Even if you often try to make that person feel understood and empowered to express their views, everyone’s needs are different. For example, if they tend to feel inadequate or are self-conscious about their achievements/intelligence/etc., you may need to go the extra mile here.

Try to identify all the positive and negative interactions with them (i.e., those in which they get the impression that they are right versus those in which they don’t) and make sure that positive ones greatly outnumber negative ones. If you need, you can try to acknowledge more situations wherein their contribution to a conversation deserves praise, or even simply not point out their mistakes if the question at hand is not critical for you (easiest imo).

When a person says this, sometimes even if they do it in a positive tone, it’s usually a way to verbalize more concrete concerns that you should address. For example, they might feel that you are always dismissing their opinions, that you don’t listen to them in general, or they would simply like to get support when they express their views in a group so they get some recognition. In any case, they feel like you can do something to help but may not feel comfortable to express it or may not have fully identified it. If that person is important to you, you should be able to see what they want and take action.

Brilliant. That makes a lot of sense, especially the more concrete the goals are. I wish it were easier to achieve, maybe the theoretical frameworks for this will be a reality in a few decades… Your implementation at least seems more plausible.

Okay, my answer is pretty removed, but I’d say I’d like a system where decisions are made by submitting automated proofs of their optimality, either absolute or over all submitted proposals in a defined time frame. The conditions of optimality would be pre-defined in a Constitution, and non-provable facts would be accepted or rejected via a decentralized voting system that would keep multiple diff chains and penalize e.g. voting for facts that are later proven false via a submitted proof. The proof system would hold all powers, but would be able to delegate decisions to entities under proven rules, which would come faster but possibly be overriden.

If you use my snippet, I want your game. If you don’t agree, then you can’t use my snippet. The purpose of the GPL is simply to prevent people who don’t share from benefitting from people who do, which I think is pretty fair.

Absolutely. But I don’t want to influence anything, just make the OP slightly happier and hopefully have a good read myself.

I tend to upvote everything, no matter how much I disagree. I don’t trust my own opinions or the authors’, all of them are flawed in some way.

Huh… Is this a reference to how all those nazi high ranks ended up within NATO governance? Otherwise I might be missing the point…

I’m a Marxist-Leninist, member of an organized group.

I believe countries try to shape and weaponize citizens’ opinions about other countries, so I refuse to defend or criticize them unless I can argue that doing so is beneficial to my ideas (i.e., not based on feelings or ethics). Thus, I’m neutral towards most countries and defend multipolarity.

I tend to doubt my ideas as much as I can.

Do you expect this is a reflection of how Reddit will handle relations with its investors?

Holy shit, they killed him right there. They have put the thread in “sort by new” mode and I bet it’s just to bury that bomb as deep as they can.

MIR it will be for now… Although my plan is to get a Master’s in Biomedical Engineering and end up designing those cool machines that are used in hospitals. My TFG consists on building an ultrasound machine, which I’m kinda managing to do. Also, anyway, gotta stay for the revolution, right? ;)

Hi fellow Spanish healthcare trainee!

You can accuse anyone of anything and start a trial, that’s how the justice system works.

I mean, China has sacrificed some specific Marxist ideas in the short-term (edit: meaning “dealyed until safe”, not “reverted” or “abandoned”) in order to avoid being destroyed by the West like the USSR was. So it makes sense that some paranoid Marxists want to wait and see how the situation evolves before making their minds on the issue. I believe in the Communist leadership of China, but I can’t blame others for being more skeptical.

I’ve seen AI fail miserably at drawing human skeletons. While it’s very good at making things that look realistic, or even beautiful, it’s still far from achieving complex illustration tasks (e.g. anatomically correct bones, architectural designs, comic strips that make sense, etc.).

Really cool! I occasionally find time to develop my game, Nodeverse, but have not otherwise played a whole lot. It will be nice to play alongside y’all though. I 100% support this.

I understand. Some kinds of people can be more of a burden for the revolutionary movement, rather than help bring it to fruition. But do you think it is viable to eventually convert them to a favorable ideology?

If there’s 100 people and only 1 wants a revolution, they won’t be getting it, no matter how hard they try. At some point, they’ll need to convince enough other people, and that’s a problem I’m seeing far from solved. Not to dismiss your point, but don’t you think it’s easier to get others onboard when they have already taken a few steps in the right direction?

Yeah, although I’ve realized I enjoy the meal more if I don’t.

Refrigerators can actually work as electric heaters: they produce a lot of heat at the back side in order to extract a bit of heat from the inside. If you leave a refrigerator open, heat will just flow back in and the refrigerator will convert almost all its input power into heat.