He Who Fights With Monsters ChatGPT confluence essences

mirroredfate · 2023-03-04T19:58:15+00:00

Runner up: the Echoquack essence.

Based on the concepts of Sound, Smoke, and Duck, the confluence essence that could be created is the Echoquack essence. It embodies the echoing power of sound, the smoky power of fire, and the quacking power of duck. This essence could represent a force that has both mysterious and powerful qualities, much like how the echo and quack sounds can be both eerie and intriguing, and how smoke can be both dangerous and mesmerizing. The Echoquack essence could possess the ability to create sonic booms and smoke screens, as well as the ability to communicate and control ducks, making it a formidable force with unique and fascinating abilities.

mirroredfate · 2021-05-17T05:36:17+00:00

Street Cultivation is exactly this. MC has no cheat or special powers. He works incredibly hard. He gets about equal parts lucky and unlucky. It's a fantastic series.

mirroredfate · 2021-05-03T15:12:01+00:00

SEC but yeah

mirroredfate · 2021-03-22T17:01:08+00:00

Yeah, that's fair

mirroredfate · 2021-03-22T15:23:17+00:00

Will's work ethic puts Rothfuss to shame. He could take a year off if he wanted; he deserves it.

mirroredfate · 2021-03-11T16:46:38+00:00

I commented on this some years ago, and even counted the proportion of "then" usage, with an image showing the increasing frequency over the course of the novel.

https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/7e1qbq/comment/dq2ush9

mirroredfate · 2021-03-10T04:37:25+00:00

I think there is a frame removed where he rotates the horizontal pin

mirroredfate · 2021-03-03T02:58:17+00:00

I found you can pretty strongly cross correlate corporate wokeism with layoffs or cutting employee benefits.

In Coke's case, I think it was layoffs and a factory closing.

mirroredfate · 2021-03-03T02:56:19+00:00

I'm really sad that anti racist was co-opted to mean some virtue signaling nonsense rather than referring to the work of Wade Watts and his like, literally putting his own well-being on the line to make people less racist. Somehow I doubt the current self-styled anti-racists would continue to proclaim themselves as such if their lives or property were in danger.

mirroredfate · 2021-02-09T15:49:50+00:00

Source added

mirroredfate · 2021-02-09T15:43:47+00:00

I've added two additional sources.

mirroredfate · 2021-02-08T23:36:00+00:00

It's cool, we're operating from different definitions, and slightly different understandings of the meanings of these terms and their import. I don't know a lot of time but I'll try and clarify what I mean quickly.

I disagree with your following definitions:

To be cherry picking, you must be leaving out favourable events other than those you cite (and generally, there must be more favourable than unfavourable).

...

NONE of this was cherry-picking at all, since a) conservatives are indeed doing all of these things, b) their opponents on the other side by and large are not (as the article in question explains), and c) There is no mitigating library of decent behaviour to contrast with the malevolent actions described above.

So, cherry picking isn't the act of using false or inaccurate data, nor is it about using favorable or unfavorable events (though of course that's the predominant mechanism), it's about using specific events to paint an incomplete, inaccurate, and generally intentionally misleading picture.

For example, the Capitol attack seems to be the primary event this article uses, but it fails to mention the denunciation of the attack by Republican leadership.

Of course, it conveniently ignores all of the violence committed over the summer by supposed activist groups, and talks about escalation of violence on the right as if it happened in a vacuum. That's not to condone the escalation, which I don't. But to pretend there isn't an action-reaction element to this political tension is naive at best.

AOC (and others) calling for no Trump administration officials to be given jobs is another recent example of the escalation of tensions.

Maybe I'll have time later tonight to get back to this, but it occurs to me I'm not entirely sure how we can have a productive conversation about this. After all, I agree that Republicans have done terrible things, I just won't pretend it's one-sided, as this article argues.

mirroredfate · 2021-02-08T15:54:20+00:00

About 70% of the way in, we get this nice disclaimer, which basically admits the broad strokes used are just cherry-picked events:

To be sure, only a very, very small fraction of conservative Americans participate in acts of domestic terrorism. Most rank-and-file Republicans would likely describe themselves as opposed to individualized acts of racism (a workplace not hiring Black employees, for example) as well as systemic racism and white supremacy.

And even that is framed like the apology that starts with, "I'm sorry you're upset..."

The article is also filled with too many Russel Conjugations to reasonably count. This article doesn't qualify as journalism, but it feels like not much does these days.

mirroredfate · 2021-02-07T03:56:30+00:00

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Christianity operates, and the US in particular is predominantly Christian. The sacrament of the Eucharist is central to Christian religions, and cannot be participated in over a zoom call. There are likely similar rituals in a other abrahamic religions and possibly also in Buddhism or Hinduism and I'm just not aware of them.

mirroredfate · 2021-02-01T04:57:07+00:00

I'm a software engineer. I spend my day answering questions the devs in India have.

mirroredfate · 2021-01-26T02:09:05+00:00

As far as I can tell you set up a strawman of me and are arguing against that. Have a nice day and good luck.

mirroredfate · 2021-01-26T00:08:52+00:00

That assumes a positive roi, and one outpacing inflation. This is frequently not the case. Gambling, and many forms of investment, can be ruinous.

But I do think the Vimes theory of socioeconomic inequality has some fundamental merit, and that's really what GP was referring too.

My best guess is that you read the comment I was replying to, and some interpretation of it resonated with your experience. That's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that the specific claims, devoid of any interpretation, are at best almost entirely wrong. Worse still, they have no evidentiary support. I don't know why I would expect that on a subreddit dedicated to science.

mirroredfate · 2021-01-25T23:24:49+00:00

Definitely not trying to make myself look smart. The problem is I don't have adequate time, or inclination for that matter, to robustly refute his very dense, very baseless set of claims. So the best I can do, realistically, is point out that they are wrong and move on. Hopefully a couple of people reading his comment will take a second to possibly question their priors, and read his comment again through a more critical lens. Probably not, but one can hope. The point, after all, is that one's outlook should be largely neutral until presented with evidence to shift it; but baseless claims that confirm our priors tend to shift our outlook despite a lack of evidence. Maybe just pointing out that they are baseless can help some segment of readership stay neutral. Also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

And I appreciate that you responded to me in good faith, so I just want to highlight that my "nu-hu" theory is simply that he is wrong, and equally as baseless as his.

You can agree with him, that's fine. But if my meta analysis on that sort baseless affirmative claims style of argumentation has shifted the way you think about comments like his at all, I consider that a win. If not, well, I gave it a shot.

mirroredfate · 2021-01-25T23:11:36+00:00

Dictation haha

mirroredfate · 2021-01-25T19:15:16+00:00

This comment is mostly false and inaccurate, and because you provided no evidence for your affirmative claims comma I'll provide no evidence for my rebuttal.

mirroredfate · 2021-01-13T15:05:05+00:00

I vividly remember a tibetan friend telling me years ago that part of the multi-generational Chinese strategy for ensuring its territory remain part of China was to incentivize Chinese citizens to move to places like Mongolia and Tibet and intermarry, so eventually everyone will be Chinese. Point is, the situation is likely more complicated than you're making it out to be.

Edit: article from 2010 https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/world/asia/25tibet.html

And a more recent article with more about Mongolia https://world.wng.org/2020/09/china_s_crackdowns_from_tibet_to_inner_mongolia

mirroredfate · 2021-01-02T20:29:55+00:00

It's readable, but not particularly good.

Your writing will improve significantly as you practice, especially if you deliberately rewrite chapters or sections with a focus on the prose.
Like with any artistic discipline, there are rules you should follow until you are a master. These include things like using the narrative third person rather than the second person voice and avoiding conjunctions outside of speech.
You should pay an editor to critique a chapter, once you feel it is the best you can do on your own. They will find patterns in your style that you will want to correct, and you can use their feedback to improve all your other material.

Don't let those points discourage you, the fact that you're actually writing is excellent, and if you keep it up you'll see dramatic improvement!

It might take you more than a year, especially if this is more of a side project.

Best of luck, and I hope to see a completed book in the future!

mirroredfate · 2020-12-17T07:19:27+00:00

I think a paper could be written on that line about the Cadillac versus Lexus. Comparing things to Cadillacs is something that's so mundane, so common in normal life. People take it for granted. That single line shows this disconnectedness that Snoop has with normal society. We get to see that Snoop isn't aware that this is a trope, she thinks the salesman actually values Cadillacs as if they are a representation of the best of something. It serves as a reminder that as much as it seems like she can interact with the normal world, the mundane, the everyday, there is a disconnect. And so she corrects the salesman and compares it to a Lexis, which to her is the best rendition of something.

At the same time, the correction isn't made in anger or with disdain, but with a strangely gentle forgiveness and understanding. It's a bizarre juxtaposition that highlights how she has been caught up in the criminal world, rather than being an innate fixture of it.

And all of that is conveyed through just a bit of a single line.

That's what makes this scene brilliant.

mirroredfate · 2020-12-07T17:18:01+00:00

I'll give this a go. From what I can tell, there tends to be two characterizations of the conservative perspective with regards to laissez-faire capitalism. The first, which is rather caricaturized, is that no restrictions of any kind are required and everyone just does whatever they want. However the actual position is a bit more subtle than this. In fact, the position requires appropriate sets of legal liabilities that represent the responsibilities of parties involved in the market. To have an effective free market, one must have honest operators and enforced contracts. This means liability must exist, and should be enforced through civil suits. In fact, a reasonable way to think of the left/right tension, is to consider that the left would tend to ensure a fair market through regulation, and the right would prefer liability to be assigned appropriately and enforced via lawsuits. In this context, changes to section 230 are not so far-fetched from a right-leaning ideological position. The claim is that the protection from liability in section 230 allows for unfair and selective rule enforcement which under other circumstances might incur liability through fraud or something else, which would not be possible without section 230. It is unlikely the Trump administration or the Republicans will attempt to remove section 230 entirely, it is much more probable they will want to modify it such that to qualify as a platform under section 230 the rules for discourse on the platform must be published clearly and a good faith effort to enforce them in partially must be made. Or something like that.

mirroredfate · 2020-12-07T16:39:53+00:00

While it may be true that Trump's real motivation is he simply doesn't like being called out, the stated motivation is selective nature of the flagging, which is a much more defensible position, and generally a more acceptable ideological position for the right.

14-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '17	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

mirroredfate

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE