snek_boi

snek_boi @lemmy.ml 2w ago

Finding a good therapist. Within those sessions, some moments stand out: the ACT exercises that were experiential. Those exercises transformed many fucked up beliefs. I went from “the world is shit and I’m fucked” to “the world’s complex but I commit to be a kind person”.

I can’t recommend it enough: experiential ACT exercises.

snek_boi @lemmy.ml 2mo ago

Ah. Thanks for the recommendation. I looked it up and the noun definition was "a substance obtained by a chemical process or producing a chemical effect". So things like sucrose in a banana, protein in eggs, and even fiber in vegetables are all chemical.

I understand that you're trying to make the point that Nutella is not healthy, and I genuinely think you can make an effective argument for that (in fact, I agree with you!). In particular, I think you can argue with evidence-based arguments. However, do you think accusing Nutella of being made of chemicals (when practically everything in this universe —including healthy food— is made of chemicals) is the best way of making an evidence-based argument?

2

snek_boi @lemmy.ml 2mo ago

Just to understand better what you're saying, what does the word "chemical" mean?

snek_boi @lemmy.ml 2mo ago

Fiber. Fiber helps you feel full, so it is harder to over-eat fruit in comparison with chocolate bars, gummy bears, or even fruit juice.

snek_boi @lemmy.ml 2mo ago

Ineed, not my original thinking. I base my thinking on Amartya Sen's view of human development, Christian Welzel's view of the human empowerment process, and what I've seen in the places I've worked at.

2

snek_boi @lemmy.ml 2mo ago

I love your comment because this is literally what happens with democratization efforts in societies where there are very strict gender roles or religious duties. It is very easy to preach about democracy and freedom, but it is harder to truly expand people’s capabilities. If someone is to truly be themselves, they need a context that truly empowers them to be free.

Here’s an example I witnessed: I once saw a man lose his house, his job, and his inheritance, because he came out to his conservative family. He went from a comfortable middle class upbringing to being homeless in a matter of minutes. A friend took him in while he found a job, but it was only a matter of time (and money) for him to flee to a more inclusive society.

In the face of this, perhaps it would be easy to just say “well, at least he found out who truly loved him for who he was”, but we shouldn’t romanticize homelessness, poverty, and severed connections. They’re devastating.

So what can we do? At a shelter I worked in, we made darn sure people had a clear path forward before fully leaving their abuse-filled reality. More broadly, we should strive to expand human capabilities.

Talking is easy. Being capable is harder.

snek_boi @lemmy.ml 2mo ago

To frame thought experiments and their limitations, there’s a couple of recommendations.

A fundamental one is Dave Snowden’s Cynefin. It helps you match reality with how you’re thinking about reality. Cynefin helps to appropriately deal with thought experiments like the Raven’s Paradox. Similarly, there are other texts that help you critically frame thought experiments, such as texts on pragmatism, contextual functionalism, and relational frame theory. If I’m to recommend a single book, I’d recommend ACT in Context.

Now, as to thought experiments proper, there’s Daniel Dennet’s Intuition Pumps. That book holds plenty of thought experiments that I like.

I have another recommendation. It is a bit tangential, but maybe you’d be interested in George Lakoff’s framing. Lakoff would argue that frames are at least sometimes exactly the same thing as a thought experiment.

1

snek_boi @lemmy.ml 2mo ago

Emily Nagoski’s Burnout has some practical advice, but the single most powerful thing you could be doing right now is mindfulness meditation.

Why? Because burnout usually comes associated with a set of bad experiences that we learn to shut out. That is why we need to re-learn to experience life instead of shutting it out.

How can you do it? I personally like the Healthy Minds app and program, but there are plenty online.

Other tips? Yes. Do Loving-Kindness meditation too. It makes you happy quickly and improves your relationships with people. This, in turn, improves your work.

How am I so sure? Check out Sonja Lyubomirsky’s meta-analyses. In them, she shows that the data overwhelmingly shows that happiness is associated with, temporally precedes, and experimentally induces success in work, relationships, and many other domains of life.

Finally, I’d suggest learning the basics of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. Why? Mindfulness will reconnect you with your experience and avoid rumination, but ACT will also ask you to find meaning in your life. Work can be meaningful if you’re not ruminating and you do the necessary values work. I love Hayes’ A Liberated Mind, but, again, there are other resources out there.

snek_boi @lemmy.ml 2mo ago

I posted a longer response but I think it didn’t get through or something.

Basically, I look at this from the point of view of Cynefin, and Estuarine Mapping. If you look at base and superstructure elements, you can look at them as ACTANTS of the system.

Whether you choose base-superstructure or Cynefin just shows that sometimes we can describe the same phenomena in different ways. And I take this idea from both Mary Midgley and Donna Haraway’s positioned knowledge.

snek_boi @lemmy.ml 2mo ago

How could we look at social dynamics? One way is Dave Snowden’s Cynefin. From that perspective, complex systems have actors, constructors, and constraints. The three of them are called ACTANTS. How do ACTANTS relate to base and superstructure? Well, each ACTANT of the system could be classified as base or superstructure.

Why am I saying that each ACTANT could be classified as base or superstructure? Because we should be open to the possibility that there are different ways of looking at the same thing in the world. We can look at a mountain from the north, from the south, from the base, or from the peak. Similarly, we can look at social relations as base and superstructure or as complex Cynefin systems (or other points of view!).

How do you know whether to classify ACTANTS into base and superstructure or not? Context. Use the pragmatic criterion: Is it helpful to classify the ACTANTS into base and superstructure in this particular context?

snek_boi @lemmy.ml 2mo ago

As the other comment says, Anki already changes dynamically so that you study the hard stuff more. Just make sure to mark whether you got the answer and how hard it was to get it.

Now, here’s something that could help you, perhaps more than any multiple choice exam could ever help you with: when studying, make sure to not only blurt the answer but also use elaborative recall. In other words, make an effort to think and do so mindfully (rather than mindlessly).

Why? You learn through effort and through mindfully (and not mindlessly) connecting the new knowledge with what you already know.

You could even structure your elaborative recall through Visible Thinking Routines.

How does that look like?

You start your study session.
You get an Anki card.
You remember this card clearly, and so you say it out loud and then check.
You get it right. No need for elaborative recall. Better to focus your energy elsewhere.
You get another Anki card.
This one’s tough. You’re unsure.
You say out loud why it could be any of the two answers you think could be right.
You get the answer and sure enough it was one of the two you thought.
You decide to do elaborative recall so that you learn this well. To guide your elaborative recall, you decide to use the thinking routine “Connect-Extend-Challenge”.
So you do elaborative recall through a thinking routine. You do it by talking out loud or writing it out.
This step may sound silly but make sure to celebrate so that you feel pride and satisfaction for doing something that takes effort (especially if you’re struggling with the habit of studying).
Then you move on to the next Anki card.

snek_boi @lemmy.ml 3mo ago

Anything is possible if you can do anything…

snek_boi @lemmy.ml 3mo ago

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.

snek_boi @lemmy.ml 3mo ago

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?

snek_boi @lemmy.ml 3mo ago

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.

snek_boi @lemmy.ml 4mo ago

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.