Anything is possible if you can do anything…

Also I remember talking to someone who makes plastic molds and they were saying that recycled plastic loses some of its desirable qualities, so even recyclable plastics have a limited lifespan.

Before I was born, my vision was a pov of a placenta from a woman, is it true that each baby came from a woman every time she’s pregnant?

Neither do I but we still do it with my partner and friends. We don’t do normal sushi and instead make sushi burritos. The sushi burritos are faster and easier.

Your post is similar to one I saw some time ago. That old post has a reply of mine, and I’ll paste it here:

The problem you’re describing (open sourcing critical software) could both increase the capabilities of adversaries and also make it easier for adversaries to search for exploits. Open sourcing defeats security by obscurity.

Leaving security by obscurity aside could be seen as a loss, but it’s important to note what is gained in the process. Most security researchers today advocate against relying on security by obscurity, and instead focus on security by design and open security. Why?

Security by obscurity in the digital world is very easily defeated. It’s easy to copy and paste supposedly secure codes. It’s easy to smuggle supposedly secret code. “Today’s NSA secrets become tomorrow’s PhD theses and the next day’s hacker tools.”

What’s the alternative for the military? If you rely on security by design and open security for military equipment, it’s possible that adversaries will get a hold of the software, but they will get a hold of software that is more secure. A way to look at it is that all the doors are locked. On the other hand, insecure software leaves supposedly secret doors open. Those doors can be easily bashed by adversaries. So much for trying to get the upper hand.

The choice between (1) security by obscurity and (2) security by design and open security is ultimately the choice between (1) insecurity for all and (2) security for all. Security for all would be my choice, every time. I want my transit infrastructure to be safe. I want my phone to be safe. I want my election-related software to be safe. I want safe and reliable software. If someone is waging a war, they’re going to have to use methods that can actually create a technical asymmetry of power, and insecure software is not the way to gain the upper hand.

Where’s my Lemmy Gold when I need it

Such a diversity of vehicles in a single picture.

This comment will probably seem tone-deaf at best and malicious at worst. I want to be clear that I am not saying people shouldn’t be empathetic. I’m not saying that empathy-based morality is a problem. I’m not saying being a bigot is okay. So what am I saying?

It’s just that yesterday I learned from the Healthy Minds program that empathy can sometimes be problematic, and that the solution is compassion.

The problem has to do with the fact that some service workers are immersed in workplaces filled with suffering. Think of nurses. Think of first-aid responders. These people constantly see human suffering. And if these service workers empathize with the suffering, they themselves can suffer immensely.

The solution, the Healthy Minds program claims, is to not be empathetic, but compassionate. The difference is that empathy, at its core, is about understanding and feeling what others are thinking and feeling. However, compassion is about understanding others enough to be able to understand their difficulties, and (crucially) wishing them well. Empathy over-identifies with suffering and compassion believes suffering is the current reality but improvements are possible.

If you are interested in reading about this, it’s ironic that the Wikipedia article is titled “Compassion fatigue”. I suppose that the Healthy Minds app uses different definitions than the Wikipedia article.

Anyway, I will do what the program suggests and wish you all the best!

These two books have helped me enormously in having transformative conversations:

• Never Split the Difference
• Crucial Conversations

And you can understand their way of thinking and how to communicate better ideas with

• Don’t Think of an Elephant by George Lakoff

I’m glad we both want to see fairness and kindness in the world. I see you interpret cruelty, abuse, and dishonesty’s effects as respect. I see it a bit differently. When I see cruelty, abuse, and dishonesty, I usually see fear, terror, hiding, lying— anything but respect.

If I see a serial killer who tortures people, I would never respect them. I’d probably fear them. But fear is not respect.

To me, respect is deep admiration. It involves feeling aligned in values, feeling that someone is doing things right and well. If someone is doing things wrong and cruelly, I’d feel deep disrespect towards them.

I suppose our cultures have wrongly conflated respect and fear. People don’t command respect. They deserve it and earn it. They deserve base respect for the mere fact of being human trying to be happy in a brutal world. And they earn admiration-like respect when their hearts are aligned with virtue.

After careful forensic analysis, I have concluded the entire thing was created by a single person. I call this the One Author Theory (OAT). Let me present to you OAT’s evidence.

First, notice almost every tally is similar to its immediate neighbors. They have the same color and the same thickness. This suggests the tallies were all made with the same marker and with similar techniques.

We can see similar techniques elsewhere. First, notice that each category has tallies. Then, within each category (for example shit), focus on the rightmost tallies. Notice that the tallies tend to curve in a similar way. This suggests those tallies were created under similar conditions, with a similar technique.

You may have noticed that the piss tallies are thicker and straighter than the jerk it tallies. This may suggest my One Author theory is wrong, but my theory does incorporate this fact. The fact is explained by a change in technique. Therefore, the OAT cannot stand on its own. It requires another theory to grab onto. This other theory is the Progressive Degradation of Commitment (PDC) Theory.

I will now give evidence for the PDC Theory. Notice the shit category. Its topmost row has a consistent left-to-right pattern. The tallies become smaller and smaller. They also become curved at the end. This suggests a consistent loss of commitment.

The PDC Theory appears to struggle with the jerk it category. After all, the bottom row starts with small tallies and progressively has its tallies grow tall and straight. This we shall call the Jerk It Anomaly (JIA). However, concluding that the JIA proves that the PDC Theory fails is incorrect. If one uses the PDC Theory correctly, it can actually explain the JIA.

How? First, we need to remember that the PDC Theory shouldn’t be limited to rows. We saw an example of this when PDC Theory explained piss’ thickness in relation to jerk it’s thickness. In other words, PDC Theory can scale. It can explain rows of tallies but it can also explain columns of categories. So, if we apply PDC Theory to the entire work, we can assume that the entirety of the last column (jerk it) was built with little commitment. The author could’ve been pressured for time. It is reasonable to speculate that the author felt a sudden urge to attend to his unfinished business, be it pissing, vaping, shitting, or jerking it. In either case, the PDC Theory comes out intact.

Ultimately, the OAT uses the PDC Theory to address validity threats like the JIA. The author may have attempted to dupe us into thinking the census was representative of a population. However, the One Author Theory lets us see that the author’s work is more representative of his purposes, capabilities, and proclivities.

It’s important to note that this does not necessarily reduce the author’s merit and the piece’s impact. Future studies could evaluate to what extent this apparent census creates a sense of community and connection in the bathroom-stall goers. I, for one, would appreciate going to the bathroom and finding this piece. I wouldn’t necessarily appreciate vaping or jerking it, but I would appreciate shitting or pissing next to it.

Ah that makes sense. Maybe it’s a European/US difference, but it could be just a Time Timer thing. My air fryer is from an American company and it has the same timer as you (wind it up clockwise, then the hand moves counter-clockwise).

I wonder if both types of timers (wind up clockwise and wind up counter-clockwise) seek to distinguish themselves from normal clocks in different ways:

• Wind up clockwise timers (like your stove and my airfryer) let you know it’s not a normal clock by flowing counter-clockwise.
• Clockwise timers (like a Time Timer) let you know it’s not a normal clock by having a red disk slowly become smaller.

Earplugs come in different sizes. Maybe it’s a matter of experimenting?

Ah. To set up the timer, you do pull the hand counter clockwise, as if you were pulling a spring-loaded car backwards for it to move forward on its own. After you release the Time Timer, its hand will move forward on its own, normally, clockwise.

It is a bit unusual, but the point of the timer is to see how much time you’ve got left. It’s like a battery charge percentage. You know that when the battery reaches zero, you’ve got to charge it up again.

I hope the explanation helps. If not, feel free to ask or to check out the videos in the Time Timer website. After all, it is a strange product.

A Time Timer.

They’re not cheap, especially for a timer that’s bare bones (~20 USD).

But it has changed my work life.

1. People who want to interrupt me while I’m working can now see how long until I have my next break. So I am interrupted less.
2. Now I self-regulate a bit better, so I’m able to work longer without destroying myself in the process. I take breaks that help me with repetitive strain injuries and with feeling like I’m a human being and not just a machine.
3. Now I remember to actually start timers when I start working. I know this is a bit silly, but I was having trouble creating a habit of stopping for breaks. I tried to solve this by setting timers on my phone, but I constantly forgot doing it. Now I’m reminded to start a timer by something that I see on my desk.

I’m so sorry for the wall of text. I hope I can come back and clean it up and make it clearer:

How to work?

Use the Pomodoro technique: 25 minutes of work - 5 minutes of break

1. Set a 25 minute timer.
2. Remove all distractions, especially social media and notifications.
3. Work until the timer runs out.
4. Set a 5 minute timer. Take a break. Stand. Drink water. Don’t use your phone or social media. Repeat.

Make sure to celebrate (1) when you remember to do a Pomdoro, (2) while doing it, and (3) immediately after you finish it.

What do I mean by celebrating? Imagine you got an email telling you that you got the job you wanted. How would you react? Or imagine your favorite teacher/professor tells you they’re proud of you. How would you react? Try to generate those emotions to celebrate.

Why celebrate? Habits are not created by repetition. They’re created by emotions. Dopamine creates connections and fosters learning.

How to make sure that information sticks in your brain and that you understand deeply? Active recall. After you read something, close the book or your computer and try to explain it from memory. This doesn’t work if it’s not from memory. It doesn’t matter if you struggle. In fact, the more you struggle to remember something, the better you learn it.

I like to structure my active recalls with Visible Thinking Routines. You can search for them online. I particularly like See-Think-Wonder, Think-Puzzle-Explore, and Connect-Extend-Challenge.

Now, I’ll recommend some resources:

The single most useful thing you could do for the least effort is mindfulness. It’ll help you get out of mental ruts. You could use the Healthy Minds program. I donate to them. They’re wonderful.

Second most powerful thing you could do is work on psychological flexibility. You can check out A Liberated Mind by Steven C. Hayes. I cannot stress enough how important psychological flexibility is. It underlies everything we do.

If you want to learn about Visible Thinking Routines, there’s a book on it. I don’t remember the name, but the introduction is spectacular and gives a good sense of why we should focus on deeply understanding rather than rote memorization or mindless repetition. This technique (thinking visibly) is the single most important reason I graduated summa cum laude from my programs. I used to suck at studying. Now I am good at it thanks to visible thinking routines (and Anki).

I also recommend Make it stick the book. Additionally, I recommend Barbara Oakley’s Learn like a Pro, but I only do it if you first read A Liberated Mind, the book on visible thinking routines, Tiny Habits, and The Sleep Book. Why? Oakley’s book teaches a bunch of stuff that I think is straight up wrong and potentially dangerous, such as its recommendations for sleep and for habit formation.

I mentioned it but I should single out Tiny Habits. It’s a game changer. It will help you do anything in life.

You could do relational frame training if you want to increase the speed at which you understand things through relations. Check out Steven Hayes’ A Liberated Mind for more on this.

If Pomodoros are a struggle, you could try TimeTimers or similar products. Getting a good visualization of time helps people to auto regulate. I have used them with people with ADHD and they are better than digital timers or old-school clocks.

If organization is an issue, Getting Things Done (but first read A Liberated Mind, because GTD assumes some things about the mind that aren’t true. I’d also recommend Cynefin, the book, because the natural planning process is not universal and different contexts require different interventions). I’d also recommend Personal Kanban, if you’re organizing your study habits

Both pronunciations are okay :)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/banal

It seems like you really don’t like it. What makes you say that?

I’d say the fight against entropy is an attempt to retain specific expressions of energy in the system. The expressions of energy are assemblages that have created order. And yes, as you said, the creation of order has a cost: greater global entropy.

In case you’re interested, this way of looking at entropy and life comes from Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker.

The problem you’re describing (open sourcing critical software) could both increase the capabilities of adversaries and also make it easier for adversaries to search for exploits. Open sourcing defeats security by obscurity.

Leaving security by obscurity aside could be seen as a loss, but it’s important to note what is gained in the process. Most security researchers today advocate against relying on security by obscurity, and instead focus on security by design and open security. Why?

Security by obscurity in the digital world is very easily defeated. It’s easy to copy and paste supposedly secure codes. It’s easy to smuggle supposedly secret code. “Today’s NSA secrets become tomorrow’s PhD theses and the next day’s hacker tools.”

What’s the alternative for the military? If you rely on security by design and open security for military equipment, it’s possible that adversaries will get a hold of the software, but they will get a hold of software that is more secure. A way to look at it is that all the doors are locked. On the other hand, insecure software leaves supposedly secret doors open. Those doors can be easily bashed by adversaries. So much for trying to get the upper hand.

The choice between (1) security by obscurity and (2) security by design and open security is ultimately the choice between (1) insecurity for all and (2) security for all. Security for all would be my choice, every time. I want my transit infrastructure to be safe. I want my phone to be safe. I want my election-related software to be safe. I want safe and reliable software. If someone is waging a war, they’re going to have to use methods that can actually create a technical asymmetry of power, and insecure software is not the way to gain the upper hand.