@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 225

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 225

Verified Email

Yeah, that's fair. Fortunately, when my parents tried to talk to me about their marriage woes I was in my twenties so I had more ability to push back. I sympathize that you had to deal with that from a young age; I know it couldn't have been easy.

Is that a bad thing?

Yes it is, for men at least. Some set of norms are going to rule, and it might not be yours, but men are suffocated by the current norms of society. At the very least, even if feminine norms are to be those dominant in our society, we need to not shame men for behaving amongst themselves as men.

It's totally normal. I'm not an anxious person at all but nature, but I was a nervous wreck on my wedding day. I joked to my groomsmen that I was going to hop out the window and flee, to which my brother said "You've come too far for that. Our job as your groomsmen at this point is to save you from yourself if needed." Thankfully I listened to him and calmed down, but I was pretty scared from the sheer weight of the day.

my parents were miserably married and I got to see that up front and personal because my mom saw me as her confidante.

That's tough. I'm sorry to hear that. I've had the same thing with my parents a bit, and have had to gently remind them that I (as a very not neutral party) can't really be there for them as a shoulder to cry on when they have issues with each other.

But this is where it goes back to my original query, should I really be with someone I'm trying to change?

The "don't try to change your partner" advice is more about not making your love conditional upon them changing, than it is about not encouraging them to improve. If you guys marry, it will be your duty to try to point out when she has serious deficiencies, and to try to help her work on those things. But you need to be willing to accept the fact that she may not change, and love her regardless.

My answer to your paradox is that claim #2 is false, thus there is no paradox. I also suspect that it's different people giving advice #1 and 2, which again means there really isn't a paradox.

I think that point #1 is completely correct. You can't go into a relationship expecting you will change that person. My wife (11 years after we met) is still very much the same person she always was. Her flaws are something she works on, but they are still there and most likely always will be. Committing to someone, then, cannot come with the expectation of "that drives me crazy but it'll change". You must be willing to accept the person as she is, not as you hope she will become.

To the extent that two people "grow into" each other, it's not because a person changes his flaws for his spouse. It's because as you share a life, you build on the foundation you have in common, and as you do those things are shared, until most of your self is the history you have built up with this person over the years and you can't imagine yourselves apart. But I don't think that means that you can expect that each of you will be able to set aside your deep flaws (which we all have) out of love for the other person. You can mitigate those things out of love, certainly. But they won't disappear.

On your questions about your situation, it's hard to get a good read without knowing you more. But it sounds like you are focusing a bit too much on the negatives. It is hard to strike a balance between ignoring all the red flags and being overly critical, but it sounds to me like right now you're a touch on the latter side. I also don't think that being apart and spending all your time dealing with these issues is helping. Perhaps that can't be helped in your respective circumstances right now, but I suggest trying to consciously focus on having good times for a little while. It's important to discuss serious things, but it's important to take breaks from that and work on being in love. If you guys do marry, you'll find that even in marriage you'll have seasons when you are both busy and stressed out with life and need to make a conscious effort to reconnect. Best to start developing that skill now.

Lastly, don't be too worried about what you think your relationship should be like. You guys aren't in trouble because you're having a rough go of it lately, that happens to everyone. When my wife and I got married, we didn't go through a "honeymoon" phase where everything was sunshine and rainbows. On the contrary, we fought a lot when we first got married, almost from the time we got back from our honeymoon. At the time I worried about what that meant, and if we were doing something wrong in our marriage. But looking back now I see that it was just a season, that we had lots of lovey dovey time before we got married and had more after that season was over, and that we were doing just fine. There isn't a benchmark you have to meet for how easy or hard your relationship is at the moment, just take the seasons as they come and work through them as best you can.

Protestants don't reject Sacred Tradition, they simply give it a lower status than Scripture itself.

Depends on the Protestant. I grew up in a non-denominational Protestant church which absolutely would've rejected the idea of tradition having any sort of authority (which is the bit that makes it sacred). Their belief was that only the Bible had any authority over the Church.

Those who hold Sacred Tradition to be on the same level of authority as Scripture are the ones with a burden of proof.

That is, in fairness, not the Catholic teaching. Sacred Tradition is held to be authoritative, but with less authority than the divinely-inspired Scripture (so if there were ever to be a conflict between the two, Scripture wins).

If Catholicism continues supporting endless migration into America and Europe

It doesn't, and there's no reasonable basis to say that it does.

This could help explain why Pope Leo has felt so emboldened to speak up against Trump's war efforts in Iran

Trump went so far as to say that he was planning to wipe out the entire civilization of Iran. Of course the pope spoke out against him. It requires no behind closed doors activities to explain his willingness to be vocal about this war.

You live an interesting life. Not sure if that's good or bad (I guess it depends on your taste), but I imagine you aren't bored!

No dude. If a supposedly general-purpose tool is only capable of working with a specific framework, it is a bad tool. It might still be useful for someone who uses that framework, but it's a bad tool nonetheless.

I hope that isn't a serious suggestion. A programming tool which only works if you use a particular framework is a shitty tool.

I mean, there's no way that the legal profession doesn't outlaw AI use in law the moment it becomes a threat to their jobs, right? Lots of law makers are lawyers, and I don't think they are above using the levers of power to make sure their profession can't be replaced.

Desserts are going to be a solid win here. This is one of my favorites, it takes very little effort, is delicious, and has a ton of calories.

Make a graham cracker crust (look up any recipe you care to, they are all basically graham cracker crumbs + melted butter + sugar), press into a 9x13 pan. Cream together 8 oz cream cheese and 1/2c peanut butter, fold in 1c cool whip and 1c powdered sugar. Spread over graham cracker crust. Prepare 2 packages of instant chocolate pudding, pour over previous layer. Spread rest of cool whip container over pudding layer. Chill in the fridge for at least a couple of hours, decorate with some shaved chocolate if you like.

It's obviously very empty calories, but I assume that is fine given the criteria you set out. It goes down easily (cause it's all soft stuff), and I at least think it tastes absolutely delicious.

Can we drop them into DC instead?

53% German, 47% autistic. Like @Southkraut I agreed with three of the answers to most questions. Genetically I am 1/8 German (7/8 Polish), so I guess the one great-grandparent's genes are working real hard in me.

Or that your eye balled estimate of your dick as actually 12 inches long is of any value...

I'll have you know that I didn't just eyeball it, I eyeballed it really hard

This causes problems - he has a lot of just funny shit, low brow humor, and satisfying basic chicken soup plotting (think Star Wars original trilogy).

Yeah, Shakespeare is hilarious but some of the jokes definitely don't land without footnotes. Like in Hamlet:

"May I lie in your lap?" "No, my lord." "I mean my head in your lap." "Ay, my lord." "What, did you think I meant country matters [sex]?" "I think nothing, my lord." "That's a fair thought, to lie between maids' legs." "What?" "Nothing."

That scene is funny as hell if you know that "nothing" was used as slang for the vagina, and that Shakespeare was doing the equivalent of making "pussy" double entendres. But that's something most people aren't going to know without having it pointed out, which just makes the scene confusing to a modern audience.

I enjoy Shakespeare because the language is beautiful (as @HereAndGone2 said), but also because I find the way in which he highlights the universality of the human condition to be deeply moving. I remember when I was young and I finally understood the meaning of Hamlet's "to be or not to be" soliloquy (rather than just bouncing off the language). It was a formative moment for me, realizing that his topic (wishing to die, but being too afraid of what comes after to death to commit suicide) was something that was still relevant to modern people. It made me realize that humans through all the years have felt the same kinds of feelings we do, and struggled with the same kinds of things we do.

Also seconding that Shakespeare meant his work to be performed, not read. I still enjoy reading his plays, but seeing them performed brings a lot to the experience.

Awesome! I'm glad to hear you guys got some positive news!

Yes, the bar here is "what humans can do". You're welcome to set the bar somewhere else if you like, but that is what I think is the appropriate bar to set. Humans are the apex of creatures in this world, and it just plain makes sense to me to compare our invention to us.

To be clear, I wasn't making the claim, it was a genuine question. I do recall reading stories in the past where the model creators basically cheated on benchmarks, but did not know if that was the case here or if it was a genuine improvement.

Metaphysics aside, it has been blindingly obvious for a long time that LLMs do not have intelligence or reasoning ability. Look at tests like "how many R's are in strawberry", which could be passed by even the stupidest human as long as he had enough intelligence to have learned the alphabet. But LLMs fell flat on their face. And that's not the only instance; this stuff keeps happening. Whether or not LLMs are useful (I personally do not find them useful, as I've said in previous comments), they are most certainly not intelligent.

It's worth pointing out that within a day, the AIs had gotten to 36%

Is that because they actually improved at problem solving, or because the companies running the models gave them answers? I seem to recall that they have been caught doing the latter before, which is why people strive to test these things with new questions as much as possible.

What? We just got a new book this year. Before that we got a new book (technically two, but it was effectively one story) in 2020. He hasn't stalled out at all.