Huera
127
34
Huera has not written any posts yet.
Huera has not written any posts yet.
Reminds me of 2 hbomberguy videos:
ROBLOX_OOF.mp3,: Video game composer Tommy Tallarico reapetedly lies about easily verifiable matters (the content of his Guiness world records, having been featured on MTV Cribs (he wasn't) &c).[1]
Plagiarism and You(Tube): Multiple people making successful youtube careers out of plagiarism, while, often, putting ~no effort into rephrasing (i.e. anyone could find the source/s by googling the words they were saying).
Feel free to skip to the 'Tommy's lies' section or farther if you just want the brazen lies
Then the table base either wins or draws.
Of course. At no point did I suggest that it could lose. The 'horrible and very hard to hold in practice' was referring to the judgement of a hypothetical grandmaster, though I'm not sure if you were referring to that part.
"It’s relatively easy to define optimal chess by induction, by the min-max algorithm."
Once again, I agree. I failed to mention what I see as an obvious implication of my line of reasoning. Namely that optimal play (with random picking among drawing moves) would have a pretty unimpressive Elo [1](way lower than your estimates/upper bounds), one bounded by the Elo of the opponent/s.
So:
If we pit it against... (read more)
A problem with this entire line of reasoning, which I have given some thought to, is: how do you even define optimal play?
My first thought was a 32-piece tablebase[1] but I don't think this works. If we hand an objectively won position to the tablebase, it will play in a way that delivers mate in the fewest number of moves (assuming perfect play from the opponent). If you hand it a lost position it will play in a way that averts being mated for longest. But we have a problem when we hand it a drawn position. Assume for a second that the starting position is drawn[2] and our tablebase is White. So, the... (read more)
Striking the ground on your heel and in front of the body is essentially creating a braking force, sending you backward. When you heel strike, you put excessive stress on your lower legs and knees, increasing the risk of injuries such as shin splints, stress fractures, and runner's knee.
I feel like this conflates overstriding with heel-striking[1]. Overstriding—one's feet land too much in front of one's center of mass. Even consulting your own image, the runner marked as 'mid-foot striking' could be heel-striking without changing anything in the overall posture.[2] Though, I agree that mid-foot striking is still definitely better than heel-striking on net.
From Emily Oster's Expecting Better [Chapter 18]:
... (read more)VBAC: The other common cause of a scheduled C-section is if you’ve had one before. Women who have given birth once by C-section are very often advised to have future babies the same way. Having a vaginal birth after a C-section is possible (it’s often called a VBAC, for vaginal birth after Cesarean) but not usually the default. Is this right? It’s actually a bit hard to know. There are no randomized studies.6 The best we can do is to compare women who had a C-section and planned a vaginal birth to women who had a C-section and planned a repeat C-section. This isn’t perfect—the kind
If the distinction between the Buddhist meaning and the typical meaning of 'suffering' was explained[1], I don't think I would have ended up confused enough to ask my question. The Buddhist conception of suffering was different enough to mislead me, at least.
In a footnote, for example.
[EDIT Actually, nevermind. After reading answers downstream of this comment, it's clear to me that when I asked about 'suffering' I meant something quite different from your conception of suffering. I'm no longer confused about why you would say that non-enlightenment is constant suffering, but I don't see why it would be worth getting rid of.]
The latter option would be a very tall order. What I meant was that among
Hypothesis 1: You suffered but somehow this information never arrived to verbal thoughts
Hypothesis 2: You didn't suffer, but after T=1 your perception changed and now the same things make you suffer.
Hypothesis 1. strikes me as very implausible a priori, for reasons I mentioned in my answer to Kaj. So, do you have an argument that it is not as unlikely as I think, that would be, indeed, "Understandable by someone who has not had the experience".
Thanks, I think this could be what is happening. But:
1. Your examples that illustrate confusion/mistakes about one's mental state are, how to put it, small-scale. I feel like there's a huge leap between "Sometimes a person doesn't realize how tired they are for a few hours (maybe days)" or "Some fraction of people who get depressed don't realize it for months (maybe years)" and "Basically everyone's default state is suffering they're unaware of, and they don't realize this during their whole lives". Maybe you could come up with examples where misconceptions about one's mental state are more severe, longer-lasting or more common than in my depression example, but I think there would... (read more)
[Re-asking a question i phrased awkwardly]
You have previously described your pre-enlightenment state as being full of suffering you were unaware of. Do you have externally legible reasons to think that your current perspective is correct and the perspective of your past-self about his experience is not?
Or, how a different commenter phrased it:
You're like:
T=0: "I'm fine"
T=1: Meditation
T=2: "Oh, I actually wasn't fine, it was a torment!"Hypothesis 1: You suffered but somehow this information never arrived to verbal thoughts
Hypothesis 2: You didn't suffer, but after T=1 your perception changed and now the same things make you suffer.Why do you think it's the first one that is correct?
When googling "Courtesan training" your post is the second result and the rest doesn't clarify anything.
Similarly with your taxonomy of "Somatics, Rhetoric, Psychology", in your last section you mentioned "traditions" that train each of the three skills, what traditions are you referring to? Is this an esoteric buddhist thing? The only thing that comes to my mind is that maybe pickup artistry somewhat fits with your "Psychology" concept, but other than that,[1] your definitions are too atypical to make searching practicable.
In essence, I'm asking—"Can you point to any prior work/traditions or are you the first person to propose this frame?"
GPT-5.2 suggested Gendlin's focusing might fit into "Somatics"