exasperation
@exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- Comment on How much money should one person realistically make or have? 1 day ago:
Thats good! I wish I could be more minimalist but im not. Im a maximalist for sure lol.
I think you’re misunderstanding my point. Mine isn’t minimalism. I’m not denying myself anything that I want. Or even owning less stuff or spending less money. Mine is just steering things into what I like rather than what I don’t care all that much about.
And for my preferences, that maximum for my own happiness is going to come from living in a dense city with a lot going on.
- Comment on How much money should one person realistically make or have? 1 day ago:
own a couple acres and a few cars
On the flip side, plenty of us don’t want to own acres or cars. None of that sounds appealing to me.
We should all figure out what is actually important to us, and where that stuff tends to be cheaper, relative to what we can earn in that place.
I like a variety of nice restaurants, a good butcher shop, good bakeries, a good coffee shop/roaster, farmers markets, and other specialty food sellers within walking (or at least biking) distance of my home. I like the option of seeing live music and standup comedians, preferably also within walking distance of my home. I like having multiple playgrounds and parks and libraries and even museums within walking distance of my home. I like that my kids can walk to and from most of these places, too.
So I pay a shitload to live in a place like that. It comes with tradeoffs: it costs more, we have less space, we can only have one car in our household. But that stuff isn’t important to me (we have money to spare, we don’t like too much space, we hate driving).
Most importantly, though, the thing I like about living in a high salary, high cost of living city is that when set aside 10% of your income for savings and 10% of your income for travel, those are types of things where a dollar is a dollar, so that 10% of a larger number goes further. Someone who lives in a big house on a big plot of land in the Midwest still has to pay the exact same amount that I would when they’re getting a hotel room in London or an Airbnb at a ski town in Colorado.
- Comment on Anon finds his people 1 day ago:
Pua is also the name of the pig in the Disney movie Moana, and I’m not sure what dating tips one can pick up by watching that, but maybe OP can try that instead.
- Comment on Daily Affirmation 2 days ago:
Nope, I reject the idea that only emotionally supportive people are deserving of love. These aren’t binary traits, and many of aren’t as good at providing comfort in emotional situations for our own reasons:
- People who are themselves easily affected emotionally may not have it in themselves to step up right in the moments where someone else might need it.
- People who struggle a bit to respond with the same emotions as others might tend to be less able to provide emotional support for someone experiencing a thing they can’t relate with.
- To borrow from the love languages concept, some people provide support in ways that aren’t easily understood as such by the recipient. Perhaps more importantly, not everyone who gives love in a particular way prefers to receive love in that particular way.
I know I’m good at providing encouragement when things are going well (gunning for a promotion, trying to win a sporting competition, trying out stand up comedy for the first time), while being less able to provide emotional support when things are sad for other people (death of loved one, illness, other loss, plain old anxiety or depression). I’ll try to make it up with the other stuff (mostly doing things for people, sometimes just being present), but I’m not going to pretend that I’m actually a shoulder that anyone would choose to cry on. And yet I have enriching and fulfilling relationships with plenty of friends, family, and a wife who doesn’t actually ask that of me, who knew this about me long before we got married, and occasionally joked about my robotic ways. Our kids go to her when they want to cry about something, and they come to me when they want me to take some action that would alleviate the issue that made them sad in the first place (first aid, fixing broken shit, simply being hungry). I’d go as far as to say we make a great team and family unit.
I am who I am, and I still deserve (and receive) love. I think the way you look at things is too narrow and would condemn like the 75% of people who are bad at this stuff to a life forever alone, which is not very reasonable or empathetic of you.
- Comment on Daily Affirmation 2 days ago:
There are qualities about myself that I really like to be present in the people in my life (including my wife, and previous partners I’ve had): smart, empathetic, funny, fun, interesting, charismatic, confident.
There are also qualities in myself that I need to actively rely on others in my life to help me mitigate, and that I don’t like to bring into my own life: disorganized, absent minded, easily distracted. I like for the people in my life to be the opposite. Also in terms of physical attraction I am a man who is attracted to women, so I want the “opposite” of myself in that respect, too.
And there are qualities that I don’t have, that I really like for my partner to have: kind, emotionally supportive, spontaneous.
There are qualities about myself that I don’t much care one way or another whether my partners or my friends have: extroverted, athletic, technically minded.
And when talking about actual interests and hobbies and background and experience and knowledge, there’s a lot that I like to see that are true of myself, and a lot that I like to see that aren’t true of myself.
Ultimately, a partner is going to have some overlapping things with yourself, some differences, and the question you have to ask yourself is whether you’re a good fit for each other. That answer is going to depend a lot on different things.
- Comment on Daily Affirmation 2 days ago:
Be someone you want to date.
Got myself some big floppy boobs, now what
- Comment on I need to vent about plastic milk jugs 2 days ago:
A lot of the glass bottle companies also recycle the bottles, so that you can swap your existing glass bottle for a new bottle and they’ll take your old one back. It adds a little bit of logistical complication to the stores that deal with it, but it could be useful if you’re really trying to reduce plastic usage and you drink a lot of milk.
- Comment on We wouldn't listen, anyway. 4 days ago:
- Comment on We wouldn't listen, anyway. 4 days ago:
asking to have the banana
Yeah that’s just a quirk of the English language in that “ask” means both inquiring, trying to learn information from a response, and request, a communication to another that the “asker” wants something.
- Comment on Is it wiser to store one savings in Gold as superior to the average bank/savings accounts nominal interest? 5 days ago:
Spot prices for gold right now are about $145k per kg, so we’re talking over $110 million worth of gold. If you have that kind of wealth, you have people who work for you and will do the job, for money.
- Comment on Sea Level 1 week ago:
I’m pointing out the fallacious reasoning behind your view that with enough chances, it is inevitable that every possible outcome occurs at least once. That does not necessarily follow, simply because it is possible to generate events of infinitesimal probability, simply because n! grows much faster than x^n. That’s just plain math.
Turning to whether the rare earth hypothesis itself is correct or not, I don’t actually have a strong view on this. I just know that you can’t reason your way into disproving the rare earth hypothesis simply by saying “the earth is possible and therefore common, because everything that is possible is inevitably common.”
I don’t see how else this could be anything but probabilistic. Unless you’re saying every star is the same size as the sun and every star has an earth-like planet orbiting it in he habitable zone, the probability of those things is obviously less than 100%. We can already observe counterexamples that proves those aren’t 100%.
So if you want to argue that there’s no way the probability is less than 1 in 10^21, fine. Then we’re having the conversation about the actual probabilities. But my whole point, since my first comment in this thread, is that it is not enough to say “I think there are 10^21 planets so life is inevitable.” That’s not sufficient to support that conclusion.
Debate whether a large moon, plate tectonics, a magnetic field, an atmosphere, an ozone layer, a Jupiter-like neighbor, a G-type star, and what ratios of specific elements need to be present on a planet to qualify. I’ll leave the actual estimates of those probabilities to others. But each of these factors has a non-100% chance of happening on any given planet, and it becomes a question of whether the probabilities stack in a way that overcomes the sheer number of stars and planets there are. And that’s the thing I’m sure about, that you simply can’t ignore the factorial expansion of those factors because you think that there are enough planets in the universe to make that irrelevant.
- Comment on Sea Level 1 week ago:
So a planet isn’t just 50% likely to form with rocky bias withín the frost line, it is certain to do so.
No, you’re skipping a step. For any n number of chances, the likelihood of something with probability p happening at least once is 1 - (1 - p)^n . You may think that with high enough n that it doesn’t matter what p is, because the exponential increase from n overwhelms the math to where the whole term basically converges onto 1, but my point is that there are combinatorics where the exponential increase in n is still dwarfed by the effect of the factorial increase in 1/p.
The probability of a rocky planet to form within a habitable zone is about 20% for any given star, according to your earlier link. How many will have a moon like ours? How many other life-sustaining characteristics will it have? If your argument is that the probability is 100% for every star, well, that’s just wrong. If your argument is that it is inevitable in that the probability approaches 100% if you look at enough stars, then you’re ignoring the entire point I’ve been making here, that you would have to show that the probability p is large enough that one would expect the overall probability to be found in at least some of the n stars viewed.
The fact that something has happened nearly every time we see a chance of it happening very much does make it a high probability event, cf. Bayesian inference.
No, my deck of cards counterexample directly disproves this conjecture of yours. And you can’t talk about Bayes theorem while simultaneously saying that this isn’t a discussion about probability.
And you also can’t talk about natural laws without probability, either, as quantum mechanics itself is probability distributions.
So I’ll continue to point out that the vastness of space might mean that the n is in the order of 10^21, but I can simultaneously recognize that 10^21 is a mind bogglingly large number while still not being large enough.
- Comment on Sea Level 1 week ago:
The math I’m talking about still works with weighted probabilities or conditional probabilities. The underlying factorial math expands the number of possibilities way faster than the number of “tries” can increase the likelihood of at least one hit.
The point is: the fact that something has already happened is not proof that it is a high probability event. The deck of cards hypothetical is merely an example of that phenomenon. Applying different weights (e.g., ignoring the suits of cards) doesn’t change that basic mathematical phenomenon, both only re-weights the probabilities to be bigger. But lining up a bunch of probabilities in a row still multiplies them in a way that results in a infinitesimal probability.
If there are only billions of earth-like planets in our galaxy, and only trillions of galaxies, that’s still only 10^21 chances at life. Yes, that’s an unfathomably large number for the human brain to process, but it’s also nowhere near the numbers that can be generated through factorial expansion, so if the probability of life arising is something like 10^30 on any of those planets, the expected number of life bearing planets would be pretty much zero.
- Comment on Sea Level 1 week ago:
If we live on a habitable planet then it’s logical to make the assumption that habitable planets are common.
That’s what I take issue with. I don’t think that follows.
If I have a random deck of cards, I can’t assume that the deck order is common. Or, if I flip a coin 20 times I can’t assume that the specific heads/tails order that results is commonly encountered, either. Just because it actually happened doesn’t mean that the a priori probability of it happening was likely.
The Copernican Principle is assuming that all decks of cards or all flipped coins follow the same rules. I’m not disagreeing with that premise, but I’m showing that no matter how many decks or coins you use, the probability of any specific result may be infinitesimal even with as many decks as there are planets in the universe.
Showing me good reason to believe that earth sized planets have a 20% chance of showing up in habitable zones still doesn’t answer the other questions I have about plate tectonics, elemental composition, magnetic fields, large moons, etc. Stacking dozens of variables with conditional probabilities can still produce numbers so small that even every star in the universe representing a “try” might not lead to a high probability result.
- Comment on Sea Level 1 week ago:
I’m not disagreeing with you on any of the physics of solar system formation, just disagreeing with your interpretation it means that habitable planets are high probability.
When clouds of dust and gas settle into spherical planets, what makes them rocky? What makes them have magnetic fields, atmospheres, water? What makes it so that the planet in the habitable zone hits those conditions.
The tendency of certain things to develop isn’t a lockstep correlation of 1 between these factors.
We can believe that stars are common. And so are planets. But what combination of factors is required for life, and does that combination start leveraging the math of combinatorics in a way that even billions of planets in each of trillions of galaxies wouldn’t be enough to make it likely that there are other planets that can give rise to life as we know it.
My point isn’t actually about cosmological physics. It’s a point I’m making about the math about probabilities being counterintuitive, in a way that “the vastness of the universe” doesn’t actually mean that life is inevitable. It might still be, but it doesn’t necessarily follow.
- Comment on Sea Level 1 week ago:
We know little about solar system formation, but sufficient to say it’s not a card deck shuffle,
Well it’s different in several factors competing in different directions, and it’s not clear to me what the overall aggregate direction is.
The fundamental force of gravity is going to drive a lot of disparate starting points to collapse into similar results.
But in the end, we’re still talking about the probabilistic chances that certain lumpiness in the distribution of mass from supernovas or whatever forms the matter of solar systems, and how each solar system’s spinning disk coalesces into planets with their own elemental composition and orbits and rotations and moons and internal rotation and energy that might make for magnetic fields, plate tectonics, etc.
If the probabilities of those may still have some independence from one another, then even if there are lots of stars like ours and maybe even lots of planets that are earth sized, and lots of planets with the oxygen to make water or carbon to make organic chemistry or the iron to make a magnetic field, we might still recognize that the correlations between these not-fully-independent variables still require stacking probabilities on probabilities at a factorial rate.
While the number of opportunities for those conditions to hit might go up at an exponential rate, if the probabilities are small enough and there are enough necessary factors for life stacking on each other, it’s entirely possible that the exponential expansion of more solar systems than we could fathom is still too small to make for an appreciable probability of the conditions of life.
I don’t know what the probabilities actually are. But I can see how the math of the combinatorics can totally dwarf the math of the vastness of the universe, such that the overall probability remains infinitesimal.
- Comment on Sea Level 1 week ago:
But in the vastness of space, it was practically guaranteed to happen somewhere.
Do we know this for sure?
When we thoroughly shuffle a deck of 52 cards, we’re almost certainly creating a new deck order that has never been seen before and will likely never be seen again in a random shuffle.
The number 52! is 8 x 10^67, so large that we can make the equivalent of a billion (1 x 10^9 ) shuffles per second per person on earth (8 x 10^9 ), so that in any given millennium (3.15 x 10^10 seconds) we’ve covered a percentage so small it’s got 37 leading zeros after the decimal point for the percentage, or 39 leading zeroes for the ratio itself.
My impression is that factorial expansion for probabilities moves up much faster than the vastness of space itself, but I don’t know how to calculate the probabilities of each of these priors.
- Comment on imagine 1 week ago:
I’m imagining a set of big naturals
- Comment on Ideal Beach Body 1 week ago:
Mammals evolve into ant eaters.
- Comment on surely your hobby can't be that expensive 1 week ago:
Skiing can be cheap if you just happen to be local to where you want to go. Used equipment can be cheap and last a long while and season tickets can be a good bargain on a per day basis at that point. I used to do that when I lived basically on a ski mountain.
But then you catch the bug and then you have to plan out $2000+ trips just to be able to do that once after you move away.
- Comment on surely your hobby can't be that expensive 1 week ago:
Cooking is basically better than free.
Yes, ingredients and equipment cost money, but the end result averages out to be cheaper than if you didn’t know how to cook. And even if you take on more expensive ingredients or tools, you’re probably offsetting even more expensive restaurant meals that you would’ve eaten.
- Comment on Apparently your hobbies becomes less interesting if you're forced to do them all the time? Who knew? 1 week ago:
The real advice is to realize that every job has components that are not fun.
There are professional athletes who still love to play their sport, and intend to retire into coaching, but hate dealing with marketing and promos and media availability. Lots hate the travel. Some don’t like some of their teammates or coaches.
I know doctors who hate dealing with the paperwork, and programmers who hate dealing with documentation or testing, and lawyers who hate tracking their timesheets. But each of these are part of the job. The question is whether the entire bundled package deal is a pretty good job or not for yourself.
- Comment on My culture also loves music, dancing and telling stories 2 weeks ago:
But you described it as “suffering.” The subjective experience of a person in that culture is that the food is less pleasant to consume.
In other words, the enjoyment of the food is actively discouraged, in favor of another criterion (the suffering that comes from eating it). So we can point out that the culture does not prioritize the enjoyment of food as much, and can stand by that particular metric as having directionality on that spectrum.
- Comment on My culture also loves music, dancing and telling stories 2 weeks ago:
Even in puritan cultures that intentionally eat plain food to shun “hedonism”, food becomes a vehicle for virtue signaling. The suffering is a ritual practice. Food, even then, plays a critical cultural role.
Yeah, but one can view that cultural tradition and conclude that their culture does not value the deliciousness of food as much as some other cultures.
- Comment on My culture also loves music, dancing and telling stories 2 weeks ago:
British food is unironically great, and the stereotype is based on experiences during WW2 rationing
I think this overstates things. A substantial number of countries have their modern culinary culture defined in the post-war decades, though.
Japanese culinary identity came together after World War II, and many of the dishes and traditions defining their cuisine are recently invented or have evolved considerably during the post-war period: the popularization and evolution of ramen, katsu, Japanese curry, yakitori, etc. Even ancient traditions like sushi and Modern Japanese food draws a lot of influence from classic pre-war cuisine, but the food itself is very different from what was eaten before the war.
Even French cuisine underwent a revolution with nouvelle cuisine, heavily influenced by Japanese kaiseki traditions. Before the 20th century, French cuisine was about heavy sauces covering rich, slow-cooked foods (see for example the duck press and how that was used), and it took a few waves of new chefs pushing back against the orthodoxy to emphasize lighter, fresher ingredients. The most notable wave happened in the 1960’s, when Paul Bocuse and others brought in small, lighter courses as the pinnacle of fine dining.
Korean, Italian (both northern and southern), and American culinary traditions changed pretty significantly in the second half of the 20th century, as well, through changes in food supply chains, political or economic changes, etc. And that’s true of a lot of places.
Britain’s inability to shake off an 80-year-old culinary reputation comes in large part from simply failing to keep up with other more food-centered cultures that continually reinvent themselves and build on that classic foundation. Some of the criticism is unfair, of course, but it’s not enough to point at how things were 100 years ago as if that has bearing on what is experienced today.
- Comment on THIS is a real test of how old you are. If you score 20 your future is short 2 weeks ago:
Terrible distribution of options. A good list would have a series of technologies and tools that became obsolete at different times. Almost all of these became obsolete with the rise of broadband internet in the early 2000’s, while a handful were earlier (rotary phones) or later (paper maps, paper checks).
- Comment on THIS is a real test of how old you are. If you score 20 your future is short 2 weeks ago:
Smithers, I really feel like a free spirit. And I’m really enjoying this so-called “iced cream.”
- Comment on THIS is a real test of how old you are. If you score 20 your future is short 2 weeks ago:
The choices also tend to center around 2005, with only a handful of technologies that were made definitely obsolete before 1995 or after 2010.
- Comment on serious business 2 weeks ago:
- Comment on Are you a market or supermarket enthusiast? 2 weeks ago:
I buy stuff from all sorts of places. I’m pretty serious about food and cooking, and I run through a pretty wide variety of cultures and regional variation in making my food. So for me, this is how I buy:
Fresh produce in season: street markets
Fresh produce out of season (greenhouse grown or shipped in from another latitude): Whole Foods
Mainstream American prepackaged foods: nearest big box corporate supermarket.
Day to day meat, dairy, and seafood (chicken, beef, pork, shrimp): Whole Foods
Specialty meat (aged stuff, unusual cuts): local specialty butcher, ethnic grocery stores
Specialty seafood (live seafood, less common items): specialty seafood shop
Fancy cheeses: cheese store in my neighborhood, occasionally Whole Foods
Various ethnic specialities (Kim chi, tortillas, paneer, certain types of Chinese/Korean/Vietnamese vegetables, Mexican/Indian spices) that are perishable: ethnic grocery stores
Unusual or imported prepackaged or shelf stable foods/spices: ethnic grocery stores, Amazon, other online stores depending on the item.
