> You can train a human using the exact same skills you use to train a dog.
Depending on the context, this can traumatize a human though. This idea has been the basis for both gay conversion therapy and applied behavior analysis. The latter I have had the misfortune to directly experience myself.
You don't think those same things traumatize the dog too? There's a reason why all reputable dog trainers advocate exclusively positive training methods. It's because training with exclusively positive feedback is not only most likely to get the behavior you want. It critically avoids destabilizing the dog. Negative reinforcement learning does works, but it also leads to anxiety, and "reactionary outbursts". i.e. the dog learns to become afraid, and is more likely to bite you. Only abused dogs bite their pack in fear. Just like only abused humans attack their community.
In my experience there are either acutely unaware or too aware which then leads to insecurity and self-sabotaging behavior.
Speaking from my own neurodivergent experience: I tend to be a bit slower and get distracted easily, but when circumstances are optimal (silent office, clear expectations, etc) I can function on about the same level as my neurotypical peers.
While I don't 'blame' neurotypicals, I do recognize that most office environments are not that accessible for me and other neurodivergent people.
This might be anecdotal evidence. But seeing this is really jarring, as I find the Dyslexia font actually easier to read. My girlfriend actually has dyslexia and also finds it easier to read. (maybe it is just more comfortable to read, not necessarily faster? Same with dvorak vs qwerty)
There are more and more cases where my personal experience seems to contradict with science. And I am not sure what to make of that.
> maybe it is just more comfortable to read, not necessarily faster?
The article says that participants in the studies preferred the traditional fonts over the dyslexia fonts. I would argue that this contradicts the thesis that they would be more comfortable to read. Moreover, the way I read the article, it wasn't just reading speed but accuracy that was tested as well.
> There are more and more cases where my personal experience seems to contradict with science. And I am not sure what to make of that.
I find that I often have to question my preconceptions when I encounter this issue. In other words, I have invested e.g. time, effort and thought into something which I thought works and it is difficult to not fall into a kind of sunken cost fallacy, i.e. my brain doesn't want me to believe it does not work, because I have invested effort into it.
I only looked at the study about the open/free font. Two things I noticed were that the experiment design seemed to use lists of words, instead of reading in sentences or paragraphs, and that the base performance of (for example the correct letter rate) the traditional fonts were also very high (basically already 100%).
It's possible that the test used does not generalize to other reading contexts and populations.
I expect familiarity would be a big confounder either way? The first time you see the new font it might be harder than something like times new Roman if you've seen that thousands of times and gotten used to its hinting
There is one driving around near where I live in Amsterdam as well.
I am quite tall, even for Dutch standards, but the hood reaches my shoulder easily. It also drives around quite a busy neighbourhood. So I expect this specific car to kill someone within the next 5 years or so.
That may be true, but on average I would expect them to be better drivers than the pick-up-in-the-inner-city crowd, whose choices are already off to a poor start before they turn the ignition key, after all, they picked the wrong vehicle for the surroundings.
What nonsense? Do you genuinely believe that there are loads of people driving big American pickups in EU inner cities?
I think “a couple of hundred” is an absolutely reasonable estimate. Even in big cities like London or Paris you’re not going to find more than a couple (counting all the Mercedes G 6x6s too)
The people driving these cars exist mostly outside of inner cities.
If you disagree, you can do so like an adult instead of spewing out completely unnecessary and unjustified insults.
That is not meaningfully open source. Even if that would be the full source code, it still wouldn't have an open source licence, although then it technically would be free(as in freedom) software, not just open source, but most people assume open source = free software.
I trust the obsidian team, but I don't trust the plugins.
Solution to what? You are arguing against a position that you yourself invented. Just observing that succes is a combination of skill and luck (and thus arguable not 100% fair) doesn’t mean it has to be solved.
Also your other comments makes me think of the term “sealioning”. Hope this is unintentional.
But if the system is unjust it is also our moral duty to attempt to dismantle it no?
Just accepting the system and abusing it is not going to make the world a better place. This is why other commenters are upset, as you blatantly abuse immoral structures.
Because smart people like them. Those smart people use them to protect their own wealth, and often end up as advisors to rich people. They certainly work for rich people, yes, but they also work for average people who have accumulated enough that they want to reduce the risk of losing it.
>> So why is the answer "allow people to avoid their liabilities"
That's a somewhat inaccurate characterization of what they do.
Firstly, liabilities don't exist in a vacuum. They exist because a creditor agrees to extend you credit under specific terms and conditions. That credit entails risk to the creditor, which they allow for, and charge an interest rate to cover. They go into this understanding the parameters of the loan, and the risks / rewards in making it.
Financial structures allow you to limit the boundaries of that transaction. They allow you to decide what is "in" and what is "out" of the transaction.
By contrast lumping all your assets and liabilities together makes you a juicy target for aforementioned unscrupulous characters.
>> instead of "don't give people liability to greedy or unscrupulous characters"?
Because you cannot control this.
If you have a bank loan, of any kind, you already breaking this rule. Banks are some of the worst offenders when it comes to bad creditor behavior. If you rent a building or premise from someone, and that someone sells to a new person, well, congratulations that new person just entered your personal or business life.
>> Personally I don't want to dismantle the system as it favors me*
Absolutely. Banks and corporations already have the deck stacked well in their favor. I'm a big fan of any part of the system that protects me from their predatory clutches.
> That's a somewhat inaccurate characterization of what they do. Firstly, liabilities don't exist in a vacuum. They exist because a creditor agrees to extend you credit under specific terms and conditions.
How does this relate to the actual article here, where somebody dies, a court determined that person X was personally responsible, and person X may or may not (we don't know) be using a trust, corporation, or other paper entity to shield himself from having to pay what he owes?
If that's just "the system" then we are saying the system is wrong. You're saying "smart people" use this system, and we are saying those smart people are the unscrupulous ones, taking advantage of the letter of the law to dodge what they owe. You shouldn't be able to use a structure of paperwork to avoid paying a judgment or fine that stems from wrongdoing. The corporate veil should be much more pierce-able than it apparently is.
Yep, you put this really well. A few commenters here are saying, "actually, if you're smart, you can figure out how to use this system to your advantage!". But we all know that. What some of us are saying is: Yes, anyone can do this, and that's bad.
Depending on the context, this can traumatize a human though. This idea has been the basis for both gay conversion therapy and applied behavior analysis. The latter I have had the misfortune to directly experience myself.
reply