9196 pts ยท January 23, 2013
In the actual Peter Pan, if the lost boys get too large, then he literally carves the flesh off them so they fit. This is why they eat imaginary food.Peter Pan is meant to be the villain.
#4 is dumb. It's thirty two. The joke is that too and two are homophones. They did it the wrong way around. 16 + 16 is not 30, as the semantics imply.
The article you linked says that a therapist should not play both a clinical and forensic role. It then gives a suggestion how to deal with this problem. I have looked at the other link you provided (You should cite the original paper https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08927936.2023.2166711) it seems to contain your claim. The study surveys 77 self selecting adults... Perhaps not the nail in the coffin you were going for.
No, the article mentions that there is an ethical conflict act as both clinical and forensic therapist. It even proposes a way around this: "Boness and her colleagues recommend preventing such situations by including a statement in informed consent materials saying that you provide only clinical services and will refer patients to other providers for forensic services."
This article does not back up your claim.
I came here to make a joke about holding up the moon.
Money is not the only way to contribute to society. I feel sad that you see humans in such a limited way.
I think at some point this idea was conflated with the judeo-christian-islamic traditions of being grateful for what little you had. This was morphed into being grateful for your excess and eventually formed an apologetic notion. You don't have to worry about the starving people because you were grateful for your meal.
Remove donations from the picture. Restaurants still have high levels of access to food that could be distributed to people who need to eat in order to make sure that they can over supply to people who can pay. The issue is the system. The way we prioritise access to the food we have, as a society.
I should clarify. It is not that your point is bad. It is just irrelevant in this conversation.
Right. This is the personal responsibility problem. The issue with people going hungry due to food waste comes from 3 factors. Greed, distribution, and logistics. Anyone who tells you it comes from personal responsibility is either conflating one of these factors or trying to lie to you.
I have always had a problem with this. The issue is that if I eat all my food, it does nothing to feed those people. Waste comes from distribution networks and logistics. Low to middle class people have very little personal impact on food waste.
That is not the point they are trying to make.
Indeed... just garbage. What does "pure information" even mean? And that's only the first problem.
This! People keep saying how stupid these people are. That may be true for some of them, but it means you ignore the far worse idea, they know what they are doing. They are doing it on purpose and it is working.
I wonder what the voltage is for the dielectric breakdown of water.
So it could be both. If you are close to 100 times smaller than this, then you are also 2 orders of magnitude smaller.
So a 2 digit integer times cheaper.
What? Do you mean a 2 digit integer order of magnitude? $70 is cheaper than $80 by a 2 digit integer.
Adding to this, research into paedophilia is often unfunded and stigmatised in psychology schools. But this just means that we don't understand the problem... How are we ever meant to solve the problem if we can't even understand it.
But I agree with your other point... A bat is sometimes necessary.
There is a great This American Life episode about people who are paedophiles, as in sexually attracted to children, and how we should be helping these people before they act on this attraction. It talks a lot about how people with this attraction are usually horrified and willing to change to begin with and are then radicalised. It is a complicated issue but perhaps we could find a way to save both the children and the adult.
I say this with love, learn some computational theory. Your arguments are all over the place.
These are broad sweeping claims that are completely ungrounded in reality. "Context behind any subject"? I don't know what LLM you have been interacting with, but shit, it's an all-knowing oracle. You just said that the definition of knowledge is identifying a joke... what?
Neural nets run on modern computers. This means that neural nets are assembled from base logical instructions. Your comment is wildly false. I recommend reading the book by Arora and Barak on computational complexity. Does a great rundown of computability and what it means to be computable. So my point is that computers aren't magic. We do not understand neural nets from a mathematical standpoint, but this does not mean they defy computational architecture or theory.
In the actual Peter Pan, if the lost boys get too large, then he literally carves the flesh off them so they fit. This is why they eat imaginary food.
Peter Pan is meant to be the villain.
#4 is dumb. It's thirty two. The joke is that too and two are homophones. They did it the wrong way around. 16 + 16 is not 30, as the semantics imply.
The article you linked says that a therapist should not play both a clinical and forensic role. It then gives a suggestion how to deal with this problem. I have looked at the other link you provided (You should cite the original paper https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08927936.2023.2166711) it seems to contain your claim. The study surveys 77 self selecting adults... Perhaps not the nail in the coffin you were going for.
No, the article mentions that there is an ethical conflict act as both clinical and forensic therapist. It even proposes a way around this: "Boness and her colleagues recommend preventing such situations by including a statement in informed consent materials saying that you provide only clinical services and will refer patients to other providers for forensic services."
This article does not back up your claim.
I came here to make a joke about holding up the moon.
Money is not the only way to contribute to society. I feel sad that you see humans in such a limited way.
I think at some point this idea was conflated with the judeo-christian-islamic traditions of being grateful for what little you had. This was morphed into being grateful for your excess and eventually formed an apologetic notion. You don't have to worry about the starving people because you were grateful for your meal.
Remove donations from the picture. Restaurants still have high levels of access to food that could be distributed to people who need to eat in order to make sure that they can over supply to people who can pay. The issue is the system. The way we prioritise access to the food we have, as a society.
I should clarify. It is not that your point is bad. It is just irrelevant in this conversation.
Right. This is the personal responsibility problem. The issue with people going hungry due to food waste comes from 3 factors. Greed, distribution, and logistics. Anyone who tells you it comes from personal responsibility is either conflating one of these factors or trying to lie to you.
I have always had a problem with this. The issue is that if I eat all my food, it does nothing to feed those people. Waste comes from distribution networks and logistics. Low to middle class people have very little personal impact on food waste.
That is not the point they are trying to make.
Indeed... just garbage. What does "pure information" even mean? And that's only the first problem.
This! People keep saying how stupid these people are. That may be true for some of them, but it means you ignore the far worse idea, they know what they are doing. They are doing it on purpose and it is working.
I wonder what the voltage is for the dielectric breakdown of water.
So it could be both. If you are close to 100 times smaller than this, then you are also 2 orders of magnitude smaller.
So a 2 digit integer times cheaper.
What? Do you mean a 2 digit integer order of magnitude? $70 is cheaper than $80 by a 2 digit integer.
Adding to this, research into paedophilia is often unfunded and stigmatised in psychology schools. But this just means that we don't understand the problem... How are we ever meant to solve the problem if we can't even understand it.
But I agree with your other point... A bat is sometimes necessary.
There is a great This American Life episode about people who are paedophiles, as in sexually attracted to children, and how we should be helping these people before they act on this attraction. It talks a lot about how people with this attraction are usually horrified and willing to change to begin with and are then radicalised. It is a complicated issue but perhaps we could find a way to save both the children and the adult.
I say this with love, learn some computational theory. Your arguments are all over the place.
These are broad sweeping claims that are completely ungrounded in reality. "Context behind any subject"? I don't know what LLM you have been interacting with, but shit, it's an all-knowing oracle. You just said that the definition of knowledge is identifying a joke... what?
Neural nets run on modern computers. This means that neural nets are assembled from base logical instructions. Your comment is wildly false. I recommend reading the book by Arora and Barak on computational complexity. Does a great rundown of computability and what it means to be computable. So my point is that computers aren't magic. We do not understand neural nets from a mathematical standpoint, but this does not mean they defy computational architecture or theory.