> Of course, I believe the climate crisis is the most important problem in the world. However I don't think former colonial powers have any right to say or rather lecture former colonised countries on their obligations, when the colonial powers haven't properly addressed why the colonised countries are in the state they are in.
Words and lectures are irrelevant. Only what the First World can do—including influencing the Third World—matters.
> It is also not just at the feet of former colonial powers, the US wasn't a coloniser but did have a tremendous imperial influence throughout the Third World that has stymied progress and thrown Third World countries into a debt trap that they cannot escape (unfortunately China is doing the same these days). This needs to be addressed too.
I guess “stymied progress” is a way of phrasing it.
Not being a hypocrite is not really that important compared to solving the problem at hand.
You also get into absurd situations like how former colonial powers can’t say that up-and-coming colonial powers can’t develop in that particular way. Some things are just bad to do.
What-ifs about how the world operates are non sequiturs. They apparently got their way in Germany even though nuclear is greener than petroleum energy (according to the premise of the GP comment).
I guess it’s effective because it is similar to Markdown and other lightweight stuff: things like bullet items are just written like bullet items, with hyphens (or similar). You write it how you want it to be displayed. Granted for a diagram it’s more complicated since it’s a graph and not a tree, and you write it with declarative arrows rather than as ASCII art, but perhaps that in practice strikes a nice balance between being non-finicky and at the same being simple enough (syntax-wise) in order to deal with.
That aside the “unreasonable effectiveness” allusion to “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences” is clearly overwrought. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
> Reaching for code to solve my code problem seemed like something that would only appeal to someone that loves code so much that they're probably no good at visualizing.
There are some teachers of Samatha meditation, a Buddhist concentration meditation, that teach that you at any point are meditating at one of ten stages. This is both about skill as well as about factors like how agitated your mind is in general. And these stages seem to have very well-defined descriptions: for example one stage might be differentiated from the previous one by overcoming drowsiness. This is very helpful since some people teach meditation by just telling you how to do it but not (in fact sometimes actively avoiding) how you can evaluate where you are and how you are doing. Then the practice becomes just about “being present” and other slogans that might be wholly non-actionable.
It’s also very difficult to protest this kind of approach (edit: the non-goal approach) since merely mentioning things like "goal" or "evaluation" will trigger someone’s knee-jerk you’re-doing-it-wrong reaction, even though what they practice might be completely different to what you are doing or trying to achieve.
Some things aren’t just taken out of thin air. Part of being a “social creature” is that you pick up on what other people think of you by observing how they talk about other people that you have something in common with. And that doesn’t have to be something wishy-washy like “being boring”; it could be very concrete, objective things, like being X or having Y. Then you go, huh, that’s me as well. And then you listen to them say that oh, people who are X, Y, and Z are A and B. And that’s you as well.
But no (someone says), they’re wrong: it’s just their opinion. It’s entirely subjective and partial.
... But don’t you see? That’s what being a social creature is—being at the whims of the opinion of others. How can you possibly claim that Humans Are Social Creatures, and then blame the person who is affected by What Others Think of Them?
What helped the most with my depression was meditation. All alone. A difference between hopelessness and a positive disposition (also among people, despite not knowing or interacting with any of them).
> We are a social species. We need others to be happy.
The flipside is that we can make each other miserable as well.
> Yeah, people feel less lonely when they’re around people who they like and who like them.
People who they like and who like them. And you don’t think that that is a massive caveat? The original claim was just “people”, not “fantastic and awesome people”.
> “People feel more lonely when they’re around other people” is the type of stuff you could only find on the internet or in academia, you can logic yourself into it but it’s so far beyond common sense it’s insane
And who are you to make this statement? Only on the Internet and in academia? I don’t know what “only on the Internet” is supposed to mean. That everyone lies on the Internet or that none of them (us) are real people? I’ve seen people who have made this claim. On the Internet at least. (How candid are random people about this “in real life”?) They seemed sincere enough about it.
I don’t even know what the hell you are getting at with “logic yourself into”, as if how people feel is just a philosophical-analytical experiment gone wrong. Get a grip.
This is pretty obvious from my experience. I don’t really get “lonely” but I can be miserable when out among people. But by myself I might just be bored. But only some times.
You know how “humans are social creatures”? A sort of corollary to that is that people define what a normal person is. And very subtle-like too. No one needs to spell it out one-on-one. But it’s always there. A constant reminder of how you might not conform, might not be good enough, might not have the right connections, might have the wrong interests. And once you check enough of those anti-boxes you realize that neither you nor other people have anything to offer each other. You are a bore, and they are there just to remind you of your failures.
That one can be lonely or feel bad in a crowd of people might be counter-intuitive to many because the narrative goes that loneliness is a disease that inflicts the individual and is only about a lack of people. But isn’t that hypocritical? How can you say that “humans are social creatures” and just outright deny all the negative signals that people (us) send to each other all the time?
A fork where you diverge from the original is still a fork.
Most long-lived forks that I hear about are things that have developed into their own projects and have no intention of merging back to the original. Contrast with a short-term fork which will only live a few months and then will be hopefully be merged into the original; it will probably be so short-lived that people outside of the project won’t hear about it as a “fork” with its own distinct name.
A “fork” isn’t only making a GitHub fork so that you can make a PR against the original because you found a typo on the readme.
Maybe "the whole computer is out of memory" (general purpose allocator). Contrast with a custom allocator which might only be able to work with a few kilobytes (for example).
The submission, of course. :)