monotremata

"If only I'd programmed the robot to be more careful what I wished for. Robot, experience this tragic irony for me!"

Really! I find that fascinating.

When I try to think of a tune (often because I haven't recalled the lyrics yet and am still trying to identify the song), I am just listening to the song in my head, trying to think of the notes and instrumentation of the next bit. I hear it, like a recording.

When I try to throw something--I said basketball because I figured it would be more relatable, but the sport I actually played was Ultimate (Frisbee, but that's a trademark, so the sport is just Ultimate)--I'm picturing the path of the disc, how it will arc on the wind, the precise angle, how to roll it off my fingers, how long it will be in the air and how far to lead the runner. It's a struggle to even come up with words for it now. It all feels visceral, the same as thinking how to reach my hand out to touch a glass on a table.

It's hard for me to imagine using words for those kinds of things because words are so vague and general. Words deal with categories we impose on the world, rather than the world as it is. Like, I learned to juggle as a teenager; I could never do that if I had to use words to think about every way to maneuver my arms and how the balls would land and so forth. I just have to reach where the ball is going to be, and throw where my hand is going to be. When I first learned Mills' Mess, I got it mixed up a bit (because I was learning from a VHS tape), and I had an extra throw in there. It took me quite a while to figure out how I mixed it up, and how to do it without that extra throw. But it was a spatial puzzle. I wouldn't even know how to convey the issue in detail without just doing it.

I dunno. I shouldn't be surprised that people's inner lives are very different, but this particular point confounds me a bit.

When you're thinking about how to throw a basketball to get it through a hoop, do you use words for that?

When you are thinking of the tune to a particular song, is that in words?

I think a lot of people overestimate the role of words in thinking. There's a lot of non-verbal thought.

I dunno. I think a lot of regular people felt really strongly that it was critical that the Republicans not gain control of everything in this last election, and given how things are going at the moment, it's really hard to argue that was wrong. Which is not to say that the folks criticizing the Democrats were wrong either! The Democrats' feckless centrism and undermining of leftist candidates has been galling for years. The difficult truth is that the system has been so broken that really good people following genuine motivations were arguing on both sides of the leftist/Democrat divide. I was trying to cling to the hope that if we jollied the current system along, we could get reforms like ranked choice voting and the national vote interstate compact in place that would help shift the underlying incentives in the system away from the two-party system, but it's probably really been irreparable for years now.

Of course bullying people was never going to be an effective tactic, and I never endorsed that. But that's just regular tribalism and anger at the nonconformist. That's just regular dumb human stuff.

I mostly agree with this--I commented not long ago in another thread that the political situation in the US has convinced me not to seek any diagnosis right now. But I would say that there can be reasons that aren't specific to medication in particular that you might want a diagnosis. Sometimes there are non-medication accommodations that you can get (e.g. at work) with a diagnosis that they might not be open to giving you without one. Sometimes this can be huge! I've had times where I was in two different different locations in the same office at different times, and in one, half my field of view was taken up by a throughway where people walked across the office, and in the other my view was against a wall and behind a little corner of wall, and I got so much more work done in the second spot. It was just tremendously less overstimulating. So the prospect of being able to get that kind of issue taken seriously is part of what tempted me about seeking diagnosis.

I think this might be more what they're looking for.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/random_number.png

GNU Terry Pratchett

Yes, to an extent they do different things, but that's not what the person you were replying to was talking about. For several years there was this idea that "left-handed people are right-brain dominant, and right-handed people are left-brain dominant." And along with that went this whole astrology-tinged thing about the right brain being the creative half and the left brain being the analytic half and whatnot. It's pretty much nonsense.

The "Scunthorpe Problem" strikes again!

Not as far as I know. Practically speaking there are several disadvantages--the slots limit the light on the markings, parallax effects can mess with the reading, it requires two full surfaces sliding against each other which increases friction, etc. Plus with a regular vernier scale you can see both sides of a line, which could give you a better sense of how they line up ("vernier acuity"). But in a case like this, where precision isn't a top priority and ease of use might outrank it, I think there's an argument to be made for it.

I wouldn't have caught that the gallery link was wrong if you hadn't mentioned not knowing how the tool was used, so thank you as well!

Yeah, I think we just disagree about this. You're implying that letting this go forward would be giving in to the state acting capriciously, but that's really not what this is. The states have literally already started spending the money--hiring contractors and so forth to physically build things--based on the funds that the government had already decided to send them, but is now arbitrarily yanking back. Note that this is different from "we are accustomed to receiving funds for this"; instead it's "you made a specific commitment to provide X funds for Y purpose, and are now suddenly stiffing us on the bill." In that light, withholding a portion of the funds that the state ostensibly owes the government in order to make up that unexpected shortfall really isn't that unreasonable. You keep portraying this as them withholding money "because they disagree with federal policies," and saying "what those policies are and why is completely irrelevant," but the policy they disagree with is the sudden and arbitrary withholding of previously-committed funds to the state, and they are withholding state funds to the feds as a direct way of offsetting that deficit. That makes it feel extremely relevant.

I just don't think it absolutely has to be the slippery slope you're portraying it as. I'm getting into technicalities because we're discussing the law and precedent, and technicalities matter a whole freaking lot when you're dealing with the law. There's a reason descending into technicalities is referred to in roleplaying games as "rules lawyering".

And as for highly populous states having a larger influence on federal policy...isn't that just democracy? Power derives from the consent of the governed, and at the moment that consent is at a particularly low ebb.

In any case, yeah, I think we just disagree on this, and it's all moot in the face of the specific court in power. I'll let you get the last word if you want to reply, but I'll probably drop it at this point.