spicymapotofu

Is that kind of organizational prevention the one that involves having subjects count down mentally? I really enjoyed learning about memory. The visuospatial sketchpad holds a place in my heart.

Is asking questions a worse form of dialogue to you? Is it intentionally ironic that you left only a snarky question yourself?

Subversive public sector partisanship is a lot more believable than a homeless industrial complex, I'm glad you brought the two up together.

The deck shuffling is relevant due to other factors. There is a card in the combo deck that reshuffles the discard pile into the deck when it's put to discard, and the deck revolves around (as a shortcutted, freely undertaken combo) dealing one damage every time a certain creature goes to the discard pile. As you re-shuffle every time the 'engine' piece is hit, you can't predict how many times you need to activate the discard combo, so it cannot be shortcutted. Shortcutting in magic requires stating exactly as many iterations as will occur and the clear end state.

Slow play is the phrase explaining why indeterminate combos don't get shortcutted. "An indeterminate-loop combo may take anywhere from fifteen minutes to fifteen hundred years to actually succeed, and we really do not need to be waiting around to see which it's going to be."

Your local library has a much better offering of niche non-fiction than mine. Many of the texts I see here aren't even available through my school's cross country academic network. I did read this book that way, but I had to wait for it to come quite a distance.

My city's newest library is an art piece with less books than any other here, to be fair.

This is clearly not true. Why else do organizations involved in large scale ML move to locations with more lax AML regimes? E.g. crypto in eastern Europe. If the risk of being caught was no deterrent, ML activity would be dependent on 'amount of launderable funds' and independent of AML regime - can you offer an argument showing this is true?

Where can I search for this kind of discourse? There's a lot of "actual" here without names.

A simple comparison might help: while from the outside this likely looks like the famous "leftist yells at leftist" scenario, the alternative - where a single expert has their theories elevated into law, without room for disagreement, looks a lot like Lysenkoism, and usually results in large-scale suffering with no scientific value (due to mistakes, large or small, in individual theories).

I'm not in this field and can't hazard a guess at the exact utility of this dispute, but when I see specialists and the impassioned debating vigorously on their principles, I trust it's because of relevant disagreements in the field, because that's what I observe in my preferred domain. Some amount of slapfighting is inevitable - we're all human - but this is a particularly humane way to hash out differences.

Then you're moving the goalposts from what you've been arguing upthread.

The GP comment appears to not be saying anything which opposes the idea that new literature can interrogate our beliefs too. I think they're trying to point out that the new tech you're highlighting is on the object level, whereas the fundamental topics which make good literature stand the test of time are meta level - human nature. Yes, we trade digitally instead of physically, and yet tales of merchants long scattered remain pertinent.

The GP's frustration, I believe, lies in the fact that you've been presenting the trappings of modern society as if they're the bedrock of modern existence; as if the findings of a science article today act on the soul the same way as realizing a dead Russian wrote a cartoonish parody of the actual personality one has cultivated for twenty years (a reaction I see commonly!). All writing may share similarities, but not all writing is literature, and recognizing that distinction would resolve the disagreement you first posted.

Many analysts would say the limiting factor of Plato on today's audience was not the total population, but the shift in interpretations (and related, writing) which make it so difficult to translate. And still, classics departments are offering fresh takes on the works, even through the 20th century, radically shifting the meta-level conclusions that we teach as takeaways. I hope you can acknowledge that this is more due to the underlying human nature which the works speak to, rather than some inherent unending depth to the writing - and that literature as a field carries this interpretive depth as its activity, rather than just cobbling object-level tools to interrogate their premises.

This kind of comment is not helpful, nor curious, simply reductive. Many studies are fine with small sample sizes, which I can expand on if you'd like. As someone several years removed from academic literature, before I believe a curt dismissal of a neuroscience finding I would hope to read some characterization of both "falling standards" and which particular methodology is questionable. There's a lot of literature already summarizing the various flavors of failstates, even saying "resembles p-hacking" makes a more informative comment.

What did you believe before vs. after, if you don't mind saying? I haven't had a perspective on either situation, so I'm purely curious.

Yes, last mile shipping takes up an inordinate amount of energy.

I believe this comment minimized the structure of spiritual experience in a hyperrational way, which is exactly as the GP comment warned against.

Not that person, but I believe you're right. I think it's to do with muscle fiber - breaking the connections between the meat is fully pre-empted by grinding, and I theorize a connection between the mechanics of chewing and satiety.