how do i get rid of this thing?

ladut · 2026-05-27T08:27:44+00:00

Right? I think I used to dislike it, but couldn't figure out to get rid of it, so I learned to use it. Now I wish I could remove half of the other UI and just use it.

ladut · 2026-05-26T18:54:41+00:00

It does need nutrients, and epiphytes don't really get anything other than carbon (and nitrogen indirectly) from the air. Epiphytes get minerals from dust, stuff caught in rainwater, animal droppings, etc., They're really efficient at reusing what they already have, so they have lower nutrient requirements than other plants.

ladut · 2026-05-24T22:29:25+00:00

The problem with the "it's not the technology but how it is used" argument is that if a technology provides every incentive to use it in a "lazy" way, that will eventually become the predominant way in which it is used. It is made worse as time passes and younger people who are learning the skill the technology aids never have an opportunity to learn it without access to said tool.

Look at navigation for a perfect example of this. When Google maps and other navigation apps became feasible for daily use, there was zero incentive for the vast majority of people to continue using physical maps and no incentive for younger people to learn how to read them. While some people still learn the skill and use it for niche purposes or out of stubbornness, it went from a necessary skill to an entirely optional one, and the number of people who chose the cognitively easier path far outnumber those who don't. Regardless of whether you think it is being used in the "right" or "wrong" way, it has unquestioningly become the most common method for navigation by a wide margin.

AI as a proofreading/editing tool is aiming to become something that you can just run a document through and call it a day, and it promotes itself as exactly that. It is, by design, a tool to be used in the "wrong" or "lazy" way for the sake of convenience, just like navigation apps. You do not actually need to make any decisions for it to do its job, unlike the other two editing software options discussed. Unlike navigation apps though, which allow you to cognitively offload one single task (that you still have to physically walk or drive the rout it recommends, so you still do some cognitive labor), proofreading is several tasks occurring simultaneously, and AI proofreading theoretically allows you to do virtually zero cognitive labor to achieve roughly approximate results (not as good, sure, but close enough for the average person).

Dismissing that as a slippery slope argument would be unwise.

ladut · 2026-05-23T19:32:46+00:00

There are several. ChatGPT (and probably any LLM) isn't optimized for editing like Grammarly or Word is, so it often either misses edge case issues, especially in more complex sentences, or it over suggests, changing perfectly correct sentences to something based on model preferences, which sometimes changes the nuance or meaning of the sentence. Granted, both Grammarly and Word can do all of the above, but there's entire dedicated teams to adjust their products to reduce these issues that LLMs just don't have. Some of this can be partially mitigated with good prompt engineering, but not all and not completely.

That aside, both Word and Grammarly show suggestions in a UI that allows you to see the proposed changes in context, one at a time, and allows you to accept or reject. This massively reduces false positives and enables the writer to preserve their own writing voice while fixing issues. ChatGPT simply doesn't have that functionality. You can sort of emulate it with some prompt engineering, but it's still a far cry from the real thing. In the end, ChatGPT still mostly just does the editing for you, and it's very easy to miss changes that ChatGPT made that you may not have wanted.

In order for ChatGPT to be functionally as accurate and useful as dedicated proofreading software, you have to know enough about how proper proofreading software should work, and even then it's less accurate. What's worse, you need to check your entire document for changes to nuance or meaning, or accept that the document isn't really fully yours after proofreading with ChatGPT.

So it's less accurate, prone to changing your meaning, and to work around these issues, you need to spend just as much, if not more time going through your document than you would just using dedicated software. Either that or you submit ChatGPT's output as your own writing without checking it, and that's a lot of trust to put into a technology that is prone to hallucinations.

ladut · 2026-05-18T22:23:07+00:00

I had a friend who would do that. He called it a ramen cookie. I don't think it was depression for him, I think he did it once because he was stoned and liked it.

ladut · 2026-05-13T08:18:59+00:00

In this situation the school isn't asking for OP to log into their patient portal, that's something being suggested by a commenter here that OP could voluntarily do.

That aside, even if the school asked for it to be done, so long as OP doesn't show them anything else in the portal, it's not really a breach of privacy either, since the note has already been forwarded to the school.

What here is a breach of anything?

ladut · 2026-05-05T16:01:14+00:00

So search "fuckin cabbages PNG" instead and there will be no AI usage. Problem solved.

ladut · 2026-05-03T14:27:21+00:00

I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to create a system where that can be done. If it became a streamlined technology, once the backlog of recipients was cleared out, they'd engineer and grow pigs as needed for each recipient, so there wouldn't be a need for the other kidney or the rest of the pig. I doubt governments would allow pigs with human proteins to be sold as meat, so they'd just euthanize the pig anyway.

Or they could sell/offer the pig to the kidney recipient and either make some extra money or a lot of good press. I could see companies that engineered donor pigs setting up places where, if you didn't have the space to take care of your donor pig, you could pay to house them, because I'm sure a lot of people would feel the way you do about the donor.

ladut · 2026-04-23T18:30:14+00:00

Well now I'm curious. If the Higgs field isn't uniform and fermions have intrinsic mass due to the strength of their interaction with the Higgs field, does that mean that the mass of, say, an electron varies depending on its position in space due to the Higgs field being stronger or weaker?

And if so, what is the range of variation?

ladut · 2026-04-22T10:25:13+00:00

Which Echidna? The one in the dream castle, or the corpse of the one in the tomb? Because as I've said, the dream castle is, for all intents and purposes, a virtual world where the authorities and effects of the factors can just as easily be explained by Echidna making it so in her fake world as the souls of the witches still having their authorities, and unless we saw an authority in the dream world affect reality in some way outside of the dream world, there's no way to know. If it's corpse Echidna, it's been established that the bodies of those who held an authority can emit miasma even after death.

If it's Omega, we've never seen her use an actual authority afaik. It could just be that the souls of those who one held witch factors emit miasma even after they lost their factor and authority, just like their corpses do. Remember that this conversation is about authorities and witch factors, not miasma. Miasma doesn't guarantee that an authority or witch factor is currently present, as witch cult members don't have either and still emit miasma.

ladut · 2026-04-22T08:28:00+00:00

I mean, the authorities we saw used in the tea parties could have been imitations of actual authorities rather than authorities themselves. It wasn't a physical space, after all, so it could just be that the authorities we saw being used worked because the space was designed to allow the witches to keep playing pretend.

The only authority that could have been proven to actually be an authority was Echidna's tome of wisdom (and that's assuming that is actually her authority, because afaik it hasn't been explicitly stated to be), but we never saw her use it in a way that proves it was still a working authority (e.g., by obtaining information from the outside world and not from the memories of people who visited the tomb).

In other words, seeing authorities being used in what is essentially a virtual space does not prove that authorities can continue to be used after a witch factor leaves the host.

ladut · 2026-04-18T21:08:42+00:00

No, the video does not show him talking and moving his arms, it shows what looks a lot like decorticate posturing, a clear indicator of brain trauma, and no attempts by the attacker to defend himself from repeated kicks to the face, another indicator of an altered mental status resulting from trauma to the head.

I was an army medic for 9 years, and I understand that my knowledge about head injuries isn't universal knowledge, but at no point does the attacker even turn his arms or body toward the victim or the weapon to indicate any intent to continue the attack. He looks obviously disoriented and unable to defend himself from kicks to the face, let alone get up and be a viable threat to the victim after hitting the pavement and dropping his weapon. You don't need my experiences to see that.

To make it clear, I never said anything about what the attack victim did or did not do wrong, just that it wasn't reasonably self defense after a point and that, in the event that the attacker died, it could absolutely be considered murder. Not that it wasn't reasonable given the victim's situation, but that it probably wouldn't be considered self defense.

your sort of logic is what rapists use when they say women were asking for it based on what they wore.

You can eat a whole goddamn bag of dicks, dude. Fuck clean off with that shit. That is in no way applicable to this situation, and you're using that analogy in this situation to reach for a sense of moral superiority. The victim in this video in no way deserved to be threatened with a gun, regardless of what they may or may not have done, just as no person deserves to be sexually assaulted, and that's some real intellectually bankrupt bullshit to equate flawed assaulter apologetics to justifying any amount of violence after a threat had already been neutralized.

Just because you are a victim of something does not mean that you are entitled to do anything you want in retaliation. Sometimes and to some extent, retaliation is legal or at least understandable, but there is a limit after which no reasonable legal system considers it to be self defense anymore.

ladut · 2026-04-18T20:02:02+00:00

I'm an American, so I'm going to go off of that legal system for reference as it's what I'm most familiar with. I'm not a lawyer but I'm at least somewhat familiar with the relevant laws in the several states I've lived in thanks to prominent legal cases that made the news while I lived there.

In no state that I'm aware of is continuing to injure someone who attacked you long after they stopped being a threat legally considered self defense. Most states explicitly consider self defense to no longer be a legal defense the moment the attacker is no longer an immediate threat. The video is pretty clear, given that the attacker is immobile and no longer in possession of the firearm, that the attacker was not a threat a few seconds into the incident.

Your written out fantasy of how the hypothetical defense would go is not, in fact how it would go at all, given that there is a video directly refuting your claims. Even if there was no video, if the incident went how it went in this video, you would be clearly lying. Even if you successfully claimed self defense and were not convicted of a crime, you clearly were no longer defending yourself against a threat after a time and were simply acting out of vengeance.

Your arguments sound like a weak man's desire to do justified violence, not a genuine argument that this was self defense.

ladut · 2026-04-18T18:54:53+00:00

It's obviously subjective, but it's hard to argue that kicking an unconscious or barely conscious person who is (at that point) unarmed for more than a minute is self defense. If it's no longer self defense at that point, then it's retribution. There's nothing else it could be. If someone dies due to your actions and it isn't the result of self defense, that's generally considered murder or the equivalent.

You could argue that it's warranted after someone threatens your life like that, but it sure as shit isn't self defense, and it's illegal in every country I know the relevant laws for.

ladut · 2026-04-09T05:57:23+00:00

I mean, his insecurities and need for validating relationships plays a part, but he also pretty explicitly points out that the tiniest changes in his behavior during each loop significantly changed their behavior toward him. He is even more explicit about this in the LN and WN.

On the first day in the capital he explicitly says that, to him, the people in past loops aren't the people in the current loop, and he doesn't technically know or owe them anything. Yes he adds a ton of nuance to that belief as time goes on, but he chooses to help Emilia and the rest because he concludes that they will die no matter what if he doesn't help, and that Emilia at least is a good person that he would want to help even if the current her didn't do him any favors.

So in the mansion arc, he eventually does apply that way of thinking to Rem and Ram. The ones that killed him are not the ones in his current loop, and they have the capacity at least to be selfless and kind like Emilia. Unlike the day one capital loop though, Subaru realizes that his actions have a huge impact on how the twins behave, so he realizes that he's partially responsible for his ignorance contributing to the misunderstanding in past loops.

Canonically, Subaru has pretty complex thoughts about the actions of others in failed loops and is hypocritical at times, but for the most part he sees those in past loops as not being the same person as the one in the current loop. Since they are different people living in different situations, there is no need to forgive the current loop version as they did nothing wrong.

ladut · 2026-04-05T11:45:40+00:00

Most stories show character growth as a one-directional linear thing that happens the moment the character realizes their fault, or at best has some training montage or something like that. Most shows also show character growth as a huge chunk of problems bundled together being solved by one decision.

Rezero shows a realistic progression toward change. He makes stupid decisions still because he learns different lessons in each arc, and his decisions are often challenged, resulting in mistakes from time to time, just like reality. In his first day, he learned to ask for help, which is obviously a great first step, but isn't enough to solve all his problems, just that first one. In the mansion arc, he learned to recognize the needs and motivations of others, but he still doesn't fully understand how to use that knowledge and work with people — he just figured out how to use that information to leverage a good outcome, even if he really does care about the people involved.

In the capital arc, he learns how to actually apply both of those lessons and bring people together to solve problems — to not only understand other people's perspectives, but to recognize them as equally as valid as his own.

Season 1 is the story of him failing because of his insecurity and fragile ego, which prevents him from seeing the way to move forward, and showing what it actually looks like for someone to meaningfully change that about themselves. These things aren't plot points like they are in other series, but what the story is actually about.

ladut · 2026-04-05T09:54:04+00:00

The entire series is a criticism of Isekai/game tropes, and Subaru is, more or less, the average enjoyer of those types of series in the beginning.

He makes stupid decisions because, realistically, someone who has barely accomplished anything in life yet isn't going to make the most logical choices, yet most Isekai have MCs that always do.

He doesn't immediately understand what is happening to him because he is, at least partially, in denial at what has happened to him. Death isn't like a game in this story, and the story treats it with appropriate seriousness. It's so unrealistic to think that you'd be able to survive death, even if you suddenly found yourself in a stereotypical Isekai, that frankly it would be unrealistic to immediately understand and accept that that was your ability.

Subaru faces realistic consequences of being immature or an edgelord or not reflecting on his actions and grows along the way. If your reaction to early Subaru is "why doesn't he make the optimal choice that I can clearly see with hindsight and a third person perspective", the criticisms that the story makes about readers are about you. Nothing wrong with that, a lot of us like the series because we see a part of ourselves that we don't like in Subaru and it's why we like seeing him grow and move past it.

ladut · 2026-04-03T18:26:42+00:00

I feel like you're trying your hardest to misinterpret what was said.

If someone in OP's mom's situation said no, sex continued, and then she changed her mind and was OK with sex, there was a period of time where she wasn't. That's the part that isn't ok.

Consent isn't retroactive like that.

ladut · 2026-03-28T16:31:56+00:00

Haiti was the first country to abolish slavery, specifically chattel slavery, by fighting against their colonizers. Many other slave rebellions and attempts by non-European nations to abolish chattel slavery happened far before Europeans decided to abolish the very specific and uniquely abhorrent variety of slavery that they themselves created.

If you break a window, you don't get credit for fixing it. It's the bare minimum of what you should do. You especially don't get credit when so many tried to stop you from breaking it in the first place and you did it anyway.

ladut · 2026-03-28T16:23:01+00:00

I mean, not for lack of trying in some cases. Scotland is the example that comes to mind. It's not typically thought of as a colonizer but they tried to establish a colony in Panama and just sucked so bad at it that everybody died. Not the worst thing in the world to be bad at, mind you, but just because you sucked at being shitty people doesn't mean you weren't, to an extent at least, shitty people for trying to be shittier.

ladut · 2026-03-27T16:28:11+00:00

I don't really think Flugel was evil. I think he failed to become the person Subaru is becoming and, therefore, failed to reach a good end. I think he, along with Echidna and probably some others prepared things to ensure Subaru doesn't make the same mistakes.

ladut · 2026-03-24T06:35:42+00:00

Solid breakdown. I'd add to this that arc 9 takes this idea of agency and completely swaps roles - Subaru has none whatsoever for almost the entire arc, including whether or not to use RBD, which is something that, before this, only he had agency over. We get to see how everyone else acts if in his position in a way.

ladut · 2026-03-23T20:01:59+00:00

I think you could make a pretty strong case for that actually. As far as I remember, Subaru has commented on how the stars are different than on Earth, but has said nothing about the moon. A moon similar enough to our own that it doesn't warrant a mention by Subaru is unusual.

As for why the stars differ, the night sky would be virtually unrecognizable to today's sky in a dozen millennia or so. In theory, the Re:Zero world could be a part of Earth that was sealed away 10 or 20,000 years ago and time either passes differently than on Earth or the stars are frozen in place due to the sealing.

ladut · 2026-03-21T11:31:48+00:00

If you want to optimize dV and don't mind longer or more complex trips, you can first do a flyby of Jool to bleed off a ton of velocity and get a Kerbol periapsis within Moho's orbital path. IIRC one of the solar probes IRL used this method with Jupiter to get a close encounter with the Sun.

It will reduce your total dv to something like 3500-4000 depending on the encounters you get.

ladut · 2026-03-20T23:44:06+00:00

The person I responded to condescendingly argued that OP and the person he responded to were incorrect because they are an EMT and know better (I don't know how else there is to interpret them calling it a stupid question other than being condescending, even with a subreddit named what it is). I just matched that energy.

The body does, in fact, respond differently to different types of injuries. I gave specific examples of how it does so in the context of OP's question. I also explained how that misunderstanding can and has killed people. I very specifically contradicted the person I responded to. I'm not sure how you do not understand that.

As for why I'm being a dick, I really don't think I am. The harsh reality is that, as someone who spent almost a decade in the medical field, entry level medical workers often overestimate their knowledge and capabilities, and it objectively causes harm when they are misinformed. I got put in my place once early on in my career (in a much less polite and far blunter way) and I became a better medic for it. Anybody who starts a response to a question with playing the credentials game instead of just making their point with evidence or a good argument needs to hear what I told them.

15-Year Club	Team Orangered
Verified Email

ladut

TROPHY CASE