Signtist

Ah, yeah, that’s fair. They degenerate some of your decision making, but not to the point where you can’t drive at all. I think it’s still probability-based in the end, but not to the same extent as AI, like how it’s not going to tell you to drive onto a park trail the way AI might if it were in charge.

Navigation can definitely do the same thing. My wife uses Google maps everywhere she goes, even to get to her own job or friends’ houses.

One time her phone died on her way back home from somewhere she doesn’t go very often, and she was crying by the time she found her way home. At the time we lived in a big city surrounded by a ring of highways - all she needed to do was drive toward the skyline and she’d hit that ring, but since she never thinks about what direction she’s going or where she needs to turn, the thought of making those decisions herself never entered her brain. Instead she stopped at a gas station, charged her phone for 30 minutes, and used navigation to get back.

I’ve never been much into using apps like that, but now I specifically avoid them, so that I can keep my own ability to think about those kinds of things.

Just run the disposal for a while then use a straw.

Caffeine’s great. I use it to keep my computer on if I’m out doing errands so I can check my emails and whatnot with a remote desktop through my phone.

Ah, gotcha. Still, looks like a fun read - I’ll check it out. Thanks for taking the time to explain it!

So it’s just theoretical mathematics based on a given amount of assumed possible choices? Is there even a way to truly apply it to a real-world scenario as complicated as large-group human behavior?

It gets the point across well enough, but there are some issues if you get deeper with it.

First, the colors would swap back and forth much more often, blurring together into a single color at this scale, much like how small alternating black and white dots can be used to make us see a gray color. We can get around that issue by assuming that they’re just organized into groups by parent of origin, rather than being actual representation of the exact DNA order, though.

Next, the proportion of colors is off, especially in the last generation. You’ll get different amounts of DNA from one progenitor to another, but it’s always pretty close to an equal split halved by generation, so the first 2 bears in the 3rd generation would be much closer to the proportions seen in the 3rd than they really are, and the bears in the 4th generation would all be 1/2 orange, 1/4 green, and 1/8 each of red and yellow.

Finally, the first 2 bears of the 3rd generation seem to have been given the “missing” DNA from their red/yellow parent, with one having mostly red and a little yellow, and the other having mostly yellow with a little red. While this is technically possible, it’s no more likely than any other of the near-infinite variations 2 separate siblings could have instead. Someone using this as a way to understand inheritance may get the incorrect notion that one sibling inherits what DNA the previous sibling didn’t, when it’s instead completely random each time.

Ultimately, this is a good way to introduce the concept of genetics and inheritance to someone who may be having trouble picturing it in their mind, but more information would need to be provided for them to truly understand it.

I honestly know nothing about game theory, so I don’t doubt that there are aspects that account for irrational behavior like meaningless self sabotage, but I don’t recall the prisoner’s dilemma having allowing one of the prisoners to specifically choose to be imprisoned for the maximum sentence in exchange for the other prisoner to also be imprisoned that same amount. Is there a version that has that option, or something similar? Every version I’ve seen assumes they would never do something so completely against their own self-interest.

One of the most common reasons for people not coming together I’ve seen is the classic “Sure, this makes it harder for everyone, but we can weather it so long as we know it’s harder for those damn (insert innocent group here)!” which of course only makes things unnecessarily harder for both groups, and only benefits their shared enemies. If that’s not something that game theory would cover, then I don’t know how well it would be able to be applied to our inability to organize effective resistance to an oppressive government.

If it is something that’s covered, I’d love an example! I could use a bit of hope that we’ll rise up eventually.

In other words, people often enjoy simple pleasures, and simplicity is not to be confused with stupidity.

I got the Gardasil shots as a teenage guy in the mid-2000’s.

You realize humor isn’t always the point, right? Relatability is one of the biggest reasons people read comics like Garfield. It’s not funny that he hates Mondays, it’s relatable. It’s human to seek that kind of connection. People often enjoy reading Garfield comics because we enjoy finding validation of our desire to be lazy. That being said, they can also be hilarious; I remember rereading this one all the time as a kid, and just dying of laughter.

I’m not super familiar with this comic’s artist, but I can see why you compared them to Garfield - this comic clearly isn’t trying to be funny so much as it’s trying to connect with the reader about our shared frustrations with the state of the world. It reminds us that, while the world is stacked against us, we still have like-minded people to turn to for support. It’s nice to see that.

I can’t tell if this is satire or not, but the chocolate factory is not a for-profit company. It makes money, sure, but unlike every single real company in existence, it care more about making the products than making money. It’s like an indie artist’s personal store, but scaled up.

The only important factor to Wonka is that his successor find the wonder in everything, and not lose it in profitability like most of the characters you mention would have done. You talk as if “winning” is growing the company, but really it’s keeping things mostly the same, because that’s what made the magic happen in the first place.

As for Augustus, he would just eat everything, which would be a problem.

I’ve never seen someone get so close to realizing that gender is a meaningless social construct while still being on the complete opposite side of the map. This person would be perfectly set up for the ultimate full-court shot if they’d ever actually reassess their preconceived beliefs.

Do people not like Garfield? I love Garfield.

With you, I’ll be sure to do that from now on. With others, I’ll continue using the language they use to avoid confusion. Words mean what we collectively decide they mean. That’s why one of the definitions of the word “literally” is now the same as the word “figuratively,” just from its common use in that way.

For better or for worse, enough people use the word “Atheism” to mean “Anti-theism” that it’s generally considered a valid use of the word, especially in situations like these where OP specifically gave context to what he means when he uses the word “Atheism.”

That would be true if we weren’t specifically replying to a post about how a guy described his anti-theistic beliefs as being Atheist. We’re using the word “Atheism” in this thread because OP did, but we’re all talking about anti-theism.

You’re right that atheism and anti-theism are technically different, though they’re often used interchangeably. A framework is a system, though, so yes, anything can be a belief system. I wrote this in another comment in this post, which I think sums it up:

Technically you could form a system of beliefs around the existence of frogs if you thought about them enough. You wouldn’t even need to change your understanding of frogs at all - just the act of thinking hard enough about them to fully understand and articulate your thoughts forms the system itself. The word “system” has many definitions, granted, but the one that applies in this scenario is that it’s an organized set of ideas. Literally organizing your thoughts on any given matter creates a system of beliefs. That’s why we have so many religions - they’re incredibly easy to form about nearly anything.

The very fact that we’re having this conversation means there’s more to the story than “nothing.” You’re being obtuse. A lack of belief, while living in a society that expects it, becomes something notable, and that notability is more than nothing. Just like being bald is only notable in a world where hair is expected, being atheist in a world where beliefs are expected is notable. Being notable is a societal tangible thing, even if “not believing” would otherwise not be for any other topic. Being atheist would be as empty as you’re describing if we as a people didn’t talk about religion, but in reality we do, so it carries weight, which affects behavior.

Sorry, I used the example of science because that is the flavor that OP used for their particular brand of Atheism, but you’re correct - technically you can believe there’s no god and science is wrong, though most people I’ve met who don’t believe in god do so because of their trust in science and their belief that it leaves no room for religion.

Again, though, a system of beliefs is not a system of behavior. You do not need a book or anything else telling you what to do for it to be a system of beliefs. Technically you could form a system of beliefs around the existence of frogs if you thought about them enough. You wouldn’t even need to change your understanding of frogs at all - just the act of thinking hard enough about them to fully understand and articulate your thoughts forms the system itself.

If an atheist burns a tree down because they’re an atheist, then obviously it does have to do with them being an atheist. Their brain made a connection between being an atheist and burning the tree down, and that’s the connection - it doesn’t matter if there’s an established set of rules they’re meant to follow or not. Just like how Christians can be expressly told to love their neighbor, and still use Christianity to defend their act of hating their neighbor - how people’s brains justify their reactions to their beliefs is their own system.

But it’s not the lack of a belief that any god exists. Not believing in something doesn’t get a name. There’s no word for not believing in dragons, or not believing in frogs. Atheism is specifically a response to the societal pressure to have a religion, including the thoughts and feelings surrounding that response.

Nobody takes their sibling’s unicorn doll just because unicorns aren’t real - OP’s actions came from their feelings of moral superiority as a result of not having a religion in a society that expects it. That’s the difference.

I like an example one of the other commenters here used - being bald is a hairstyle. If nobody had hair, it wouldn’t be, but because we do, the act of not having hair itself becomes a hairstyle.