• 8 Posts
  • 502 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 8th, 2023

help-circle






  • Those aren’t ‘apps’ to him – they’re pictures he presses on his phone that let him do something.

    My theory: he was recently in a conversation with someone about an app he doesn’t use, and they had to explain the concept to him. They probably complimented him when he seemed to understand enough, since he’s surrounded exclusively by sycophants, so in his mind he’s proud to be smarter than most people about this.

    We’ve seen this exact scenario play out before. He’s so predictable.


  • LillyPip@lemmy.catomemes@lemmy.worldWhoa
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    It’s important to understand the prevalence of coincidence and incompetence. Humans are exceptional at pattern-finding – too good, really. In order to think critically, we need to recognise our own tendency to find patterns where none exist.


  • LillyPip@lemmy.catomemes@lemmy.worldWhoa
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    And this a very common mindset, because most societies (some more than others) take children’s* innate curiosity and pound it flat for the sake of efficiency by way of standardisation. It really is a shame, since we waste a lot of potential as a species this way.

    e: a word


  • LillyPip@lemmy.catomemes@lemmy.worldWhoa
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 hours ago

    We do, though.

    Just to make sure my understanding was accurate, I asked Gemini to critique my explanation:

    .

    Unless it’s lying to me about itself, I was able to explain the basics of it in two relatively simple sentences. Of course that doesn’t cover everything, but Gemini thinks that’s a pretty good overview. After expanding on each point in its reply, it said this:

    I think a lot of the confusion over these models stems from hype and marketing that makes them out to be more than what they are.












  • I’ve been noticing a disturbing trend lately, and I wonder if the way these headlines are written is feeding it: creationist articles have been slipping into my science news feed, usually riffing off whatever bullshit alarmist/exaggerated headlines spread through the popsci realm the day before.

    If you don’t know what you’re looking at (and most people don’t), you’ll wind up reading creationist propaganda when you think you’re reading a science article.