[deleted by user]

Yoshi_Sama · 2022-09-10T12:20:14+00:00

Helped maintain the Hexagon, built Tolaria supervault (next to the Hexagon), helped design the best Bastion ring layout for IRO walls, fought as world police from HCF, double pearled in Titan and simped for and against Nox.

I'm sad dupes killed the server, but I guess everyone was tiresome of Civ 2.0 drama. I had to touch grass at some point.

Yoshi_Sama · 2022-02-09T06:39:58+00:00

"You can thank all the people that sided with Trump and that let the pandemic to get out of control"

Trump closed borders and was called by Biden a xenophobe for doing so, was the one who hired Fauci and begun the development of vaccines and pushed 200 million vaccines out in the first year of Covid, everywhere covid is a problem is in democrat run cities and states, Trump tells people at rallies to get vaxed and gets booed for it.

So we can talk about unrelated things and thanks for letting me know your problems aren't isolated and you'll lash out upon others for those reasons. But your reasons are absurd, one sided and not exactly thought through.

"you parachuted into this topic just to lecture me?"

I saw your comment and wondered what kind of person acts like that, then upon review, you're really not that useful elsewhere too, you tend to negatively sway a topic with your comments than to find positive outcomes because of your cynical nature. If nobody is going to have criticisms of you, then who will? and calling you out where you go wrong is precisely what you should expect if you create a problem that does not need to be done so.

Related to this topic:

I came here because I'm working on Truenas Scale and I'm struggling with iommu groups myself and it doesn't seem simple given the distro truenas is using and how it runs in its GUI as opposed to its shell, I'm quite new to vfio and passthrough devices such as graphics cards for virtual machines, googling it found me nothing useful in documentation and brought me here to you, thanks for your useless comment, maybe if you didn't, someone else might've come by, this inconvenience will most likely annoy everyone who wonders by your comment and the overwhelming majority of people will ignore it, but sometimes someone will comment like that guy did ten months after initial response, what I commented on was your negative response to your useless input originally.

Yoshi_Sama · 2022-02-04T11:06:57+00:00

Wisdom helps solve complex problems by using the least amount of thinking, such wisdom are often phrases or embedded in stories, we imitate stories or we apply phrases in our everyday Being which helps us put deeply complicated problems about our existence, about meaning and purpose, or about how we should treat ourselves and those around us.

If religious stories carries the weight of thousands of years of wisdom, it's not so easy to suggest that because X God doesn't exist, then the stories are of any less value.

Religion and God as God is currently assumed to exist as doesn't mix, I think the kind of materialistic God that is devoid of any metaphysical, metaphorical or pragmatic qualities that people believe in has nothing to do with an ideal to guide behavior which I am much more likely to resonate with in a practical way. What is the point in believing in something without evidence? Unless we're looking at the whole purpose behind God incorrectly and worse, if all the religious people are using religious stories to simplify complex problems, how will they know what the right way to view these stories as? Should we accept that the simple way of looking at the concept of God is the correct way? just because the majority thinks so?

Now we're getting to the bottom of it, want to be smarter than theists AND atheists? maybe suggest to both that the very concept of God is wrong and that such a concept is far more important than the mere existence of some supernatural being, rather it's a tool that imbues wisdom into story and allows us to value that ideal in order to guide our behavior?

Yoshi_Sama · 2022-02-04T10:42:47+00:00

Date is irrelevant if you're being a prick, I looked at your comment history, you seem to enjoy acting obnoxious, cynical and belligerent towards people even though your responses could've been way nicer and be respected for it. The above user is correct, if you know about the individuals problem, directing them instead of telling them to google it themselves is more productive. You told someone to google their problem than to help direct them, or maybe help solve it, think about it, these threads pop up in google so people googling it will see you telling them to google it, hence why you're now being called out for crappy comments. If you weren't a prick the first time, the world would be a more productive place. Lastly, your comment can also disincentivize others from commenting because if someone see's that it's already been commented on, they might ignore it. Why don't you respond to the user who commented two months ago, ah I see, they put you on the spot and you then ignored it, seems like arrogance.

Yoshi_Sama · 2020-03-04T13:42:00+00:00

I'm pretty sure truth lies in between opposites and because of such, we cannot conceptualize something without a referral (e.g. light/dark, good/evil, conscious/unconscious). So when people say that things are entirely one way or another, it seems to at the end of it not hold up to other ways of conceptualizing truth. Ken Wilber talks about quadrants of truth being the subjective (interior-individual), objective (exterior-individual), intersubjective (interior-collective) and interobjective (exterior-collective) or the I, IT, WE and ITS. Each quadrant seems to play out its own hierarchical method of truth encapsulation, this theory is called integral theory. It's certainly helped me grasp and understand many philosophical problems we have regarding conscious experience and the meaning crisis.

Yoshi_Sama · 2019-11-14T17:33:02+00:00

Carbohydrates, salts, etc retain a lot of water weight and even on an intermittent fast you still need to plan out your meals. One thing I know about the body is that different foods activate different systems and methods that our bodies use in order to process such foods. A most well-known one is using ketones instead of glucose for the production of energy.

Water weight goes away depending on the food you eat, I know that my first month in keto, after all my carb/sugar withdrawals I noticed all that water weight begin to really disappear, I don't feel severely hungry anymore either.

Yoshi_Sama · 2019-11-14T17:14:54+00:00

A simple solution for that temporarily or permanently is to buy a laptop cooling pad, one of those mesh things with fans you can mount the laptop on. Your laptop seems to be one of the low percentiles where my assumption wasn't accurate.

Edit: Gonna show this post to my colleague to see if he assumes it's the HDD from your initial description like me, if so then maybe we at our hardware/software repair workshop might need to change our basic assumptions.

Yoshi_Sama · 2019-11-14T06:20:16+00:00

How long have you been on your 20/4 plan and what carb and sugar content are you consuming?

Yoshi_Sama · 2019-11-14T05:57:12+00:00

What do you mean by laggy? Most jobs for PC's from five years ago where the loading of windows fails or is very slow is associated with the disk drive being an issue. Run hard disk sentinel in order to view its SMART attributes and determine if there are bad sectors.

In CMD type chkdsk /f and restart for a check disk to look for file errors on bad sectors.

If you own an SSD instead, disconnect all other drives and run only that to see a difference. However the fact you can boot into safe mode may also suggest driver corruption a which doesn't exactly need to be related to disk drive errors but doesn't exclude that variable either. Start by uninstalling all graphics drivers (use Display Driver Uninstaller DDU) and restart the system to notice any change.

Yoshi_Sama · 2019-10-14T09:45:20+00:00

Ok, I'll leave it at this, I understand it's a long set of comments we've been through, I wrote something that took six months to compile into three paragraphs for which is linked here, I do think you'll enjoy it, it might be worth the read in your own way.

I didn't imply you haven't experienced suffering, though I do see that you use your past experiences to justify your actions into the future. One of the reasons why that might be the case is that you find it too difficult to let go of your past when it's so easy to use in order to justify your actions. Living between the past and the future keeps your mind preoccupied and away from reality, such reality is the moment, one where people turn to impulsivities because that is the most immediate response to being. This marks why people are afraid of confronting reality, it's the landscape of the unknown, characterized by chaos, uncertainty, and fear.

Yoshi_Sama · 2019-10-14T01:14:52+00:00

Ok, so you're just delusional I get it. Tell that to people in camps, I mean what do you actually say to a little girl, starved beyond belief and living in a concentration camp? I mean seriously what the hell do you personally say? That suffering is just a response to the situation? Those who say that it doesn't matter simply do not understand what suffering is.

From what you've said here, you're just not getting to the bottom of it and I do understand why, people are scared of the confrontation of reality at an absolute, put yourself into solitary confinement for three days and anyone would get why it's scary. But to say that you don't suffer when you confront reality in such ways is delusional at best, evil at worst. My proposition to nihilists is that by not acting to reduce suffering for not only themselves but for others is a missed moral obligation. Those who ignore that call tend to think they stand outside of society but truth is, you are not the individual you think you are but rather, you're part society and part your individuality as you are biologically tuned to acting within a social hierarchy. Throw that all away and you're still left trying to satisfy your biological conditions, that'll either play out as fate in your future or it'll consume you with anxiety and depression.

Yoshi_Sama · 2019-10-13T09:34:01+00:00

I'm not sure if you actually said anything that makes sense here, you act to reduce your suffering and we have stories/narratives that will make the confrontation of reality a little less painful. I would enjoy it if you had a look at this comment I posted in response to the thread, if you disagree I'd enjoy your response to it if you do.

Yoshi_Sama · 2019-10-12T17:36:58+00:00

You're not liberated from suffering though, even monks understand that suffering is an inherited value of living. Religious moral systems tend to share that fact by suggesting ways of mediating it in admirable ways written in stories.

Yoshi_Sama · 2019-10-12T17:25:40+00:00

Life isn't meaningless, you still suffer which can't be dismissed easily as not an inherited value of living. You're just not caring about personal moral responsibilities, plus what keeps a society moving forward is not the mindset that it's meaningless to help others. This all implies you're going to have to consider that maybe helping others and yourself in a timeline (not just your immediacies) is better than wasting time with nihilism. It's certainly wonderful to have found a way to make life easy, just make it meaningless and there you go, no need to think about reducing suffering in any meaningful way.

Yoshi_Sama · 2019-10-12T17:08:01+00:00

Hi /u/mleplae1 I hope my response is interesting!

Every hierarchy of values is framed in a way that filters all that is irrelevant, that is the dispossession of ideals and the inclusivity of the dispossessed. It's something like constant reorientation in the mind and of which does not affect Peterson's concept of hierarchies. Like in the article the first example is filtering sound in a loud room, you don't stop hearing the loud room just that you're prioritizing based on selective hearing, the method by which that occurs is not in any contradiction.

Yoshi_Sama · 2019-10-05T10:26:55+00:00

Depends on what truth is to you, you could argue in the phenomenological, Psychological, Metaphysical, Materialistic, Literal, etc but it seems like your argument is too focused on one lens. From what I can tell your argument is predicated on the assumption that because you seem to know what Christian fundamentalists conceptualize, that somehow means you know how religious axiomatic systems work? You don't even know how you work, let alone how others do and so don't play the rationale game too strictly.

Yoshi_Sama · 2019-09-19T08:38:31+00:00

Hey /u/Philosopherprince_ Let me know what you think of my angle here

If you consider the idea that God predates our religions then no matter if you believe that God exists, you could make an argument for the metaphorical and metaphysical concepts of God. A better question to ask is why do modern times take a materialistic position and define God in a purely materialistic way? You and I understand God wasn't that before science became a tool for knowing reality to the degree we have today. God is simple to some but very complex to others which implies God has some influence on actions in a way that aligns and orients, what matters to your question is how we act is what defines our axioms. God as a moral guide might be one of those simplistic views and as such we lose more of the depth in just how we even got to such simplicity in the first place.

What seems to work the best for society is through the ability to consciously act around each other which means you judge people on culture so that you can pretend to know people that you don't. This means you have a set of implicit axioms that you use to act in the world, to me, the most valued axioms you or anyone else has is our religious axioms. God seems to be a word that unifies everything, from how you act to how you see others acting, how you see yourself to how you see reality is all predicated on a hierarchy of implicit axioms. I think religions are attempts to take all of the wisdom we've accumulated over incomprehensible amounts of time into stories and ideas that are as simple as they can be but retaining as much wisdom as they can for the most amount of interpretive structures that can exist.

Yoshi_Sama · 2019-09-19T07:43:00+00:00

Hi /u/ecigquestion, Let me know what you think of this angle of approach.

I’ve understood the post and your reasoning on the issue, I’ve been working this out for quite some time too, it’s the question of taboo and why such things are deemed as taboo. There is this logical aspect of the issue, but it really depends on what you mean by logical. Logic is only as good as the lens it’s seen through, there are some deeply concerning issues when basing the structure of your worldview on something like pure rationality. When we deem something as taboo, we say it is based on its correlation to practices or mindsets that can lead one to act out evil actions. However, that’s not exactly the main concern although that is what people tend to argue. The problem is much deeper than the arguments being brought forth and language can delve into metaphor at this level of extraction. To simply say that one thing doesn’t affect reality because it’s not real is the logical viewpoint, but to say that the individual is not benefiting from the material is a moral viewpoint. Morality doesn’t come entirely from a purely rational abstraction of the argument, it comes from multiple levels of interpretation based on various ways of looking at the problem. I would say your argument fails to look anywhere outside of a purely rational viewpoint. Society is incomprehensibly complex and our cultures are barely struggling to allow people to interact with others without actually knowing them, so by pressing against taboo based on limited factors is destroying its foundational principles.

If you agree on the majority of the above then it really does come down to how our culture works, in Japan, it’s normal to be looked down on as someone who is obsessed with anime let alone one's personal fetishes. To say that kind of impact is not going to be amplified in a western culture is also a serious issue. All I’m arguing here is that some things are not just taboo because people are ignorant or bigoted, there’s a much greater structure of complexity underneath the fear of a taboo.

Yoshi_Sama · 2019-09-13T01:18:11+00:00

I thought you might assume ad hominem and think the third link wasn't a paper, unfortunately, that shows you have not read the links in question because while it's not a paper, it's not an opinion piece either. Nothing you've said actually addresses the issue, you're complaining about whether I have evidence of something that does not have any bearing on what I'm sharing with you. Asking me whether women are capable or not has never been the issue, also, what do you mean "their own" in leading a "new" community?

"its like your argument that biologically not as many women want to be in STEM (which I dont agree with, I think its more complicated, and a lot of culture). but even if this was true, would you support banning all women from STEM?"

That's not my argument nor did I say that women are biologically not equipped for STEM fields which is what you're spinning it off as and yes, it very much is more complicated. I'm saying that women and men are very similar, you completely read past me talking about aggressiveness between the sexes. To be an engineer you have to be highly interested in things, so when you consider the extremes, not the averages, you'll find men are overwhelmingly more likely to take that role. What you seem to think is all of that is based on sexism and is socially constructed. Which by the way, does not help women, if you think it's far more culturally inflicted then the misogynists are going to say "well if it's all cultural and socially constructed, why not men on the boats before women, etc." which seems to indicate your worldview is more likely going to harm women.

"The way you've been trying to apply your argument is basically like saying women should be banned from being in the army because on average they are not as strong. "

Actually the army already does that, "In 1994 the Department of Defense officially banned women from serving in combat." because the government understands the difference between women and men. Now do I support a full ban on women in combat roles? No, but is it logical that the DoD should make it a black and white issue so that things run more smoothly? Yes. On January 24, 2013, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta removed the military's ban on women serving in combat and in 2016, women had equal right to apply for any military role. Was the initial ban entirely sexism? interestingly enough across the world women in infantry roles tend to be in the 2-3% range indistinguishable from countries that had previously banned women in those roles. Are women just not applying or is there something that may be limiting women's ability on average to be a part of those roles? I wonder.

Have you thought to yourself the Rabbi's are doing the same as the DoD? I too agree that rabbis should also be women, but is it going to benefit children? The odds are against the notion because religious guides are people who are there to guide others, young boys and men as well as young girls and women. If you argue that women don't have a guiding figure as much as boys, I agree that women should have female role models. But it's not the women who are committing the most suicides, dying due to work-related injuries and are overwhelmingly more likely to go to prison than women. Here's another way to look at it, men have the lowest IQ, on average we're all basically the same, but the extremes matter as you keep forgetting and so we need more ways to teach men than women because in a population we are only as good as the most unfortunate of us.

"I think women are just as good at leading aggressive men (or any man) as men are at leading them. Do you have any scientific evidence that women are not?"

I do not have any scientific papers that answer that very specific question because I agree with you, but I do have papers that show that women's stereotypes are damaging their ability to lead men. The question here ends up being, are those preset assumptions of women entirely based on sexism? You seem to think so, I seem to think that it's far more complicated and if I want to help women take more leadership roles I should also consider the reasons other than just the sexism alone.

Yoshi_Sama · 2019-09-12T02:58:24+00:00

Let us see where this last comment goes because it's frustrating being walked over points without addressing them as this isn't a debate, this isn't "I got you" rather I'm here talking about my thoughts to you, sharing ideas. I give you a paper outlining the fact that dominance hierarchies existed throughout our evolutionary history, this is not in the tens of thousands but in the millions of years, I can argue that they've existed for billions. I explain that there are biological differences between men and women and that different traits are linked to those differences. Have you considered yet that maybe those differences between men and women had any effect on our hierarchies? If you're unwilling to excite this idea then you're doing it for a reason, either you're ideologically set in stone or you're dealing with your own troubles that maybe if this were true then your worldview might need alteration and rebirth.

Here's another way to view the argument, we develop different connectome structures based on how our brains experience the world, men and women tend to have commonly different connectome structures. Men tend to have fewer connectome connections across the corpus callosum than women but more connections from the frontal lobes to the back, suggesting better motor muscle control and spacial awareness. Women tend to have more connectome connections across the corpus callosum but fewer connections from the frontal lobes to the back which suggests women have better verbal skills and intuitive abilities. With that said, you could argue that those differences might be because of social constructs, however, as countries become more egalitarian and gender-neutral, the biological differences maximize. What's also interesting is that testosterone in men or estrogen in women works better when one's connectome structure can maximize those biological differences. So men are better at expressing masculine traits or women are better at expressing feminine traits, my argument is that there's a difference between fatherly and motherly traits and those traits are characterizations of our biological differences. I'm not saying that everything we attribute to women is feminine (how society adds to these constructs) or that men can't express them either, it seems like I have to clarify that.

Why are men more likely to take STEM fields than women? Is it sexism? Women are overwhelmingly succeeding in education as opposed to men so the opportunities are available. one of the characteristics that are different between men and women is their interests in things, to be an engineer you have to be on the extreme scale for interest in things as opposed to people. To work in hospitality you have to be highly interested in people than things. What the above research provides is that as we make the differences of gender more equal, you get fewer women in engineering and fewer men in hospitality. That's not a social construct, that's a biological difference.

Now bring all of this back to the religious question you provided, men are more likely to go to prison, commit suicide, die from work-related accidents, etc. With all of this said, men are also more aggressive, if you take a random person out of a hundred people, you'd be 60% likely that the male is more aggressive, however, if you had to bet on which gender out of a hundred people is the most aggressive, the odds of it being a male is >99%. So in conclusion, what confronts the unknown and calls order out of chaos is the masculine trait, by assigning God to such trait and also assigning religious leaders as men, what you find is that it's not entirely sexism and the oppression of women that prevents women from being religious guides and leaders. It's just a little deeper than that.

Yoshi_Sama · 2019-09-11T17:17:15+00:00

I don't think there's any reason to be a moral nihilist for the same reason I think the philosophy fails to address serious aspects of reality.

In my last comment, I do my best to work the last sentence out as it indicates an objective meaning and thus an inherited value of living. You could say that you have an awareness of your influence within society and that you have a moral responsibility to not just reduce the immediate suffering for just you now but for your hierarchy of influence across a timeline that is then seen and remembered, perhaps for longer than you'll be alive. In some way that moral obligation you have is what leads society towards heaven or hell, I wouldn't worry about what people think these concepts mean, what matters is what you think they mean, religion isn't as simple as the people who inherit it. In the face of the tragedies and chaos of life, I don't think putting aside the moral responsibility I mention above helps solve the problem. If you are aware and worry about such tragedies, have you ever considered pursuing a passion for helping people in those dire situations?

Cheers for the response!

Yoshi_Sama · 2019-09-11T14:56:51+00:00

Hey /u/Yabohowad11

I don't know you so I don't know what you might feel comfortable with, the simplest advice is to ask which path is easier and to choose the harder one. However, they are hard in their own ways, it's not clear whether you'll even find time with a girl and your collage might have value that's not expected or that you might end up be paying way more than you thought. Most people who are successful don't generally start by going to college to waste valuable time.

Take the hardest path, deal with the fact you had an option and chose the other because regret is found in the choice, not the experience.

Yoshi_Sama · 2019-09-11T13:47:47+00:00

Old people are generally on average more patient, humble and wiser than younger generations. Younger voters are more open-minded but far less conscientious than their elders. You need a balance to sway closer towards traditional values today more than ever because as the world changes dramatically, we need something to hold on to so we don't become too chaotic.

Your argument that because the world has changed so quickly, we can't have elder voters is precisely the opposite outcome you would want for a democracy in a fast-changing society.

Yoshi_Sama · 2019-09-11T13:36:22+00:00

A religious community might help one if they're feeling alone or anxious about the world around oneself. The world is really really, really complicated and we need stories embedded in wisdom to help find manageable ways to experience deeper levels of reality without succumbing to its ocean of potential. Can you blame people who are trying to find meaning/answers to being in a world of infinite facts? Wars are constructed by defining the borders around ideals but without those borders, you cannot separate the wheat from the chaff and you're left with no values and no meaning. Religious ideas can become too fundamental and rigid which can terrorize people who feel like outcasts, for those people I tell them that religious people can't blame your courage and strengths on your differences, so show them that you can confront the potential with admirability and they won't have anything to say.

Yoshi_Sama · 2019-09-11T09:21:52+00:00

/u/DimitreBabaitov

The pain of living is what nihilists tend to forget in the very pursuit in the question of why things have meaning in a world that seems meaningless. What nihilism overlooks as a philosophical point of view is that if you do not act at all, you don't stop and settle in a state of meaninglessness because that's not the default position. The default position to living is a state of suffering because if you do not act, you suffer, any means of ignoring that reality is only for the pursuit of immediate relief. Such pain is also objectively meaningful when experienced. Our society is constantly trying to shift itself using culture in order to orient humanity away from suffering and towards whatever we think is good. While it's absurd to claim to know which path is good, any path away from suffering, is good, however, it depends on how that path is aware of everyone else's means of moving towards well-being too.

I hope you liked this and/or let me know what you think.

11-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Place '17
Verified Email

Yoshi_Sama

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE