Naive Realism Puns

I think a deep understanding of neuroscience, evolutionary theory or quantum mechanics would make naive realism untenable. Why is it still an actual, somewhat respectable position?

If I would say:

>the aim of science is to formulate true sentences. We can test them and work with them -- therefore they are describing reality as it is. Math is the language of the universe and physics makes use of that language to describe everything there is.

How would you call that view and what would you response?

my girlfriend (20F) and I (20M) sometimes have clashes over seemingly insignificant things which tend to end in her avoiding me for a while. We don't live together yet so this usually comes in the form of ignored messages or short and passive-aggressive replies.

A recent clash was over an upcycling idea video she shared with me, which I replied to (admittedly a bit aggressively) by telling her that it's not really worth the effort to do as it would involve a lot of time and space (it's an outdoors project and living in 40C weather that's not exactly something I'd rather be doing) plus the purchasing of tools we did not have. She didn't seem to factor this stuff in when suggesting it and had only done so on a whim because I had mentioned replacing the item in question. She was then really disappointed and avoided me for a while.

In her personal life, she often commits to projects (sometimes even with other teammates) which she doesn't really follow through on or complete, while I'm more the sort of person who is really critical of something and will commit to less things initially, but will more often than not follow through to the end with something.

How do I communicate my view on an idea/activity/event she proposes without annoying her and coming off as a party pooper or someone who's looking to constantly shoot down her ideas?

The science behind the internet phenomenon isn't hard to pin down. Your brain likes to take signals and turn them into something discrete - to "fill in the blanks" and give you a whole, complete, entire perception. In this case taking an ambiguous signal and attaching it to a phoneme, but using cues in your ability to perceive high or low frequency sounds (or perhaps in the settings of your audio playback equipment - I hear Yanny or Laurel depending on the device playing the clip).

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/05/yanny-laurel-hear-sound-audio-explained-science/

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/laurel-yanny-video-explained-hear-both-why-sound-pitch-voice-a8353706.html

But this quirk of audiology and brains aside, I want to take a moment to parrot about one of my favorite things that nobody seems to know even though they should - your experience of reality is assembled through a process that acts on the signals around you. Which means that variations in the process cause variations in the experience, even while holding the signals constant.

And this is important because I need to point out the emotional reaction people have to the idea that their perceptions are inalienably correct.

To be held under the sway of such illusions is the be under the illusion of naive realism

>In social psychology, naïve realism is the human tendency to believe that we see the world around us objectively, and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased.

If you watch social media, you'll see people react to it and you'll see many people try and explain it like it's a trick or something. (scroll through comments).

When y'all here me bitching about people who would rather try and explain everything about reality and how reality must be to cause their perceptions - rather than learn a bit about how the brain works - this is the sort of thing I'm on about.

Fuckin.... dmt entities and shit must be the brain tuning into alternate "true" dimensions... fackin.... get off my lawn ya hippies!

Let's clarify now the difference, by naive realism, I mean the view that our perceptions of the world are the way the world actually is. We interact and perceive the world directly.

Although the theory is intuitive, we have tons of evidence against: Hallucinations, optical illusions, double vision, perceptual relativity, etc.

The reason those are evidence against naive realism is because our perceptions in the above cases are not what is actually happening in reality. The pencil is not actually bent even though, that's how it appears. The ghost is not there even though that's how it appears. There is only one hand even though it appears as two. So since our perceptions and reality are different, it can not be the case that naive realism is true.

Also, What's the argument for naive realism anyways?

I think this has big implications: The above evidence implies some sort of sense datum theory of perception. If that's the case, then empiricism would be false because our perceptions are not really of the external world so the senses do not give us knowledge of reality but only of sense datum. The peripatetic axiom would also be false.

Are there are any good arguments for naive realism besides how intuitive it is?

They seem almost identical to me, confusing your subjective perspective with objective reality...

...that if they knew what you knew, they would change their minds to match yours.

Este podcast explica el efecto psicológico llamado "naive realism", y entrevista a Lee Ross (profesor de psicología en Stanford y experto en resolución de conflictos).

Es un tema de candente actualidad: ya se vivió en EEUU en la "guerra de informaciones" entre pro-Trump y pro-Hillary en las elecciones de 2016, y está pasando ahora mismo en España. Al final del podcast el profesor Lee Ross ofrece pistas de como mejorar la situación. En este otro link se puede encontrar una versión mas extendida de sus consejos para resolución de conflictos.

Dado que el periodismo libre e independiente está siendo gravemente afectado en muchas las partes del mundo ( 1, 2, 3), cada vez mas la información viene filtrada por intereses políticos y económicos. Por tanto creo que la responsabilidad de no caer en la espiral destructiva del "naive realism" recae cada vez mas sobre nosotros de forma individual.

Firstly-a definition, naive-simple in nature. To believe that naive realism(NR) is the only way to see/interpret the world is naive. It is not a bad thing, it serves us well in our busy & mundane life, but 'awareness' of this concept, enriches/ betters ones interactions/relationships with people /the world. There would be no dramas, misinterpretation/ intolerance/ ignorance(ideally) & this would make ones life simpler ( but not necessarily naive). 'There are no colors' is true, people have a limited range of perception in the visual & auditory spectrum.(This implies that there are other levels of perception/ existence). Every one comes to the table, so to speak, with their own 'baggage', so I will quote a few aphorisms- the ancient Greeks said 'know thyself' & 'character is fate'. Buddha said' we are shaped by our thoughts: we become what we think', Carl Sagan said ' you have to know your past to understand the present' & Shakespeare said ' there are more things in heaven and hell, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy'. So, it would be a better world if we realize that we interpret what we perceive & that there is no 1:1, objective, absolute reality at the end of the day.

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

So I started playing a few days ago (PS5 official) and have learned a crap ton about the game in terms of mechanics, surviving, and the map itself, however I still am way too new to know what good setups are, what bad setups are, and what trade offs are better than others. Up until today I’ve been pretty much equipping anything with large inventory space and best insulation meaning I have a a fireman suit hunting vest, and mountain bag. It’s occurred to me that in terms of being a pack mule yeah I can do it, but my stamina bar is about 15% of the total bar and I’ve realized I’m very naive. What are some good middle of the park setups that offer Jack of all trades master of none kind deal where I can actually maneuver but not be super limited to what I can carry, and not be heavy but doesn’t need to be light.

My next question would be what guns hit the hardest and should feared, and what should I not even bother picking up. I’ve realized I’m a hoarder but don’t want to make the mistake of getting rid of something valuable. Currently have CR 527 (with mag and scope), M16 (, IJ-70(5 full mags), scorpion (2 full mags), sg5(fold stock, rds, 30 rd mag, foregrip, and suppressor) and cr-75 (2 full mags) stashed. These are the best of what I’ve found so far.

Final question since this game strives for realism im right to assume bigger caliber means heavier hitting correct?

Thanks for any responses! Links to videos or names of youtubers I should look for would also help.

MASH was groundbreaking, and certainly much of it stands on its own today. But rewatching it many years after I used to watch it religiously, especially in an era of such great TV today, I’ve been thinking about how it might change if it were done today.

Some seem obvious -Kill the laugh track -More realism and harsher profanity (even on network) -Shorter run and/or fewer episodes -More attention to continuity -More continuous story lines

But some other things I thought of:

-Shifting focus away from Alan Alda or giving a more balanced storyline to the entire cast -Better blending of drama and comedy with the preachiness being more subtle -More nurses with lead roles, not just familiar faces in the background -More diversity beyond extras and soldiers passing through -Frank’s character would be more nuanced.
-Larry Linville, McLean Stevenson, Wayne Rogers, and Gary Burghoff may have stayed longer and had more varied acting careers (I think of Married With Children and how it was once seen as defining the actors in the series, several of whom eventually went onto better roles when casting agents stopped typecasting. Lots of shows seem more open these days to letting cast members work on other things or take temporary leaves.
-Father Mulcahey’s role would have been a shade less naive. Radar’s would have probably evolved differently.

So one of my favorite episodes (maybe my most favorite) of star trek is DS9 6:19 "In the Pale Moonlight".

I just rewatched it after several years and came to a few things that irritated me and made me come to a different conclusion who the real hero of the episode is: Garak!

Of course we are seeing the episode in retrospect from Siskos point of view as he records is personal log - which is a brilliant way to tell the story. But in reality, this only highlights how naive Sisko is through the entire episode. In fact, it is Garak who calls out the stakes and again and again has to convince Sisko what needs/ had to be done to succeed. In the end, he is proven right.

I certainly don´t want to downplay Avery Brooks performance of Sisko, but I assume it boils down to "bad writing". See, there are a few things that always annoyed me and I couldn´t quite put my finger on it until now, because it´s such a perfect episode with such an unfamiliar dark tone for Star Trek in general (not so much for DS9) that just shows us more realism of war, which DS9 is known for, yet other series lack and I would be hard pressed to find another Star Trek series that shows the actual realism of war & morality better than "In the Pale Moonlight".

To make my point, here are the things that always annoyed me in the episode:

- Sisko makes the hard decision(s) to make the Romulans join the war, yet he lacks conviction and has to convince himself again and again that it´s "the right thing" although immoral. Don´t get me wrong, it´s a great technique to show his thoughts and actions in his monologues as he records his pesonal log, yet Sisko comes away silly in it. A few examples what I mean: Why does he need to say stupid things like "Mr Garak, after I spent a week with you I aquired a thick skin"??? Just a few minutes before he convinced himself several times that he has strong doubts and he learned to push his feelings aside. So why this stupid line to make him seem jovial right before he meets Vreenak? How many times does he have to make these realizations that war and morals isn´t a game?

- Sisko should have played "hard to get" with Vreenak: In his short meeting with Vreenak (Stephen McHattie is SO good!) he more or less doesn´t much try to sell his point. I mean, the argument that the Romulan Empire will be surrounded by the Dominion is great, really, but he is too fast with forwarding the evidence and with him turning over the data rod. A few lines, a few pauses alon

He writes poetry for you, he gets a symphony, he paints you, and for you. He's so kind and sweet, and the game seems to be pushing the "he's naive and he doesn't know how to romance you" angle, but actually I think his naive passion becomes very seductive.

The depth of his philosophy and feeling really comes through in his romance arc. The beautifully contrasting, tragic layers of who he is come out in a full richness, a spray of kindness, depth and sadness. He has so much warmth and wisdom that I even found a certain amount of out-of-game comfort during a hard period in my life from this video game romance, pathetic as that is to say.

Shallow but flashy characterization is often the rule in RPGs, but his character has both depth and realism. Whether you romance him or not, pay attention to his character, mull through his contradictions and yearnings, it pays off.

Do your worst!

okay, we all know that glee has never been the best at handling their storylines realistically, but one of the storylines that i don't think is talked about enough is the storyline around finn leaving the new directions to pursue a teaching degree, and then coming back to the new directions to help and receiving college credits for his contribution to the ND. i can definitely say, as a college student myself, that is not the way pursuing a college degree works lol.

i know season 5 was gonna revolve around finn leading the new directions again (or was it?? i honestly never paid that much attention to how finn's overall storyline was supposed to be like other than the fact that he would've eventually become a teacher and that he and rachel were supposed to be endgame) but in retrospect, i really really wish we could've seen finn in college more because i know college is supposed to be a life phase where you learn and grow and i think knowing how finn's character has always been like, he needed a lot of that from the very beginning. finn being in college just sounds like a very finn thing. growing up, finn was always my favorite character (though i'm biased cuz i love cory so much) but i also grew up relating to the fact that we're both naive and have a lot to learn about life. the fact that he was only in college for one episode is now off putting to me. we probably wouldn't have seen more of it because again; glee and realism isn't a good match lol. but the whole point of this post is that i think seeing more of finn in college would've been fitting for his character growth. i hope i'm not the only one who thinks so.

I'm surprised it hasn't decade.

Someone probably did this already, but idc. I’m here to dump my ideas. Excuse my shitty English, it isn’t my first language.

1. Remove the cringy, cheesy jokes in the alliance chapters. get rid of that goddamn pie scene. scouts’ reaction at seeing Annie shouldn’t be “hahaha Annie is eating pie!”, it should be “wtf, you’re a mass murderer that attacked us and killed our comrades, why are you free?”
2. Add scenes where the alliance members clash against e/o. These people are each other’s enemies (Paradisians vs Marleyans), forced to team up against a common threat. There should be more animosity between them. ch127 was good with this, but we need more chapters/scenes that showcase the tension between the two sides.
3. Connie trying to feed Falco to his mom... just take that out completely. it serves no purpose.
4. Isayama making Hange sacrifice herself so the plane would have the time to take off only for Falco to magically transform into a bird after a few chapters was dumb as fuck and made Hange’s death meaningless. So either we leave her alive or we scrap the concept of birb!Falco. These plot points can’t coexist.
5. Give. Us. Eren’s POV. Not just flashbacks or snippets, but an actual POV. Show us how he’s feeling, what he’s thinking. He completely lost himself in paths but we never got to see the process of him unraveling. If we had, maybe his meltdown in 139 wouldn’t have been so jarring. Plus, a villain that is mute and doesn’t express anything is not interesting to watch. The rumbling arc would’ve been far more compelling to read if Eren hadn’t been a silent walking plot device.
6. Let the alliance suffer serious injuries. Let some of them die. This is the final battle, they’re going against the god of their universe. The stakes should be high. Fuck plot armor.
7. Piggybacking off of ^ this, ch 138-139... don’t let the titanized people revert back. Again, it completely removes the stakes from the biggest conflict of the series. AoT used to be all about the harsh realism of the world. Those who fight for their ideals also have to suffer losses and face the consequences. “Those who can’t sacrifice anything, can’t ever change anything”, right?
8. Leave Eren’s meltdown in, but change the dialogue. Get rid of “noooo i don’t want Mikasa to find another man, I want to be with her”, and replace it with just “I don’t want to die, I want to be with you guys”. Let him cry about all the lives he has taken instead of having a breakdown about his crush movi

For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.

I said "hey look, an escaPEA"

No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!

Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂

It really does, I swear!

Morning Everybody,

I spent the weekend digging for info on the fka lidar standards consortium. It doesn't seem like there is much out there at this time.

One thing that I did come across was an October paper titled Definition and Application of a Test Methodology for Lidar Sensors by Adrian Zlocki, the Head of Automated Driving at fka.

This paper is a very short work. It gives an overview of the state of the art, describes the need for coherent and unified testing to make valid comparisons of different technology, and then discusses what that testing would look like.

Much of what is included here could be gleaned from reading fka's website, though I can say that this paper reads somewhat like a project proposal or introduction to what the consortium will be focused on and how they may proceed.

The article does not name any names, and is certainly not a deep dive. It does mirror some of the language and tone that we have heard from Sumit with regard to testing and specs. I currently believe that Sumit's best in class and call outs for competitor specifications are about* to be validated.

*I'll leave about here in engineering time, as opposed to investor time, let alone trader time.

That said, given the announcements for new technology and vehicles coming from the auto makers, coupled with the length of their cycles, I would guess that the fka schedule here will not be leisurely, and that many of the OEMs and Tier 1s either involved or watching are already looking at who they think will emerge from this as viable candidates moving forward. Sumit mentioned 3-5 companies. I do not think that he's made very many sector predictions that have not later shown to be early sector insight. I see this consortium, perhaps naively, as a significant consolidation event.

Here are some extracts from the article:

>Due to their technical characteristics, lidar sensors offer high potential in the implementation of automated driving functions. fka is working on a general specification and a universal test methodology to ensure comparability of the different sensor approaches and to accelerate the market introduction of new lidar systems.

>Different technologies are available for automated driving following the main physical principles of optics, acoustics and wave propagation. These are implemented in automotive cameras, radar, ultrasonic and lidar sensors. Lidar (light detection and ranging) sensors use the reflection of transmitted laser beams (

The question is something that is really easy to answer for me, but I see so many people support the EU. It intrigues me.

Firstly, to make a few things clear about myself. I have two modes of reasoning

1. How things should be
2. How things really work/are

In the first category, everything idealistic falls into thst place. Thats the place where my younger self used to be. My idealism. Why can't we all get along? Live and let live.

In my second category, its everything i have come to understand how they really are and what the bottom line is. My current self. My realism.

I believe most people who support EU membership fall into the first category. They also base their views on neoliberalism and that free trade, open borders, lead to economic prosperity. European federalism is also looked at favorably etc etc.

But what the reality is that none of this is true. I dont want to go into details but suffice to say that from my experiences, people who support the EU are younger or elderly naive people.

I have never heard a good argument for EU membership because its the same argument as wanting to become part of a club of wolves. In the US, these people fall into a group called liberals. Liberals either support things because it benefits them or their business or they are really stupid. The same is true for europeans and us.

If you understand the problems of neoliberalism, the concept of sovereignty, ingrained biological tribalism within human beings and nationalism, you would understand why the EU is not a good idea. So one would either support the EU because it helps their business or you are dumb.

EU is firmly a idealistic on the outside, but on the inside its just national or corporate interests of french german companies. The reality is powerful states/corporations inside the EU have used their power to lead the EU.. With this in mind, its just another power structure. Hierarchy.

I personally dont want EU foreigners, their products, their policies inside kosova. I dont want germany or france dictating us. I dont want them at all because they will always look after their own interests and look down upon us. Its just another Yugoslavia.

Everyone of those eucrats, corporations in europe have thousand people they have crushed socially , economically, politically to get where they are. Why would you trust those people?

Btw, I will ignore immediately anyone defending neoliberalism. They would sell people as a slave for 12 cents if they co

All season long, Succession has been hardcore telegraphing three things:

1 Tom is going to jail

2 Logan is bulletproof

3 Kendall is in a death spiral

Literally. Every. Episode. We have been bludgeoned with these three expectations.

Take number one - in episode 6 Hugo outright says “no main characters are going to jail except Tom” and everyone nods, including Tom. This is essentially a direct quote from that scene.

Even Shiv basically looks directly into the camera and says “gee aren’t we tired of hearing about Tom’s jail storyline?” I am of the opinion that Tom is the best character and the best performance in the series and even I am getting a bit restless during his scenes for this reason. We get it. He's anxious about jail. There is nothing that anyone can do anywhere to stop his imminent incarceration. We really don't need to be told again.

Let's look at the next two numbers. Logan is bulletproof - he literally sat in a penthouse handpicking the next president of the United States. Lording over his children, his staff, the board of directors, the shareholders, the Department of Justice, the American public and the entire world. His enemies conquered again. He has even seduced his personal assistant, showing us his predatory misogyny continues as it always has.

Again, they spell it out for us. Tom: "Nothing bad happens to Logan. Everything bad happens to Kendall. This is my expectation for the next few episodes." Again, basically a direct quote.

For a show drenched in nuance they are laying it on extremely thick. I think this is partly why there is some critique of the writing this year. People are annoyed at the lack of plot progression and everything reverting to the mean that’s been in place since episode 1. And saying it's all been a bit on the nose.

Some have countered that the show is ultimately about how the rich escape consequences and nothing ever happens to them, and the season is staying true to that. I don't outright disagree, but I would say this is generally a naive view of the lives of the super wealthy. And second, while this show does clearly pride itself on realism, it is also first and foremost concerned with being entertaining and compelling. I contend it will not be either of those things (at least as much as it could be) if the season ends with Logan in power, Kendall floundering, and Tom carted off to jail. They've said this will happen hour after hour; how satisfied will anyone be if the show ends with Logan s

Because she wanted to see the task manager.

Heard they've been doing some shady business.

They’re on standbi