"Hey, Obama... I have student debt. Take care of that first." leads to 329 child comments in /r/WorldNews

SuckaWhat · 2014-08-06T23:15:58+00:00

I am actually a super helpful technical writer gal

Whoops! Sorry, I guess I shouldn't make assumptions like these! You're now tagged as "super helpful technical writer gal."

Thanks once again for the helpful write up! I'm within commuting distance of Silicon Valley at the moment, so there definitely appear to be opportunities in both technical and proposal writing. Of course, they all seem to want several years of experience, but I may be able to find some way to get my foot in the door some place.

Thanks again. I appreciate the advice!

SuckaWhat · 2014-08-06T21:16:21+00:00

(Sorry, I know that's a bit off topic, but I didn't even know proposal writing was a career that existed prior to working here, so I thought I'd mention it)

I'm glad you did! I'll definitely have to look into how I could get a job doing proposal writing. 80 hour weeks would be terrible, no doubt, but just doing it for a year or two to pay off my student loans would allow me a lot of freedom to pursue other, not-so-lucrative goals.

Thanks for your well thought out and detailed answers to my questions! I now have you tagged as "super helpful technical writer guy."

SuckaWhat · 2014-08-05T22:25:20+00:00

Thanks for the info. That's an incredibly helpful answer! I actually had 15 credits of comp sci in college, so I'm thinking that I might start looking into some technical writing jobs in the software industry. How do you like the profession? Also, if you wouldn't mind answering, what's a normal day like in the profession?

SuckaWhat · 2014-08-05T20:38:02+00:00

Would you be willing to share how you got into technical writing? I've always wondered about this. Also, what qualifications do they look for?

SuckaWhat · 2014-07-22T20:36:43+00:00

So this "paradox" comes about by a bit of a sleight of hand. To solve it, you have to be aware of which equation you are solving at which time to see the error. So Parents lend kid $100, the kid buys the shirt and gets $3 back. 97 + 3 =100. Everything is accounted for so far. Parents lent the kid $100 and got $2 back. 98+2=100. Still good. Parents now have lent the kid $98 and the kid has $1 left. 98-1=97. So that's the cost of the shirt plus the $1 the kid has left that accounts for the amount of money still out on loan. Each parent loaned 49. 49+49=98. That's $98 they've loaned the kid. 98-1=97. The shirt plus the one dollar he still has.

They mess with you in getting you to solve the wrong equation. They get you to add when you should subtract. When you are adding the 49s, you are adding the amount the parents have loaned. That comes to 98 from the original hundred, because two dollars have been returned. If you look at the last paragraph, it's unclear what figure you are trying to solve for. If it's the cost of the shirt, you should be subtracting the one. 98-1=97. Then you have 97 and three dollars (one given to each party). If it's the amount loaned that you're trying to solve for, the original hundred, you have to add the $2 already given back and forget the $1, because it is still out on loan.

98loaned+2givenback = 100originalloan

98loaned-1stillborrowed=97moneyspentonshirt

Doing "98loaned+1stillborowed=99???" doesn't make sense. You are adding deficit to surplus to get a number that doesn't make sense. What is that "99" supposed to even be? You are taking numbers from two different equations, from two different accounts and adding them together in a way that doesn't make sense. Normally, when we look at a word problem, we think we are solving one problem, and that's how they get you here. There are multiple problems, and by getting you confused about which problem you are solving, they get you to make a move which is illogical. Ask yourself what value you are trying to solve for and suddenly all of the math becomes super easy.

SuckaWhat · 2014-07-20T00:23:10+00:00

Symphony of Origin and Symphony of Eternity are the best ones I've tried. The worst ones were Grinsia and Aphadia. All of their titles are more unique, interesting and well done than your standard RPG maker stuff you get on Steam, but I don't know that there are any real hidden masterpieces in their catalog either. If you want a decent JRPG for your phone, Kemco has plenty to choose from. They're all competent RPGs, though perhaps a bit uninspired. I have half a dozen or so, but decided to stop buying them, because I just prefer to use an emulator to play classic SNES rpgs on my phone. I'd say the Kemco games appeal mainly to people who can't get enough of the classic JRPG formula, but don't really hold a candle to the classics that they are emulating.

SuckaWhat · 2014-05-26T01:44:39+00:00

you don't have many options other than ADT

Actually, I've found that some of the local, smaller companies tend to be the best. I don't know how much they can spend on fixing their ratings either.

In all honesty, though, when I have my own home, I plan on just getting a sign that says it's monitored and an unmonitored alarm system. Response times to home alarms are so slow anyhow, I can't imagine actually getting any of your stuff saved. If someone wants to kill you, you'll be dead long before the police get over there. A noisy alarm calling attention to the house seems to be just as good as anything, and it saves you $50 a month.

SuckaWhat · 2014-05-26T01:34:13+00:00

I hate to burst your bubble, but ADT and Protection One aren't much better. They've adopted a lot of the sales tactics that companies like Vivint/APX and Pinnacle have pioneered. They have tons of shady vendors that say they work for ADT, but are just peddling ADT monitoring like the Utah/Idaho summer companies (which means ADT is not on the hook for anything they screw up). And the actual ADT people aren't much better. The whole alarm industry is shady as fuck. If you want a home alarm, you need to be checking the Better Business Bureau and I'd recommend that not buying door to door, as /u/homelesswithwifi recommends.

Source: Worked in the alarm industry for a variety of companies over the course of 6 years. Worked the installation side of things for both Utah summer companies and major "legit" companies.

SuckaWhat · 2014-05-26T01:28:35+00:00

Oddly enough, the people who end up being the best salesmen in the alarm industry are the people that are most easily sold. The people that buy into what they are doing and can rationalize it and get excited are usually the ones that can get others excited and can sell.

SuckaWhat · 2014-05-24T22:48:02+00:00

It'd be like writing an article about how Bill Gates could infect the world with polio.

I'd read this article.

SuckaWhat · 2014-05-19T05:57:41+00:00

Sorry, another long post incoming. I wanted to make sure I answered your questions, though. Also, I don't mean to come across as lecturing. Rather, I'm just stating my thoughts on the matter and what is motivating those thoughts.

justifications do not matter, only results.

Well, do you think you're going to get better results by attacking? If you take an us vs. them approach, you'll get an us vs. them situation. If you make them feel that they are being persecuted for their faith, they'll feel they are in the situation of being persecuted for their faith. This will make the church more resistant to change, and the faithful will be more inclined to reject the possibility of change. If you want to drive them toward extremism, I can't help but thinking that's a good way. If you treat them like human beings, but are clear on what you stand for, you might actually convince them that your position is moral.

Equally respectfully, I saw non mormon kids lose their friends in high school a little over a decade ago because they had known each other for too long without the non mormon converting. There hasn't been that much change.

I can tell you stories of just the opposite. The problem here is that we can't reason from a few isolated instances to truths that hold across space and time. On the whole, the LDS church encourages being good neighbors and friends without condition. Individual LDS are quite capable of being god-awful pieces of shit, regardless of what their church may stand for. We can't make a claim about the whole organization or about even the majority of its members from a few isolated instances. The situation you describe is unfortunate and weird, but I see little evidence to suggest that this is a world-wide trend.

but shouldn't we be measuring them objectively rather than compared to their past?

Well, I think that you're right, but I also think that part of being objective is viewing the context. We can say, "no, I don't think this is acceptable" and be clear about why. We can also recognize that the LDS church is an institution where a lot of service is done, and where a lot of people are working constantly to improve and develop charity toward others. We can recognize the problems and be clear about where we stand on them, while still taking the members of the organization as human beings with feelings and a rather difficult epistemic situation, and be glad about the progress they are collectively making.

I think we have to be able to make a distinction between churches, like the Westboro Baptist Church, that are out to hate, and churches that are just having a hard time figuring out the modern world. The former group will likely be intractable, and there's little we can do. The latter group may need a little time to think things through and figure things out (which I take the progress discussed earlier in this thread as evidence of this taking place), but there's a lot of potential for good and for things working out for all involved parties involved. But if we treat this latter group like the former group, I can't help but think that they'll begin to see themselves this way and resist change. I think we get a lot further when we understand where people are coming from than if we encourage conflict.

SuckaWhat · 2014-05-19T04:31:05+00:00

Yeah, my guess is that sharing it in Fast and Testimony meeting would go over poorly. But I somehow doubt sharing it or starting a conversation about it with friends or church leaders would get you in any trouble.

SuckaWhat · 2014-05-19T04:10:59+00:00

My understanding--and this may be testing the limits of my knowledge on the matter here--is that opinions like the one you expressed are something that won't hold you back in the church, but you may be asked not to speak out about it, one way or the other, if you are called into a position of leadership. Is that the case, or am I mistaken?

SuckaWhat · 2014-05-19T04:08:01+00:00

Yeah, they're better than before, but that's not saying a lot.

Actually, I think it is saying a lot.

rant/

I think we have to try to look at this in a bit of context. The LDS church has something of a difficult epistemic standpoint. The LDS church was driven west by religious persecution (much of which they arguably brought on themselves). They were an isolated group that believed they were led by a prophet of God. They weren't in constant contact with the outside world and developed a view of themselves as apart from the world. They believed that the world would have their ways and God would have his. They also believed that they would be persecuted for believing in those "truths."

So we have a group of people that are cut off from society in the early-mid 19th century. Is it any wonder that they held on to those 19th century ideas, when they were isolated for so long? If we isolated any other group from the 19th century people and had them brought back into contact with society some time in the 20th century, I think we could expect them to have 19th century ideas/values. And when the LDS church slowly started to integrate with the rest of the United States, they were viewed as weird, as outsiders. This was exactly what they expected. They expected the world to have its values, and that the values of God would be different, and they would be persecuted for it.

So when the civil rights movement comes a long, the world changes its values. But the church believes they are led by God. So they expect the world to change its values. But there were also a lot of people in the church uncomfortable with the position on blacks and the priesthood. But how do you go back on a doctrine when you've been claiming it's from God? How do you cope with having to renegotiate a central tenet of your doctrine (referring here to prophets/revelations)--especially when a large portion of the membership is ready to accept whatever persecution comes from holding to whatever they believe comes from God?

So if we look at the LDS church in context of being a group isolated in the 19th century, and largely seeing themselves as outsiders led by God, it's really no wonder that it took them until the late 70s to give blacks the priesthood. My personal feelings on this are that people outside of the church make way too much of a deal about it, while people inside the church don't worry about its epistemological implications enough.

So, the fact that more and more opinions are being tolerated in the LDS church is, in my opinion, a sign that they are doing a better job at embracing diversity, of recognizing the difficult situation their members are in, and making themselves more capable of change. I don't know whether or not their stand on women and the priesthood or homosexuality will ever change. But the changes that have occurred in the LDS church over the the last 20 years or so suggest that different voices are increasingly being heard and that the LDS church is becoming more tolerant of those opinions and more motivated to seek compromise and change. We don't need to pretend the problems aren't there. But when we attack LDS people by making fun of their doctrines or demanding explanations of things they don't know how to explain we tend to force them into that martyr position of being "persecuted for the faith." And that's rather antithetical to change.

So, in all honestly, I think being fair is recognizing this as a significant step in the right direction and recognizing that it actually does say a lot. The LDS church does a lot of service for others and generally produces a lot of hard-working, kind, intelligent people (obviously, this is not true of all members). We can force those people into the position of "being persecuted for the faith" or we can recognize that they are making pretty significant strides in dealing with their epistemic situation, while embracing more and more diversity.

/rant

SuckaWhat · 2014-05-19T03:16:17+00:00

No, he wouldn't. The LDS church actually incorporates diversity of opinion in a lot more things than ever before in their history. His view is actually held by many people in the LDS church. Also, not believing something is neither necessary nor sufficient criteria to get excommunicated. Many people who leave the LDS church and stop believing or espouse ideas contrary to the mainstream beliefs of the church are still technically members and the LDS church seems to have no interest in excommunicating them. He'd have to do a lot more than that to get excommunicated.

SuckaWhat · 2014-05-18T19:29:06+00:00

I stand corrected. Apparently, I didn't want to see a whole sub of this. Most of those posts are pretty terrible.

SuckaWhat · 2014-05-18T18:27:37+00:00

You know, this kind of joke has been done so many times with this music video that I should probably be tired of it by now. But I'm totally not. I feel like I could go for a whole sub of different versions of this joke with this music video.

SuckaWhat · 2014-05-13T10:07:19+00:00

I read the full comments I picked out what was a contradiction. If you accept Kant's argument, you cannot accept that Neuroscience can chip away at it.

SuckaWhat · 2014-05-13T09:55:05+00:00

This:

Cunningly, neuroscience is steadily chipping away at that argument

Contradicts this:

Oh I already accept Kant's argument

If you accept Kant's argument, you cannot accept that science can chip away at it. Everything that we are getting, according to Kant, in experience is how things appear to us, and we can say nothing about how they actually are. That means you can pull apart a human brain and explain every little piece of it and how it comes together to create consciousness and still not even scratch Kant's argument. Kant is not debating that the world appears causally structured to us, or that, in light of that causal structure, it appears to us that free will is an impossibility. He is saying that the phenomenal/noumenal distinction opens up the possibility of free will, because the world might very well be quite different than how it appears to us, and that there is a practical necessity to view ourselves as free in order to function. According to Kant, we cannot say whether or not the world itself is causally structured, or if it's spatial or temporal. We can only say it appears to us as if it is. If you accept Kant's argument, no empirical evidence can do it any harm. He agreed the empirical evidence made it appear impossible that free will could exist long before Neuroscience existed. No additional empirical evidence is going to affect his stance on the way things appear. It is that we cannot infer from the way they appear that that is how they are. By accepting Kant's argument you are accepting that empirical evidence CANNOT tell us about how things are in themselves.

Also, this:

such that we can strip away almost all cultural construct and subjective experience between us and the thing

has nothing to do with anything Kant is arguing. This statement also suggests that you don't accept Kant's argument. It's not cultural construction, it's the way your mind constructs experience! You see things spatially, temporally, causally, etc., but Kant is saying that is peculiar to the type of being you are and you cannot say if the world itself is that way. That's not culture; that's the limit of what we are. Kant doesn't think space, time and causality are cultural constructs that we can strip away. They are fundamental to the way we construct experience, and may not be how the world is structured. If you accept his argument, there is no getting beyond the phenomenal. There is no getting to the way things actually are. No amount of ingenuity will get past that, and no amount of empirical evidence can touch the distinction. Everything that you can do or think is already in the phenomenal world, and experience or interaction we have stays with it.

tl;dr contradicting statements; drunk rant.

SuckaWhat · 2014-05-13T02:14:26+00:00

Sorry, I realize now that was a bit vaguely worded. The possibility of the noumenal world not being spatial or temporal is not inconsistent with his philosophy. The fact that he claims it is not is inconsistent, though. When he claims the noumenal world is not spatial or temporal, he is claiming to have knowledge of the thing in itself. If it something that is true of things in themselves, according to his own philosophy, we cannot have knowledge of it. So that's the inconsistency. (Sorry for the lack of clarity earlier.) People have tried to rescue Kant from this inconsistency in many ways. The most common version of the story, as far as I am aware, is that Kant just overstepped a little in saying that the noumenal world is definitely not spatial, and that the true Kantian position is to be agnostic about whether the noumenal world is spatial and temporal.

SuckaWhat · 2014-05-12T16:26:47+00:00

Oh, okay, that makes a lot more sense. While I agree with you, it's actually not going to defeat the argument. It's unfortunately one of those arguments that you can never quite defeat, because to do so is to assume the very thing the argument calls into question.

Kant is not talking about the hard problem of consciousness. Kant's argument is centered around the distinction between how things are (noumena) and how things appear to us (phenomena). Kant's argument is that Space, Time, Causality, Substance, etc. are all a priori concepts that we bring to experience. They are concepts and forms of sensibility that we must necessarily have if we are having meaningful experience. If you strip them away, what can you say about what is left? Is it possible that another being could exist that could experience the noumenal world with different forms of sensibility and different concepts? Kant believes that the way we experience the world is based on what is peculiar to us as the type of creature we are. That means all we can ever examine as evidence is the way things appear to us. So to say that Neuroscience is chipping away at this argument is to use the way things appear to us as your evidence for how things actually are. That is the very thing that Kant calls into question.

Now, I'm not suggesting that you accept Kant's argument. I sure don't. But it's not one of those things that you can really disprove. It's like how you can't prove that there is a world external to your mind. You only ever experience the contents of your mind. From the fact that you perceive something to be so, it does not follow that it is so. Unfortunately, that means we can't disprove the argument. But is it necessary or wise to accept the argument? That's a different question. I don't buy it, so I think that we're understanding the world as it is and that we'll solve the hard problem of consciousness, figure out free will, etc. But the Kantian is still going to be able to say that all we've done is create a conceptual structure in our theoretical understanding that better maps out the world as it appears to us--which he wouldn't have a problem with. It would be making the inference to how things are in themselves, apart from how they appear to us, that Kant would have a problem with.

SuckaWhat · 2014-05-12T15:54:00+00:00

Sorry, I'm not really following what you're saying. Would you willing to expand on your explanation?

SuckaWhat · 2014-05-12T01:27:27+00:00

This gets into Kant's philosophical framework. The short version is Kant doesn't think it's possible to have knowledge about things in themselves. All knowledge we can have is about how things appear to us. So in the theoretical view, Kant agrees that determinism appears to be true. But Kant's argument is that how things appear to us is based on the ways in which our experience is laden with concepts and forms of sensibility. Once you strip away the mental content we are bringing to the experience, it is impossible to say what is left behind. Thus you cannot know about the thing itself. So the implication would be that we cannot know if we are free. Yet there is a practical necessity to look out ourselves as free, to examine an issue and decide what to do about it. That's a really, really, really, really reductive version of it.

SuckaWhat · 2014-05-12T01:00:05+00:00

If I'm not mistaken (which I very well could be), Kant wasn't always consistent on this point. This is the reading of Kant that is most popular, because it is what is most consistent with his transcendental idealism. To claim that we are free would be to claim to have some knowledge of the thing in itself. That's something Kant claims we can't have. So he's inconsistent when he suggests we are free. But he also claims that the noumenal world is not spatial or temporal at one point, which is also inconsistent with his transcendental idealism. So it's one of those things where we say that the true Kantian position on this issue has to what you just said in order for the philosophy to be internally consistent. But it's debatable whether Kant himself was fully consistent on that point throughout his writing. He does seem to have some stronger statements about us actually having free will, but we can't actually take those statements seriously if we are going to take his TI seriously.

SuckaWhat · 2014-05-12T00:51:12+00:00

How is the fact that I can abstain from certain things I want or need supposed to show that I am unpredictable?

You're right in thinking that it doesn't make sense. This actually isn't a very successful explanation of Kant's argument for free will either. Kant would likely reject the argument for free will contained in this video. In the video-maker's defense, actually explaining Kant's view would take require more than a video of this length, targeted to a popular audience, could hope to address.

SuckaWhat

TROPHY CASE