This seems like it's only the beginning of the story. The crazy woman would look for a way to get at the man. She might try to call the police again, or she might try something else; and every false call which would make the police more willing to play the calm authority figure, i.e., less willing to intervene, eats up a public resource.
(Writing this because it might help me with my actual job one day)
John Wentworth’s Natural Abstraction agenda aims to understand and recover “natural” abstractions in realistic environments. We introduce the conceptual framework around it and review its key claims, relationship to prior work in a number of fields, and results to date. Of particular interest are the Natural Abstraction Hypothesis and Wensworth's specific formulation of natural abstractions (here called "redundant information abstractions"). We re-define and draw mathematical proofs for some of the amassed key results. We then discuss the agenda to date including the gaps in theoretical framework and challenge its methodology and relevance to alignment research.
Ah, now it's clear. Thank you. But how then Y would relate his the model of the world to X after X lost (or "lost") Y's research samples and never said a thing until Y tried to find them in the fridge? Using the NVC, I mean. (I myself would not speak to X at all.)
I feel confused. I have been exactly betrayed, and I have betrayed other; it's when someone promises something and then doesn't do it. Were I to complain about being betrayed, I would not speak about anger or hurt; in "normal" speech that would mean that I have stopped demanding the actual promised thing itself and the other person now has a right to "ok, we can talk when you are less upset" or some other grown-up answer. After all, anger is a passing thing, isn't it. It creates no obligations.
(But I also don't understand why "betrayed" and "manipulated" are not allowed, and "hurt" and "used" are.)
Yeah, we don't know if the people who sent the Boy Who Had Cried Wolf to guard the sheep were stupid or evil. But we do know they committed murder.
Yes, in my experience abstracts are results-oriented, not problem-oriented. I do like introductions, too) they are often written so generally that I fail to identify the problem. But what a nice feeling of understanding) The break between the intro and the specific problem they attacked can be really jarring.
Overall, we read it for what it is, not for what it promised to be.
Editor's assistant here. Came in to grumble when I saw familiar worlds)
I don't find papers by browsing. My bosses decide what we publish, so I simply read the manuscripts they do send my way. Geophysics... microbiology... I try to at least get some idea of what it's about. It doesn't have to be good or important! I just have to keep at it until the last doi. So, with this in mind:
Citations are often stuck in awkward places where I can't really understand what they refer to. Several citations at the end of a long passage might all support the same thought. But which one?.. If I only read it because I have googled it up, I would cheerfully follow the links or not. But I would hardly stop to ask why they are grouped so. (True, I never learn the answer. But sometimes, when I point it out, the authors redistribute the citations differently.)
Tables and figures require thought, much more thought than one would think from reading an interesting article. It is surprisingly hard to marry the text and the "illustrations". Some "illustrations" might be lacking. Some might be reprinted from other works, in which case putting them in context might require incorporating some of the context they used to have. This is very hard and often omitted.
Conclusions should not be results. Or a list of things people managed to do. But somehow, I am usually satisfied with conclusions in the wonderful articles which I have found on the internet!
All of it makes me think that the same must be true for the wonderful articles as well, I just read them in a different mode. Much less aggressive.
"Games we play": civilians helping troops from different sides of conflict. As in, Army I entered the village; N sold his neighbors, the neighbors died horribly. Then Army II chased away Army I. Would N be reported as a collaborationist? Commonly, no. But everybody knows that everybody knows. And everybody knows who knows what everybody knows, which means N is probably going to sell a lot of people if another opportunity arises.
I'd say it depends on the situation as well as on the idea.
If you are unable to test it for a while but feel reasonably sure you will be able to do it well, given the chance;
If at the moment, you are, demographically, someone who is likely to stop pursuing ideas regardless of what they amount to, properly tested;
If you have obligations (or expectations, yours or not) which you can meet more easily following your idea whether it works or not;
If you do have other ideas, and they are cool and everything but would require more work and - worse - are much less well-defined than your Big Idea;
If you wouldn't have to depend on others (much) to follow exactly this one idea and you don't feel like those others are really interested in working with you after all;
If your field of study (or whatever) is just built around... well, data... and there have been a few people you admire who went with their ideas instead of simply collecting observations...
then yeah, idea scarcity bites hard.
I think one other implication of this is "if you convince Mom you're ok using photos you very carefully staged, at least don't think you used to be okay when you look at them in the future")