Just a heads up, we probably don’t have a ton of Russian speakers on Beehaw. This might do better posted elsewhere.

Okay I understand what you are saying now, but I believe that you are conflating two ideas here.

The first idea is about learning the concepts, and not just the specifics. There’s a difference between memorizing a specific chemical reaction and understanding types of chemical reactions and using that to deduce what a specific chemical reaction would be given two substances. I would not call that intuition, however, as it’s a matter of learning larger patterns, rules, or processes.

The second idea is about making things happen faster and less consciously. In essence, this is pattern recognition, but in practice it’s a bit more complicated. Playing a piece over and over or shooting a basketball over and over is a rather unique process in that it involves muscle memory (or more accurately it involves specific areas of the brain devoted to motor cortex activation patterns working in sync with sensory systems such as proprioception). Knowing how to declare a variable or the order of operations, on the other hand, is pattern recognition within the context of a specific language or programming languages in general (as a reflection of currently circulating/used programming languages). I would consider both of these (muscle memory and pattern recognition) as aligned with the idea of intuition as you’ve defined it.

Rote learning is not necessary to understand concepts, but the amount of repetition needed to remember an idea after x period of time is going vary from person to person and how long after you expect someone to remember something. Pattern recognition and muscle memory, however, typically require a higher amount of repetition to sink in, but will also vary depending on person and time between learning and recall.

it helps develop intuition of the relationship between numbers and the various mathematical operations

Could you expand upon this? I’m not sure I understand what you mean by an ‘intuition’.

I want to start off by saying that I agree there are aspects of the process which are important and should be learned, but this is more to do with critical thinking and applicable skills than it has to do with the process itself.

Of note, this part of your reply in particular I believe is somewhat shortsighted

Cheating, whether using AI or not, is preventing yourself from learning and developing mastery and understanding.

Using AI to answer a question is not necessarily preventing yourself from learning and developing mastery and understanding. The use of AI is a skill in the same way that any ability to look up information is a skill. But blindly putting information into an AI and copy/pasting the results is very different from using AI as a resource in a similar way one might use a book or an article as a resource. A single scientific study with a finding doesn’t make fact - it provides evidence for fact and must be considered in the context of other available evidence.

In addition, learning to interact with and use AI is a skill in the same way that learning to interact with and use a phone, or the internet, or an app are all skills. With interaction layers becoming increasingly more abstract (which is normal and good), people need to have skills at each layer in order for processes to exist and for tools be useful to humanity. Most modern tools require people who can operate on different levels with different levels of skill. While computers are an easy example since you are replying on some kind of electronic device which requires everything from chemists to engineers to fabrication specialists and programmers (hardware, software, operating system, etc.) to work, this is true for nearly any human made product in the modern world. Being able to drive a car is a very different skill set than being able to maintain a car, or work on a car, or fabricate parts for a car, or design parts for a car, or design the machinery that manufactures the parts for the car, and so on.

This is a particularly long winded way of pointing out something that’s always been true - the idea that you should learn how to do math in your head because ‘you won’t always have a calculator’ or that the idea that you need to understand how to do the problem in your head or how the calculator is working to understand the material is a false one and it’s one that erases the complexity of modern life. Practicing the process helps you learn a specific skill in a specific context and people who make use of existing systems to bypass the need of having that skill are not better or worse - they are simply training a different skill. The means by which they bypass the process is extremely important - they could give it no thought at all or they may critically think about it and devise a process which still pays attention to the underlying process without fully understanding how to replicate it. The difference in approach is important, and in the context of learning it’s important to experiment and learn critical thinking skills to make a decision of where you wish to have that additional mastery and what level of abstraction you are comfortable with and care about interacting with.

I think she wants you to just rack up a bunch of medical debt so she can cancel it, gotta think in loopholes like the big companies

Extremely based, good job FTC

Is that for sure right? I don’t know. I don’t really care. My daughter was happy with an answer and I’ve already warned her it could be bullshit. But curiosity was satisfied.

I’m not sure if you recognize this, but this is precisely how mentalism, psychics, and others in similar fields have always existed! Look no further than Pliny the elder or Rasputin for folks who made a career out of magical and mystical explanations for everything and gained great status for it. ChatGPT is in many ways the modern version of these individuals, gaining status for having answers to everything which seem plausible enough.

As much as I despise the current court, I would not expect them to rule in that fashion because this isn’t an issue that’s politically charged. Gorsuch is very much a letter of the law boy, so he’d rule in favor of existing law and the idea of making law more explicit if there are areas which can’t be reasoned out. Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor are all pro consumer rights, so they’d vote against EULA applying super broadly. My guess is Roberts would also vote in favor of consumer protection given his track record. Thomas could probably be bought off, but IDK if Disney would want to be associated with buying him off. Then again Thomas is against regulation in general so he might be fine with EULA of any scope. Barrett studied under Scalia, so she’ll probably be against because Disney is too woke. Kavanaugh tends to lean team Gorsuch when it comes to word of the law so long as it doesn’t violate his conservative principles so my guess is he’d also be against. It could be a 8-1 against Disney with those numbers.

But perhaps more importantly, they’d probably just not even take it up as an issue, and leave it up to the lower court unless the lower court gave an absolutely wild verdict.

I hope Disney’s claim gets thrown out because I worry about the precedent this could set for EULAs going forward.

I hope that it isn’t thrown out. I hope it goes to court, and the judge, in their ruling, outlines precisely why a EULA for Disney+ doesn’t apply here - reasons such as a single month of service not constituting an endless contract, a contract not being able to apply outside the bounds of the service regardless of the serving entity, perhaps even some comment on the scope of the EULA and what’s allowed in a legal contract (especially when it’s presented the way it is).

There is a massive opportunity for a judge, biased or not, to make it clear where the bounds of law, as it is currently written, apply and do not apply in this case without making any major decisions about the scope of EULAs themselves.

Again, we are having this conversation in a Beehaw thread; if you don’t understand the significance of that then I don’t know what else to say.

Would love to hear your thoughts in more depth on this. What is the significance?

This is right in line with the other spots I’ve lived in the city (SoMa, avenues).

This is definitely normal for SoMA but down at 2nd st is approaching the financial district which is usually a bit quieter at night. I can understand someone who’s just not used to it, or used to living in noisy parts of the city being upset or surprised about it.

But also 2nd/folsom is right at the bridge on-ramp which I would imagine is getting a fair deal of freeway noise 🤷‍♀️

hell yea that rules

beyond cringe

transphobia is not acceptable on this instance, be(e) better

Thank you for the kind words. Not updating is not a decision we have taken lightly. I can’t speak to the specifics because I’m not tech enough to fully understand them, but I believe part of the reason for updating has to do with that migration off Lemmy - that it changes the way data is stored and organized and because of such the migration process (moving comments, threads, etc. to sublinks) would need to be entirely redesigned.

I just want to say that @TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org did a great job explaining some of the issues with your reply, but there’s a few things that I want to focus on in your reply.

• It’s easy to make the claim that you don’t care about skin color, but it simply doesn’t pan out. Here’s a fairly long but comprehensive review on implicit bias training, which talks a bit about the prevalence and need for the training in the first place. In short, the literature proves that everyone has implicit biases - it’s simply how our brains work. While some issues suffer from stronger biases than others, and the bias varies from person to person, it’s always there.
• The idea of “not seeing” race may be an appealing one to state, but it’s an over-correction. Try telling someone in a wheelchair that you “don’t see disability” and see how they react. They’re not going to be happy. You absolutely see their identity. What you mean to say is that their identity doesn’t factor into your decision, which as I just stated in the last point is objectively incorrect. At best we can work to minimize how one’s identity shapes our decisions.
• Racism can only have certain victims. Racism is the interaction between prejudice and power. The reason it’s defined like this is the same reason we talk about the paradox of tolerance. Punching a Nazi is technically violence, but there’s a difference between hateful violence and defensive violence. While you can classify people being prejudiced against white folks as racism, there’s a similar distinction between prejudice and racism that applies here. To be clear, I do want you to be reporting any kind of prejudice that occurs on Beehaw, but we need to define and describe the differences because the inclusion of power and minority status are important here.
• Just because you don’t think something is a problem doesn’t mean it’s not a problem. Someone who has a different identity than you, or who spends time in spaces you don’t is sharing something. Telling them they are wrong or that they are imagining things is not a nice thing to do - if you don’t think it’s an issue, then don’t reply. If you do think it’s an issue, frame it differently - rather than accusing them of trying to shame white people, how about simply framing things through your own eyes. Don’t say that they are trying to shame people, instead say this is making you feel ashamed or angry.

Fantastic article, thanks!

This is blatant doublespeak, and has been removed because of such.

The author touches on this near the beginning-

Winamp skins are actually just zip files with a different file extension

So they’re treating them like archives and extracting them

I’m going to treat you with good faith and assume you were using “cool man” in the same way someone might say “that’s just like your opinion man”, as a saying, but I will remind you that this person has their pronouns in their display name and you need to respect them.

I can’t imagine who possibly lobbied for this and why it’s focused only on artists and journalists

duplicate of https://beehaw.org/post/15113153?scrollToComments=true

I’m not sure why there’s the need to rebrand confidence to the term dominance, but I generally agree with the author. With that being said, I’m not sure I fully understand what dominance means or where the data comes from. It feels like there might be some cherry-picking here, because upon reflection I think even many centrist dems do draw hard lines in the sand on certain issues. In general I agree with the praise for MLK and for being more uncompromising on the issues that matter, and I also agree strongly with how important a positive uplifting message (It’s how AOC and many of the true progressives got elected) is and how very few democrats actually execute on this.

Without proper studies on the damage of consistently high decibel sound exposure? We’ve got a lot of those… where do you think the guidelines around decibel exposure came from?

Since I finished erdtree I jumped into DMC5. Combat feels so awkward in this game and it’s so clear the control schemes are from ages ago. It’s had me thinking about whether I want to just pick up another game on my list like BG3 or cyberpunk 2077 and finally play through it, or if I want to just start a new character or re-do the erdtree DLC (made a copy of my SL110 char before beginning DLC) so I can do all the new content properly. Still slowly working my way thru DMC5 but I’m like 7 missions in and while it’s getting better as I unlock skills it just doesn’t feel smooth.

To be fair, congress could pass a law that explicitly states what the old Chevron decision did, that these agencies have power to set standards. That wouldn’t solve the broken court which should have been packed as soon as Biden took office but it would at least explicitly stop the federalist anti regulatory stance as it would be in the word of law.

Investing a bunch of time into Erdtree. I think some of the bosses probably need a bit of tweaking, in particular Rellana seems to be a spot where lots of folks are struggling. I wonder if someone will figure out the Scaudtree fragment mitigation/dmg boost, but there’s definitely a lack of pre-Rellana fragments or just a general struggle with this boss based on how quickly you can get summoned and how quickly people seem to just straight up die when fighting this boss lmao. Took a lot of tries to down him the first time myself but I also haven’t touched this game since release and I played through it pretty quick.

any president can

oh nooo a warning whatever will they do

you can pack the court at anytime Joe, how about now

Locking comments, this has gone off the rails and devolved into hurling insults

I’ve given you a 7 day temporary ban to reflect on how you might better engage with the community in the future. Bee better

I don’t think that someone’s behavior choice is comparable to their clothing choice

I completely agree, but victim blaming across choices and especially towards women and POC individuals is part of the reason we have really shitty reporting of fraudsters. Creating an environment which discourages them from speaking up is harmful to society as a whole.

everyone in this case is trying to take advantage of someone

We don’t know this, and we shouldn’t assume this of the victim. I think it’s a reasonable hypothesis, but focusing on talking about the victim here when there are actors which are clearly out to harm or take advantage of others is harmful framing. If this is a discussion you wish to have, I personally believe the appropriate framing is necessary - we must acknowledge the existing structure of power and how it silences certain people and also blames them before talking about potentially problematic behavior. But even then, it’s kind of jumping to conclusions about the victim here and I’m not so certain it’s a discussion that should even be entertained.

We cannot possibly know her intentions. We do know his intentions. Please stop shifting focus away from the person actively causing harm here.

Again, can we please not victim blame? Calling this a failure, saying that they must be “so shallow” to fall for a fame scam is analogous to saying “she was asking for it because of the way she was dressed” to a rape victim. Being a human is complicated and there are many reasons a victim can fall prey to a scam. It’s not as one dimensional as you’re painting it and regardless of how shallow a person is, no one deserves to be taken advantage of. The focus of discussion here should not be the victim, but rather the perpetrator and the fact that they are out to take advantage of others. That’s abhorrent behavior and we should keep the focus squarely on them.

I think it’s completely fair to have an honest conversation about what could cause someone to be enticed by a large number of followers, but I don’t think that OP was making space for that conversation. It came off as victim blaming because there was no attempt at nuance or unpacking the fact that these women were targeted by a conman and that we really shouldn’t be blaming them at all.

This boy is purposefully being misleading about himself - he is presenting a con. We shouldn’t be victim blaming.

There is no need to be tolerant towards the intolerant. If someone says they want to do some ethnic cleansing, that’s not exactly a nice gesture and pushing back against that message is both cool and good.

what