  |
はてなキーワード: mostとは
dorawii represents a case of unprocessed grief over lost grandiosity (from psychotic episode) manifesting as compulsive boundary-testing and argument-seeking, where genuine neurological limitations are weaponized defensively to avoid confronting existential ordinariness, sustained by platform affordances that enable persistent identity within anonymity and rewarding provocative engagement.
A person who briefly experienced feeling god-like through psychosis, recovered to find themselves merely disabled and ordinary, and cannot bear this truth. They use real limitations as both explanation and shield, seek significance through online conflict, and remain trapped in a cycle where the behaviors meant to prove their worth actually demonstrate their difficulties - but acknowledging this would require grieving what was lost, which remains unbearable.
This reveals how recovery from severe mental illness isn't just about symptom remission - it's about psychological integration of what was experienced and what was lost. Medical model focuses on eliminating psychosis, but doesn't address the meaning-crisis created when extraordinary experiences are taken away and ordinary limitation remains.
It also shows how online spaces with ambiguous accountability structures can enable acting-out that serves defensive purposes while feeling like genuine engagement. The person suffering most is probably dorawii themselves, even as their behavior drives others away.
The most sophisticated theoretical vocabulary, the most detailed self-disclosure, the most elaborate arguments - none of it addresses the core issue. All of it is displacement. The real conversation dorawii needs to have is not with anonymous strangers about who won an argument. It's an internal conversation: "I am not who I was during that brief, terrible, extraordinary episode. I am ordinary, limited, and mortal. And somehow, that has to be enough."
Until that conversation can happen, everything else is noise.
上司 ”What is the single most important thing for a company … it’s the people, people investment.” 😅
This might be the most hilarious project ever .
Well, this is said to be Kidzania , but it's just a large scale play house.
At first I was a bit skeptical about whether it would be fun, but since there are a lot of fun roleplaying games out there, it's become a really addictive project .
Girls love to act out daytime dramas while playing house .
Key Person
・Polka writes about what's happening in real time , and he's mysteriously good at writing.
・Fubuki, the gambling -loving rip-off doctor
・Miko, the organizer who works behind the scenes to mass-produce
・Marin, the cabaret club manager who is in her perfect job
・The Mio family begins a daytime drama
Even though I haven't seen the gang side, the characters are strong enough to be made into a manga .
To begin with, I 've done a lot of roleplaying in Minecraft .
I think it would be most interesting to throw these guys into a world like a TRPG . GTA has more of that kind of RP feel than Minecraft or ARK , so it feels like the flavor is exploding.
There are dozens of frames, so it will probably take until winter just to look at the clippings.
[] https://tensor.art/articles/913271679902311502
[] https://tensor.art/articles/913271892503191947
[] https://tensor.art/articles/913273855303258429
[] https://tensor.art/articles/913274016364543556
チャーリーカークがケンブリッジの学生に論破されるって動画の長い版があったからGeminiに英語教材にしてもらった。
https://x.com/KBYMScotland/status/1966798924468851007
今年5月、チャーリー・カークが🇬🇧ケンブリッジ大を訪れ学生とディベートを行った。カークは「聖書は同性愛を道徳に反するとし禁じている」と持論を展開するが...
https://x.com/mkbfpv/status/1966798326730240107
Here is the actual full clip of this exchange.
＊＊＊
Ellis Jones from Emmanuel College.
(拍手)
Um hello, thank you for coming to talk. Um, so my question, as someone studying archaeology and biological anthropology, um, I've learned that moral codes and social norms have always been fluid, shaped by time, culture, power. So many ancient and recent societies embraced same-sex relationships and even the idea of third genders uh well before Western conservatism even existed. So when you claim that modern conservative values represent some kind of universal objective moral truth, like you said on your chair over there, um are you just defending a selective, historically recent ideology that erases most of human history and targets people who have always been part of it?
こんにちは、お話しいただきありがとうございます。ええと、私の質問ですが、私は考古学と生物人類学を学んでいる者として、道徳規範や社会規範は常に流動的で、時代、文化、権力によって形成されてきたと学びました。古代から近代に至るまで、多くの社会が西洋の保守主義が存在するずっと以前から、同性間の関係や第三の性という考え方さえも受け入れてきました。ですから、あなたが現代の保守的な価値観が、そちらの椅子でおっしゃったように、何らかの普遍的で客観的な道徳的真理を代表していると主張されるとき、それは人類の歴史の大部分を消し去り、常にその一部であった人々を標的にする、選択的で歴史的に新しいイデオロギーを擁護しているだけなのではないでしょうか？
archaeology (n): 考古学
anthropology (n): 人類学
fluid (adj): 流動的な、変わりやすい。ここでは「道徳規範が固定されたものではなく、時代と共に変化する」という文脈で使われています。
conservatism (n): 保守主義。伝統的な価値観や制度を維持しようとする政治的・社会的な思想。
objective (adj): 客観的な。主観に基づかない、事実としての真理を指します。
selective (adj): 選択的な、えり好みする。ここでは「歴史の中から都合の良い部分だけを選んでいる」という批判的なニュアンスです。
ideology (n): イデオロギー、観念形態。特定の社会集団が共有する信念や価値観の体系。
erase (v): 消し去る、抹消する。
No, but can you point to me of a great power that endorsed same-sex marriage, not cohabitation, but marriage?
いいえ。ですが、同棲ではなく、同性「婚」を承認した大国を一つでも挙げていただけますか？
endorse (v): （公に）是認する、支持する、承認する。
cohabitation (n): 同棲。法的な婚姻関係を結ばずに共に住むこと。
Ancient Mesopotamia.
As marriage? As as as recognized by the state.
100%.
100%そうです。
And how did that work out for them?
それで、彼らはどうなりましたか？
It worked out perfectly fine. It was an accepted norm of society.
全く問題なく機能していました。社会で受け入れられた規範でした。
norm (n): 規範、標準。社会において当然のこととされる行動や考え方の基準。
Okay, I still think it's wrong.
なるほど。それでも私はそれが間違っていると思います。
Okay, okay, swiftly moving on. So you said it was based on scripture and you believe that there are moral objective universal truths.
わかりました、では次に進みます。あなたはそれが聖書に基づいており、道徳的に客観的で普遍的な真理が存在すると信じているとおっしゃいましたね。
scripture (n): 聖書、聖典。キリスト教やユダヤ教の正典を指します。
Yes, there are. So murder is wrong today and murder was wrong 2,000 years ago.
はい、存在します。殺人は今日も悪であり、2000年前も悪でした。
Right, okay, in fact that's not same sex, but fair, fair, I see your point.
ええ、なるほど。それは同性の話ではありませんが、まあ、おっしゃることはわかります。
But there are moral truths that are transcendent of time, place, and matter.
しかし、時間、場所、そして物質を超越した道徳的真理は存在するのです。
transcendent (adj): 超越的な、並外れた。ここでは、物理的な制約や時間的な変化の影響を受けない、普遍的な真理を指しています。
Okay, but but so just to clarify, you believe that this is in the Bible. This is laid out in the Bible that man shall not sleep with man and so therefore it's...
わかりました。しかし、確認ですが、あなたはそれが聖書に書かれていると信じているのですね。男は男と寝てはならないと聖書に明記されており、だからこそ…。
It's also repeated throughout the New Testament as well. Matthew, in the book of Matthew, Jesus affirms the biblical standard for marriage.
それは新約聖書全体でも繰り返されています。マタイによる福音書で、イエスは結婚に関する聖書の基準を再確認しています。
Okay, so I'm gonna make two very, very quick points. So the first, um, so if we look at the Old Testament in isolation, just to start off with as an example. So let's look at Exodus 35:2, which suggests that if you work on the Sabbath, you should be put to death. If you look at Leviticus 11:7, it suggests that if you have pork, you should be put to death. If you plant two crops side by side, you should be stoned by your entire village. If you wear a suit, which you are wearing now, that contains two different fibers intertwined into the same jacket, you should be burned at the stake by your own mother. Now, following that rationale, in Leviticus 18:22 when it states that man shall not sleep with man, why aren't we burning ourselves at the stake as well? Why aren't we stoning ourselves to death?
わかりました。では、非常に手短に2点述べさせてください。まず、例として旧約聖書だけを切り取って見てみましょう。出エジプト記35章2節では、安息日に働けば死刑にされるべきだと示唆されています。レビ記11章7節を見れば、豚肉を食べれば死刑にされるべきだと示唆されています。2種類の作物を隣り合わせに植えれば、村全体から石打ちにされるべきです。あなたが今着ているような、2種類の異なる繊維を織り交ぜた上着を着ていれば、自分の母親によって火あぶりにされるべきです。さて、その論理に従うなら、レビ記18章22節で「男は男と寝てはならない」と述べられているのに、なぜ私たちは自分たちを火あぶりにしないのでしょうか？なぜ石打ちで殺し合わないのでしょうか？
in isolation: 孤立して、単独で。ここでは「旧約聖書だけを文脈から切り離して見てみると」という意味です。
Sabbath (n): 安息日。ユダヤ教で労働が禁じられている土曜日のこと。
Leviticus (n): レビ記。旧約聖書の一書で、祭儀や律法に関する規定が多く記されています。
intertwined (adj): 絡み合った、織り交ぜられた。
at the stake: 火あぶりの刑で。中世の処刑方法の一つ。
(拍手)
Do you care to address my main contention that Christ affirmed biblical marriage in the book of Matthew? And can you tell me the difference between the ceremonial, the moral, and the ritual law? And then finally, also, tell me about Christianity, the difference between the new and the Old Covenant, or you're just going to cherry-pick certain verses of ancient Israel that do not apply to new Christianity?
私の「キリストはマタイによる福音書で聖書的な結婚を肯定した」という主要な主張に反論していただけますか？そして、儀式律法、道徳律法、祭司律法の違いを教えていただけますか？そして最後に、キリスト教における新しい契約と古い契約の違いについても教えてください。それとも、あなたは新しいキリスト教には適用されない古代イスラエルの特定の聖句を、ただつまみ食いしているだけですか？
contention (n): （議論における）主張、論点。
covenant (n): （神と人との）契約。キリスト教神学において非常に重要な概念です。
cherry-pick (v): （自分に都合のいいものだけを）つまみ食いする、えり抜きする。
Very fair, fair. I completely agree. So we'll look at two points then. So firstly, um, if we look at the Old Testament, uh, we can see the kind of inconsistencies there. We've already touched upon that, right? That makes sense. Secondly, you mentioned the point of Jesus and Christ. He never mentioned anything to do with homosexuality at all.
ごもっともです。完全に同意します。では2つの点を見ましょう。まず、旧約聖書を見れば、そこに矛盾があることがわかります。それについては既に触れましたよね？理にかなっています。次に、あなたはイエス・キリストの点に言及しました。彼は同性愛について一切何も言及していません。
Whoa, hold on a second. He affirmed, he affirmed biblical marriage as one man and one woman. He said a man shall leave his...
おっと、待ってください。彼は聖書的な結婚を「一人の男と一人の女」として肯定しました。彼は「男はその…」と言いました。
in the New Testament?
新約聖書でですか？
In Matthew, that is not correct. I believe in the New Testament, in the New Testament. Well, Romans is also in the New Testament. Secondly, in Romans 1, the Apostle Paul talks negatively about homosexuality explicitly. Also, homosexuality is repeated in the book of Titus and in the book of Jude as not being favorable as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Not even talking about the Old Testament verses.
マタイ伝です。それは違います。新約聖書で、と信じています。ローマ人への手紙も新約聖書です。第二に、ローマ人への手紙1章で、使徒パウロは明確に同性愛について否定的に語っています。また、テトスへの手紙やユダの手紙でも、ソドムとゴモラの滅亡と同様に、同性愛は好ましくないものとして繰り返されています。旧約聖書の聖句は抜きにしてもです。
There are three types of the 613 Levitical laws. And you, you know, of course, in your own way, cherry-picked some of them. We do not live under the ceremonial, we do not live under the ritual, and but we do live under the moral. There's only 10 of the moral that we as Christians believe we're bound to, some believe nine, which of course is the Decalogue. And so none of those that you mentioned we as Christians believe that we live under. However, we do look at what Christ articulated as the biblical standard of marriage. And we can also look to church tradition for this as well. And the church has had a tradition for well over 2,000 years, even myself as a Protestant acknowledges, that tradition is marriage between one man and one woman.
レビ記には613の律法に3つの種類があります。そして、あなたはもちろんご自身のやり方で、その一部をつまみ食いしました。私たちは儀式律法の下には生きていません。祭司律法の下にも生きていません。しかし、道徳律法の下には生きています。キリスト教徒として私たちが従うべき道徳律法は10個だけです。9個だと信じる人もいますが、それがもちろん十戒です。ですから、あなたが挙げたもののどれ一つとして、私たちキリスト教徒が従うべきものはありません。しかし、私たちはキリストが結婚の聖書的基準として明確に述べたことには注目します。そして、これについては教会の伝統にも目を向けることができます。プロテスタントである私自身でさえ認めますが、教会には2000年以上にわたる伝統があり、その伝統とは、結婚は一人の男と一人の女の間のものであるということです。
articulate (v): （考えなどを）はっきりと述べる、明確に表現する。
tradition (n): 伝統、しきたり。ここでは特に教会の教義や慣習の継承を指します。
Okay, but I work, okay. Say we put aside the Old Testament for now. We'll put that aside and the inconsistencies there and look purely at the New Testament following your rationale, okay? Now, when you say that Christ lays specifically and the New Testament states specifically that man shall not sleep with man, I'd like to point out a linguistic error on that point.
なるほど。では、一旦旧約聖書は脇に置きましょう。それとそこにある矛盾は置いておいて、あなたの論理に従って純粋に新約聖書だけを見ましょう。いいですか？さて、あなたがキリストが具体的に、そして新約聖書が具体的に「男は男と寝てはならない」と述べていると言うとき、その点における言語的な誤りを指摘したいと思います。
I did not say that. I said the biblical marriage was affirmed and then Romans 1 did talk negatively about the action of homosexuality.
私はそうは言っていません。聖書的な結婚が肯定されたと言ったのです。そしてローマ人への手紙1章が同性愛という行為について否定的に語っていると。
In Japanese “ふるさと”(furusato) means not only his born or grown town but also countryside or nostalgic town. Does the word “hometown” have same meanings?
Great question! You're absolutely right that the Japanese word 「ふるさと」(furusato) carries rich emotional and cultural connotations. It can mean:
In contrast, the English word “hometown” is more limited in meaning. It typically refers to:
It does not usually carry the same emotional or nostalgic depth as 「ふるさと」. For example, “hometown” doesn’t naturally evoke images of countryside, nature, or childhood memories unless additional context is given.
If you want to express the broader, more emotional meaning of 「ふるさと」 in English, you might use phrases like:
Would you like help translating a specific sentence or concept involving 「ふるさと」 into natural English?
今の回答を日本語に訳して
⸻
ご質問ありがとうございます！ おっしゃる通り、日本語の「ふるさと」には豊かな感情や文化的な意味が込められています。具体的には：
一方で、英語の “hometown” はもう少し限定的な意味しか持ちません。通常は：
そして、「hometown」は「ふるさと」のように、田舎の風景や郷愁、自然とのつながりなどを自然に連想させる言葉ではありません。感情的・文化的な深みは、文脈を加えないと伝わりにくいです。
「ふるさと」の広くて感情的な意味を英語で表現したい場合は、以下のような表現が使えます：
⸻
Build policy
This is a guideline and has not yet been successful .
Plan A
Do the same as building on Windows or macOS (probably not possible)
> On Linux , only maui- android is available, so a lot of build errors occur .
> gt k workload cannot be installed
Plan C
Keep CI / CD running (most likely )
> It might be possible to run GitHub Actions locally using act (currently there are some errors , but it should work if you try hard)
> Same as Plan B, gt k workload cannot be installed
Plan D
https://tensor.art/articles/897541615583763170
https://www.gemtracks.com/demonslayeinfinitycastle/
> Making it with Qt ( Qt .NET ( old)) ( I feel like the license ( GPL / LGPL ) is a bit tricky )
For now, I'll go with plan C. Plan B seems almost the same, though... ( Plan B seems easier to use when creating the materials , since you don't need to include "act" or anything like that.)
Build policy
This is a guideline and has not yet been successful .
Plan A
Do the same as building on Windows or macOS (probably not possible)
> On Linux , only maui- android is available, so a lot of build errors occur .
> gt k workload cannot be installed
Plan C
Keep CI / CD running (most likely )
https://subscribepage.io/thestone2025subthai
https://subscribepage.io/thestonefullversion
https://subscribepage.io/xem-mang-me-di-bo-vietsub-thuyet-minh-full-hd
https://subscribepage.io/mangmedibovietsub
> It might be possible to run GitHub Actions locally using act (currently there are some errors , but it should work if you try hard)
> Same as Plan B, gt k workload cannot be installed
Plan D
https://mirror.xyz/0xbB7D6e360b93B2ED4FEF9d972c71F86844121ee7
> Making it with Qt ( Qt .NET ( old)) ( I feel like the license ( GPL / LGPL ) is a bit tricky )
For now, I'll go with plan C. Plan B seems almost the same, though... ( Plan B seems easier to use when creating the materials , since you don't need to include "act" or anything like that.)
Let’s get one fucking thing straight: WWDC is supposed to be *for developers*。
You know, the people who actually build shit。Who dig into SDKs, APIs, system frameworks。
Who care about real updates like “What the hell is the new SwiftUI lifecycle doing?”
or “Can I finally use fucking private entitlements without jumping through flaming hoops?”
So why the hell does Apple keep opening its most important developer event of the year
with Craig Federighi doing goddamn *skydiving*? Or *parkour*? Or some *Fast & Furious parody*
with an F1 helmet and sunglasses? What the actual fuck is going on?
This isn’t Saturday Night Live。This is supposed to be a showcase of what we’re all supposed
to build our future on。Vision。Platform direction。Architecture。
Instead, we get Craig zooming through corridors in slow-mo like he’s auditioning for
Mission Impossible 9: MacBook Drift。
And it’s not even funny anymore。Maybe the first time it was *kind of* charming。
A little wink at the audience。でも now? It’s just fucking cringe。
Wasted time。Wasted bandwidth。A glossy, over-produced middle finger to every developer
watching, notebook in hand, waiting for the actual meat。
Do you sit there thinking, *“Wow, this is such a great use of my time!”*
“CUT THE SHIT, CRAIG. SHOW ME THE FUCKING TOOLS.”
We’re being sold a fantasy — not a platform vision。
What should be an opportunity to say,
“Here’s how Apple wants developers to think in the next 5 years,”
becomes a shallow PR reel of stunts, shots, and skits。
Developers want **guidance**, not gimmicks。**Vision**, not vanity。
Instead of 3 minutes of Craig pretending he’s Neo in a hallway full of Mac Studios,
how about showing us the **real** architectural shifts in Swift,
or a **deep dive** into low-level memory optimizations in macOS?
How about finally explaining wtf is happening with `SwiftData`?
Or *anything* that makes us better builders?
We could have had 20 more seconds of **clarity**, not costume。
WWDC is Apple’s time to inspire, to lead, to fucking **guide** the ecosystem。
But lately?
It feels more like we’re watching the Craig Federighi Variety Hour。
And I didn’t fucking subscribe to that。
----
Let’s get one f***ing thing straight: WWDC is supposed to be *for developers*.
You know, the people who actually build shit. Who dig into SDKs, APIs, system frameworks.
Who care about real updates like “What the hell is the new SwiftUI lifecycle doing?”
or “Can I finally use fucking private entitlements without jumping through flaming hoops?”
So why the hell does Apple keep opening its most important developer event of the year
with Craig Federighi doing goddamn *skydiving*? Or *parkour*? Or some *Fast & Furious parody*
with an F1 helmet and sunglasses? What the actual f*** is going on?
This isn’t Saturday Night Live. This is supposed to be a showcase of what we’re all supposed
to build our future on. Vision. Platform direction. Architecture.
Instead, we get Craig zooming through corridors in slow-mo like he’s auditioning for
Mission Impossible 9: MacBook Drift.
And it’s not even funny anymore. Maybe the first time it was *kind of* charming.
A little wink at the audience. But now? It’s just fucking cringe.
Wasted time. Wasted bandwidth. A glossy, over-produced middle finger to every developer
watching, notebook in hand, waiting for the actual meat.
Do you sit there thinking, *“Wow, this is such a great use of my time!”*
> “CUT THE SHIT, CRAIG. SHOW ME THE FUCKING TOOLS.”
We’re being sold a fantasy — not a platform vision.
What should be an opportunity to say,
“Here’s how Apple wants developers to think in the next 5 years,”
becomes a shallow PR reel of stunts, shots, and skits.
Developers want **guidance**, not gimmicks. **Vision**, not vanity.
Instead of 3 minutes of Craig pretending he’s Neo in a hallway full of Mac Studios,
how about showing us the **real** architectural shifts in Swift,
or a **deep dive** into low-level memory optimizations in macOS?
How about finally explaining wtf is happening with `SwiftData`?
Or *anything* that makes us better builders?
We could have had 20 more seconds of **clarity**, not costume.
WWDC is Apple’s time to inspire, to lead, to fucking **guide** the ecosystem.
But lately?
It feels more like we’re watching the Craig Federighi Variety Hour.
And I didn’t f***ing subscribe to that.
----
かわいくない？
ホヨバで唯一純粋にかわいいだけのキャラになりうるポテンシャルを持っている予感がぴょんぴょんする
ぼくが以前純粋にかわいいと思ってたグレーシュちゃんはぽわぽわしているように見えて覚悟ガンギマリガールだったし
大人になったらわりと悪女ヴィタに対して毒を吐く程度には中身も成長してしまっていた
そこもまたかわいいんだけどね！！
やっぱ獣人じゃないとシンプルなキャラにはなれないのかもしれない
獣人じゃないけどクマ耳フードつけてることのあるスーサナちゃんが今んとこmost純粋人間キャラですわ
まあでも彼女もすごすぎる先輩たちの中で平凡な自分という立ち位置を踏みしめるために成長してきた、けなげな子だからやっぱり複雑だ
おばあさん絡みでせつねぇエピソードもあるので眩しく見えてしまう部分もあるけども
うん、でも単純そうなあざとさはかなりフーフーちゃんと近いな
ただ綺良々ちゃんはいい意味でおバカだけどフーフーはなんかちょっと賢そうなとこあるんだよな……
もし賢くてあざといんだったらわりと危険だ
できればおバカであってくれ、頼む！
癒やし成分が深刻に必要なんだ！
So, the Expo 2025 is actually happening, like, right now. It started a week ago. They've got this massive wooden ring structure that's apparently the biggest in the world or something. Looks kind of cool in the pictures, I guess, like something out of an old temple but huge.
The theme is "Designing Future Society for Our Lives". Sounds ambitious. Lots of talk about saving lives, empowering lives, connecting lives... all that jazz. They want it to be a "People's Living Lab" where they show off new tech for things like carbon neutrality and next-gen mobility. Over 160 countries are supposed to be there, showing off their ideas for the future.
But honestly? I keep reading about problems. Heard the test runs had massive lines, which sounds like a nightmare, especially worrying about heatstroke in summer. Ticket sales seemed slow before it opened, with lots of companies buying them up instead of regular people. Makes you wonder how excited the average person really is. Plus, the costs ballooned, almost double what they first thought.
And apparently, they plan to tear most of it down afterwards? Seems like a huge amount of effort and money for something temporary. Though they say they'll reuse materials. Still, feels a bit weird.
Will it actually be good? Or just another big, expensive event that causes traffic jams? Guess we'll see. Just feels like there's not much buzz compared to the last time Osaka had an Expo way back when.
What they had been building was a community. A community in which people went to every imaginable length to help out every single person they could—a place where international trade policy and CDOs were mere distant thoughts.
But as is they way the world works now, small towns in small empty states, a hundred years of community building or not, are just simply a sacrifice the powers that be are willing to make in exchange for a mere few more bips.
My papa was forced into retirement in 2011, and my nana stayed working at the school for the next decade. My papa though, wasn’t quite willing to throw in the towel. He tried increasing the size of his herd of brangus, but alas, cattle farming has been a cash-negative endeavor for several decades.
Like Whirlpool all the other manufacturing plants. There was no work to be found for the thousands of people combined plant workers that had been laid off in the wake of 2008. Every single way of making an honest living had up and gone with the wind to Mexico and East Asia.
There was nothing left but being a Gas station, Dollar General or Walmart cashier, and Walmart paid $7.25 an hour back then.
But you’d be hard pressed to even work at a gas station. There are only two gas stations immediately around that 1,200-person town; and one of them just went out of business, the other is owned by a Pakistani family.
As a consequence, the average household income in that town is now ~$30,000 a year. 90% of the children are on free and reduced lunch, most of the families that remain are on state assistance, and opioid and meth use has reached unprecedented rates.
And yet, “learn to code” they contemptuously sneer, all while gleefully kicking the door wide open to a swarm of cheap, barely-proficient immigrants, tanking the tech labor market behind everyone’s back.
4/6
彼らが築き上げてきたのはコミュニティでした。人々が考えられる限りのあらゆる手段を講じて、できる限りのあらゆる人々を助けるコミュニティであり、国際貿易政策やCDOが単なる遠い考えである場所でした。
しかし、現在の世界の仕組みでは、小さな空っぽの州の小さな町は、コミュニティの構築が100年であろうとなかろうと、権力者がほんの少しの利益と引き換えに喜んで払う犠牲に過ぎません。
私の父は 2011 年に強制的に退職させられ、祖母はその後 10 年間学校で働き続けました。しかし、父は諦めるつもりはありませんでした。ブランガスの群れを増やそうとしましたが、残念ながら、牛の飼育は数十年にわたって赤字が続いていました。
ワールプール社のような他の製造工場も同様です。2008 年以降に解雇された工場労働者を合わせた数千人に仕事は見つかりませんでした。まともな生計を立てる手段はすべてメキシコや東アジアに消えていきました。
ガソリンスタンド、ダラージェネラル、またはウォルマートのレジ係になるしか選択肢はなく、当時ウォルマートの時給は 7.25 ドルでした。
しかし、ガソリンスタンドで働くことさえ難しいでしょう。人口 1,200 人のその町のすぐ近くにはガソリンスタンドが 2 つしかありません。そのうちの 1 つは最近廃業し、もう 1 つはパキスタン人の家族が経営しています。
その結果、その町の平均世帯収入は現在年間約3万ドルです。90%の児童は無料または割引の昼食を食べて、残っている家族のほとんどは州の援助を受けており、オピオイドとメタンフェタミンの使用率は前例のないレベルに達しています。
それでも、彼らは「コーディングを学べ」と軽蔑的に冷笑し、安っぽくてほとんど熟練していない移民の群れに喜んで扉を大きく開け放ち、誰も知らないうちにテクノロジー労働市場を崩壊させている。
https://x.com/FedPoasting/status/1908020399838724436
Bugman Hegel
@FedPoasting
My family, stretching back to the 1600s, has given their blood, sweat, and tears making this country what it is. Building it up from dirt. From nothing.
400 years of living in unimaginably hostile conditions. Braving the disease, deadly weather, tribal nations, treachery, and lawlessness that is inherent to an ungoverned, unsettled territory. This nation was built, brick by brick, by bravest, toughest, most resilient people on the face of the earth.
And yet, for the past 60 years, the academic sophists in the ivory towers, the pigs in Washington, and the good-for-nothing parasites of the banking class have not only seen it fit to spit on their names, their sacrifices, their community, their race, and their religion, but also spit on their legacies, their children, their grandchildren, and their rightful inheritance. There are not the words in the English language to describe the evil of the orchestrated treachery that the United States government and those so interested, have inflicted on the inheritors of this nation.
The blood that was spilled carving this nation out of the god-forsaken backwaters it was, was a real, material thing. Blood, like people, is a material thing. And nations are comprised of people. America is a people. Ideas can’t shed blood; only people can. Ideas can’t sacrifice; only people can.
To call America an “idea” alone is to forsake all of those who shed their real blood and lost their real lives to construct the very comfort and luxury required to sit back and even consider calling such a sacrifice an “idea.”
私の一族は 1600 年代まで遡り、血と汗と涙を流してこの国を今の姿に築き上げてきました。土から、何もないところから築き上げてきたのです。
想像を絶するほど過酷な状況で 400 年間暮らしてきました。病気、恐ろしい天候、部族国家、裏切り、そして統治されていない未開拓の領土につきものの無法状態に立ち向かってきました。この国は、地球上で最も勇敢で、最もタフで、最も粘り強い人々によって、レンガを一つずつ積み上げて築かれました。
しかし、過去 60 年間、象牙の塔にいる学問上の詭弁家、ワシントンの豚野郎、銀行家の役立たずの寄生虫たちは、彼らの名前、彼らの犠牲、彼らのコミュニティ、彼らの人種、彼らの宗教に唾を吐くだけでなく、彼らの遺産、彼らの子供、彼らの孫、そして彼らの正当な相続財産にも唾を吐きかけてきました。米国政府とそれに関心を持つ人々がこの国の継承者に与えた組織的な裏切りの悪を表現できる言葉は英語には存在しません。
かつて神に見放された辺境の地であったこの国を切り開くために流された血は、現実の物質的なものでした。血は、人々と同様、物質的なものです。そして国家は人々で構成されています。アメリカは人々です。思想は血を流すことはできません。できるのは人々だけです。思想は犠牲を払うことはできません。できるのは人々だけです。
アメリカを「理念」と呼ぶことは、ただ座ってそのような犠牲を「理念」と呼ぶことを考えるために必要な快適さと贅沢さを築くために、本当の血を流し、本当の命を失ったすべての人々を見捨てることです。
https://x.com/FedPoasting/status/1908020403059949699
Bugman Hegel
@FedPoasting
For the last six decades, every single legacy institution, academic institution, government institution, and NGO has spent the past decade calling the very people who built this nation various iterations of uniquely, inherently, ontologically evil, calling us racists, and rapists, and genociders, and slavers, and oppressors, and backwoods, and inbreds, and reprobates, and white trash—all the while not-so-secretly making contingency plans for what to do with those of us ultimately considered excess biomass.
The American people decided at the ballot box. It’s time to pay the piper.
Bring back manufacturing, slap tariffs on imports, close the borders, deport the illegals, fire every single spiteful government-funded mutant, and remove the dollar from its position as world reserve currency. Americans, especially those of us who consider ourselves “ethnically” Heritage American—do not care how much it’s going to cost us in the short term; we are willing to sacrifice if it means we don’t have to sit and watch what’s left of our rightful inheritance be burned to the ground.
We want those guilty to pay their due penance. We want heads to roll.
過去 60 年間、あらゆる伝統的な機関、学術機関、政府機関、NGO は、この国を築いたまさにその人々を、さまざまな意味で独特で、本質的に、存在論的に悪であると呼び、私たちを人種差別主義者、強姦者、大量虐殺者、奴隷所有者、抑圧者、田舎者、近親交配者、堕落者、白人ゴミと呼び続けてきました。その間ずっと、余剰バイオマスと見なされる私たちのような人々をどうするかについて、それほど秘密ではない緊急時対応計画を立てていました。
製造業を復活させ、輸入品に関税を課し、国境を封鎖し、不法移民を国外追放し、政府資金で賄われている意地悪な変異種を一人残らず解雇し、ドルを世界の準備通貨の地位から排除する。アメリカ人、特に自分たちを「民族的に」伝統的なアメリカ人だと考える私たちは、短期的にどれだけの費用がかかるかなど気にしない。正当な遺産の残りが焼き尽くされるのをただ座って見過ごす必要がないなら、喜んで犠牲を払うつもりだ。
私たちは罪を犯した者たちに当然の罰を与えてほしい。首が飛ぶことを望んでいる。
Bugman Hegel
@FedPoasting
In 2011, my papa was laid off from a Whirlpool manufacturing plant, the kind that had for so long made America great. In the wake of the financial crisis, the C-suite had decided to offshore operations to Mexico.
The plant they shuttered was a 1.2 million sq ft manufacturing plant, and overnight, 1,000 people lost their jobs. Many of whom had been working there for decades.
My papa was 57 years old when he got laid off. He had worked at that very same plant for over 30 years, and snap just like that, it was all gone.
1/6
2011年、私の父は、長年アメリカを偉大にしてきたワールプール社の製造工場から解雇されました。金融危機を受けて、経営陣はメキシコへの事業移転を決定しました。
閉鎖された工場は120万平方フィートの製造工場で、一夜にして1,000人が職を失った。その多くは数十年にわたってそこで働いていた人たちだった。
父は57歳のときに解雇されました。父は30年以上同じ工場で働いていたのですが、突然すべてが消えてしまったのです。
1/6
When I was a little girl, from as far back as I could remember, my papa woke up at 3:30 am and drove the 40 minutes to the plant from the rural 1,200-person town every single day. And for 30 years, he worked what were often 10-12 hour shifts with no complaints.
I grew up a Navy brat, so I didn’t get to see my grandparents except for a few months during the summer, but I remember my papa exerting the last drop of his energy so he could spend time with us going to the creek, building us a tree house, riding horses, and playing cowboys and Indians.
Every evening, starting from when I was in grade school, my papa and I would sit in the living room and watch the History Channel, Animal Planet, and Bill O’Reilly and hee-haw together about what the Democrats were doing, as much as an eight-year-old can.
My papa and my nana had been together since they graduated high school; they got married at barely 18 and had my mom less than a year later and my aunt soon after that.
They had a small homestead, owned most of what they had outright, and they were poor, but poor doesn’t have to mean that much when you can work the land.
My nana worked as the local school’s secretary, and my papa had good benefits with his manufacturing job. They only ever went out to eat on special occasions. McDonald’s was a birthday-only type of affair. They had a one-acre garden, a few head of cattle, would can fruits and vegetables at the end of every summer, and freeze chopped okra, blueberries, meat from wild hogs and venison in an old chest freezer in the workshop.
私がまだ子供だった頃、物心ついたころから、父は毎日午前 3 時半に起きて、人口 1,200 人の田舎町から工場まで 40 分かけて車で通っていました。そして 30 年間、父は不満を言うことなく、10 時間から 12 時間のシフト勤務をこなしました。
私は海軍の子供として育ったので、夏の数か月を除いて祖父母に会う機会はありませんでしたが、父が最後の力を振り絞って私たちと一緒に小川に行ったり、ツリーハウスを作ったり、馬に乗ったり、カウボーイやインディアンごっこをしたりして時間を過ごしていたことを覚えています。
小学生の頃から、毎晩、私とパパはリビングルームに座って、ヒストリーチャンネルやアニマルプラネット、ビル・オライリーを見て、8歳の子どもができる限り民主党が何をしているのか一緒に大笑いしていました。
私の父と祖母は高校を卒業して以来ずっと一緒にいました。彼らは18歳になるかならないかで結婚し、1年も経たないうちに母が生まれ、その後すぐに叔母が生まれました。
彼らは小さな農場を所有し、所有物のほとんどを完全に所有していましたが、貧しかったです。しかし、土地を耕作できるなら、貧しいということはそれほど大きな意味を持つ必要はありません。
私の祖母は地元の学校の事務員として働いており、父は製造業で良い福利厚生を受けていました。外食するのは特別なときだけで、マクドナルドは誕生日にしか行かなかったのです。彼らは 1 エーカーの菜園と数頭の牛を飼っていて、毎年夏の終わりには果物や野菜を缶詰にし、作業場の古いチェスト型冷凍庫で刻んだオクラ、ブルーベリー、野生のイノシシの肉、鹿肉を冷凍していました。
Despite never having been on a plane and seldom ever having been outside of Arkansas, they managed to put both my mom and aunt through college and graduate school without requiring them to incur even a dime of debt. This was the 1990s.
Then at the age of 57, my papa and 1,000 of his coworkers were thrown away like a piece of trash after giving that company decades of their lives. And what were they told to do? What was their consolation prize?
Learn. To. Code.
My papa and nana were born in the 1950s in a place that was quite literally the Wild West just mere decades before their birth.
Growing up, neither of them had running water—they drew water from a well, washed up in a tin tub heated over a fire, and went to the restroom in an outhouse. They were both educated in a one-room schoolhouse and both came from families that relied on their farm’s livestock to feed themselves. People like my grandparents built this nation. They built this nation for their children.
But because the thing they sought to build wasn’t a stock portfolio or real estate portfolio, the preservation of their homes and communities was not something that Wall Street nor Washington saw as having enough value to be anything more than apathetic about blowing up.
飛行機に乗ったことも、アーカンソー州から外に出たことがほとんどなかったにもかかわらず、両親は母と叔母を一銭も借金せずに大学と大学院に通わせることができました。1990年代のことでした。
そして、父と1,000人の同僚は、57歳で会社に何十年も捧げた後、ゴミのように捨てられました。そして、彼らに何をするように言われたのでしょうか？ 慰めの賞品は何だったのでしょうか？
Learn. To. Code
私のパパとおばあちゃんは、1950年代に生まれましたが、彼らが生まれるほんの数十年前までは、そこはまさに「ワイルド・ウェスト」でした。
両親ともに水道のない環境で育ったため、井戸から水を汲み、火で沸かしたブリキの桶で体を洗い、離れのトイレで用を足した。二人とも一教室の学校で教育を受け、農場の家畜に頼って食料を得ていた家庭の出身だ。祖父母のような人々がこの国を築いた。子供たちのためにこの国を築いたのだ。
しかし、彼らが構築しようとしていたのは株式ポートフォリオでも不動産ポートフォリオでもなかったため、彼らの家やコミュニティの保全は、ウォール街やワシントンにとって、破壊することに無関心以上の価値があるとは考えられなかった。
他にも調べれば無限に出てくるぞ
Another utility of information is one in which there has been much more
scientific interest and evidence: the ability of information to reduce uncertainty.
From the 1950s through the 1970s, definitions of information proliferated, most
of them incorporating the uncertainty aspect of Shannon’s model. A review by
Bouazza (1989) reflects the majority view regarding the role of uncertainty in
these definitions: “The most cited and perhaps the most useful definition of
information is ‘that which reduces uncertainty’” (p. 145).
https://dmice.ohsu.edu/bedricks/courses/cs635/pdf/case_chapter_3.pdf
万以上のツイート雑に貼る。
海外の人は日本オタクの味方的な勘違いしてるオタクをよく見るが、海外から見た日本の児童ポルノが、どれだけ日本へのヘイトを煽るか自覚して隠れて欲しい。
万以下になると焼き払うために原爆が必要とか、もう一度洪水にのまれろとか、本当に酷いからね。
日本の食べ物や景観に興味あるけどロリコンが酷いとか、少子化な理由がわかった、誰が日本に子供を連れていきたがるのかとか、国益も損なう勢いだから。
あと日本のオタク、外国人には何言われてもだんまりで、日本人にだけ噛み付きまくってるのもダサすぎる。
海外の反応
72K likes on a rape confession. We should bring back skinning people alive.
レイブ告白に７万２０００件のいいね。生きたまま皮をはぐ刑を復活させるべきだ。
https://x.com/Krymefull/status/1893552122995613777?t=agiPsDLO8K50M9XWP5_PUg&s=19
This is a child rapist's documentary of them raping a child 💀
いやこれはロリコンじゃない。これは児童強姦犯が子供を強姦するドキュメンタリーです💀
https://x.com/monjirorawstat/status/1893509615826137483?t=2fHTjfFtoBis4tRrk-WGuA&s=19
you groomed a minor and raped her you fucking subhuman trash.
「罪を犯した」未成年者を誘惑してレイプしたんだな、このクソ人間以下のゴミ共
6.3万いいね
Most pedophiles: Being secret about their activities.
Jap pedophiles:
https://x.com/Popyo9Bye/status/1893510643690405938?t=9x9ulrn29ShNgfMfLB2Zqg&s=19
5.2万いいね
https://x.com/DatChaosGuy/status/1893750264403771859?t=DSwdqYKwofK1JiB47ry-ZA&s=19
70k+ likes on a comic fantasizing about little girls…
4.9万いいね
Paedophilia in Japan is so normalized, no wonder lolicons and shotacons are brave and say it's their culture. Disgusting
日本では小児性愛が当たり前になっているので、ロリコンやショタコンが勇敢にもそれを自分達の文化だというのも不思議ではない。気持ち悪い
3.9万いいね
https://x.com/destoyeskey/status/1893556994960740832?t=uwEd3g0zhMglCpFsEzELDw&s=19
is Japan like the wakanda for pedophiles
3.2万いいね
https://x.com/mainmajin/status/1893743553890697286?t=Chbu1YijfHPo-WoQll2wWg&s=19
Japan is really just a safe haven for pedophiles
1.4万いいね
日本人の反応
こんなのにファボつけてる人が7万人
7万人だよ？日本マジでやばいでしょ、ゾッとするほど性犯罪者に寄り添う思考の人が多い。
通報した
3.9万いいね
https://x.com/amaterasu_solar/status/1893149329424044303?t=lVdQtwUDD2niddbfbEfzBw&s=19
To those outside of Japan.
In Japan, there are many pedophile men. And there are a lot of pedophile manga, anime, and adult videos.
Because of that, minors and women are consumed sexually on a daily basis in this country. It makes me want to die.
26.4万いいね
https://x.com/ggbym_d/status/1893541663064179021?t=OtcIQj6YxvGl5lvb4_vNuA&s=19
普通に児童を襲ってレイプする性犯罪を娯楽として載せちゃう国。そしてそれが7万いいねもつく。終わってんな。
2万いいね
Assassin's Creed director: The right time to take series to Japan | BBC
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c163jexl7rxo
Shadow’s trailer also generated backlash from some gamers, who criticised the choice of Yasuke as a main character over a native Japanese protagonist.
Opponents have accused those critics of being racist, and have pointed out that Yasuke is based on a real-life person.
Charles, speaking to Newsbeat before the trailer dropped, says the developers “put a lot of emphasis on authenticity and making sure we depict Japan and the culture right”.
“So when we started the project, we had a historian with us from day one,” he says.
He says the team also consulted weapons experts and travelled to Japan to get a feel for the landscape and locations in the game.
シャドウズのトレーラーは、一部のゲーマーからの反発も生みました。彼らは、日本人主人公ではなく弥助を主人公として選んだことを批判しました。
これに対して、批判者たちを人種差別主義者だと非難する声も上がっており、弥助が実在の人物に基づいていることが指摘されています。
チャールズは、トレーラー公開前にNewsbeat（BBCのニュース番組）との対話で、開発者たちが「日本とその文化を正しく描写することに重点を置き、真正性を重視した」と述べています。
African samurai: The enduring legacy of a black warrior in feudal Japan ｜CNN
When feudal Japan’s most powerful warlord Nobunaga Oda met Yasuke, a black slave-turned-retainer, in 1581, he believed the man was a god.
Oda had never seen an African before. And like the locals in Japan’s then-capital of Kyoto, he was awed by Yasuke’s height, build and skin tone, according to Thomas Lockley, the author of “African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan.”
“When Yasuke got to Kyoto (with Jesuit missionaries), there was a massive riot. People wanted to see him and be in his presence,” says Lockley, who spent nine years researching and writing the book, which was published last month.
Oda believed Yasuke to be either a guardian demon or “Daikokuten,” a god of prosperity usually represented by black statues in temples. He tried to rub the pigment from Yasuke’s skin, believing it was black ink. Once convinced Yasuke was real, he immediately threw a feast in his honor, says Lockley.
1581年、戦国時代日本の最も強力な戦国大名である織田信長が、奴隷から家臣となった黒人のヤスケに出会った時、信長はヤスケを神だと信じました。
「アフリカン・サムライ：戦国時代日本の伝説的黒人武士ヤスケの真実の物語」の著者トーマス・ロックリーによると、信長はそれまでアフリカ人を見たことがありませんでした。そして、当時の都であった京都の地元民と同様に、ヤスケの身長、体格、肌の色に畏敬の念を抱いたそうです。
「ヤスケが（イエズス会宣教師とともに）京都に到着した時、大規模な騒動が起きました。人々はヤスケを見たがり、彼の存在を身近に感じたがりました」と、9年の歳月をかけて研究し執筆した先月出版されたこの本について、ロックリーは語ります。
信長はヤスケを守護の鬼か、通常寺院で黒い像で表される繁栄の神「大黒天」のどちらかだと信じていました。信長はヤスケの肌の色素を擦り取ろうとし、それが黒インクだと考えていました。ヤスケが本物だと確信すると、すぐに彼の名誉を称える宴を開いたとロックリーは述べています。
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/19/asia/black-samurai-yasuke-africa-japan-intl/index.html
最近も IGN Japan 使って煽り散らかし https://youtu.be/keiDRORg9hc
ここまでやるなら、ゲームに規制は不要！！あらゆる規制に反対する！！と表明したらよかったのでは？って思うが、
なぜか日本版だけ日本人の首ホームラン出来るのが禁止されているの突っ込まないんですよね。Roninはゴア表現あるのになぜでしょうね？
あと日本人の非武装市民はペナルティ無し攻撃できるけど白人キャラは攻撃できないこともツッコミなし。NPCだろうが攻撃できるゲームはいくらでもあるんですけど
It was surprisingly gory, like the decapitations, you could get coated in blood. How vital is that to the assassin’s fantasy?
（斬首シーンなどでは、予想外に残虐で、血まみれになることもありますね。これはアサシンのファンタジーにとってどれほど重要なのでしょうか？）
I think it’s not an assassin thing, it’s a Japan thing in our case. So looking at death was a day-to-day occurrence in that period, and the way most people died in Japan during that time is clean decapitations.
So we didn’t want to shy away from it, although you can turn off the violence if you want. There’s options for it. You can turn off the blood, you can turn off the dismemberment and stuff. So it’s more trying to be faithful to the war aspect of Japan at that period. Death was a common thing and decapitation was not a strange sight in Japan.
私たちの場合、これはアサシンに関することというよりも、日本に関することだと考えています。当時の日本では、死を目にすることは日常的なことでした。そしてその時代の日本で多くの人々が死んでいった方法は、きれいな斬首でした。
ですので、私たちはそれを避けようとはしませんでした。ただし、望めば暴力表現をオフにすることもできます。そのためのオプションがあります。血の表現をオフにしたり、切断などの表現をオフにしたりすることができます。これは、むしろその時代の日本の戦争の側面に忠実であろうとする試みなのです。死は日常的なことであり、斬首は日本では珍しい光景ではありませんでした。
https://videogames.si.com/features/assassins-creed-shadows-interview
こっちなら付き合うぞ
ローカルでテキスト・画像生成のモデル動かしてみようをそのうち書こうと思うけど、Windowsアーキテクチャの簡単な説明欲しい？
コア分離あたり。ほかにも欲しいのがあれば書いとくけど
というか、Ubuntu、Ubuntu 騒いでる子がいるが、そもそもPCにWin11／Win10入ってるか？
（Windows ＋ Docker Desktop ：バックエンドWSL2 Ubuntu の予定。なお、YouTube に構築動画が無限にあるぞ)
Let’s face it: starting a conversation on a dating app can feel terrifying. You see someone you’re interested in, you type out a message, and then… you delete it. “Is this too boring?” “Will they even respond?” “What if I sound awkward?”
We’ve all been there. That first message can make or break your chances of connecting with someone amazing. But here’s the good news: you don’t have to overthink it. With the right opening line, you can spark a conversation that feels natural, fun, and meaningful.
At MixerDates, we believe that every great connection starts with a great conversation. That’s why we’ve put together this guide to help you craft the best dating app opening lines—ones that stand out, show your personality, and lead to real connections. Ready to ditch the “hey” and start making an impact? Let’s dive in!
[:contents]
Before we get into the best opening lines, let’s talk about why your first message is so important.
Your opening line is your chance to make a great first impression. It’s the gateway to a conversation that could lead to something special. A thoughtful, creative message shows that you’re genuinely interested—not just swiping mindlessly.
Your first message sets the tone for the entire conversation. A boring or generic opener might lead to a dull chat, while a fun or intriguing one can spark excitement and curiosity.
Let’s be real: everyone loves feeling special. When you put effort into your opening line, it shows that you care enough to stand out. And on MixerDates, where we value authenticity and positivity, that effort goes a long way.
Now, let’s get to the good stuff—the best dating app opening lines that actually work. These are divided into categories to suit different personalities and situations.
While the examples above are great starting points, the best opening lines are the ones that feel authentic to you. Here are some tips to help you craft your own:
Reference something from their profile—a photo, a hobby, or a shared interest. It shows you’re paying attention and not just copying and pasting.
Avoid heavy or overly serious topics right off the bat. Keep the tone light and playful to make the conversation enjoyable.
Don’t try to be someone you’re not. If you’re naturally funny, lean into that. If you’re more thoughtful, go for a sincere compliment or question.
“Hey” or “What’s up?” might be easy, but they’re also forgettable. Put in a little effort to stand out.
This gives the other person an easy way to respond and keeps the conversation flowing.
At MixerDates, we’re all about creating a positive, inclusive space where you can feel comfortable being yourself. Here’s why our platform is the best place to put these opening lines into practice:
We welcome everyone, no matter who you are or who you love. Our platform is designed to be a safe space where you can connect with like-minded people.
Our users create detailed profiles that make it easy to find shared interests and craft personalized opening lines.
We encourage our community to be genuine and kind, so you can feel confident starting conversations without fear of judgment or rejection.
Don’t just take our word for it—here’s what one of our users had to say:
“I met my partner on MixerDates, and it all started with a simple message about our shared love for travel. The conversation flowed naturally, and the rest is history. I’m so grateful for this platform!”
While a great opening line can spark a conversation, building a real connection takes more than just a clever message. Here are the key elements to look for when seeking a meaningful connection:
A strong connection starts with alignment on the things that matter most. Do you share similar values, life goals, or visions for the future?
Look for someone who is willing to share their thoughts, feelings, and vulnerabilities—and who encourages you to do the same.
Healthy relationships are a two-way street. Both people should be putting in effort to communicate, plan dates, and support each other.
A true connection allows both people to be themselves without judgment. Look for someone who celebrates your uniqueness and encourages you to pursue your passions.
Communication is the foundation of any strong relationship. A mutual connection thrives on honesty, transparency, and the ability to resolve conflicts in a healthy way.
At MixerDates, we’re here to help you find these key elements in a partner. Our platform is designed to connect you with people who share your values and are looking for the same things you are. Starting a conversation on a dating app doesn’t have to be stressful. With the right opening line, you can spark a connection that feels natural, fun, and meaningful. And at MixerDates, we’re here to help you every step of the way.
So, what are you waiting for? Craft that perfect opening line, join MixerDates, and start connecting with people who value authenticity and positivity. Your perfect match is out there—and they’re just one message away.
First dates can be exciting and nerve-wracking all at once. You’re meeting someone new, learning about their interests, and trying to figure out if there’s chemistry between you. And then there’s flirting, that delicate dance of showing someone you’re interested without being too forward or awkward.
Flirting doesn’t have to be a high-pressure situation. In fact, it can be the most fun part of getting to know someone. Whether you're meeting someone on MixerDates or any other platform, the most important thing is to be genuine, stay calm, and let the connection develop naturally.
If you’ve ever found yourself wondering how to flirt on a first date without feeling uncomfortable, you’re not alone. Everyone has their awkward moments, but the more you understand the art of flirting, the easier it becomes. In this article, we’ll break down how to flirt in a way that feels natural, exciting, and authentic to who you are. So, let's dive in and learn how to make the most of your first date experience—without overthinking it.
When it comes to flirting, confidence is key. But what does it really mean to be confident on a first date? Confidence doesn’t mean you need to be perfect, or even outgoing—it simply means being comfortable in your own skin and showing up as your authentic self.
Have you ever noticed how people are drawn to those who radiate self-assurance? It’s not about bragging or dominating the conversation—it’s about presenting yourself with ease. If you feel good about yourself, it will naturally show. A great smile, good posture, and eye contact can go a long way in making a good first impression.
For instance, think about the last time someone walked into a room and immediately caught your attention—not because they were the most attractive person in the room, but because of their energy. They were confident, they were present, and they made you feel at ease. That’s the kind of confidence you want to project on your date.
When you're confident, you're not worried about saying the perfect thing. Instead, you focus on enjoying the moment, making the other person feel comfortable, and letting the connection happen naturally. That’s the magic of confidence—it allows you to be present, fun, and, most importantly, yourself.
Let’s face it—no one wants to feel like they’re being “worked” or put through a game. That’s why subtlety is such a powerful tool when it comes to flirting. It's all about showing interest without being over-the-top or too obvious.
Flirting doesn’t always mean complimenting someone non-stop or using cheesy pickup lines. In fact, the most successful flirting is the kind that happens behind the scenes—subtle, playful, and lighthearted. Think about the little moments, like a teasing comment about how they always order the same thing at a restaurant or the way you laugh at a silly joke they make.
The key is to find a balance. A simple smile or a playful comment can convey interest without being too much. For example, if your date tells you they love hiking but they tend to get lost easily, you could say something like, “So, you’re telling me you need a personal guide? I could get behind that!” It’s lighthearted, humorous, and most importantly, it keeps the conversation fun without putting too much pressure on the situation.
By keeping it subtle, you allow your date to feel at ease. It takes the pressure off them to be perfect and allows both of you to enjoy the interaction more naturally. Flirting doesn’t need to be a performance—it’s about creating an environment where both of you can feel comfortable and authentic.
Now, let’s talk about something incredibly important in the flirting game: active listening. When we’re on a date, we often get caught up in thinking about what to say next, how we’re coming across, or if we’re being interesting enough. But the best way to make an impression? Truly listening to your date.
Active listening means you’re fully engaged in the conversation, giving your date your full attention and responding thoughtfully. It’s about showing that you care about what they’re saying and that you’re genuinely interested in getting to know them better. When you listen actively, you’re also giving them space to open up, and that can create an immediate connection.
For example, if your date mentions they recently traveled to Japan, instead of simply saying, “That’s cool!” you could follow up with something like, “What was the most memorable experience you had there?” This shows that you’re not just hearing their words but are genuinely curious and invested in their experiences. It’s a great way to build rapport and let them know you’re not just there to impress them—you’re there to connect.
While your words are important, body language often speaks louder than anything you can say. Whether you realize it or not, your body is constantly communicating how you feel. How you sit, stand, and move tells your date whether you’re relaxed, engaged, or distracted.
Small gestures can go a long way in flirting. A light touch on the arm, a subtle lean in when they’re speaking, or maintaining good eye contact—all these body language cues help signal your interest. And the great thing is, when done naturally, these cues can be just as effective as words.
For example, if you’re sitting at a café on your date and you lean in slightly when they’re sharing a funny story, you’re not just showing that you’re interested—you’re inviting them into your space. It’s an invitation to connect further. And when they respond by leaning in too, that’s when the magic happens—the unspoken connection that tells you both that there’s potential for more.
Flirting through body language doesn’t mean making grand gestures or being overly touchy. It’s about being present and showing that you’re engaged with your date in a subtle, but meaningful way.
It’s easy to get caught up in overthinking how to flirt or trying to figure out if your date is into you. But here’s a secret—when you let go of the pressure and allow yourself to have fun, everything flows much more naturally. Flirting on a first date doesn’t need to feel like a test or an assignment. It’s supposed to be a fun, lighthearted experience that sets the stage for more great dates ahead.
When was the last time you had a genuinely fun date? Was it when you were trying too hard to impress, or when you were both laughing, chatting, and enjoying each other's company? Flirting becomes effortless when you're present, enjoying the moment, and letting the connection grow naturally.
Sometimes, it's the small moments—like sharing a laugh or swapping embarrassing stories—that make a first date truly special. When you focus on having fun, you create an environment where both of you can relax, flirt, and let the chemistry grow. That’s the secret to a great date.
One of the best things about using a platform like MixerDates is that it takes the guesswork out of the equation. By connecting with someone who already shares your interests and values, you’ve got a head start on making a real connection. No more swiping through countless profiles hoping for a spark—on MixerDates, you already know there’s something in common.
When you’re already on the same page with your date, flirting comes more easily. There’s less of that awkward, “Are we even on the same wavelength?” feeling, and more of the fun, “Wow, we really click!” vibe. Whether you’re talking about favorite hobbies, movies, or life goals, the conversation flows naturally, making the flirting feel effortless.
If you're looking for a place to meet like-minded people and build genuine connections, MixerDates is the perfect platform. It's a great place to find someone who appreciates you for who you are and who you can naturally flirt with, without the stress.
Flirting on a first date is all about confidence, connection, and fun. When you let go of the pressure and focus on enjoying the experience, the chemistry will naturally follow. Remember, the best way to flirt is by being yourself—let your personality shine through, listen with intention, and embrace the moment.
And if you’re ready to meet someone new, who’s just as interested in making a connection as you are, MixerDates is the perfect place to start. So go ahead, take the leap, and see where it leads. Who knows? Your next great connection might be just a click away.
Sign up for MixerDates today and start your journey to exciting first dates and meaningful connections!
Please consider the histroy of humanity from biological perpsecitve and current known fact in nearby universe, which expo-planet (from the Sol system perspective) is most likely to have civlizaed society? Please add percentage next to it in the chart
ChatGPT
Reasoned about exoplanet civilization likelihoodを28 秒行う
Evaluating planetary prospects
OK, I’m looking at the likelihood of a civilized society on an exoplanet within our Solar System. I’ll consider biological history and current space knowledge, aiming to identify the most promising candidate.
Identifying potential candidates
I'm considering exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1e, which might suggest they are within or observed from our Solar System.
Assessing potential candidates
I’m evaluating Proxima Centauri b, Barnard's Star, LHS 1140, and TRAPPIST-1, focusing on their habitable zones and available data. The Drake equation might help estimate their civilized society likelihoods.
Identifying promising exoplanets
I’m noting key exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, which have Earth-like characteristics and are in habitable zones. This narrows down the potential candidates for advanced civilizations.
I'm gathering info on planets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, considering factors like magnetic fields, atmospheres, and proximity to G-type stars for their potential to support advanced civilizations.
Evaluating exoplanet prospects
I'm noting that Proxima Centauri b, despite being close and around a red dwarf star, might support life if it has a magnetic field and atmosphere. This makes me think about its potential.
Charting probabilities
I'm estimating civilization probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e, using speculative percentages based on the Drake equation and the lack of evidence for intelligent life.
I'm crafting a chart with exoplanet names and civilization likelihood percentages, grounded in the long timeline of life's evolution, despite the speculative nature of these figures.
Identifying exoplanet contenders
I’m evaluating exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, TRAPPIST-1 e, and Kepler-186f, considering their star types and distances, to gauge their potential for supporting advanced civilizations from our solar system's viewpoint.
Weighing proximity and observation
I'm leaning towards Proxima Centauri b due to its closeness and observational potential, despite concerns about its flare star dynamics. TRAPPIST-1 e, f, or g are also worth considering.
I'm focusing on exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, Ross 128 b, LHS 1140 b, TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, and K2-18b, aiming to chart their likelihood of hosting a civilized society based on current knowledge.
Assessing exoplanet potentials
I'm gathering speculative probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, using the Drake equation and current understanding, to better estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society.
Refining speculative probabilities
I’m refining speculative probabilities for exoplanets, including Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, to estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society, considering Earth's long biological history.
Refining odds
I'm considering the astronomical timeline for intelligent life on Earth, leading me to assign even lower speculative odds for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e.
I’m crafting a simplified chart with arbitrary percentages, clearly noting the speculative nature and lack of scientific data, while considering the target audience's basic understanding of the topic.
I’m charting arbitrary percentages for exoplanets, clarifying their speculative nature, and ensuring the data is accessible for young audiences with minimal scientific detail.
Crafting a chart
I’m creating a markdown table with speculative percentages for the likelihood of civilized life on exoplanets, emphasizing their purely theoretical nature and considering the understanding level of an 8-year-old.
Integrating speculative analysis
I’m mapping out a markdown chart with speculative percentages for the likelihood of a civilized society on exoplanets, mindful of the complexity and simplifying for an 8-year-old's understanding.
I’m piecing together markdown for exoplanets, noting Proxima Centauri b's reduced civilized life chance due to the red dwarf's activity. This inclusion highlights the speculative nature of the analysis.
Piecing together speculative odds
I’m detailing a markdown chart for audience-friendly exoplanet likelihoods, considering environmental challenges and adding a disclaimer about the speculative nature and lack of evidence.
Piecing together
I’m leaning towards Proxima Centauri b for its proximity and silent star, but I’ll add a speculative chart ranking nearby exoplanets, noting their advanced civilizations' hypothetical likelihood.
Assessing civilization probabilities
I'm emphasizing the slow emergence of intelligent life on Earth, which suggests that the odds of any habitable planet developing a complex civilization might be as low as a few percent.
Below is a very speculative chart that—based on what we know about Earth’s long, winding path from simple life to a “civilized society” and our limited observations of nearby exoplanets—gives some fun, made‑up percentage chances for a few of our best candidate exoplanets. Remember: Scientists have not yet found any proof of life (let alone advanced civilizations) on any exoplanet. These numbers are just playful estimates to help you think about the ideas!
Speculative Chances of Finding an Advanced Civilization on Nearby Exoplanets
Exoplanet Estimated Likelihood of a Civilized Society
Proxima Centauri b ~2%
LHS 1140 b ~0.5%
How Did We (Very Roughly) Guess These Numbers?
Earth’s Example:
On Earth, life began as simple single‑celled organisms and took billions of years to evolve into a species that built complex societies. This long journey suggests that—even if a planet is in the “habitable zone” (where liquid water could exist)—developing an advanced, civilized society might be rare.
Proxima Centauri b:
This is the closest exoplanet to us. Even though its star (Proxima Centauri) is a red dwarf that sometimes sends out strong flares (which might harm life), its closeness makes it one of our most interesting candidates. That’s why we give it a slightly higher guess (~2%).
These planets are part of a group orbiting a very cool star. Their environments might be challenging (for example, they could be tidally locked, meaning one side always faces the star), so the chance of a complex, advanced civilization might be a bit lower.
LHS 1140 b:
This planet is promising in some ways but is a little farther away and around a dimmer star, so our playful estimate is even lower.
All of these percentages are extremely rough guesses based on what little we understand about the conditions for life and intelligence. Scientists use ideas like the Drake Equation to think about these chances—but until we have concrete evidence, these numbers remain just for fun and imagination.
Enjoy exploring these ideas—and remember, space is full of mysteries waiting to be discovered!
あなた:
Please examine the Drake Equation itself and see if this euqation is acculate or more opition in the equation you will use
ChatGPT
Reasoned about the Drake Equationを6 秒行う
re-examining the Drake Equation
evaluating the Drake Equation's value
OK, let me see. The Drake Equation isn't a precise formula; it's more of a guiding heuristic that tackles numerous uncertainties regarding extraterrestrial civilizations.
Thinking through the Drake Equation, I’m evaluating its conceptual nature, its uncertain parameters, and its criticism to conclude on its reliability as an accurate predictive model.
Understanding the Drake Equation
I’m mapping out the Drake Equation as a conceptual guide, detailing its parameters, which are often based on estimates or opinions, to evaluate its reliability for predicting extraterrestrial civilizations.
The Drake Equation is a famous formula that was created to help scientists think about the many factors involved in estimating the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy. However, when we look at the equation closely, we see that it is more of a conceptual framework or heuristic tool than a precise, predictive formula. Let’s break down why:
The equation is usually written as:
𝑁
=
𝑅
∗
×
𝑓
𝑝
×
𝑛
𝑒
×
𝑓
𝑙
×
𝑓
𝑖
×
𝑓
𝑐
×
𝐿
N=R
∗
×f
p
×n
e
×f
l
×f
i
×f
c
×L
Where:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
: The average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy.
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
: The fraction of those stars that have planetary systems.
𝑛
𝑒
n
e
: The average number of planets that could potentially support life per star with planets.
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
: The fraction of those planets where life actually develops.
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
: The fraction of planets with life where intelligent life evolves.
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
: The fraction of civilizations that develop technology that releases detectable signals into space.
𝐿
L: The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals.
Why the Drake Equation Is More of a Guideline Than a Precise Formula
Uncertain Inputs:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
(fraction of stars with planets), have become better known through modern astronomy.
The parameters related to the development of life and intelligence—
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
,
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
,
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
, and
𝐿
L—are based on very limited data. For example, Earth is the only planet we know where life has developed, so we have no way to compare or derive a statistically robust estimate for these factors. This means that the values chosen for these parameters are largely subjective estimates or educated guesses.
Wide Ranges of Possible Values:
Because many of these factors are not well-constrained, if you change one of the more uncertain parameters even slightly, the final estimate for
𝑁
N (the number of civilizations) can vary by many orders of magnitude. This wide range shows that the equation can lead to very different outcomes based on personal or theoretical assumptions.
The Drake Equation was never meant to provide a precise answer. Instead, it serves as a way to organize our thinking about what conditions might be necessary for the development of extraterrestrial civilizations. It encourages discussion about the relative importance of different factors and highlights where our scientific knowledge is limited.
Is the Drake Equation Accurate or More Opinion-Based?
Accurate?
In the sense of being a strict mathematical model with well-defined inputs and predictable outputs, the Drake Equation is not accurate. Its accuracy is limited by the extreme uncertainties in several of its key parameters.
Many of the terms in the equation, especially those concerning the evolution of life and intelligence, are based on opinion, interpretation, and the single example of Earth. Therefore, while the structure of the equation is logical, the numbers you put into it (and hence the final result) are often more reflective of our current opinions and assumptions than of robust empirical data.
The Drake Equation is a valuable tool for framing the question of extraterrestrial life. It helps scientists and enthusiasts break down a complex problem into smaller, more manageable questions. However, because several of its factors are highly uncertain and subject to personal interpretation, it is more of a conceptual guide—or even a way to stimulate discussion—than a formula that provides a definitive, accurate prediction of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations.
In summary, while the Drake Equation is useful for thinking about the various factors that might lead to the emergence of a civilization, its outputs should be taken as highly speculative estimates rather than precise measurements.
あなた:
Please also consider the possiblities of non-human intelligent emrgencing from the long history of Sol system and nearby planets and see if there is any possiblites that in one time intelligent life emerged in nearby planets and see this to the equation
ChatGPT
Reasoned about non-human intelligence and the Drake Equationを19 秒行う
Evaluating non-human intelligence
I'm thinking about the potential for non-human intelligent life forms in the Sol system and neighboring planets, and how this might factor into the equation.
Piecing together possibilities
I'm thinking about how to integrate the emergence of non-human intelligent life, possibly on Mars or Europa, into the Drake Equation for the Sol system and neighboring planets.
It's interesting to think about the hypothesis of intelligent life emerging on Mars or Venus, though Earth remains the only known life-supporting planet in the solar system.
Considering other realms
I'm examining if intelligent life could have emerged on planets like Mars, Venus, or Europa, and how this possibility aligns with the predictions of the Drake Equation.
Hmm, I’m thinking about how non-human intelligent life on Mars or Venus could intersect with the assumptions of the Drake Equation, which seems to focus solely on Earth-based evolution.
I’m piecing together the hypothesis of non-human, advanced, intelligent life in the solar system. Mars, Venus, and Titan present challenges, but Europa and Enceladus might harbor microbial life.
Please consider the histroy of humanity from biological perpsecitve and current known fact in nearby universe, which expo-planet (from the Sol system perspective) is most likely to have civlizaed society? Please add percentage next to it in the chart
ChatGPT
Reasoned about exoplanet civilization likelihoodを28 秒行う
Evaluating planetary prospects
OK, I’m looking at the likelihood of a civilized society on an exoplanet within our Solar System. I’ll consider biological history and current space knowledge, aiming to identify the most promising candidate.
Identifying potential candidates
I'm considering exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1e, which might suggest they are within or observed from our Solar System.
Assessing potential candidates
I’m evaluating Proxima Centauri b, Barnard's Star, LHS 1140, and TRAPPIST-1, focusing on their habitable zones and available data. The Drake equation might help estimate their civilized society likelihoods.
Identifying promising exoplanets
I’m noting key exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, which have Earth-like characteristics and are in habitable zones. This narrows down the potential candidates for advanced civilizations.
I'm gathering info on planets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, considering factors like magnetic fields, atmospheres, and proximity to G-type stars for their potential to support advanced civilizations.
Evaluating exoplanet prospects
I'm noting that Proxima Centauri b, despite being close and around a red dwarf star, might support life if it has a magnetic field and atmosphere. This makes me think about its potential.
Charting probabilities
I'm estimating civilization probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e, using speculative percentages based on the Drake equation and the lack of evidence for intelligent life.
I'm crafting a chart with exoplanet names and civilization likelihood percentages, grounded in the long timeline of life's evolution, despite the speculative nature of these figures.
Identifying exoplanet contenders
I’m evaluating exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, TRAPPIST-1 e, and Kepler-186f, considering their star types and distances, to gauge their potential for supporting advanced civilizations from our solar system's viewpoint.
Weighing proximity and observation
I'm leaning towards Proxima Centauri b due to its closeness and observational potential, despite concerns about its flare star dynamics. TRAPPIST-1 e, f, or g are also worth considering.
I'm focusing on exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, Ross 128 b, LHS 1140 b, TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, and K2-18b, aiming to chart their likelihood of hosting a civilized society based on current knowledge.
Assessing exoplanet potentials
I'm gathering speculative probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, using the Drake equation and current understanding, to better estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society.
Refining speculative probabilities
I’m refining speculative probabilities for exoplanets, including Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, to estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society, considering Earth's long biological history.
Refining odds
I'm considering the astronomical timeline for intelligent life on Earth, leading me to assign even lower speculative odds for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e.
I’m crafting a simplified chart with arbitrary percentages, clearly noting the speculative nature and lack of scientific data, while considering the target audience's basic understanding of the topic.
I’m charting arbitrary percentages for exoplanets, clarifying their speculative nature, and ensuring the data is accessible for young audiences with minimal scientific detail.
Crafting a chart
I’m creating a markdown table with speculative percentages for the likelihood of civilized life on exoplanets, emphasizing their purely theoretical nature and considering the understanding level of an 8-year-old.
Integrating speculative analysis
I’m mapping out a markdown chart with speculative percentages for the likelihood of a civilized society on exoplanets, mindful of the complexity and simplifying for an 8-year-old's understanding.
I’m piecing together markdown for exoplanets, noting Proxima Centauri b's reduced civilized life chance due to the red dwarf's activity. This inclusion highlights the speculative nature of the analysis.
Piecing together speculative odds
I’m detailing a markdown chart for audience-friendly exoplanet likelihoods, considering environmental challenges and adding a disclaimer about the speculative nature and lack of evidence.
Piecing together
I’m leaning towards Proxima Centauri b for its proximity and silent star, but I’ll add a speculative chart ranking nearby exoplanets, noting their advanced civilizations' hypothetical likelihood.
Assessing civilization probabilities
I'm emphasizing the slow emergence of intelligent life on Earth, which suggests that the odds of any habitable planet developing a complex civilization might be as low as a few percent.
Below is a very speculative chart that—based on what we know about Earth’s long, winding path from simple life to a “civilized society” and our limited observations of nearby exoplanets—gives some fun, made‑up percentage chances for a few of our best candidate exoplanets. Remember: Scientists have not yet found any proof of life (let alone advanced civilizations) on any exoplanet. These numbers are just playful estimates to help you think about the ideas!
Speculative Chances of Finding an Advanced Civilization on Nearby Exoplanets
Exoplanet Estimated Likelihood of a Civilized Society
Proxima Centauri b ~2%
LHS 1140 b ~0.5%
How Did We (Very Roughly) Guess These Numbers?
Earth’s Example:
On Earth, life began as simple single‑celled organisms and took billions of years to evolve into a species that built complex societies. This long journey suggests that—even if a planet is in the “habitable zone” (where liquid water could exist)—developing an advanced, civilized society might be rare.
Proxima Centauri b:
This is the closest exoplanet to us. Even though its star (Proxima Centauri) is a red dwarf that sometimes sends out strong flares (which might harm life), its closeness makes it one of our most interesting candidates. That’s why we give it a slightly higher guess (~2%).
These planets are part of a group orbiting a very cool star. Their environments might be challenging (for example, they could be tidally locked, meaning one side always faces the star), so the chance of a complex, advanced civilization might be a bit lower.
LHS 1140 b:
This planet is promising in some ways but is a little farther away and around a dimmer star, so our playful estimate is even lower.
All of these percentages are extremely rough guesses based on what little we understand about the conditions for life and intelligence. Scientists use ideas like the Drake Equation to think about these chances—but until we have concrete evidence, these numbers remain just for fun and imagination.
Enjoy exploring these ideas—and remember, space is full of mysteries waiting to be discovered!
あなた:
Please examine the Drake Equation itself and see if this euqation is acculate or more opition in the equation you will use
ChatGPT
Reasoned about the Drake Equationを6 秒行う
re-examining the Drake Equation
evaluating the Drake Equation's value
OK, let me see. The Drake Equation isn't a precise formula; it's more of a guiding heuristic that tackles numerous uncertainties regarding extraterrestrial civilizations.
Thinking through the Drake Equation, I’m evaluating its conceptual nature, its uncertain parameters, and its criticism to conclude on its reliability as an accurate predictive model.
Understanding the Drake Equation
I’m mapping out the Drake Equation as a conceptual guide, detailing its parameters, which are often based on estimates or opinions, to evaluate its reliability for predicting extraterrestrial civilizations.
The Drake Equation is a famous formula that was created to help scientists think about the many factors involved in estimating the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy. However, when we look at the equation closely, we see that it is more of a conceptual framework or heuristic tool than a precise, predictive formula. Let’s break down why:
The equation is usually written as:
𝑁
=
𝑅
∗
×
𝑓
𝑝
×
𝑛
𝑒
×
𝑓
𝑙
×
𝑓
𝑖
×
𝑓
𝑐
×
𝐿
N=R
∗
×f
p
×n
e
×f
l
×f
i
×f
c
×L
Where:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
: The average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy.
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
: The fraction of those stars that have planetary systems.
𝑛
𝑒
n
e
: The average number of planets that could potentially support life per star with planets.
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
: The fraction of those planets where life actually develops.
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
: The fraction of planets with life where intelligent life evolves.
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
: The fraction of civilizations that develop technology that releases detectable signals into space.
𝐿
L: The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals.
Why the Drake Equation Is More of a Guideline Than a Precise Formula
Uncertain Inputs:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
(fraction of stars with planets), have become better known through modern astronomy.
The parameters related to the development of life and intelligence—
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
,
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
,
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
, and
𝐿
L—are based on very limited data. For example, Earth is the only planet we know where life has developed, so we have no way to compare or derive a statistically robust estimate for these factors. This means that the values chosen for these parameters are largely subjective estimates or educated guesses.
Wide Ranges of Possible Values:
Because many of these factors are not well-constrained, if you change one of the more uncertain parameters even slightly, the final estimate for
𝑁
N (the number of civilizations) can vary by many orders of magnitude. This wide range shows that the equation can lead to very different outcomes based on personal or theoretical assumptions.
The Drake Equation was never meant to provide a precise answer. Instead, it serves as a way to organize our thinking about what conditions might be necessary for the development of extraterrestrial civilizations. It encourages discussion about the relative importance of different factors and highlights where our scientific knowledge is limited.
Is the Drake Equation Accurate or More Opinion-Based?
Accurate?
In the sense of being a strict mathematical model with well-defined inputs and predictable outputs, the Drake Equation is not accurate. Its accuracy is limited by the extreme uncertainties in several of its key parameters.
Many of the terms in the equation, especially those concerning the evolution of life and intelligence, are based on opinion, interpretation, and the single example of Earth. Therefore, while the structure of the equation is logical, the numbers you put into it (and hence the final result) are often more reflective of our current opinions and assumptions than of robust empirical data.
The Drake Equation is a valuable tool for framing the question of extraterrestrial life. It helps scientists and enthusiasts break down a complex problem into smaller, more manageable questions. However, because several of its factors are highly uncertain and subject to personal interpretation, it is more of a conceptual guide—or even a way to stimulate discussion—than a formula that provides a definitive, accurate prediction of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations.
In summary, while the Drake Equation is useful for thinking about the various factors that might lead to the emergence of a civilization, its outputs should be taken as highly speculative estimates rather than precise measurements.
あなた:
Please also consider the possiblities of non-human intelligent emrgencing from the long history of Sol system and nearby planets and see if there is any possiblites that in one time intelligent life emerged in nearby planets and see this to the equation
ChatGPT
Reasoned about non-human intelligence and the Drake Equationを19 秒行う
Evaluating non-human intelligence
I'm thinking about the potential for non-human intelligent life forms in the Sol system and neighboring planets, and how this might factor into the equation.
Piecing together possibilities
I'm thinking about how to integrate the emergence of non-human intelligent life, possibly on Mars or Europa, into the Drake Equation for the Sol system and neighboring planets.
It's interesting to think about the hypothesis of intelligent life emerging on Mars or Venus, though Earth remains the only known life-supporting planet in the solar system.
Considering other realms
I'm examining if intelligent life could have emerged on planets like Mars, Venus, or Europa, and how this possibility aligns with the predictions of the Drake Equation.
Hmm, I’m thinking about how non-human intelligent life on Mars or Venus could intersect with the assumptions of the Drake Equation, which seems to focus solely on Earth-based evolution.
I’m piecing together the hypothesis of non-human, advanced, intelligent life in the solar system. Mars, Venus, and Titan present challenges, but Europa and Enceladus might harbor microbial life.
The assertion that English constitutes a "hostile language" is emblematic of a profound misunderstanding of the intricate relationship between language, culture, and communication. Such a reductionist viewpoint, often stemming from cultural insularity or an oversimplified interpretation of global dynamics, fails to recognize the multifaceted and adaptive nature of language as a vehicle for connection rather than division.
Language, in its most fundamental form, serves as a sophisticated instrument for human expression and interaction. It encapsulates the complexities of thought, emotion, and cultural nuance. To label English as "hostile" is to overlook its role as a global lingua franca that facilitates dialogue among diverse cultures. This designation not only undermines the rich tapestry of English-speaking societies but also dismisses the language's capacity for evolution and adaptation, reflecting the very societies it serves.
Critics often conflate the global dominance of English with cultural imperialism, positing that its prevalence signifies an erosion of local languages and cultures. However, this perspective neglects the agency of non-native speakers who actively adopt and adapt English to meet their communicative needs. The expansion of English is not merely an imposition; it is a testament to its utility and flexibility in diverse contexts. By embracing English, individuals from various linguistic backgrounds enhance their communicative repertoire without relinquishing their cultural identities.
To characterize English as "hostile" implies an intrinsic aggression or antagonism within the language itself—a notion that is fundamentally flawed. Hostility is not an inherent characteristic of language but rather a reflection of the sociopolitical contexts in which it is employed. The potential for misunderstanding or conflict arises not from the linguistic medium but from the intentions and attitudes of its speakers. Thus, vilifying English misplaces responsibility for interpersonal and intercultural tensions that are often rooted in broader societal issues.
In an increasingly interconnected world, English functions as a crucial bridge across cultural divides. It enables collaboration in vital fields such as science, technology, diplomacy, and commerce, fostering innovation and mutual understanding. Proficiency in English can empower individuals and communities by providing access to resources and opportunities that might otherwise remain elusive. This empowerment challenges the notion of hostility; instead, it highlights the language's role as an enabler of progress and cooperation.
In conclusion, the characterization of English as a "hostile language" represents a reductive oversimplification that fails to capture the complexities inherent in linguistic interaction within our globalized society. Rather than viewing languages through a lens of hostility or division, we should embrace their potential for fostering understanding and collaboration. It is imperative to cultivate a more nuanced appreciation for the role of English—and indeed all languages—in shaping our shared human experience. Only through such intellectual rigor can we transcend divisive narratives and celebrate the rich diversity that language offers in our interconnected world.
https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/items/528f479f-fd3c-43fd-9463-7c2923560573
ある人の嗅覚倫理に関する論文だけど、文献だけで匂いが影響を与えると書いてるから女性に学位を与えるのは無駄だと言われる。
論文書くなら、裁判官にセンサーを取り付けるなり、何人かの被験者にルールを守った上で反応を調べるとかやりようはあったはず。
アタリマエのことを調べるというのは裁判での証拠提出のときに役立つからもっと調べてほしい。
けど、統計学的手法を駆使するなどして、裁判官が9割型認める内容でないと価値がない。
contemporary relevance. I suggest that smell very often invokes identity in a way that signifies an individual’s worth and status in an inarguable manner that short-circuits conscious reflection. This can be accounted for by acknowledging olfaction’s strongly affective nature, which produces such strong bodily sensations and emotions that reflexivity is bypassed in favour of a behavioural or cognitive solution that assuages the intense feeling most immediately. Olfactory disgust, therefore, tends to result in rejection, while harmful forms of olfactory desire may result in sublimation or subjugation. My thesis is particularly attentive to tensions and ambivalences that complicate the typically bifurcated affective spectrum of olfactory experiences, drawing attention to (dis)pleasurable olfactory relations that have socio-political utility. I argue that literary fiction is not only an arena in which olfactory logics can be instantiated, but also a laboratory in which possibilities for new kinds of relations and connections can be fostered and tested. Chapter One explores how smell can be used to indicate class antipathies, partly as they relate to homelessness, beginning with George Orwell’s seminal non-fiction text, The Road to Wigan Pier (1936), before considering Iain Sinclair’s The Last London (2017) and Bong Joon Ho’s Parasite (2019). In Chapter Two I explore the fantastical, idealistic, and utopic thinking that surrounds olfaction, which presents smell as fundamentally non-human, by addressing J. M. Coetzee’s Disgrace (1999), Virginia Woolf’s Flush (1933), Rachel Yoder’s Nightbitch (2021), and Laura Jean McKay’s The Animals in That Country (2020). Chapter Three focuses on the intersectional olfactory dimensions of ‘misogynoir’—the coextensive anti-Black racism and misogyny that Black women experience—and considers Toni Morrison’s Tar Baby (1981), Bernice McFadden’s Sugar (2000) and Raven Leilani’s Luster (2020). In Chapter Four, I conceptualise an oppressive olfactory logic, which is used against women and girls in order to legitimise their harassment or abuse, drawing primarily on Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita (1955), but also Patrick Süskind’s Perfume (1985). Chapter Five discusses two forms of olfactory desire—perversion and queerness—which have separate moral valences. I address J. M. Coetzee’s The Master of Petersburg (1994), Ann Quin’s Berg (1964), and Sam Byers’ Come Join Our Disease (2020), and argue for fiction’s role in reorienting readers’ habitual relations to olfaction.
2024-06-25
