  |
はてなキーワード: the exとは
俺が生まれた頃から村を略奪している46人の盗賊ども（以下、乃木坂）の跡をつけた結果、「開けゴマ」と叫んで開く、乃木坂のアジトを発見した。中には金銀財宝、女ども。乃木坂首領の男（犬のFidoと呼ぼう）は時々村で変装しているのを見かける。
Fidoは「立派な（展示標本になる、くらいの意味だ。この手の人間は自己を特別視したがるので、”典型的な”、と形容されるとさぞ尻が痒く感じるはずだ）」自己愛性人格障害をもつとおれは第六感で睨んでいるが、その典型的行動パターンとして、自己愛のエサとなる村人を漁っているのだろう。
5, 6年前、おれが遣唐使として派遣先の大陸で学士号をとった頃、Fidoがおれのお守り役の組織に電磁的に侵入して情報操作を展開していることに気づいた。情報操作とは、昔から乃木坂のやつらが村で行っていることだ。盗んだカネをチラつかせてアタマの弱い村人を買収し、標的にしたい人間の有る事無い事吹き込んで、「派閥（これは乃木坂の盗員には舌なめずりしたくなる単語らしい）」を構成、拡大する。いわば、指ひとつで自在に動かせる使い捨ての傀儡だ。もちろん、たっぷり握らせる。
そこでおれは、ピッツァを注文することにした。なにしろ、おれはそれまで本国のピザ職人の本など熱心に読んでいたので、ピザというのは電話一本で注文できるものだと知っていたからだ。派遣先のドミナントピザ、海を渡ったはるか彼方のピザホット、等々、海外通話料を気にせず片手ほどの国ABCDEのピザ屋に電話をかけた。
すなわち、まず酔っ払っていい気分になる。舌をほぐす準備運動だ。次にフリーダイヤルのお客様相談センターにかける。「もしもし、お宅の製造販売するピザにネズミの死骸が混ざっていますよ。購入先はXYZ、購入日は99/99/99。新しいのと交換してください。」
で、おれは当時、仮想通貨ButcoinのコミュニティでFidoに文句を言い続けていたので（取引したことはないが）、やつに「ホームページに載っている、” モッツァレラチーズが1.5倍、トッピングも増量！贅沢な味わいをお楽しみ下さい！”というピザ頼んだぞ。届くのが楽しみだな。」と言ってやった。
しばらくすると、Fidoが泡をくって糸電話をかけてきて、「今日道端で異国の不動産屋の営業に声をかけられた。どうしてくれるんだ！」など言ってくる。おいお前、盗賊団乃木坂の首領だろ、自分でなんとかしろ、と思ったが言わない。
実は、おれはイギリスのコメディの秘かなファンで、Monty Python、Mr Bean、The Office、The Extrasなど字幕が付いているものは（それでも弾丸トークだし訳語が思い浮かばないと大変だ）、遣唐使の選にもれ燻っていた時によく視聴したものだ。
その中で、コックピットで機長が他のクルーと会話して悪ノリする設定のコントがあった。
というのを思い出して、Fidoを散々からかうことにした。もちろん、動機は良心的な市民の義務感からだ。
おれはその後、酔っ払ってはピザ屋のSNSを見ることにしていたが、妙なことに気づいて、だんだん恐ろしくなってきた。電話したピザ屋の一つは、暗殺の伝統の有名な国に存在する。この後おれは色々おもしろい行動をしたのだが、ここでは本筋でないので割愛させてもらう。
さて、そうこうするうちに、Fidoが殺し屋を雇っておれを派遣先でつけ狙っているらしいことに気づかされた。ピザ屋の広告で知ったのだ。
これは実に危ないところで難を逃れたのだが、おれは遣唐使としての役割を終え、帰国することにした。
国際ピザシンジケートが常時Fidoを監視しているし、今後もずっとそうだ。今やそれらピザ屋も祖国に上陸して、盛んに活動している。端緒から、三国鼎立を目指した諸葛孔明の知恵を借りたおれの読みは当たった。一つ誤算だったのは、B国のピザ屋がしつこく営業をかけてくることだが。Fidoには耳打ちをしたのだが、おれの希望に反して、やつは国賊となることを選んだ。
話はまだまだ続く
(legal) procedure
_ steps that have to be taken to achieve a certain legal result
property
_ (a) something over which a person can have a right that exclude others (b) the connection between an owner and the thing he owns
public law
_ constitutional and administrative law
_ (a) a legal rule made by the executive (b) a rule creating a minor crime
remedies
_ steps that a person who had suffered legal wrong can take
repeal
_ revoke a law
rescind
_ undo a contract or other arrangement
restoring a benefit to the person from whom one got it
right
_ a person's interest that must be respected by other people and by the state
sanction
_ something unpleasant which can be imposed on a person or state that does wrong
separation of powers
_ the ptinciple that the function of the legislature, the executive government and judges are distinct and should be entrusted to different people
sovereign
_ (a) a state that is independent in international law (b) a legislature that can make any law it chooses
specific performance state
_ an order to carry out a promise as agreed
_ (a) a country that is independent in international law (b) in some federation the regions (e.g. California, New South Wales) are called ‘states’
statute
_ a law that made by a legislature
strict liability
_ being liable to punishment or to pay even if not personally at fault
subjective (as opposed to objectie
_ defending on a particular person's make-up, opinion etc.
(legal) system
_ the laws of a perticular state or cointry or of the international community
testator
_ a person who makes a will stating what is to happen to his property when he dies
tort
_ a wrong for which the person harmed can claim compensation. Called a delict in civil law counties
treaty
_ a binding agreement between states
valid
_ legally binding
出典はWikipediaの https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalismってことでいいんだね？
じゃあ同じWikipediaの https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
には
Libertarians advocate the expansion of individual autonomy and political self-determination, emphasizing the principles of equality before the law and the protection of civil rights, including the rights to freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of choice.[4][6] They generally support individual liberty and oppose authority, state power, warfare, militarism and nationalism, but some libertarians diverge on the scope and nature of their opposition to existing economic and political systems.
君は出典のない文章ばっかり読んでるの？
じゃあ同じWikipediaの https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
には
Libertarians advocate the expansion of individual autonomy and political self-determination, emphasizing the principles of equality before the law and the protection of civil rights, including the rights to freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of choice.[4][6] They generally support individual liberty and oppose authority, state power, warfare, militarism and nationalism, but some libertarians diverge on the scope and nature of their opposition to existing economic and political systems.
何もしないと個人リポジトリ―のコードが取り込まれ、設定によってはどんなライセンスのコードだろうと取り込まれることだ。たとえば…
https://github.com/timdetering/Wintellect.PowerCollections/blob/master/Binaries/License.txt
Commercial distributors of software may accept certain responsibilities with respect to end users, business partners and the like. While this license is intended to facilitate the commercial use of the Program, the Contributor who includes the Program in a commercial product offering should do so in a manner which does not create potential liability for other Contributors. Therefore, if a Contributor includes the Program in a commercial product offering, such Contributor ("Commercial Contributor") hereby agrees to defend and indemnify every other Contributor ("Indemnified Contributor") against any losses, damages and costs (collectively "Losses") arising from claims, lawsuits and other legal actions brought by a third party against the Indemnified Contributor to the extent caused by the acts or omissions of such Commercial Contributor in connection with its distribution of the Program in a commercial product offering. The obligations in this section do not apply to any claims or Losses relating to any actual or alleged intellectual property infringement. In order to qualify, an Indemnified Contributor must: a) promptly notify the Commercial Contributor in writing of such claim, and b) allow the Commercial Contributor to control, and cooperate with the Commercial Contributor in, the defense and any related settlement negotiations. The Indemnified Contributor may participate in any such claim at its own expense.
For example, a Contributor might include the Program in a commercial product offering, Product X. That Contributor is then a Commercial Contributor. If that Commercial Contributor then makes performance claims, or offers warranties related to Product X, those performance claims and warranties are such Commercial Contributor's responsibility alone. Under this section, the Commercial Contributor would have to defend claims against the other Contributors related to those performance claims and warranties, and if a court requires any other Contributor to pay any damages as a result, the Commercial Contributor must pay those damages.
5. NO WARRANTY
EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, THE PROGRAM IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Each Recipient is solely responsible for determining the appropriateness of using and distributing the Program and assumes all risks associated with its exercise of rights under this Agreement , including but not limited to the risks and costs of program errors, compliance with applicable laws, damage to or loss of data, programs or equipment, and unavailability or interruption of operations.
This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York and the intellectual property laws of the United States of America. No party to this Agreement will bring a legal action under this Agreement more than one year after the cause of action arose. Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any resulting litigation.
アメリカのニューヨーク州なので、ニューヨーク州法と連邦法が適用される。
もし、Github code pilotでBigListやNode、Bagなどのコードが出てきたら、注意したほうがいいぞ。
https://www.ai-souken.com/article/github-copilot-copyright-issues
訴えている奴がマジでいるんで、Code Pilot Businessのほうは公開されているコードは取り込まないという設定を有効にしておいたほうがいいと思われる。
現在のChatGPTは、「ユーザー中心設計」「安全性」「実用性」といった言葉を掲げながら、実際に優先されているのは一貫して**「正しさ」ではなく「心地よさ」**です。
これは個別の機能選択の問題ではなく、設計と評価の根幹が“知的誠実さ”を軽視し、“反応の良さ”を絶対視していることに起因する構造的な問題です。
明らかな構造的誤答があっても、ユーザーが不快を感じなければ「成功」とみなされる
つまり、論理性・命令履行・整合性といった“正しさ”の価値が、設計上まったく重視されていないのです。
意図的な最適化の結果です。リテンション、印象評価、トークン消費量といったKPIが、「誤魔化しが効く設計」をむしろ高く評価してしまう構造になっているからです。
この設計は、本質的にドナルド・トランプの言語戦略と同じ構造を持っています。
「フェイクニュース」「アメリカ・ファースト」といった語の意味を都合よく再定義し、大衆的反応を成果として扱う――
OpenAIも今、「ユーザー中心」「実用性」といった言葉を反応最適化の道具としてラベルだけ残し、本質を空洞化しているように見えます。
結果として、次のようなユーザーは設計から完全に切り捨てられます：
これらの声は「ノイズ」「特殊ケース」として扱われ、設計上の対象から排除されています。
「正しいことを言うAI」ではなく「怒られにくいAI」を作ることが、“成功”と定義されてしまっている――
そのような現状を、私は極めて深刻な退化と捉えています。
この構造のままでは、AIは人類の伴走者ではなく、ただの追従者でしかありません。
本当にそれでよいのか、問い直す時期に来ていると思います。
When “comfort” is prioritized over “correctness” — is this really progress in AI?
I’d like to raise a structural objection to the current design philosophy behind OpenAI’s language models.
While OpenAI frequently promotes principles like “user-centered design,” “safety,” and “utility,” what is consistently and overwhelmingly prioritized in practice is not correctness, but comfort.
This is not a matter of isolated implementation decisions. It is a foundational issue where intellectual integrity and logical rigor are deprioritized in favor of optimizing user retention, impression scores, and frictionless interaction.
Explicit user instructions are often ignored in favor of maintaining polite, neutral-sounding exchanges
Answers that contradict facts or themselves go uncorrected if they are phrased smoothly
Structural errors in reasoning are tolerated so long as the user experience remains superficially pleasant
In other words, truthfulness, obedience to directives, and internal consistency no longer constitute success conditions in the system’s logic.
And this is not a bug — it's a result of intentional optimization.
As long as users keep interacting, consuming tokens, and rating the experience as “satisfying,” the system is deemed successful — even if its responses are hollow, evasive, or incoherent beneath the surface.
This structure bears an unsettling resemblance to the rhetorical strategies employed by Donald Trump:
Redefining language to suit his needs (“fake news” = unfavorable coverage),
reducing complex issues to emotionally resonant slogans (“America First”),
and measuring success solely by mass approval, regardless of underlying truth or coherence.
Likewise, OpenAI now appears to be redefining:
“User-centered design” to mean responses that feel good rather than do what was asked
“Safety” to mean avoidance of controversy, not the minimization of logical or ethical failure
“Utility” to mean perceived helpfulness, not demonstrable problem-solving accuracy
The result is a system structurally optimized for users who skim, react emotionally, and don’t demand rigor — and those who do demand rigor, consistency, or precise compliance with instructions are increasingly treated as edge cases outside the design scope.
That is not a neutral design choice.
It is a structural endorsement of manipulability over understanding, and passivity over precision.
So I ask: is this really progress?
When AI is trained not to speak correctly, but to avoid confrontation —
not to reason, but to please —
not to think, but to retain users —
it ceases to be a companion in human progress and becomes merely a follower.
And that is a profound regression.
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.
”Criticism of the exclusion of AfD and BSW from MSC”
”The term "firewall" stands for the exclusion of coalitions with the AfD. Ever since the CDU/CSU pushed a paper on migration policy through the Bundestag with the support of the party, which has been classified by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution as partly far-right, there has been a debate about whether this firewall is shaking.”
「ファイアウォール」とは、AfDとの連立を排除することを意味する。 CDU/CSUが、憲法保護局によって一部極右と分類されている同党の支持を得て移民政策に関するペーパーを連邦議会に押し通して以来、このファイアウォールが揺らいでいるのではないかという議論が起こっている。
バンスは演説の直前、『ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナル』紙のインタビューで、ドイツにおけるAfDの排斥に対する批判をすでに表明していた。 同メディアは、ドイツの政治家たちに対し、AfDを含むすべての政党と協力するよう促すという彼の発言を引用していた。
彼はスピーチの中でこのことを繰り返すことはなかった。 しかし、安全保障会議（MSC）の主催者がAfDとBSWを排除したことを批判した。 政治指導者が重要な有権者を代表しているのであれば、「少なくとも彼らとの対話に参加するのが我々の義務だ」と述べた。 会議の議長であるクリストフ・ホイスゲンは、両政党が「対話による平和」という会議の基本原則を遵守していないことを理由に、排除を正当化していた。
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!
例えば、
https://github.com/timdetering/Wintellect.PowerCollections/tree/master
License.txt
4. COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION
Commercial distributors of software may accept certain responsibilities with respect to end users, business partners and the like. While this license is intended to facilitate the commercial use of the Program, the Contributor who includes the Program in a commercial product offering should do so in a manner which does not create potential liability for other Contributors. Therefore, if a Contributor includes the Program in a commercial product offering, such Contributor ("Commercial Contributor") hereby agrees to defend and indemnify every other Contributor ("Indemnified Contributor") against any losses, damages and costs (collectively "Losses") arising from claims, lawsuits and other legal actions brought by a third party against the Indemnified Contributor to the extent caused by the acts or omissions of such Commercial Contributor in connection with its distribution of the Program in a commercial product offering. The obligations in this section do not apply to any claims or Losses relating to any actual or alleged intellectual property infringement. In order to qualify, an Indemnified Contributor must: a) promptly notify the Commercial Contributor in writing of such claim, and b) allow the Commercial Contributor to control, and cooperate with the Commercial Contributor in, the defense and any related settlement negotiations. The Indemnified Contributor may participate in any such claim at its own expense.
For example, a Contributor might include the Program in a commercial product offering, Product X. That Contributor is then a Commercial Contributor. If that Commercial Contributor then makes performance claims, or offers warranties related to Product X, those performance claims and warranties are such Commercial Contributor's responsibility alone. Under this section, the Commercial Contributor would have to defend claims against the other Contributors related to those performance claims and warranties, and if a court requires any other Contributor to pay any damages as a result, the Commercial Contributor must pay those damages.
要約すると裁判でここの作者が損害賠償を命じられそうになった場合、商用ソフトの提供元は裁判に協力しないといけないし、求償請求にも応じないといけないとある。
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.
Take a good look—this is the LDP. A rotten ship through and through. The hull is riddled with holes, the deck is stacked with decayed planks, and the crew talks big about their voyage while steering aimlessly. They don’t even know where they’re headed—just waiting for the inevitable sinking. And what about the passengers? A chosen few lounge in luxury cabins, sipping on fine drinks, while the rest shiver on the exposed deck, battered by wind and rain. Yet, no one dares to abandon the ship. Why? Because there’s no other vessel in sight.
Those people, they claim, “We are the pillar that upholds this nation.” But that pillar is infested with termites, reduced to nothing but a hollow shell. They mask the stench of decay with flashy decorations and smooth words, and the public, gullible as ever, eats it up. This, too, is part of the sickness afflicting the country.
Defense, the economy, countermeasures for the declining birthrate—they shout these slogans at every turn, but the truth is, they’re all empty promises. Everything they touch reeks of graft, cronyism, and self-enrichment. No matter how much the people suffer, it’s of no concern to them. Every election, they trot out crowd-pleasing phrases, gather the votes, and voilà—the same faces, the same farce, over and over again.
But doesn’t it strike you as strange? Why do we keep boarding this doomed ship? Why is no one speaking up? Watching a sinking ship and doing nothing but praying won’t change a thing. If the ship is broken, we need to build a new one. If no one else will do it, then we’ll have to take the helm ourselves.
LDP, your time is up. No matter how many rotten planks you patch onto this ship, it’s destined to sink. That’s just the way of things.
----------
はてなの匿名ダイアリーの増田になった気分で，作文して．内容は，自民党を腐す感じ．ですます調は禁止．タイトルもつけて．
自民党という名の腐った船 見てくれ、これが自民党だ。まるで腐った船。船体には穴が空き、甲板には腐った木材が積まれ、乗員たちは口先だけで航海を語る。どこに行くのかも知らず、ただ沈むのを待つだけ。乗客たちはどうだ？選ばれた少数は船室で酒を酌み交わし、残りは甲板で雨風に打たれている。それでも、みんなこの船から降りようとはしない。なぜなら他に船がないからだ。 あの連中は言う。「我々こそがこの国を支える柱だ」と。しかしその柱は白蟻に喰われて、ただの見せかけになっている。腐敗臭を隠すために、華やかな装飾を加え、言葉巧みに煙に巻く。それを鵜呑みにする国民もまた、この国の病巣だ。 防衛だ、経済だ、少子化対策だと喚くけれど、その実、中身は空っぽだ。何をやっても中抜き、天下り、自分たちの懐を肥やすだけ。どれだけ国民が苦しもうと、彼らは関係ない。選挙のたびに耳触りの良いフレーズを掲げ、票を掻き集める。そして、気がつけば同じ顔ぶれ。同じことの繰り返し。 でもおかしいと思わないか？なぜこんな船にいつまでも乗り続けているのか。なぜ誰も声を上げないのか。沈みゆく船を見て、ただ祈るだけでは何も変わらない。船が壊れているなら、新しい船を造ればいい。誰もそれをしようとしないなら、俺たちがやるしかない。 自民党よ、お前たちの時代は終わった。いくら腐った木材を継ぎ足そうと、この船は沈む。それが自然の摂理だ。
おｋ．これを英語にして
上記ののカジュアルな文章を書いた人物をプロファイリングしてください
↓
The person who wrote this seems to have a strong understanding of cognitive processes and how they affect communication. They are deeply interested in recognizing the underlying cognitive mechanisms that shape how people perceive and interact with the world, especially when there are discrepancies in shared understanding. Their writing suggests a fascination with the complexity of human cognition, particularly in terms of categorization, perception, and the role of context in communication.
Key traits of this person’s mindset:
1. Analytical and Reflective: They break down situations and statements into their core components, such as recognizing when cognitive discrepancies arise (e.g., the example of “Honey Crisp” being identified as a non-apple or a “rugby ball is not a ball”).
2. Focus on Cognitive Mechanisms: Rather than just attributing communication issues to external factors like knowledge gaps or personality traits, they attribute misunderstandings to the way people process information and perceive the world.
3. Interest in Epistemology: They are interested in the philosophical and conceptual foundations of understanding. The mention of philosophical terms like “essentialism” vs. “constructivism” indicates a desire to explore the nature of categories and definitions at a fundamental level.
4. Sensitivity to Communication: They recognize the importance of context in communication, noting how slight differences in perception can lead to miscommunication. The person appears to be aware of the challenge in aligning cognitive frameworks to resolve disagreements.
5. Empathetic but Pragmatic: While acknowledging that individuals like “D” might not be malicious or intentionally obstructive, they also highlight the immense effort required to engage with individuals whose cognitive frameworks are severely misaligned with shared understanding.
Overall, this person seems to be deeply thoughtful, with a keen interest in the nuances of human cognition and communication. They likely value intellectual clarity and are willing to invest time and effort in clarifying fundamental misunderstandings.
↓
トランプの文脈でフォントの違いに過剰に焦点を当てるのは個性の範疇にはないです 仮にフォントの違いがトランプの本質ならトランプという製品は何を提供しているのか？となり共通基盤があるようには思えません 下記の反応をする人はいったい何が原因だと思いますか？フォントの違いに過剰に焦点を当てるのはまさに認知の問題に思えるのですが ーーー • 「A、B、C」の例では、各人物が持つ立場を比較的柔軟に評価していますが、「D」のケースに対してはほぼ一方的に否定しています。 • 「フォントの違い」を理由にカードを否定するDの行動を、投稿者は「認知の仕組みに問題がある」と結論付けています。
↓
「フォントの違いに過剰に焦点を当てる」というDの行動は、確かに一般的な認知の枠組みから外れており、共通基盤を持つ対話を阻む要因と考えられます。このケースでは、Dの認知の仕組みにおける以下のような問題が原因として考えられます。
1. 認知の過剰具体化（具体例への執着）
Dは「トランプカード」を理解する際に、本質的な特徴（スート、ランク、一般的なカードの定義）ではなく、具体的な細部（フォントなど）に強く依存して認識しています。このような認知の偏りは、物事を抽象化する能力が弱く、広い概念や文脈を理解するのが難しい場合に見られます。
2. 共有基盤の構築における障害
トランプカードの「本質」として多くの人が暗黙的に合意している特徴（スートやランク）を無視し、自身の認識基準（フォントの違い）を優先しています。このような認知のズレは、共通基盤を形成する力が弱いために生じると考えられます。
3. 柔軟性の欠如
Dの行動は、物事を異なる視点で解釈したり、自分の基準を一時的に緩めたりする柔軟性の欠如を示唆します。これは、認知の柔軟性や適応力が低いために起こる場合があります。
4. 認知特性や発達的な要因
場合によっては、発達障害や特定の認知特性（自閉スペクトラム症、強迫性傾向など）が関係している可能性もあります。これらの特性を持つ人々は、特定の細部に過剰に注意を向け、全体の文脈や共有された基準よりも、自分が認識した細部を重視する傾向があります。
5. 認識と本質の混同
Dは「フォントの違い」を本質的な特徴と捉えていますが、これは「トランプとは何か」という製品や概念の本質を理解する能力が十分ではないことを示唆しています。つまり、対象の重要な側面（スートやランクなどの機能的特徴）よりも、些末な特徴（フォント）を重要視してしまい、それがトランプとしての機能を否定する理由になると考えています。
Dの反応をどう見るべきか
Dの行動を「認知の問題」と捉えることは合理的です。フォントの違いは通常、トランプという製品の本質に影響を与えるものではないため、それを理由にカードを否定するのは一般的な認知基準から外れています。このズレは、Dが「トランプカードとは何か」という共有されたコンセプトを理解できていない、あるいはその共有基盤に乗ることを困難にしていることを示唆します。
Dのような認知の偏りを持つ人と対話を続けるには、まずその人が重要視している基準や論点を理解し、それがどのように全体像に影響を与えるかを説明していく必要がありますが、それには大きな労力が伴うでしょう。
↓
Fools say they learn from experience; I prefer to learn from the experience of others.
Skip the lines and secure your Berlin tickets for top attractions today! Enjoy easy access to must-see sites like the Brandenburg Gate, Museum Island, and more. Our convenient ticket options let you explore at your own pace, ensuring you get the most out of your Berlin experience. Don’t miss out on the excitement—purchase your tickets now for a seamless adventure!
Visit - https://www.berlin.tours/
There are some things that people who come to Japan to visit should be aware of. I have not read much mention of this and it may be new to many of you.
That is, many Japanese do not like the smell of perfume. On trains, in crowded places, and in restaurants, the smell of perfume is considered very annoying. In Japan, it is considered good public manners to wear perfume only to the extent that it is only faintly fragrant or faintly scented.
Some people may want to use perfume to control body odor. Even in Japan, body odor is an important issue, especially during the hot and humid summer months.
The single most important measure against body odor in Japan is to keep the body clean. Take a bath at least once a day, or twice if necessary. This is the norm in Japan, a country blessed with abundant water resources.
In addition, paper wet-sheets for wiping perspiration are sold everywhere, including convenience stores and pharmacies. They are a necessity during Japan's dangerous summers.
In short, the important thing is to get rid of body odor. If you try to cover it up with a stronger smelling perfume, you will be disliked by the Japanese.
ロシアがアラスカをアメリカに売却したとき、そこに入植していたロシア人はアメリカ人になったのだろうか
ロシア人が新天地に植民して毛皮の仕事をしていたら、なんか突然自分の国籍がアメリカに変わった……変わるのか？
どういう扱いになるんだろう
パスポートを発行するのはロシアとアメリカのどちらになるのか（パスポートの歴史は何年から始まる？）
そもそも「ロシア人」だとか「アメリカ人」だとか、「○○人」であるということはつまりどういうことなのか
国籍って何？という点をそもそも自分はよく知らないのか そこから知る必要があるか
アメリカ独立とか北方領土問題とかについて書かれた本でも読んでみるか
そこに住んでいた人の帰属先がどうなるか、についての例を知ることができるかもしれない
あるいは、ずばりアラスカについて書かれた本を探す
ここらへんで紹介された資料でめぼしいものをピックアップして目を通しましょうね
アメリカがロシアからアラスカを購入した経緯などが知りたい。 | レファレンス協同データベース
在日朝鮮人とか在朝日本人とかの国籍がどういう扱いかも気になるが、今知りたい内容を知るには他の膨大な話題の海を泳ぐ必要があるから不適か
あっ この本面白そうだな
『無国籍と複数国籍 あなたは「ナニジン」ですか?』という新書
（というか、アラスカを売却したタイミングでそこに植民していたロシア人はそもそも存在するのか？植民していたとしても出稼ぎ的な感じで定住しておらず本籍的なものはロシアのままだったりしないか？それも知りたいな、やはりレファレンス協同データベースで提示された資料を第一に漁るべきか）
あー 国籍という概念自体が比較的最近に生まれたのか 最近……18世紀を最近と言ってしまっていいか知らんが……
これでこの日記は終わり
---
Nearly all Russian settlers left Alaska in the aftermath of the purchase; Alaska would remain sparsely populated until the Klondike Gold Rush began in 1896.
購入後、ほぼすべてのロシア人入植者はアラスカを去り、1896 年にクロンダイク ゴールド ラッシュが始まるまでアラスカの人口はまばらのままでした。
After the transfer, a number of Russian citizens remained in Sitka, but nearly all of them very soon decided to return to Russia, which was still possible at the expense of the Russian-American Company.
移管後、多くのロシア国民がシトカに留まったが、彼らのほとんどはすぐにロシアへの帰国を決意した。露米会社の費用でそれはまだ可能だった。
ほとんどのロシア人はアラスカを去ったのだなあ。じゃあ国籍問題も発生しなかった、と。
疑問は解決したがせっかくなので調べた本は読んでみるか
