Descriptive knowledge Puns

Thank you so so much I’m advance 🙏🏼

I have a somewhat unpopular opinion amongst my friends regarding the kind of information I give out for recall knowledge checks. Most of the time, both me and fellow DMs will give descriptions of the general kind of abilities that a creature has or similar information. An example would be a creature who succeeds a Recall Knowledge on a Bandit. Say that you want to tell them about the Bandit’s Ambush. You might say something along the lines of “These bandits terrorize using surprise tactics to their advantage, and they can instill fear when deceiving travelers or sneaking up before they spring their attack”. This is pretty clear. You don’t have to read out the exact mechanics of the ability, the players will get the idea and most likely be able to discern the vague mechanics from your description. As a DM I might be more or less clear depending on how experienced the players are with the game.

I think this is a house rule, but when a player asks to recall knowledge, if they’re trying to find out something specific my groups will typically allow them to get more useful information at the cost of a higher DC. For instance, the players may be looking for things like if a creature is mindless, or if they have the ability to cast spells, or something relating to its offense/defense/mobility. I might not give them exactly what they were looking for, but it’s usable information they can act on.

But here’s where my friends and I disagree. In some situations I like to give direct mechanical information when a player rolls particularly high, or has good reason to know specific things, in order to try and bring the knowledge that my players have more in line with the knowledge that their characters have. For instance, say that a PC with ranks in Crafting goes up against an Animated Statue. They roll crafting, and say they crit, or maybe they have a history with stonework, or maybe they’re specifically asking if they think they would be able to damage this thing. In a scenario like that I might tell the player up front: “This is made of worked marble, you know it would be difficult to damage with your current weapons. It has a Hardness of 6.”

People disagree with the fact that I give exact numbers for things like this rather than purely descriptions or estimates. But I personally don’t think that players knowing specific stats like this is meta gaming at all. Their characters don

I love this subreddit because it seems to be difficult to find the right forum to learn, beyond reading academic papers. However that highlights an issue, specifically the industrial knowledge that comes with working outside of academia and research positions.

So, as I look at industrial jobs, more than once have I been asked if I've worked on a consumer device, where my product was being shipped to millions. Unfortunately, the answer is no, and that's one of the reasons I'd like to get the job is to get that experience.

So with that, I'd love to get insight of what knowledge/background you may look at a hire that could demonstrate a similar knowledge to overcome the lack of delivering an antenna in a mass manufactured product.

I'm thinking specific substrate experiences balanced low cost and consistency, how designs change over temperatures, maybe metallization as well. It seems like everyone expects a different answer.

I formally argued that the role description was a 100% position and applied to it. After I quit, my position had to be replaced. Guess what the job posting description for my position said? It was THE ROLE DESCRIPTION as a 100% position!

The role description was incredibly specific to my skills and I had grown well into the role. A couple of weeks later I found out that it was so specific that despite them having many applicants, they couldn't find ANY good match and had to re-post the job listing using broader terms. Now, the department is seriously struggling and begging for me to come back.

Ven. Dr. Punnaji:

Today we have a very important Sutta that we are going to discuss, but this Sutta is a little High Level. High Level means we have heard the word “Abhidhamma”, but the word “Abhidhamma” means the Dhamma which is of a High Level.

The word Dhamma means Experience.

The Dhamma really is the... the most fundamental thing is the Dhamma, and the most fundamental thing according to the Buddha is the Experience.

Experience means using our Senses.

We have 5 Senses: the Eyes, the Ears, the Nose, the Tongue, and the Body.

So what we experience through the 5 Senses is the Experience, but that Experience is the thing that we can talk about.

So when we speak of the “Abhidhamma”, we are talking about the Higher Experience.

Now when the Buddha spoke about what are commonly called the Four Noble Truths (The Fourfold Supernormal Reality: “Cattāri Ariya Saccāni”).

There the first 2 which is “Dukkha” and “Samudaya”.

“Dukkha” is today translated as Suffering, and “Samudaya” is the Cause of Suffering.

(Notes: See Meditation Level III on page 84, PDF page 97)

Now that Experience called Suffering and the Experience called the Cause of Suffering, those are Experiences that Normal People are able to experience.

And that is the Ordinary Dhamma – the Ordinary Experience.

But when we talk about the Ending of Suffering and the Way Leading to the End of Suffering, that is not the Experience of the Normal Person, and therefore that is the High Experience.

The End of Suffering if you experience that is at the High Level, and the Way Leading to the End of Suffering is also not the Normal Experience.

Therefore, that is also of the High Level.

So when we speak of “Abhidhamma”, we are really talking about the End of Suffering and the Way Leading to the End of Suffering

So now this Sutta that we are going to discuss is talking about that High Level.

And therefore what we are talking about then is the real “Abhidhamma”.

So here the translation can be a little misleading.

So you can look at the translation, and I can tell you what are the errors in that translation, and this way you can also understand why I am using these different words to express or translate the Pali words because the Buddha used the Pali language to express his ideas.

So you have the paper. I will read it and then you’ll begin to understand what this is all about.

This is called the Mahāvedalla

One idea might be to use ontology design and engineering techniques to create formal models (e.g. in OWL) that represent conceptual knowledge in particular domains for the purpose of enabling human knowledge experts to author computer-understandable descriptions of their expertise.

The story I have in mind goes something like the following:

1. there is a huge untapped knowledge resource, e.g. young and unrecognized researchers, small start ups, expert blogs, etc.
2. the conventional means that they have to disseminate their knowledge (papers, conferences, etc.) is too slow and limited in scope
3. we need a platform where a computer can effectively match the knowledge seeds of these researchers with needs from companies, government agencies, etc., and systems based on keyword matches / collaborative filtering are not enough, particularly given the complex nature of knowledge descriptions in expert domains
4. the effectiveness of computer-mediated "knowledge needs and seeds matching platform" depends on the ability of the computer to figure out that what one person says they have matches with what another person says they need
5. this would benefit greatly from application of logical inference, which is available from many OWL reasoners
6. descriptors of the expert knowledge of the knowledge providers (the young researchers in this case) constructed as DL A-Boxes could enable a high level of "computer understanding" in matching what people mean, not just what they say - in particular, the semantic graph format lets us not just give a laundry list of key terms but tell a story about the specific kinds of relationships between the instances that the terms represent
7. using OWL also opens the door to leveraging ontology design and engineering techniques - e.g. as T-Boxes describing the background knowledge for a particular domain
8. from my recent experience, huge value could be obtained just in using ontologies (e.g. formalized in some description logic) to provide logically formalized definitions for key concepts in the domain

So what do we need to test this idea?

I suggest that we need at least the following:

• We need a platform that enables knowledge providers to create A-Boxes describing their knowledge easily and intuitively
• We need functionality that provides "immediate gratification" to people who create A-Boxes, e.g. by immediately matching them with people needing that knowledge or even with other people with similar e

This is my first post EVER on Reddit, so go easy on me please. But I FINALLY got some of my family members to buy some GME today. It took me MONTHS of talking about this with my mom, to finally convince her. I’m just a stay at home mom with zero previous stock market knowledge before the January “sneeze”. I joined Reddit for the sole purpose of reading DD about GME lol. Can anyone direct me to a simple DD description of the whole GameStop saga so I can properly describe it to others without sounding like a complete nut job lol? A description that people without stock market knowledge would easily understand. Thank you in advance to anyone who responds :-)

Hey, to protect your identity/well-being I encourage you to answer in a anymonous manner. If it helps I would recommend answering in third person.

This post is not to shame anyone at all, the purpose is understanding the mind of a racist- or the whole 101, whatever knowledge you have the can give insight. Try to be unbiased, does not mean being sympathetic.

I understand this is a loaded question because there can be many subdivisions- answer with the knowledge that you do have. I understand to an extent we are all racist, but I’m talking about peeps like the ku klux klan, or some one who may go out of there way to cause harm to a POC, someone who uses the n word (in a bad way often), or racist sympathizers.

If you cannot put it in words here are some questions to serve as any type of guidance, but would like to make it clear that there is no criteria or pressure.

Example Questions

• what are some of the common factors that molds a person to be racist?

• Why do they sympathize with hitler/ku klux klan?

• Are there everyday people who may seem decent but they are hidden in sight?

• People who are friends or have family members with a racist, due to other common interest or family of course, how do you deal with it? How may the racist ignore perhaps you disagree strongly, or maybe your a person of color.

-how do they come to stop?

• Why do some POC peeps/lgtbq folks be racist/homophobic even though ther ideas go against them?

I would encourage you to put it in a way where its easier to understand for people who are not racist. I refuse to believe that there is inherently bad people, and I believe that it is something learned at a vulnerable time in life/younger age.

Maybe making everyday similes/or metaphors to under stand. thank you for taking the time to read this and I look forward to your responses.

Hello,

I've been reading The Problems of Philosophy and I'm a little hung up on understanding the concept of knowledge by description. So Russell says that we can know of something by its description as the knowledge by description is composed of universals and acquaintances. However isn't this just conceiving of a description? If we're conceiving a description of a thing we can understand that thing in the abstract but wouldn't that itself be a universal, not necessarily knowledge of anything outside of what we're acquainted with?

https://www.promisesbehavioralhealth.com/addiction-recovery-blog/what-is-the-difference-between-malingering-and-factitious-disorder/

(Not specifically DID but can be applied)

We don't know how to explain this well, sorry. We feel like that is a dumb reason to suspect someone of faking by itself, pardon the language. So, knowing words and definitions for our struggles can possibly be seen as faking? Does this not make it harder for us to actually get our specific problems pinpointed?

For example, its easier for us to say "i may struggle with dissociation and it is disruptive" than saying "well every day we lose track of most of our memories, everything feels like a dream, we can't keep track of a timeline or plans, everything is dull and btw we have multiple other people in this body."

I think a lot of people here know "extensive" medical terminology and textbook descriptions of things like alters, dissociation, switching, etc. And a lot of us here probably are not faking because we know those things. In fact, we have searched for those terms because it helps narrow down our personal experience and describes our symptoms! Knowing specific terms or whatever helps us build a community of shared experience and understanding.

I know people that fake disorders will try to sound convincing and "professional" but that specific sign of malingering or factitious disorder cannot apply to every patient that knows terminology?

It scares us because if i do try to find a therapist for us, will they make me out to be a liar? Because i know my therapist before did not even accept "dissociation" as something i was struggling with. We did not know at the time the entire scope of our illness and i had went onto reddit to discover the dp/dr subreddit and related a lot. So i used the word dissociation with her, and it seemed like she mocked me for it, as if i had no clue what i was saying. Like i was using dissociation to descibe the funky feeling after a nap. Not something that actually interferes with our functioning life.

I remember that was truly the only "clinical" word that we had known about. I felt highly ridiculed like we were ridiculous for even suggesting such a word... is this why? That any mention of something seemingly "educated" is taught to therapists as someone trying to fake something? It felt like we had shared info very important and it had been dismissed like we said something along the lines of "i think i have a bald head" when we clearly do not...

https://preview.redd.it/g9jpdyd9prr71.png?width=684&format=png&auto=webp&s=5020f14c5ce1e8e6e6a8534966b3d3c628c0c60e

Im talking here like, with 10 years in the trade, supervisor/foreman comes to mind, programmer, setup/operator, moldmaker, toolmaker, quality inspection.
Where im unsure what that experience count toward jobs like millwright, im french but i see that word mentioned in machinist title from usa, ive no really mechanical training besides 10 years using lathes and mills and all other machines and cnc, disassembly of all sorts of machine to rebuild, draw and shit.

all that in mind, what jobs opens up at that stage or anystage of developement, i see all sorts of different and pertinent jobs for machinist using either ''machinist'' or like ''workshop'' ''cnc''
I tend to see a lot of mechanics jobs in area id like to move and less so of machining, wondering if thats really that big of a move, do they do 0 machining?

Background to question

Hi there, I am an amateur online escape room designer and have been thinking about how to make a game that is blind accessible. Most of the audio and blind accessible escape games I’ve found are either real world puzzles (e.g. you’ve found a screwdriver, use it to unscrew this panel) or riddles (e.g. what goes forward on two legs but backwards on four legs). I have seen none of the more abstract sorts of puzzles that you might find in a sighted escape room. I’m here because I want to try to make a game that isn’t too simple but is still accessible to all types of blind and visually impaired people, regardless of when they lost their sight and how they choose to navigate the world.

Question

If someone is blind from birth (and knows English) would they also necessarily be able to recognise letters from the alphabet if they were described e.g. that a circle is O, that a straight line forwards is I, that adding a horizontal bar across the top makes a T?

Would all blind people be able to recognise simple shapes from a description or from coordinates being given e.g. square, triangle, diamond etc?

If you are a blind person who likes puzzles, what sorts of puzzles do you like?

Thank you for any thoughts or ideas on this!

Hello! I am conducting linguistic research on a very interesting topic and comparing English and German speakers. I'd disclose the exact aim, however, this might alter the results. Therefore, if you're interested in the actual aim and the results, contact me after taking the survey!

I need Germans with knowledge of English, however, if you speak both languages fluently, you are also very welcome to take the survey :) Thanks a lot in advance!

https://www.questionpro.com/t/ASyp0Zmp7J

Hello!

I'll be brief. I am a sociology student. I have a substantial need for organizing and notetaking.

I was wondering if a program of the following description or similar exists:

I want to be able to create various brief "nodes" of knowledge. Say I have a node that claims "Men are more likely than women to be sexual initiators" or something like that. Then I would link this node to any number various studies that I know of that back up this claim.

Another node could be "Men associate social status with frequency of sexual activity", to which I would also link various sources that back up this claim. Some of these could be the same as the sources from the above or other nodes.

This "vault" of knowledge could contain any number of nodes in various categories. Nodes could also be hierarchical with children and parent nodes. I view it as a way to structure and organize what I know and from where I know it.

Also, the reverse could be done. I could look up any study/source and then find all nodes/claims that I have linked to that source, given an overview of what "knowledge" this source contain (that are relevant to me).

Does it make sense? Does anything of the sort exist? I am a bit nervous that there some obvious answer, but I needed to share my thoughts.

TL;DR: Looking for a tool to structure and organize my "knowledge" and where that knowledge is from (and the reverse).