Search Ideas
203 ideas match your query.:
Doesn’t need to be arbitrary emojis, it could just be a handful that you choose, each being a different flavour of acknowledgement.
Thumbs up,
Thinking emoji,
Mind-blown emoji,
Etc.
Edit: X spaces are an example of a limited set of emojis working well.
Doesn’t need to be arbitrary emojis, it could just be a handful that you choose, each being a different flavour of acknowledgement.
Thumbs up,
Thinking emoji,
Mind-blown emoji,
Etc.
Is there a reason the analogy follows from open vs closed societies, to open vs closed people? A society is not a person.
Those who advocate making most/all drugs illegal tend to think alcohol should remain legal, despite alcohol having many of the same problems as drugs.
The purpose of the law isn’t to minimise negatives and maximise positives. The purpose of the law is to uphold the rights of people.
People on drugs violate the rights of others way more often.
All drugs should be legal because people have a right to do what they want, as long as it isn’t violating the rights of others.
This is not exactly true. The business still needs to produce something people want to buy, at a price they will accept. This is separate from competition.
Another way to say that is: all businesses are in competition with all others at the broadest level.
If you liked Snickers bars, but they suddenly 5x in price, it isn’t necessarily true that you will buy a different chocolate bar. You might go to the bakery instead, or use that money to put a little more fuel in your car.
Bounties should be clear about what currency they are being paid out in.
Why haven't all atheists killed themselves?
Minor distractions, impulses, or shifts in attention repeatedly pull us away, forcing creativity to be spent again and again just to re-establish intentional direction.
How is using creativity to re-establish direction distinguished from self-coercing? I'm having trouble seeing the difference.
Some things wrong with flouride:
https://x.com/ChrisMasterjohn/status/1853076325067591812?s=20
This might be a difference in dialect. In New Zealand (and I assume other places, like maybe Australia, UK and Ireland) it is common to use ‘must not’ to mean:
a) ‘ Is forbidden to’ (the meaning you are familiar with),
or
b) ‘necessarily cannot’, usually in a deductive way.
Example sentence: “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he must not be home then.”
This sentence is much more natural to me than “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he cannot be home then.”
This might be a difference in dialect. In New Zealand (and I assume other places, like maybe Australia, UK and Ireland) it is common to use ‘must not’ to mean:
a) ‘ Is forbidden to’ (the meaning you are familiar with),
and
b) ‘necessarily cannot’, often in a deductive way.
Example sentence: “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he must not be home then.”
This sentence is much more natural to me than “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he cannot be home then.”
California might be the best place on the planet to live in, in terms of climate, but the downside is that you live in California 😂
This might be a difference in dialect. I mean ‘mustn’t’ as in ‘must not’.
Example sentence: “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he must not be home then.” —> “I guess he mustn’t be home then.”
This sentence is much more natural than “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he cannot be home then.”
Maybe juries can be done away with. Not all levels of courts have juries, so they mustn’t be fundamental.
Maybe juries can be done away with. Not all levels of courts have them, so they mustn’t be fundamental.
My charitable interpretation:
“Less and less possible” is a loose way of saying something like “more and more difficult to achieve”, or “occurs less and less often in the multiverse”.
My charitable interpretation:
“Less and less possible” means something like “more and more difficult to achieve”, or “occurs less and less often in the multiverse”.
My charitable interpretation:
“Less and less possible” means something like “more and more difficult to achieve”, or “a smaller and smaller occurrence in the multiverse”.
“([T]hey say)” presumably means he is paraphrasing people who get it wrong.
While a lot of what’s involved in understanding a language is inexplicit, it is not possible to come to understand a language without ever dealing with it explicitly.
This is what separates explanatory knowledge from other types of knowledge.
… any replicator’s primary ‘concern’ is how to spread through the population at the expense of its rivals.
Why “at the expense of its rivals”? Isn’t the concern to spread at all, regardless of the outcome of rivals?