Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Awaclus]

Speaking of things that bother me, it shouldn't be LGBTQ+. "Queer" is already a catch-all; either make it LGBTQ or LGBT+

The "Q" doesn't always stand for queer (it sometimes stands for questioning) and "queer" is not exactly a catch-all because

• most of the prominent definitions of "queer" only include people who are not cis and/or not straight and therefore exclude e.g. cishet aros and cishet intersexual people
• in practice, the reclaimed "queer" is often used as a shorthand for genderqueer
• it is not entirely uncontroversial that the word has been successfully reclaimed, so the convention is that you shouldn't call other people queer unless they describe themselves as queer

It is redundant with the +, but so are all the other letters in the acronym.

[Awaclus]

FWIW I usually just type LGBT because the + is obviously implied even if people don't type it out, unless I'm responding to someone in which case I copy their spelling, or writing something potentially controversial where it's extra important to signal that I'm one of the Progressives™.

[silverspawn]

Speaking of things that bother me, it shouldn't be LGBTQ+. "Queer" is already a catch-all; either make it LGBTQ or LGBT+

The "Q" doesn't always stand for queer (it sometimes stands for questioning) and "queer" is not exactly a catch-all because

• most of the prominent definitions of "queer" only include people who are not cis and/or not straight and therefore exclude e.g. cishet aros and cishet intersexual people
• in practice, the reclaimed "queer" is often used as a shorthand for genderqueer
• it is not entirely uncontroversial that the word has been successfully reclaimed, so the convention is that you shouldn't call other people queer unless they describe themselves as queer

It is redundant with the +, but so are all the other letters in the acronym.

mhh I suppose. I think then the obvious solution is to just say LGBT+ and leave the Q out of it. Definitely don't wanna exclude aroace people

[Awaclus]

Speaking of things that bother me, it shouldn't be LGBTQ+. "Queer" is already a catch-all; either make it LGBTQ or LGBT+

The "Q" doesn't always stand for queer (it sometimes stands for questioning) and "queer" is not exactly a catch-all because

• most of the prominent definitions of "queer" only include people who are not cis and/or not straight and therefore exclude e.g. cishet aros and cishet intersexual people
• in practice, the reclaimed "queer" is often used as a shorthand for genderqueer
• it is not entirely uncontroversial that the word has been successfully reclaimed, so the convention is that you shouldn't call other people queer unless they describe themselves as queer

It is redundant with the +, but so are all the other letters in the acronym.

mhh I suppose. I think then the obvious solution is to just say LGBT+ and leave the Q out of it. Definitely don't wanna exclude aroace people

What makes the Q special though, other than being a more recent and less established addition? "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, genderqueer plus all the other people who are in this vague category" is not inherently less sensible than the same description without the genderqueer.

[Awaclus]

https://twitter.com/aronvallinder/status/1779953971295031459
Robert Nozick’s The Nature of Rationality, p. 25

[silverspawn]

Shelling Although ordinarily I'd say the Shelling point is the first item of the list.

[Awaclus]

Shelling Although ordinarily I'd say the Shelling point is the first item of the list.

Kant would probably be the Schelling point for most people even if he wasn't the first item because he's the best known by far.

[silverspawn]

What makes the Q special though, other than being a more recent and less established addition? "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, genderqueer plus all the other people who are in this vague category" is not inherently less sensible than the same description without the genderqueer.

Because even if Q is not a perfect container term, it's still mostly a container term, and hence made redundant by the +, no? I mean, sure everything is technically made redundant by + as you point out, but there's more of a reason to explicitly name specific groups than approximate container terms.

[Awaclus]

What makes the Q special though, other than being a more recent and less established addition? "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, genderqueer plus all the other people who are in this vague category" is not inherently less sensible than the same description without the genderqueer.

Because even if Q is not a perfect container term, it's still mostly a container term, and hence made redundant by the +, no? I mean, sure everything is technically made redundant by + as you point out, but there's more of a reason to explicitly name specific groups than approximate container terms.

Q as in genderqueer is not more of a container term than the B.

[silverspawn]

Man I'm just realizing that the paper on Function Decision Theory https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05060 is only published on arxiv. That is absolutely ridiculous; whatever you think about Miri and Eliezer, the FDT paper is a major contribution to game theory; it should be a massive deal in the field. I think even the anti-Miri people, unless they're very stupid, acknowledge it for this paper.

IT'S ALMOST LIKE ACADEMIA ISN'T VERY GOOD AT DETERMINING THE MOST VALUABLE CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE SAME IS HAPPENING WITH EM THEORIES OF CONSCIOUSNESS I MEAN IDK BUT JUST SAYING

[silverspawn]

Q as in genderqueer is not more of a container term than the B.

I don't buy that. Bisexual is pretty staight-forward, whereas queer I think most people just consider a container, even if there's some asterisks

[silverspawn]

IT'S ALMOST LIKE ACADEMIA ISN'T VERY GOOD AT DETERMINING THE MOST VALUABLE CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE SAME IS HAPPENING WITH EM THEORIES OF CONSCIOUSNESS I MEAN IDK BUT JUST SAYING

And on the other side of the equation, the 1968 paper on Split Brain patients by S.W. Sperry got the nobel prize despite as far as I can tell massively stretching the experimental results and setting the entire field into the wrong direction, thus creating a mess that academia in 2020 still hasn't fully cleaned up

[silverspawn]

Did you guys know that in 1968 papers were not required to publish experimental data? You could just describe your experiments and your conclusions and then hit publish. That paper single-handedly made me 3x as appreciative of modern norms of publishing

[Awaclus]

Q as in genderqueer is not more of a container term than the B.

I don't buy that. Bisexual is pretty staight-forward, whereas queer I think most people just consider a container, even if there's some asterisks

Bisexual is a container for people who feel sexual attraction but aren't straight or gay. Genderqueer is a container for people who aren't men or women. I guess there is the difference that genderqueer includes genderless people while bisexual doesn't include aces, but I don't think that's a particularly useful point to draw the line between what counts as a container.

[faust]

Man I'm just realizing that the paper on Function Decision Theory https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05060 is only published on arxiv. That is absolutely ridiculous; whatever you think about Miri and Eliezer, the FDT paper is a major contribution to game theory; it should be a massive deal in the field. I think even the anti-Miri people, unless they're very stupid, acknowledge it for this paper.

IT'S ALMOST LIKE ACADEMIA ISN'T VERY GOOD AT DETERMINING THE MOST VALUABLE CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE SAME IS HAPPENING WITH EM THEORIES OF CONSCIOUSNESS I MEAN IDK BUT JUST SAYING

Well, Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture is only published on arxiv. It's not always a question of whether journals will accept it, but also of whether the author wants to submit it to a journal.

[faust]

Did you guys know that in 1968 papers were not required to publish experimental data? You could just describe your experiments and your conclusions and then hit publish. That paper single-handedly made me 3x as appreciative of modern norms of publishing

I kind of get it. In a world without digital storage, where would you even put a massive data set? You can hardly make the paper have like 1000 pages.

Now we can do that, but hardly anyone checks (it's also hardly to find definitive evidence) and lots of data used for research papers is forged. I'm not sure how much modern norms of publishing are an improvement.

[silverspawn]

I think it takes a different kind of person to exaggerate results than to fake them, though.

[Awaclus]

My WDC 217 submission:

Respawn
$2 Action
Trash a card from your hand. If you do and the player to your left is not on MasN Hub, gain an Action card onto your deck costing up to $2 more than the trashed card.

[silverspawn]

Today I learned that if German poker organizers say they pay in vouchers, this is often just a legal facade and actually they just pay in cash.

Is this the case 50% of the time or 80% or 95%? Not sure about that yet.

[silverspawn]

Got two full houses today, one on the Flop and one on the Turn.

lost my entire stack both times

then I bought in for my last 100€ and an hour later left with 560€

Totally not living in a simulation though this is very normal

[silverspawn]

[silverspawn]

Ukraine aid yay o/

[silverspawn]

smh somehow sounds more how somehow sounds, more than smh

[silverspawn]

So I had this short back and forth with a somewhat autistic internet friend and then kept thinking about whether or not it's appropriate/polite to inform them of the social subtext that they clearly missed. But I think there's just no way to do it that doesn't come across as combative

Of course this leads to people not getting training data for social stuff

[silverspawn]

I was also curious and copy-pasted the conversation to GPT-4 and asked it to interpret it, but imo it got it wrong. I'm not sure whether that's surprising or not since I'm not sure how much training data there is on that stuff