syncmaster913n

Is it? I always thought I had low-key ostracized them. But I wasn't able to put their needs ahead of mine on this one.

When I was in my early 20s, I used to instinctively pressure non-drinkers into drinking as well. I did it because the non-drinkers ruin the fun for me. They don't laugh as much or engage in banter. They're timid and lack the drinker's adventurous spirit.

The pressuring usually worked though.

When I realized that I was hurting those people by pressuring them into drinking, rather than stop pressuring them, I stopped inviting them to social gatherings that involve drinking altogether.

> “I know you really want to like these jeans, but I think they fit such and so.”

This statement is empathetic only if we assume a literal interpretation of the "do those jeans fit me?" question. In many cases, that question means something closer to:

"I feel fat. Could you say something nice to help me feel better about myself right away?"

> There is no need empathy to require lying.

Empathizing doesn't require lying. However, successful empathizing often does.

> and like all absolutes it is not true.

Like this absolute? ;-)

> Most communicative problems I have ever seen (aside from language barriers) could have been resolved by a little bit of empathy.

Empathy is usually an internal process. On it's own, it wont't resolve a communication problem.

What ends up affecting a communication problem are the external actions that we take based on our internal empathy calculus (assuming we haven't totally miscalculated). Those actions will vary significantly by person and context, assuming any action follows at all.

Empathy is the relatively easy part. Acting on that empathy in a way that doesn't come across as condescending, disengaged, presumptious, judgemental, awkward, or scripted, while also remaining true to yourself and upholding your personal values are the hard parts.

I think the original commenter meant that the LLM can't be called wrong because the concept requires understanding. However, I think it would be fine to call the LLM's response incorrect.

Capitalism =/= free markets.

Perhaps you're overthinking it, or perhaps you're onto something, and the author invented at least one of the friends for the benefit of the story and wrote the "response" herself.

But yes, enjoyable piece.

"That money was earned by exploiting labor."

Exploting labor without providing value wouldn't have earned that money.

"Over time you'd see selection for species which are patient, diligent, fecund star colonizers."

Or for species that excel at command-deck politics.

As the OP said, that advice is for people who wish to write for a living, i.e. wannabe professional wroters.

"Thus, the relevant analogy is buying one lottery ticket in a huge lottery such as the Powerball or Mega Millions and matching every number to win the jackpot."

I like your analogy, but I think it needs to account for the fact that there are two scenarios in which a single vote can influence an election:

1. If it would have been a tie without that single vote. In this scenario, the single vote breaks the tie.

2. If the candidate that the single vote is to be cast on would have lost by one vote withtout that single vote. In this case, the single vote creates a tie.

The odds of either happening are astronomically long, of course.

"Voting tends to be more of a symbolic or ethical act than an rational act"

An act that is consistent within one's ethical framework is a rational act. Agree or disagree, and why?

Thanks.