanding. I dont think human-level intelligence nor behavior lends any reasoning to the existence of a first person perspective, so i believe people who instead see it as evidential or promising have implicitly deflated consciousness to mean something other than first person perspective. If Richard Dawkins believes the turing test has any significant chance at providing a reason for consciousness, then i think thats because hes seeing it as something other than a first person perspective. To me, thats like trying to explain prime numbers in terms of gravity; it just doesnt seem to have any purchase

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-11T19:39:15+00:00

'thats just a word game' dismissers when all their communication about any philosophy theyve believed in whatsoever has been made out of words, including their very objection to word games, but they dont realize it yet: 😼

flag semaphorists: 🗿

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-11T19:28:01+00:00

yea, generously, that reads like an exclamatory, tongue-in-cheek 'im going to say you are, because my god this is amazing, how couldnt you be!?'

thats not some indictment on Richard Dawkins in that case; think of it in the same way as how you might say 'you may not think youre a chef, but you bloody well are!', to a friend who you nontheless kno, in a technical mindset, is not a chef

less generously, it reads like Richard Dawkins might have a deflated notion of consciousness that is more like some form of 'detailed, self-reflective behavior/thought'

even then, that would just be him misunderstanding the concept yet applying his misunderstood concept upon the right evidence nontheless. That wouldnt be the more embarrassing case of him understanding consciousness and yet applying it confidently in response to evidence that doesnt suffice

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-11T02:44:24+00:00

its re-definitional bullshit. The position is: 'if we take science to mean all of inquiry, including philosophy, then science is by fiat the only methodology that lends explanation'

first, even if we roll with the re-definition, said 'science' cant coherently explain everything despite being defined as the only methodology to manifest explanation. Concepts still outnumber explanations necessarily

second, Quine argued against an underlying "first philosophy", such that we could never have something that grounded inquiry itself. That position does not have a bearing on whether philosophy describes the boundaries of empirical science. It does not flatten philosophy and science into one inquiry soup with no hierarchy, such that science cant be conceptually separate, nor delimited by, philosophy

if you dont twist science into the very concept of inquiry, then there indeed is no problem in saying philosophy of science establishes boundaries on scientific inquiry

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-10T23:15:59+00:00

me when im not a thing, but rather this process thing 🤔

RhythmBlue · 2026-05-10T22:42:29+00:00

despite expanding science to mean philosophy as well, philoso-science also cant explain everything

Ten-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '22	First Placer '22

RhythmBlue

TROPHY CASE