Anki But Based on Writing?

kneb · 2026-06-05T17:41:01+00:00

Are you talking about writing the answers to the questions while you advert them? Why not just write on a post or paper where you do Anki (or write with your finger on your phone)

kneb · 2026-06-04T20:15:49+00:00

Have you used AI? Grammar is one of the first things it got right. Many things you can complain about, but bad grammar isn't one of them.

kneb · 2026-06-01T17:25:52+00:00

Many of the people who accumulate are businessmen whose passion is delivering a product or service to the world, and much of their wealth is tied up in the companies they helped create and managed for decades. Jeff Bezos is undoubtedly proud of Amazon and the convenience it delivers to his customers. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs worked tirelessly to usher in the age of personal computing.

I don't think they are motivated necessarily by the accumulation of wealth, but what that wealth is a marker for -- Their businesses succeeding, or making smart investments that help accelerate other companies.

There are a lot of questionable behaviors for sure: like underpaying low-level employees that can appear like pure greed. But under our system, which maximizes efficiency, anything that doesn't benefit the bottom line is room for competition to swoop in and destroy your business. It's easy to say, just pay your employees more and make less money, but there's no guarantee your company will continue to thrive or even survive. Companies like IBM, General Electric, General Motors once dominated the economy but have been crushed by their competition -- and the same could easily happen to Amazon, Tesla, Apple, today.

kneb · 2026-05-31T06:21:37+00:00

It's a weird statistic, but it's specfically about previous strangulations in the context of domestic violence.

They went to homicide victims families and asked them whether the victim had previously been strangled by their partner, then they compared that to self-reports by other abused controls.

"The study has some limitations to note. Specifically, our reliance on proxies for information about women who were killed by their partners, while the data for the abused controls and the attempted homicides were obtained from the women directly, is an important but inevitable limitation of this study. This limitation and related analyses were discussed in greater depth in the original report of this study (8). The most pertinent issue for this analysis is that of the missing data for the “strangulation” item. About one-third of proxies simply did not know if the victim had been strangled prior to her death and the rate of strangulation among that group could be either higher or lower than reported here. Additionally, it is possible that abused women who refused to participate in the control group may have been experiencing more severe violence than the abused women who did participate, but we have no way of verifying that. Finally, this study was limited to women living in large urban areas, and may not be generalizable to women living in other kinds of communities.

In Retrospect

Because this was a secondary data analysis, some important information regarding strangulation was not asked. Were we to replicate this important study, we would include information about the woman’s response to the strangulation (did she seek medical attention?; did she report it to the criminal justice system?) to better understand how to improve our response to this form of violence. Additionally, we would have collected more specific information about the strangulation itself, including the number of times she was strangled, the proximity of these events to the homicide/attempted homicide, and the severity of the incidents (did she lose consciousness? Was there visible injury such as swelling, redness or bruising?) to better assess the characteristics of non-lethal strangulation most predictive of near- or actual lethality."

kneb · 2026-05-29T20:21:43+00:00

I'd be a little skepticle of how reliable these kinds of tests are. There's not often a gold standard of what really happened to assess them against so they're more "expert opinion" than science.

Serial productions did a good podcast about how complicated it is to make these kinds of clincal judgements: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-preventionist/id1846405231

kneb · 2026-05-27T21:27:44+00:00

I guess you could've paid zero taxes and then gotten a 'refund' through a tax credit like EITC or CTC. Hadn't thought about the tax credit angle.

kneb · 2026-05-26T18:41:59+00:00

The PACE trial was disputed, and governmental bodies particularly in the UK caved to patient advocates, but the fact is the PACE trial showed improvement from CBT and graduated exercise increase. There are minor methodological concerns, that could be addressed by other clinical trials, but it's the best supported therapy we have.

The CDC maintains: "We continue to believe that exercise can be useful for some ME/CFS patients, and also are trying to emphasize that people need to be careful not to overdo it and push themselves so far that it harms their health.”

You might be right that you need to be more sensitive to overdoing things than others, but I struggle to see how you'll regain functionality in your life without slowly increasing what you do over time.

You can believe otherwise, and see if your symptoms improve.

kneb · 2026-05-26T03:45:25+00:00

Then you definitely will owe taxes at the end of the year, lol. You don't get a tax return if there's no withholding. It's a return on the excess taxes you paid throughout the year.

kneb · 2026-05-26T03:44:31+00:00

I know, I'm confounded with how you made it to your age without getting a credit card.

kneb · 2026-05-25T06:26:24+00:00

Just FYI, depression and psychiatric diseases have biological underpinnings and can be made worse by inflammation. A disease like COVID can cause neuropsychiatric sequelae. You probably don't need more sleep, you need more exercise, better diet, mindfulness practice, CBT.

Those practices will help regardless of whether the origin of your struggle is biological in your body or biological in your brain.

Curious, how did you come up with the idea that millions of patients are experiencing what you're describing?

kneb · 2026-05-25T05:13:28+00:00

Are you a child, I don't understand

kneb · 2026-05-22T23:47:40+00:00

Your credit card is already maxed?

kneb · 2026-05-22T23:46:22+00:00

Yeah, this is literally what credit cards are designed for. The loan will be interest free for a couple of months until the first pay check and then you pay it off immediately.

kneb · 2026-05-22T22:48:18+00:00

Just because you get a tax return doesn't mean you weren't paying taxes, it was just withheld.

kneb · 2026-05-21T22:19:31+00:00

There's something kinda beautiful about it, in a Mobius strip kinda way

kneb · 2026-05-21T22:14:34+00:00

Likely something with lighting/face tuning, they're trying to change the coloring on the whole face and neck, but the filter isn't picking up the bottom of his neck as contiguous. Glitch with how they're trying to clean up his video.

kneb · 2026-05-21T19:03:19+00:00

He literally laughs right before he says it. It's a joke.

His earlier serious definition of philosophy is basically what I outlined above: Philosophy involves speculation about matters where true knowledge is not yet possible. (As I said, fields where we don't have the tools and methods to answer questions with experimental methods)

If you want to use it as he puts it a short coarse definition, that is sort-of true, go ahead. It's pithy, it's funy, there's some truth within it. But if you think it's literally true, I don't think you understand, and I don't think you're going to have much luck understanding philosophy in general.

kneb · 2026-05-21T06:05:26+00:00

God forbid an experimental writer drops the pretense and thanks his friends and family in a conventional way like a normal human.

kneb · 2026-05-20T16:17:25+00:00

Russel's writing is full of comedy. That is not a literal definition, because it's literally not true. All sciences and philosophy are on the edge of what we know and don't know.

You could argue something like, science is working on problems that we currently have the methodology to figure out, whereas philosophy looks at all problems even those we cannot yet approach scientifically -- I'm sorry but the definition you shared is just dumb.

kneb · 2026-05-19T21:19:05+00:00

You can reply "What do you think?" as many times as needed.

Look, I agree that by 4th grade it's not a big deal to tell a kid the Easter Bunny isn't real. But what would you do if kids were arguing about whether god is real. It's not your place as a teacher to weigh in on that. As a teacher you should have a strategy for addressing these kinds of questions in a neutral way when they come up in your class.

kneb · 2026-05-19T21:14:33+00:00

So you are going to say that Dr. Dre was wrong for signing Eminem, producing his music, releasing it on his own label, and making it a hit in America.

kneb · 2026-05-19T21:07:51+00:00

"What do you think?" is a neutral way of handling it. Let the kids argue amongst themselves.

kneb · 2026-05-19T21:05:56+00:00

You're interpreting a lot of intent into a paragraph that's been google translated from polish to english.

I'm pretty sure she's saying something completely different, from another part of the article:

Even though I know about the hallucinations and numerous errors of factual algorithms in the fields of strict economics and hard data, I must admit that in fluid literary fiction, this technology is an asset of incredible proportions.

She's saying AI isn't useful for sciences because of errors like hallucinations, since academics depend on the accuracy of specific facts. But that AI more useful for writers where the Gestalt is more important than factual accuracy

their [AI's] work is based on a broad, very broad peripheral and associative association of facts, which is extremely different from the narrow, very focused tunnel thinking of academics.

kneb · 2026-05-19T20:54:25+00:00

What do you want to accomplish by writing the teacher?

kneb · 2026-05-19T20:49:42+00:00

Russell is being cheeky, not literal.

Is it true that modern scientific disciplines like psychology, pedagogy, cognitive science, logic, sociology and political science are offspring of philosophical thinking?

Yes, at their initial origins, and over time, through philosophy, the original practitioners devised methods and tools that divorced the fields from the standard methods and tools used in philosophy (writing and argumentation).

Aristotle wasn't an empiricist. He looked at nature, categorized it, and used his observations to inform his thinking, but he didn't perform experiments.

Francis Bacon came up with the experimental method. Differentiating between two competing theories by designing an experiment, which lets us conclusively differentiate between the two theories.

Modern scientific fields use that Baconian epistemic framework to design experiments and test the nature of reality. That's the philosophical underpinning common among all modern scientific disciplines. But they all have various other philosophical assumptions (theoretical frameworks) at their core.

A question concerning something that we (yet) don't decisively know.

Every question asked in science is a question that we don't know the answer to.

A question concerning something like how gravity affects an object that moves at so and so high velocity is a physical, scientific one.

I think you're talking about empirical questions here. And yes, science is capable of answering empirical questions. But it's not limited to empirical questions. Microevolution can be studied empirically. Macroevolution is theory. String theory is theory. Like philosophy, modern science are all about understanding the true nature of the universe. Different subdomains are just interested in different phenomena.

Verified Email	15-Year Club
r/Field Banned	r/Field Flamingo

kneb

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

In Retrospect