i like it. helps dilute all the depressing politics in my feed

yeah i love doom eternal and you’re completely right here. i think it’s definitely more noticeable at higher difficulties, but the game absolutely demands a certain rhythm

Hi there, gen Z person here. Things are bad but remember that, as always, you only see and hear about the vocal minority. No matter how poor American education standards are, it is irrefutable that Trumpism could not exist without idiots from all generations. The education paradigms we are emerging from cannot possibly be worse than those which produced tens of millions of conservatives and hundreds of millions of nonvoters. This is specifically because of those gen X leftists and millennial teachers you mentioned. We aren’t competing as generations–failures of the past become the lessons of the present because older generations also have smart people. So how do you know gen Z won’t do even better? Everything else aside, growing up under fascism creates widespread discontent. I’d say from personal knowledge that for every one gen Z kid that believes in the system are five who at least recognize it’s broken.

Now, I won’t pretend to be particularly optimistic either; things are bad. However, I also want to believe that we can and will do better. And maybe I’ll be wrong, but at least I haven’t given up hope.

that’s why i ran every request in a different chat session

i was curious so i tried it with chatgpt. here are the chat links:

• first expansion
• first summary
• second expansion
• second summary
• third expansion
• third summary
• fourth expansion
• fourth summary
• fifth expansion
• fifth summary
• sixth expansion
• sixth summary

overall it didn’t seem too bad. it sort of started focusing on the ecological and astrobiological side of the same topic but didn’t completely drift. to be honest, i think it would have done a lot worse if i made the prompt less specific. if it was just “summarize this text” and “expand on these points” i think chatgpt would get very distracted

correct, but the part shown here is for a transposing instrument. it sounds a fifth lower than it is written. so though it is written as A and E, in concert pitch, these notes are actually D and A

it completely depends on context and interpretation. there isn’t one correct way to play an accent, and you are correct that it doesn’t explicitly mean to play louder. what you’re describing as an accent is kind of like a fortepiano. similarly, what i described as an accent closely aligns with a sfortzando. point is, accents are vague and there isn’t a correct way to play one. more specific styles aren’t necessarily correct, and an interpretation is generally only made unambiguous with notation like the aforementioned fortepianos and sfortzandos

it’s the english horn 5 measures after rehearsal mark 125

the ’ is a breath mark. in this context, it’s indicating a wind player to breathe at that moment. the same meaning applies to vocalists. it can also appear outside winds or vocalists. in such cases, it means to take a slight pause without necessarily altering tempo (usually by shortening the preceding note) the > is an accent. it indicates to play with greater emphasis. how that emphasis comes through depends on the musical context, but it often means playing that note louder or stronger

was written by mahler. no other hints!

my parents were understandably pissed because i had deleted at least a few hundred gigabytes of photos and videos from the last decade. iirc i was banned from touching the computer for at least a year, which was funny because i was literally the only one who used it

growing up my family had a mac desktop that i had access to while really young. eventually realized mac is a little terrible, so i tried bootcamp to get some proper use out of the computer. i successfully installed windows, but somehow fucked up and formatted the mac partition. all for windows to also suck

lithium only has one valence electron. it really wants to get rid of that valence electron. halogens such as the pictured fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine have seven valence electrons. they really want to obtain one more valence electron to form a stable outer shell. thus, the lithium donates its electron, forming an ionic compound

aaaa ko li utala e mi la mi utala e ko

ko li utala e mi!!! mi wile moli e ko ale!

fan art of blue archive, a gacha game

i’d agree that we don’t really understand consciousness. i’d argue it’s more an issue of defining consciousness and what that encompasses than knowing its biological background. if we knew what to look for, we’d find it. also anesthesia isn’t really a problem at all. in fact, we know exactly how general anesthesia works

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908224/

and Penroses’s Orch OR theory was never meant to explain anesthesia. it’s a more general theory concerning the overall existence of consciousness in the first place. however, anesthesia does relate to the theory, in that it could play a role in proving it (i think? not a primary source but it’s where i found that info)

besides that, Orch OR isn’t exactly a great model in the first place, or at least from a neurological standpoint. even among theories of consciousness, Orch OR is particularly controversial and not widely accepted. i’m no expert and i could be misunderstanding, so please correct me if i’m missing something that would indicate Orch OR is considered even remotely plausible compared to other consciousness theories. this paper certainly had some things to say about it in the context of the validity of theories of consciousness (see V.1 class I).

other theories seem more promising. global workspace theory seems particularly well supported by neurology. its criticisms mainly focus on how GWT fails to truly explain the nature of consciousness. but is that an issue any theory can resolve? again, the problem lies in the definition of consciousness.

then we have integrated information theory. it’s a more mathematical model that aims to quantify the human experience. but you know what? it’s also controversial and highly debated, to the point that it’s been called pseudoscientific because it implies a degree of panpsychism. it’s clearly not a perfect theory.

point is, you’re right. we don’t really get consciousness. we have some wild guesses out there, and penrose’s theory is certainly one of them. genius as penrose is, Orch OR isn’t empirically testable. we don’t know, and maybe can’t know - which is precisely why neuroscience searches elsewhere

interesting. i’d say it’s not really that important, but then again i’d probably have a very different opinion if i didn’t have aphantasia.