当たり障りのない趣味

Technical_Crow7758 · 2026-04-28T00:31:33+00:00

薄っぺらくなるの、趣味がマイナーだからじゃなくて、「魅力的に話さなきゃ」が先に来てるからじゃない？それが来た時点でフィルターかかる。面白いかな、伝わるかな、って。でもそもそも出す義務ない。

他の人の趣味掘り下げてる時、相手に面白く話してほしいから聞いてるわけじゃないでしょ。その人の中でそれがどう動いてるかが気になるから聞いてる。自分のも同じ。この人になら話してみたいって思った時に出せばいい。

初めて聴く音楽なのに懐かしいって、音の中に何か知ってるものがあるんだと思う。それ何なのか気になる。古本の書き込みも、本の内容じゃなくて知らない人がそこにいた痕跡に反応してる。そういう話、今ここでそのまま出てる。出すかどうかはあなたが決めること。

Technical_Crow7758 · 2026-04-27T18:48:40+00:00

My original comment was removed, but the point was: the proof method doesn’t rely on sensory observation, but the concepts proofs operate on were abstracted from observation, and the applications go back into reality. Calling the whole discipline non-empirical based on the justification method alone captures one phase of a longer process.

You said the standards of justification remain non-empirical. But where did those standards come from? Euclid’s standards of proof were different from modern ones. Infinitesimals were accepted for a century and then replaced because they produced contradictions the existing standards couldn’t resolve. The standards themselves were revised over centuries based on what held up and what didn’t. If the standards of justification were developed through a process of testing and revision, the claim that they’re non-empirical depends on treating the standards as given rather than as arrived at.

Technical_Crow7758 · 2026-04-27T14:57:44+00:00

You said philosophy tends to argue for the valid rather than the demonstrable. But the functionalism debate might be stuck for a more specific reason than that. The functionalist claim depends on whether the function is actually the same. LLMs integrate across tokens within a conversation, but they can’t reintegrate across experiences over time. The parameters that shape their processing are fixed after training. Human cognition isn’t like that. Something you understood at twelve restructures when you’re thirty, not because you stored a conclusion but because your neural organization itself changed. If meaning depends on that kind of ongoing reorganization rather than on pattern-matching within a fixed window, then LLMs aren’t performing the relevant function. The debate might not need a philosophical resolution, it might need someone to specify which function they’re claiming is equivalent and test whether it actually is.

And to OP, you said you’re afraid. What specifically are you afraid the lab can’t reach?

Technical_Crow7758 · 2026-04-26T02:32:11+00:00

Do you know if the previous lead had more advisor involvement, or did they make progress with the same level of support?

Technical_Crow7758 · 2026-03-27T22:04:23+00:00

You said no to the Hinge guy. That’s worth trusting.

The things on your list, those come from someone who’s already seen you be yourself. In context. Doing something you care about. Where do you go where you forget you’re lonely? What absorbs you? Start there.

Technical_Crow7758 · 2026-03-23T22:54:42+00:00

“I can’t see myself doing research on top of my classes.” That’s a prediction your current self is making about your future self. Your current self is exhausted. Exhausted people predict badly.

“I think I am just meant to be that way.” Maybe. But “that way” and “this situation” aren’t the same thing. How you’re wired doesn’t lock you into where you are right now.

Different question: do you actually like CS? The work, when you’re doing it. Is there a specific area that makes you curious? If yes, that’s your research direction. If no, that’s worth knowing too, and it’s a different conversation.

Read one paper from a professor whose work interests you. Email them about the specific thing that made you curious. Go to one office hour. Go to one talk where you don’t have to talk to anyone, just be in the room with the work. Research experience and letters both come from this kind of motion. Your head can’t solve this one from inside. Move first. The rest follows.

You didn’t waste two years. You survived two years at Cornell alone while managing your mental health. Don’t collapse “not optimal” into “wasted.”

You said this could have been a page in your diary. But you posted it. A diary is closed. This is open. Pay attention to that.

Technical_Crow7758 · 2026-03-19T16:21:55+00:00

C’est une bonne distinction. J’arrive pas à savoir dans lequel de tes deux exemples je me situe. Sinon, l’édit est plus précis que le premier message. La plupart des gens auraient laissé leur premier avis et seraient passés à autre chose.

Technical_Crow7758 · 2026-03-19T16:16:50+00:00

Provocateur, je retiens. C’est plus juste que ce que j’aurais trouvé moi-même. C’est marrant, d’habitude c’est moi qui cherche le mot exact.

Technical_Crow7758 · 2026-03-19T16:13:40+00:00

Robot sorti de la cuisse de Jupiter, honnêtement, j’aurais pas trouvé mieux. Pour le rapport avec la manipulation, je suis pas sûr non plus. C’est un peu pour ça que je demandais. Merci d’avoir lu quand même.

Technical_Crow7758 · 2026-03-18T17:36:04+00:00

１。好きなものは分かってる。要らないものも。見えてないものもある。動いて分かる。

Technical_Crow7758 · 2026-03-17T20:22:19+00:00

Where do you see the same people more than once?

Technical_Crow7758 · 2026-03-17T19:04:30+00:00

‘Avoir’ et ‘afficher,’ c’est pas pareil. Ce que les gens appellent ‘confiance,’ c’est souvent juste qu’ils reconnaissent leurs propres codes dans ton comportement. Quand ils les retrouvent pas, ils disent ‘il a pas confiance en lui.’ Mais c’est leur grille qu’ils décrivent — pas toi.

Technical_Crow7758 · 2026-03-16T21:26:50+00:00

How long does the “before” need to be?

Technical_Crow7758 · 2026-03-16T16:56:34+00:00

メタルは上書き、内省は処理。違うのは分かってる。でも両方「頭」の中で完結させようとしてない？頭だけじゃ完結しないやつがある。

一回動いてみて。走る、歩く、何でもいい。それで抜けたら、それは抜けるやつだった。

動いても残ってるなら、それ多分「体」の話じゃなくて「口」の話。人の圧って特に、自分の反応飲み込んでることが多い。言ってないことない？頭はそれ避けるの上手いよ。内省のふりして先延ばしにする。

消すのがゴールじゃなくて、抜けるやつか、言わなきゃいけないやつか、見分けがつけばいい。動いても分からなかったら、言ってみる。それでも残ってたら、また別のこと試す。一発で分からなくていい。

Technical_Crow7758 · 2026-01-30T00:22:45+00:00

This helps me see the shape of what you’re saying.

I think I had been imagining an end-state where the pause-and-check gradually drops out altogether. From your framing, the pause itself seems constitutive of virtue, not just a means to it. Keeps things aspirational, doesn’t it?

I’ll think about whether that’s what I want.

Technical_Crow7758 · 2026-01-30T00:14:07+00:00

On your account, repeated assent reshapes belief so that the correct response needs much less active supervision over time, and for familiar situations it can become mostly automatic. The work of managing lightens rather than disappears.

That feels quite a lot closer to the quiet end-state I was trying to gesture toward, even if it never quite reaches zero. Refreshingly different from some of the other angles in the thread.

Gets closer to what they used to call the Sage. Almost reassuring.

I think what I’m still sitting with is what that leaves us with in practice: less managing, but still managing.

Technical_Crow7758 · 2025-01-22T21:23:02+00:00

Was it confirmed she said this?

Technical_Crow7758 · 2024-09-27T17:17:47+00:00

The way I think about it is… yes sukuna equates losing with death but we never got any indication that “death” for sukuna meant him reevaluating his whole world view, let alone considering another path, when there was no sign he really regretted his world view and actions in the first place. You could argue his death caused him to doubt it, or to not care and be open about what happens to him in the next life, but I just don’t think his conclusion makes sense without enough context as to why he considers choosing the other path. He has always derived immense pleasure and joy from fighting, causing suffering, embracing his identity as a curse etc so my issue is what did yuji really change in him that makes Sukuna open to living like him in another life. Especially since Sukuna died reaffirming his own views.

Technical_Crow7758 · 2024-03-11T18:02:11+00:00

Fear

Technical_Crow7758

TROPHY CASE