rtodea

We love the things that we are good at.

If you start with easy math problems (but not labelling them as "math problems", but as logic, smart puzzles) you can build up from there.

Consistency and frugality of options is important.

> I checked his work, and its mostly wrong

Can you show some examples that make you draw this conclusion? Thanks!

What makes you say that about Python?

Does anyone the source of the movie sequences from the Filmbox presentation page? Thanks!

For me it really helped to copy and paste the commands related to the X server.

For instance I had a small issue with the scale of the applications. In Windows I have 250% (recommended) scaling applied.

``` export QT_SCALE_FACTOR=2.5

export GDK_SCALE=$(echo "(${QT_SCALE_FACTOR} + 0.49) / 1" | bc) #Round ```

I don't think so.

I blame it on being on the Dev release channel.

To be honest I thought I had to be on the latest and greatest to take benefit of WSL2.

> Choosing different wording and expressions for emotions will not change how you feel or how you act.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) tries to do that.

> CBT focuses on challenging and changing unhelpful cognitive distortions (e.g. thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes) and behaviors, improving emotional regulation, and the development of personal coping strategies that target solving current problems.

First of all, thank you for the reference to Lysenkoism:

"as any deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable".

But I fail to see the connection with Dyson here.

Having an open discussion about taboo subjects is at the core of progress.

Conflating science with morality is adding another barrier to having those kinds of discussions.

I am aware of Brandolini's Law:

“The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”

But if the criticism is done in good faith, with the tools of science, I think it's worth the debunking exercise.

Data is just data. It can be collected with a lot of bias in place and can be interpreted with the same biases. We are only humans after all.

When you say thinks like:

1. "it's just a dude not even bothering to learn research before dismissing it all as wrong" 2. "he stupidly used his social power to undermine the science"

I feel you are some priest that dismisses the sinner, by pointing out the vices of carelessness and stupidness, in the name of the sanctimony of science.

Morality isn't a binary thing.

If we adopt consequentialism, how do we quantify all the good things amongst the bad ones?

Please note that just because the bad ones are most vocal, doesn't mean they will outweigh the good ones.