archduck

Hell yeah. I bought the Milwaukee shop vac a few weeks ago. Didn't realize it comes without batteries... which come without a charger. But I couldn't be happier with it. We have a cat that will create mounds - tall mounds - of cat litter in front of the litterbox entrance. Just hurls it out the hole somehow into a big pile. I just empty out the big tray at the bottom of the shop vac, suck up the litter in a few seconds, and dump it right back into the box. It's quick, clean, and easier than trying to change a cat's behavior. And for cat barves, like when they eat too fast, I just take the filter out and vacuum that up no problem, and it's powerful enough that you can't even tell that anything happened on the rug. (It's always on a rug, never on the hardwood floor. Naturally.) It's a game changer for this cat owner.

I'm the same, for the most part. I worked at a small dev shop with two coworkers. One liked to put on classical music, and the other would often play whatever the hell kind of music Pat Metheny is, and while the richness of those particular genres appeared to _stimulate_ their ability to code heads-down, it rendered me pretty much useless. My attention would glom onto the scales and arpeggios of Vivaldi's Four Seasons or onto the weird proggy time signatures of the other stuff.

However, I have had much success with black metal bands that shriek (or whatever) in a foreign language. The fullness of the sound - blast beats, distorted guitars - just really does it for me for some reason. And I don't get distracted by the vocals because I don't understand e.g. Finnish (and with bands like Horna, it's probably better that way). It makes finding that flow state much easier, and I suspect it may be working as a fidget spinner does: a certain base level of constant but predictable sensory input soothes whatever it is in my brain that gets me antsy when engaging in an activity that requires a lot of energy expenditure without proportional immediate feedback. But as soon as you up the complexity of the music past a certain point, it swings all the way the other way and makes willful concentration pretty much impossible.

Yep. It's ADHD and its weirdness with the rewards system, for sure.

"SEO Expert Hired and Fired By Ashley Madison Turned on"

Hehe. Good catch. I doubt the use of "turned on" was intended to be funny here, given the source, but it sure does read like a satirical news headline.

Re: figuring things out, for me, it’s pretty rare that I’m able to resolve anything from _within_ the loop. It's only when I switch to another context and then switch back to it that I'm able to finally stop the looping. I can think of a few reasons why this works: there's evidence of brains doing "background processing" when asleep or occupied with something else, which I find especially fascinating. Sometimes I'm sure it's because there's something that would provide an "exit condition" if I could just see it, but there's some heuristic active in the present state that's causing that line of thinking to be skipped over and/or zapped of enough salience for the brain to consider it worth chewing on. Maybe in order to return to something the brain has to perform some sort of "bootstrapping" in order to "re-render" whatever ideational substance is involved, and somewhere in that bootstrapping process there's an exit condition that is absent from within the loop, I don't know.

I would also defend to the death that not all brain-loops are actually "resolvable" in any meaningful way. For example (stretching the meaning of “rumination” here), I have music going on in my head 24/7. Always. Most of the time they're in the form of short-ish loops, so they repeat a lot. This in and of itself isn’t so terrible - it can actually be really nice sometimes to "overhear" what's playing and join in, because I can help drive the musical procession forward, since the part of my thinking self that’s aware and has free will can focus on the music, innovate on what’s playing, lead the music around, change the song, etc. But unfortunately, the musical homunculus squatting in my head who's always awake is also never satisfied with a particular song coming to a close - try as I might to resolve a looping refrain by bringing the song to a close, the goddamn "Achy Breaky Heart" fanatic I never invited into my inner world in the first place just presses play again. Finishing the song does nothing! Here, there is no _resolution_; there is only _substitution_. At this point, if I don't just refuse to give up, I now find myself forced to trawl through my catalog of catchy songs to put on, so that the worst DJ ever, who has no ability to read the room, might hear what _I'm_ playing and decide to join _me_, before I can find any relief. It feels incredibly stupid when the current time is a very wide-awake 4am and it's at that point where you just have to say _fuck this, this isn't working, I'll never drift off to sleep with this asshole (yourself) playing this crap I didn't pick (well, actually, you did) on repeat_, so now you have to try to think of _other_ songs that get stuck in your head so that you can try playing them in your head to yourself until one of them "takes," in order to stop yourself from annoying the shit out of yourself and keeping yourself awake - all because you can't ask yourself to just stop (because you won't listen)! - but also (and this is my point here) because there's nothing that actually _resolves_ a musical "thought" in such a way that makes it "invalid," "irrelevant," "solved," etc. and thereby any less likely to just cue up again.

Oftentimes isn't not even a song - it's a jingle. A fucking jingle!!!

Similarly, I've had unresolvable brain-loops deriving from weed paranoia, where I _cannot_ reason with the lizard part of my brain in any way whatsoever. The only thing that works is distraction. This is main reason why weed is just not for me - I hate having to will myself to distraction because any sense of presence is too unsettling.

Logotherapy. See Victor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning

Yeah, no. This is a non-starter. Restaurants have high price elasticity of demand - higher menu prices cause a significant fall in demand because there are alternatives to dining out (you can choose to eat at home for food, you can choose to see a movie for date night; even if you still decide to eat at the same restaurant after they jack up their prices, you can still make choices to lower your bill, such as not ordering drinks or appetizers).

Compare this to food you buy in the grocery store - you still need to buy food, even if food prices double overnight. You may buy less of it and pick cheaper brands, but your fundamental consumption habits will not change much.

Can confirm. I slipped up for a few seconds once while torrenting. My cease-and-desist letter from Sony was personally delivered to my door by the Hausmeister.

His teaching at Cambridge often had minutes-long silences, in which the class just had to wait for him to conclude his thoughts and resume teaching. It was apparently agonizing for some of his students.

Especially since you probably didn't want to step on his toes by breaking the silence while he still held the floor - he was, after all, forced to retire from schoolteaching after beating one of his slower math students unconscious.

While writing the Tractatus in the trenches, even. Most people would be satisfied with a stream-of-consciousness brain dump, hoping that enough insights are contained within to justify one's work. Wittgenstein cooked it down to just seven terse statements and further terse sub-statements. And numbered them nicely. Who does that?

That's how I understand it. All I was saying was, state that the diamond is to be split, and whoever refuses and bows out first gets to keep the entire thing, as they would have demonstrated genuine concern for its welfare.

The scenario is obviously not the same - that's the joke. (Which apparently did not land.) The critical difference is: It's better to get part of the diamond than nothing at all. Thus, when any party is presented with the option to take part of it, their only sensible action is to take it. Either it's going to be split anyway, and no one would want to give away their share to the other scoundrels, or all parties are going to come together and refuse to allow it to be split - which leaves us back at the beginning.

The same cannot be said for babies. Who wants part of a baby? Not me

Decree that it be split equally among all invested parties, Judgment of Solomon style.

(Though in this case, they may end up having to follow through, i.e. cutting their baby into equal parts.)

They are using a type of logical inference called abduction: based upon one's observations of an unexplained phenomenon, one formulated a hypothesis as to why it is so.

> If whoever wrote this, would be actually good at critical thinking, they would have noticed, that there is no logical connection. Just because I am good at one thing, does not mean, I have to be bad at another thing.

The logical fallacies you are using here are ad hominem and the straw man argument.