Cushman

I’m still so confused. You’re talking about the article I posted a link to? Did you think I hadn’t read it?

Edit: I guess I’ll try to respond in good faith, even though I don’t totally understand why you’re asking me about this. If you click through to the Foreign Policy article, you’ll see Bruce Schneier listed as the first author before Ottenheimer.

But really, I’m not trying to imply whatever it is you’re inferring. By all means, draw whatever conclusions you like from Schneier’s authorship!

This is a peculiarly conspiratorial response to my comment, and I don’t think I’m equipped to respond to it. Did you mean to direct this to me?

I don’t understand you. What do you mean by this?

This is amusing. So… if one plans to publish their baroque opinions on English grammar… one should really know that conversational “y’all” is prescriptively a high status marker in the academy.

I picked up the habit in Massachusetts, in the mid 2000s, from an Ivy League humanities professor who also expressed support for a student debt strike. He used it very deliberately, in an effort to un-train our public school–addled brains from the inanity that we were somehow smarter than others for having fewer words in hand. In my bones, the thought of not using it as appropriate feels uneducated.

Using “y’all” in conversation shows incredible confidence, a way to flex command of formal language in an informal setting. It’s often used with emphasis. It leverages the listener’s discomfort, saying: I know precisely which register I’m speaking in. It’s an “elite” thing to do.

What you’ll never hear is one of these people using “y’all” as a formal address— especially as a singular, as in the rote “Y’all been served?” for a dining party of any number. There are a number of reasons for that, but number one is simple: It’s a high status signal.

Edit to add: Maybe importantly, this doesn’t extend to the casual use of “all y’all” . I think the colloquial academic equivalent would be “you [emphasized pause] all”. If you weren’t familiar you’d probably transcribe it as “you all”, but it’s closer to “you, all”. Looking at it now, I think that’s “intentional abuse” of the formal variant for intensifying, with just enough stress to make it visibly intentional?

But I should be clear I haven’t studied this dialect at all, I just learned to speak it :)

It’s not super clear there, but those are examples of a pre-Gettier type of argument that originally motivated strengthening, and externalizing, the J in JTB knowledge— just like you’re doing!

Gettier’s contribution — the examples with Smith — sharpens it to a point by making the “knowledge” a logical proposition — in one example a conjunction, in one a disjunction — such that we can assert that Smith’s belief in the premise is justified, while allowing the premise to be false in the world.

It’s a fun dilemma: the horns are, you can give up justification as sufficient, or you can give up logical entailment of justification.

But it’s also a bit quaint, these days. To your typical 21st century epistemologist, that’s just not a very terrifying dilemma.

One can even keep buying original recipe JTB, as long as one is willing to bite the bullet that we can flip the “knowledge” bit by changing superficially irrelevant states of the world. And hey, why not?

> If you ever change machine or do pair programming or whatever where you are not using your highly-tweaked config, and you are essentially a frustrated jibbering wreck and barely more competent than a 3 year old using a computer for the first time

I was once pairing on the lead’s laptop and switched the keyboard to Dvorak. This was back in 2010 or so, when the input menu wouldn’t show on the lock screen by default. The lead could not type Dvorak, and of course I did not know their password. I remember that moment of silent contemplation keenly…

That’s to say, yes, and the sensation of being a frustrated jibbering wreck can be contagious :')

As an also low ACE person with high ACE loved ones, I super encourage this!

With the serious caveat that ACE score isn’t a great predictor for individuals: if your siblings have ACEs >=3, it’s entirely plausible that that trauma explains none, some, or all of the differences you’re referring to.

(If, like me, you grew up thinking socioeconomic status was the gold star predictor of cohort health, the past couple of decades of research here are pretty shocking!)

ACE 1, so I’m qualified to respond :)

An important thing for you and I to keep in mind is that we aren’t just talking about psychology.

ACEs cause (or exacerbate) depression, anxiety, and so on; they also cause (or exacerbate) cancer, heart disease, autoimmune disorders, and so on.

It’s obviously a lot of work to disentangle causation from secondary health impacts of mental illness, but to our shame there is more than enough data, and the work has been done. An appreciable fraction of the damage done by ACEs is physical and irreversible after adolescence.

I think this is important for us to remember because it’s easy for us to say, oh, they must need some extra support. And yeah, they do. But it’s too little, too late. They — the children — need us to stop the ACEs from happening.

Editing in a caveat I remembered elsewhere: of course the scores don’t cause these things, and of course the individual variance is huge. As a diagnostic criterion, ACE is useful as a screener and that’s about it. As a statistic, it’s revealed a pandemic.

Ouch! Fair cop since we’re nitpicking, but I was trying to be cute about that — the joke started out more like “you’re technically crossing the line to scab as a strikebreaker”. I’m aware that it still doesn’t make sense unless there’s a sympathy action by the strikebreakers’ union, unfunny and unhelpful in the first place, thanks for the correction :)

Edit: Ah shoot not again. What I meant to say was “scabbing as an agent provocateur”. Sorry, I’ll quit while I’m ahead!

It’s not a shift in usage, it’s a term of art. Informally it could mean just crossing the line to enter the business, but unless you live in a turn-of-the-century company town, no one in the union is expecting anything related to that by default.

In labor, “respecting the picket line” is a moral action for union members (or scabs) which by definition couldn’t apply to a spontaneous self-directed consumer boycott.

Not to put to fine a point on it: if you show up to someone else’s labor action claiming solidarity, and then independently decide to pivot the action to a totally different set of economic incentives, you are — almost literally! — a scab.

> This is known as a minor fall, I assume

Since turnabout is fair play, it’s worth noting this is mostly false; if you google “minor fall music theory” you’ll only find references to Cohen.

In (conventional western) analysis, a “fall” wouldn't be something mechanical, it would always imply a contextual interpretation.

So it’s a valid reading of the text to say it means something about the chord structure, but — from a purely musical theoretical perspective — just as valid to read it as a reference to the flattening of the minor degree of the scale, or something else entirely.

It’s really a lovely song :)

Gently: The snark you’re getting is undeserved, but you are doing the “but why male models?” thing. You gotta make a left turn here :)

Let’s reset: Hey, did Sandia use a thermonuclear secondary in a product logo? Did they actually? Despite all the reasons they wouldn’t? If they did, why? Was it a mistake or on purpose? Neither one quite makes sense.

Those are interesting questions! But there’s no alleged secrets leak, and there’s nothing else that’s interesting about that specific picture. You could say it’s implied somehow, but in that case you really got got by anti-clickbait. “Did Sandia use a thermonuclear secondary in a product logo?” is the whole riddle, and the answer is the whole blog post.

Surprisingly, yes! 90hz would be considered the minimum here.

As a general statement, no, vision isn’t as time-sensitive as hearing, so the timing requirements aren’t as precise. But when it comes to head and hand tracking, the brain’s also doing predictive sensor fusion, and even “unnoticeably” small delays can be disorienting or nauseating. (Ocular fixation is the most sensitive, but hand-eye coordination is also pretty important to the brain!)

The important number in VR is “motion-to-photon” latency. Over 20ms starts to be noticeable to most people; 50ms starts to make most people uncomfortable. That’s the total budget for sensor fusion, simulation, rendering, and display, and that’s just for the bare-minimum experience that doesn’t make people immediately ill.

You can do a lot with prediction and late updates in screen space, which is what makes VR possible at all on current hardware— but it’s hard to make up for having sensor data delayed by possibly 150% of the total time budget :)