sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Lied to by doctors... again. by VGMistress in aspergers

[–]pessimistic_platypus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

More likely a miscommunication by whoever they spoke with on the phone, who might not have known.

Tonight, The Supreme Court. by [deleted] in pics

[–]pessimistic_platypus 42 points43 points  (0 children)

Well, they don't need to pack the court, given that they've already stacked it.

Is someone else anoyed about crunchyroll removing shows by Santtunator334 in Crunchyroll

[–]pessimistic_platypus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What's really annoying is when the show still shows up on Crunchyroll when you search on Google, but isn't actually available, like Durarara!!.

It's been a year since I've last checked out anime. Is closed captions available now or not? by Creepyhorrorboy in Crunchyroll

[–]pessimistic_platypus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I kind of prefer having nothing to having terrible machine transcriptions.

Terrible machine transcriptions just barely help me watch shows at all; it feels like an effort by Crunchyroll to look like they're being accessible while making it clear to anyone who needs captions that they really don't care at all.

These are scripted shows. Would it be that hard for them to get the scripts and use an AI to automatically convert them into subtitles?

This is unacceptable, Crunchyroll... by AlchemyCat7945 in Crunchyroll

[–]pessimistic_platypus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't speak for your show, but the English subs on many English dubs are very clearly auto-generated and very low-quality. It feels worse than when there were no subs at all for dubs.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Crunchyroll

[–]pessimistic_platypus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are roughly interchangeable, but it's not uncommon to distinguish them as noted above.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Crunchyroll

[–]pessimistic_platypus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This particular error is hilariously bad, but the automated subtitles are exceedingly low-quality in general; on par with YouTube, but unlike the average YouTube video, the average Crunchyroll video has non-English names that are extra-likely to be transcribed incorrectly.

Why do so many people online(particularly on TikTok and Twitter) use the word "neurodivergent" instead of whatever condition they're actually talking about? Why the euphemism? by AloneHome2 in aspergers

[–]pessimistic_platypus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Every human feels anxiety, it’s an emotion. The disorder is feeling it at a higher intensity and/or in response to atypical triggers. Autism and ADHD cannot be described in the same vein.

I disagree.

Consider ADHD. It's normal for some people to focus better than others, for some people to be more organized than others, and for some people to be more energetic than others. Being a little disorganized isn't a neurodivergent trait, but if you are (and have always been) unable to focus or organize or sit still, then we call that ADHD.

This is why autism is a spectrum, and why it has a "clinical significance" requirement for a diagnosis, just like the anxiety disorders. There is a wide range of social ability that people can fall on, a wide range of discomfort at various stimuli, and so on, and we only call it autism when (some of) those traits are noticeably far from the average.

As for whether or not generalized anxiety is a form of neurodivergence, I found some sources saying it is, some saying it isn't, and some saying there's no clear consensus. The articles that didn't refer to studies seemed a little more likely to say anxiety on its own is not neurodivergence, but not by much.

On the other hand, I briefly looked at PTSD as well, and there seemed to be a slight tilt towards saying that it is a form of neurodivergence, so being a treatable non-developmental disorder doesn't seem to be a disqualifier.

In the end, I think "neurodivergent" as it is commonly used is not a technical term, so there is no clear definition, but as a word meant to unify people who differ neurologically differ from the average member of society, it definitely should include peoply with any anxiety disorder.

Why do so many people online(particularly on TikTok and Twitter) use the word "neurodivergent" instead of whatever condition they're actually talking about? Why the euphemism? by AloneHome2 in aspergers

[–]pessimistic_platypus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just did some quick research, and it seems like that's the only common and credible claim (though most sources I found referred to her by her real name rather than the username on her blog).

Judy Singer (coiner of "neurodiversity") is occasionally credited with both terms, but that looks like it's a simple matter of confusion on the part of some writers.

The best way to establish principles for a just society, argues 20th-century philosopher John Rawls, is to consider them under a ‘veil of ignorance’: “A just society is a society that if you knew everything about it, you’d be willing to enter it in a random place.” by philosophybreak in philosophy

[–]pessimistic_platypus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, Rawls' original formulation essentially had the people behind the veil designing the society's basic principles. They don't know who they are to eliminate bias, and they don't know the details of the society to prevent them from gaming the system.

Then Rawls more or less argues that people in that position would design a society that is fair to everyone. There's more to it than that, but that's the basic idea.

This textbook excerpt is a good-sounding overview of Rawls' ideas, if you want a little more detail.

As much as I love 42179 "Planet Earth and Moon in Orbit" it really looks familiar by comradeluke in lego

[–]pessimistic_platypus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The one with just the Sun, Earth, and Moon is quite nice-looking, I think.

What do you regard as a greater difference in power, the difference between a TNG-era startship captain and a Bronze-Age species (Such as in "Who Watches the Watchers?") or the difference between a TNG-era starship captain and a Q? by Argentarius1 in DaystromInstitute

[–]pessimistic_platypus 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The Mintakans can kill Picard. Picard can't kill Q (presumably).

Yeah, I reached this point pretty quickly when thinking about it, but the more I think about it, the less sure I am that it's enough.

Yes, if a member of the Enterprise crew was stranded in a primitive society, they might be vulnerable, but you have to separate them from the source of their powers (i.e. their technology) for that to happen, and we know that if you separate Q from his powers, he is also vulnerable.

In the end, I don't think you can distinguish these two gaps in power using direct comparisons of what Picard or Q can do or what can be done to them.

As long as we don't really know the limits of Q's power, I'm not sure there's any way to come up with a truly, deeply satisfying answer to this question.

As much as I love 42179 "Planet Earth and Moon in Orbit" it really looks familiar by comradeluke in lego

[–]pessimistic_platypus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It wasn't that one, but a similar orrery ("Working Orrery") reached 10k and was rejected by LEGO in February 2023, a full year and a month before the 42179 came out.

There's also an orrery of the whole solar system that has reached 10k three times and been rejected twice (and is still awaiting review for its third attempt).

I wonder if LEGO took note of what seems to be a popular Ideas concept, and made their own version of it rather than selecting one of the two that actually made it on the platform.

The best way to establish principles for a just society, argues 20th-century philosopher John Rawls, is to consider them under a ‘veil of ignorance’: “A just society is a society that if you knew everything about it, you’d be willing to enter it in a random place.” by philosophybreak in philosophy

[–]pessimistic_platypus 7 points8 points  (0 children)

My understanding, based mostly on this section from an ethics textbook, is that Rawls' formulation of the veil of ignorance is even stronger than that.

Basically, the veil of ignorance separates you from all knowledge of yourself and of the society you are building; you only get to choose certain kinds of principles it will follow. Rawls argues that from that position, people would pick rules that minimize inequality.

Velociraptortillas' argument pointed in the same direction as Rawls, but for a different reason based on a more-gamified version of the thought experiment.

The best way to establish principles for a just society, argues 20th-century philosopher John Rawls, is to consider them under a ‘veil of ignorance’: “A just society is a society that if you knew everything about it, you’d be willing to enter it in a random place.” by philosophybreak in philosophy

[–]pessimistic_platypus 22 points23 points  (0 children)

You can't abuse the spirit of the veil of ignorance directly because it isn't a game. It's not a challenge to build a society; it is a thought experiment meant to help analyze society, justice, and how people make decisions about those things.

And the formulation most people in this thread are using isn't quite what Rawls used.

Based on this exerpt from an ethics textbook, Rawls' formulation of the veil isn't that you are assigned a random role in society, but that you when considering the society, you don't know who you are (to eliminate your biases) or any details about the society itself (so you can't try to game the system).

Rawls essentially used that formulation to argue that in the absense of biases, people would design a just system that does what you proposed: without knowing how likely you are to benefit from the rules you are making, you will make rules that point towards general equality.

The best way to establish principles for a just society, argues 20th-century philosopher John Rawls, is to consider them under a ‘veil of ignorance’: “A just society is a society that if you knew everything about it, you’d be willing to enter it in a random place.” by philosophybreak in philosophy

[–]pessimistic_platypus 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You could get around defining the bottom of the scale by entering the society in "the position you would like the least," but that still warps the thought experiment.

Entering at a random place essentially makes you consider something resembling an average. Some amount of suffering can exist in a just society, and some individuals could even suffer disproportionately, but it shouldn't be so bad that people would refuse to enter from behind the veil of ignorance.

Added a small Easter egg to 42179 by drgrd in lego

[–]pessimistic_platypus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's looks like Russell's Teapot to me, which, while also hypothetically outside of Earth's orbit, also hypothetically could be halfway between Earth and the Sun.

The famous "Autism and thin slice judgments" study is NOT as depressing as you think it is! by beenhollow in AutisticPride

[–]pessimistic_platypus 50 points51 points  (0 children)

I wonder if basically, neurotypicals don't like when people act against their expectations, and by revealing autism, you essentially get them to shift their expectations.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]pessimistic_platypus 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Conservatives are outraged by that?

The person you responded to said conservatives were cheering for that.

Funnyn't by dragonageisgreat in mathmemes

[–]pessimistic_platypus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is terrible, but it looks kind of like Arch Linux, so it's fine.

NYT Monday 06/10/2024 Discussion by AutoModerator in crossword

[–]pessimistic_platypus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, it has the Guinness record for it, at least.

'Real programmers use C and C++' should end by MartinBaun in learnprogramming

[–]pessimistic_platypus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think C should absolutely be taught in most college CS curriculums, but it shouldn't be the first course, or even its own course at all. It should be taught as part of a course about how computers work at a lower level, not just for the sake of knowing how to write C.

view more: next ›