A Mary Sue can fail, but those failures don’t usually have a massive impact and are easily reversed without the feeling that the MS had to struggle to earn the reversal.
The more flaws a character has, the more they have to work to balance them out. Readers are more likely on the side of a character that has to work and make sacrifices to make it through the difficulties the plot throws at them.
Random Example: Diana Rowland’s “My Life as a White Trash Zombie”. Protagonist Angel has a criminal record, drug addiction, abusive home life, and generally makes very bad decisions. Because of her life course, she has very few resources (she can’t go to the cops, nobody she knows has money or connections, etc) but she can think quickly and has a sort of desperate resourcefulness. Because everything is working against her, she has to fight for any positive forward movement, and one misstep can be a serious threat - and those happen frequently, undoing any success and forcing her to burn her resources to try a new path. IIRC in one of the books the B-story is her trying just to earn her GED as the main plot around her is utter pandemonium. Just that struggle to graduate high school is a herculean task given the deck stacked against her. Readers aren’t thinking “how will she win”, they’re thinking “well what’s going to go wrong this time?”
TL;DR: If every time your protagonist has a setback the readers shout “can’t she ever catch a break?” instead of “ah she’ll just breeze through this” you should be doing okay.
Lemmios - Link opens in app. Everything looks and works great EXCEPT Spoilers.
Mlem - Link opens in browser, not app. Manually went to test post. As with Lemmios, everything looks and works great EXCEPT spoilers.
Remmel - Instant fail. No development in 2 years, unable to even add an instance or an account. Non-starter.
Thunder - Hard to test. Lots of lag for some reason. Link opens in browser, not app. Manually went to test post. That being said, EVERYTHING worked. The lag may have been because I had just linked my account. Testing everything above, then coming back to Thunder, I found it fast and responsive.
Voyager - Link opens in app. EVERYTHING worked. No notes.
So, ranking them:
Voyager - EVERYTHING worked. No notes.
Thunder - Everything worked, but laggy to start with when using a year old account with lots of data. Once it caught up, everything was fine. Would probably be great with a new account.
Lemmios - Link opens in app by default. Spoilers don’t work.
Mlem - Link opens in browser by default but is user configurable. Spoilers don’t work.
Arctic - A few minor failures.
Avelon - A few more failures than Arctic.
Bean - Hey, it works better than Remmel. Probably abandoned.
Even if science is impericaly complete it doesn’t necessarily mean the theories are 100% accurate, even if they have amazing predictive power then mechanisms of action may be wrong. So epistemologically it’s still just very well justified belief. Does that make sense? Am I understanding the question? I’m not an expert at all, so I feel like I’m missing the point.
Thanks for the reply, and I agree with it under the present world constraints. I am proposing that this your reasoning is built on the premise of limited scope of knowledge and the limitations of attention required to encompass such knowledge practically.
The size of the universe may be infinite and never known, but is irrelevant against any statistical probability greater than the observable universe. Therefore an established background of information known and understood to such a degree so as to constrain any remaining unknown or even unknowable factors, is a sufficient grounding plane of inquiry. Once inference is grounded sufficiently to this plane, all events will follow intuitive reasoning because this reasoning is grounded to the tapestry of statistically provable reality that is based on the existence of the event or entity within the accessible universe.
I believe, however naively, that the science methods are irrelevant on my time scales here. My tongue and cheek place keeper for the year is 420,421 AF (After Fusion). The hardest part to grasp from an outside perspective is just how little is known at the present and the exponentially larger scope I’m referring to with all of these ideas. This is the interesting space to tell stories in this future.
I’m mostly looking for the label one might call those that argue this epistemological perspective, and their opposing counterparts.
If you think epistemological theorizing happens prior to and independently of empirical science (a priori), the question doesn’t make much sense. If, on the other hand, you think epistemology follows and depends on the results of empirical science, you won’t know the answer until you get there.
I’m trying to simplify without telling a story to get there but am about to fail. I’m working out the idea of how academics might argue for and (to a losing argument) against codification of science as an engineering corpus in a very distant future. I’m willing to gloss over the balance of cost over return and already well beyond hierarchical wealth in favor of reputation and accolades for large scale hierarchy, and heat/elemental cycles budget for the average person, in a space based life that has colonized G-type stars within 7 parsecs of Sol. Colonization is driven by time pressure of Sol’s expansion. It is only possible to travel one way with generation ships powered by antimatter produced with the Solar infrastructure. No FTL, no aliens, no magic. The biggest magic is the assumption that a self replicating drone is possible, but only at kilometers scale.
The entire story idea stems from the notion that the present fear of AI is a mythos of the machine gods. I am setting up to create a story where a fully understood human like brain is synthesised in a lab as a biological computer. All human scale technology is biological, but the bio-compute brayn is the crowning achievement for millennia until someone comes up with a way to merge the brayn with lab grown holoanencephaloids that create independent humanoid AGI. It is a round about way of creating a semi plausible mortal flesh and blood AGI.
I further the idea of integrating these entities with humans at every level of life. Later in life these human scale intelligence AGI entities may get invitations to join with a collective Central AGI that functions as the governing system. I’m using the unique life experience of integration as a counter to the Alignment Problem and as a form of representative democracy.
I refuse to admit that this must be authoritarian, dystopian, or utopian. I believe we tend to assume it similar ideas are one or more of these things because we are blind to both the potential for other forms of complex social hierarchy, and the true nature of our present forms of hierarchical display.
The question posed in this post is not about the absolute truth, but that which is plausible for populist dominance.
It is just a pointless hobby project, but a means to explore and keep my mind occupied.
Ah, I didn’t understand that you were asking about a fictional scenario. I don’t know about your main question but I like your notion of the social integration of humanoid AGIs with unique life experiences, and your observation that there’s no need to assume AGI will be godlike and to be feared. Some ways of framing the alignment problem seem to carry a strange assumption that AGI would be both smarter than us and yet less able to recognize nuance and complexity in values, and that it would therefore be likely to pursue some goals to the exclusion of others in a way so crude we’d find horrific.
There’s no reason an AGI with a lived experience of socialization not dissimilar to ours couldn’t come to recognize the subtleties of social situations and respond appropriately and considerately. Your mortal flesh and blood AI need not be some towering black box occupied with its own business whose judgements and actions we struggle to understand, but if integrated into society would be motivated like any social being to find common ground for communication and understanding, and tolerable societal arrangements. Even if we’re less smart that doesn’t mean it automatically considers us unworthy of care - that assumption always smells like a projection of the personalities of people who imagine it. And maybe it would have new ideas about these that could help us stop repeating the same political mistakes again and again.
All science fiction is a critique of the present and a vision of a future. I believe Asimov said something to that effect. In a way I am playing with a more human humaniform robot.
If I’m asking the questions in terms of a fiction, is it science fiction or science fantasy.
I think one of the biggest questions is how to establish trust with cognitive dissonance, especially when the citizen lacks the awareness to identify and understand their condition when a governing entity sees it clearly. How does one allow a healthy autonomy, while manipulating in the collective and individual’s best interests, but avoid authoritarianism, dystopianism, and utopianism? If AGI can overcome these hurtles, it will become possible to solve political troubles in the near and distant future.
I completed Broforce, and it took me 13 hours. It’s a funny and gory game.
I am playing Doom Eternal. It’s a gory and cruel, raging game. The atmosphere is really vivid and cool, the hell scenes and the Cthulhu art are amazing. Masterpiece!
I’m also playing Retrowave as a BGM player. It’s a purely casual and relaxing mini game, and it creates an '80s retro atmosphere. I like it and I really love the synthwave genre.
I’m still playing Cyberpunk 2077, just drive my motorcycle and explore casually. I think everyone knows everything about this game. So I won’t introduce it.
My cat was like this at first, but then I blew the smoke near him, and he went over, took a sniffy sniff, then came back and laid back down on me.
Turned out, he just like didn’t it blown in his face because that was too much. So, from then on, I just blow it near him, and he takes his hits when he feels like it.
No, allergies happen when the immune system detects innocuous substances as a threat. In this case, their metabolism has trouble breaking down the drugs in their gut so it can have unintended consequences for them. They can’t metabolize some organic structures in their livers or lungs as fast or as much as we do. And unfortunately, we don’t even know what the toxic dose is.
E: Jesus, downvoting legit pharmacology in favor of ideology. What a time to be alive.
Theoretically that’s possible, but what makes you think that cannabinoids wouldn’t have that effect on a cat? What evidence do you have of this?
I’ve had multiple cats in my life, and none of them have ever had any sort of adverse reaction to cannabis. Some may not like it, but that’s not really the same thing. And I’ve never heard of anyone reporting any sort of adverse reaction from any of their cats. I realize this is anecdotal, but still.
Even in human beings, a toxic dose of THC would far exceeded what any human could possibly consume (unless an ultra-mega-concentrate stronger than anything ever made were produced, perhaps). One would think the same would apply for a cat.
As for organic structures that don’t get metabolized, often they just get peed out. after all, that’s what happens with excess THC in humans that doesn’t get metabolized. That’s why you can detect it in a urinalysis.
Yes, and that’s a bit of a wrong assumption because cats don’t have the same enzymes we do, and even if they did, their physiology doesn’t allow for the same quantity of expression. For example, if a cleaving enzyme is anchored to the lumen of their liver, lungs, or kidneys, the surface area of those tissues may not be enough to reduce the concentration in the blood, If they have an alternate gene that does the same thing, it’s usually less effective or it could produce prodrugs that may be more toxic than the original. Also, the bioavailability of drugs largely depends on the route of exposure which is very short for cats because they have a shorter respiratory tract and the blood volume is magnitudes smaller.
In short, couple the rate of exposure with the volume of blood and a lower rate of metabolism, and your cat can reach higher levels of the drug in the blood than you’d expect more quickly. You can’t rely on what is toxic to humans to translate to another species and vice-versa or we’d have a lot more productive studies on mice.
As for the evidence, I’m sorry but I’m gonna have to outsource that to Consensus via ChatGPT which usually does a good job finding relevant science articles because I’m not well-versed in the literature. I hope it doesn’t bother you but I don’t have the time or energy to do it myself right now.
Behavioral Changes:
A case of a 6-year-old Persian cat exposed to marijuana smoke showed severe agitation, aggression, and alternating states of apathy and agitation. Blood tests confirmed the presence of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and its metabolites (Janeczek et al., 2018).
Neurological Symptoms: Exposure to cannabis can lead to neurological symptoms such as mydriasis (dilated pupils), altered consciousness, and behavioral changes, which can persist and require hospitalization (Brutlag & Hommerding, 2018).
Cardiovascular and Respiratory Effects:
Systemic Effects: Cannabis extract and THC can cause hypotension (low blood pressure), bradycardia (slow heart rate), and respiratory depression in cats, indicating significant systemic impact (Graham & Li, 1973).
Safety and Tolerability:
Dosing Studies: Research on escalating doses of THC and CBD in cats showed that high doses can lead to adverse events such as lethargy, ataxia (loss of control of body movements), and hypothermia. These effects are dose-dependent but are generally transient and resolve without medical intervention (Kulpa et al., 2021).
Veterinary Reports:
Incidence and Treatment: Surveys of veterinarians in North America indicate that cannabis toxicosis in pets, including cats, is increasingly reported, especially with the rising accessibility of cannabis products. Most cases are treated with outpatient monitoring and supportive care (Amissah et al., 2021).
The direct evidence is scant because of the legal limits on research. But the point is the type and extent of symptoms that these pets experience like hypothermia, hypotension, bradycardia, etc. that are alarming. Also, the rates of hospitalizations are increasing and that’s a huge danger sign now with legalization.
So, aside from your vagaries of comparative biochemistry and pharmacology which sound smart, but aren’t relevant to the topic, and a couple of citations from ChatGPT that basically say that the animals got high and were taken to be monitored when exposed to very high doses, you don’t actually have any evidence to support your claims that it’s “toxic”, which you directly admit.
In fact, the evidence you posted supports my claims that it behaves pretty much the same way it does in humans, aside from the fact that dosages should be adjusted for the body weight of a cat.
So, yeah. That’s why I don’t blow the smoke directly in my cat’s face because it’s too much. I blow it near him, so he can take hits at his own pace.
I’ll pretend your choice of words isn’t low-key confrontational and dismissive like every other comment on this site. I also hope that you’re replying in good faith and not just mocking me because you’re clinging to what you want to believe, and that I’m not the anti-pot boogeyman for replying with what you asked. We’re adults, right.
But I have some questions.
How are the pharmacokinetics not relevant to the conversation? Maybe to someone who knows pharma. But for everyone else, this is the context needed to realize how vastly different metabolic and physiological differences affect other species so that they don’t mistake thinking that “ultra-mega-concentrates” like you said are the only way to cause harm because that’s how humans behave. That tells me that you either don’t know much pharma or you’re vastly underplaying the effects, so I had to reel it in.
Also, just because I asked Consensus doesn’t devalue the research. Everything links back to the abstracts so please focus on those or link to your own. I know AI hate is wild here but, in this case, it’s accurate.
One of the hallmarks of drug poisoning is literally breathing suppression and hypothermia. When was the last time you felt that smoking pot? Are these symptoms not valid, do you have some other insight, or what’s going on?
evidence you posted supports my claims that it behaves pretty much the same way it does in humans
Read carefully. It does not.
dosages should be adjusted for the body weight of a cat
And how will you do that? There’s no therapeutic index. Not a single longitudinal study of cannabis consumption exists for pets to say that a few blows in their face depending on your mood that day won’t cause long-lasting harm. You’re gambling your cat’s health. As they say, lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. The first case is a great example of a cat showing extended periods of altered state far longer than they last in a human. It’s one night of rest for you vs two weeks of recovery for that cat at the vet, and that’s just an acute intoxication. And the fact that acute intoxication was even achieved in a cat is a clear sign there’s a lower tolerance for them.
And I will add that I find it contradictory that you demand evidence but simultaneously expose your pets despite the evidence and lack thereof.
So, two things unrelated to the actual topic being discussed.
I’ll pretend your choice of words isn’t low-key confrontational and dismissive like every other comment on this site
It’s entirely possible to be correct and do it in such a way that invites confrontation and dismissal.
If it seems like everyone apart from you is confrontational and dismissive, perhaps it’s time to consider additional perspectives on why that might be happening.
It doesn’t escape me, but what part of what I’ve said has invited confrontation or dismissal? I’m asking honestly. It’s grating that it keeps happening and I keep telling people to stop. Hyperbole aside, it’s frequent enough that I can see a pattern of people starting petty arguments trying to win and throwing low punches instead of clarifying what is being said and why. Like, I don’t even want to argue.
additional perspectives on why that might be happening
Meaning what, it’s also me? lol If I’m the one telling people to stop and act like adults and that gets 180° turns in behavior, what does that say to you?
It’s kind of baffling they are arguing exposing their cat to drugs is fine, for what? They can’t know that’s safe. Why take the risk? Might as well let them drink some wine while we are at it eh?
They are arguing on emotion more than anything. Nothing to do about that.
So you think exposing your cat to drugs isn’t fine? You said you do just that though, so I would like if you clarified the difference. The last point of the wine was not your words, but my own. I will own that. I will ask the simple question, why do you choose to expose your cat to cannabis?
I don’t drink alcohol. I do want to know your reasoning though. I do want an answer to the question before. The reason I came off strong is because I admit that I found it irresponsible what you claimed to do. I can’t understand the risk benefit analysis that would lead you to decide it’s worth it. I want to understand your reasoning.
It doesn’t escape me, but what part of what I’ve said has invited confrontation or dismissal? I’m asking honestly.
In this case i can’t see any big red flags.
The tone is a possibility, as i said, being correct isn’t an absolute defence against being considered an arsehole.
To be clear, I’m not implying you were incorrect, or the tone was incorrect, just that that kind of certainty (evidence based or not) gets some people’s backs up.
It’s grating that it keeps happening and I keep telling people to stop.
I don’t think it’s what you actually meant but this could be interpreted as “Somebody didn’t accept my answer and argued, so i told them to stop, they didn’t even though i was clearly correct, this is grating”
Hyperbole aside, it’s frequent enough that I can see a pattern of people starting petty arguments trying to win and throwing low punches instead of clarifying what is being said and why.
Firstly, welcome to public internet forums in general, this is common behaviour.
That aside, there are numerous trolls and bad faith “debaters” around, but just because you consider something petty doesn’t mean the other person does.
This is what i was trying to convey in my reply earlier, if almost all interactions end up with what you consider petty behaviour it’s worth considering the possibility that you are contributing to that outcome somehow.
Like, I don’t even want to argue.
So don’t, if you don’t want to continue the interaction then don’t reply.
Meaning what, it’s also me?
Possibly, yes.
lol If I’m the one telling people to stop and act like adults and that gets 180° turns in behaviour, what does that say to you?
Honestly, it says to me that your communication skills might need some work.
Again, to be clear i don’t mean your communication of facts and information, i mean your ability to understand how phrasing something in a certain way might illicit a certain kind of response.
“Stop acting like a child” is a very good way to build enmity and confrontation, which is useful in some cases, if you intend to illicit that response.
However, saying something like that and then being confused/frustrated when people get confrontational and dismissive suggests a lack of understanding about the impact of tone and phrasing.
If it seems like everyone apart from you is confrontational and dismissive, perhaps it’s time to consider additional perspectives on why that might be happening.
Because stoners are basically a cult at this point, and refuse anything even as remotely negative as “it’s not good for your cats?”
To be clear, I smoke most nights… but god damn do I hate people who feel the need to defend weed against everything. It’s a drug, y’all. It’s not good for you.
Because stoners are basically a cult at this point, and refuse anything even as remotely negative as “it’s not good for your cats?”
I mean, i specifically stated it wasn’t related to the actual topic being discussed, but i can address this anyway i suppose.
Possibly culty i suppose, about the same amount as alcohol consumers, smokers, people who see chiropractors etc.
Less than people in organised religion ( big cults ), actual cults and MLM schemes.
If all of the stoners you know are your definition of culty ( except you of course ), perhaps consider that it’s your choice in acquaintances rather than an entire demographic.
Can’t say i care either way, but i’d be interested in any studies you might have on the subject ( belief systems of stoners in general, not specifically the ones you know ofc, that would be unlikely )
To be clear, I smoke most nights… but god damn do I hate people who feel the need to defend weed against everything.
If that personal preference works for you, who am i to tell you you’re wrong.
It’s a drug, y’all. It’s not good for you.
Drug doesn’t automatically imply harm, but i think i know what you mean.
You’re being unusually argumentative, and this argument with you is extraordinarily tiresome.
You haven’t presented any evidence that any harm is being done, and you’re over complicating this argument Beyond any point that is necessary. That’s why I’m being dismissive. You continue assert that there is something wrong when you have presented no evidence that supports that claim. In fact, you constantly evade that claim.
It’s not up to me to prove your claim, it’s up to you, and you haven’t. In fact, the evidence you did present supports my position. The fact that you can’t seem to understand that tells me that you’re more interested in arguing than you are in accepting facts. Also, that at this point, you’re probably just trolling me. Also, that I should probably just block you and move on with my day.
Pfft. That’s the most ridiculous answer you could’ve given and you avoided every single one of my questions. I’m not sure if you’re looking for particular signs of cytotoxicity or you want he to prove that it causes hypoxia or what. But there are clear signs of intoxication that you’re actively ignoring just to confirm your beliefs.
I repeat my last line. What incredible irony to ask for evidence, dismiss it, and still do it despite it and in the absence of it. You’re actively not interested in the facts or give proper weight to them. Block away. I’m not sure why I’m also wasting my time and energy with someone who doesn’t want to listen in earnest and would rather poison their pets and keep being confrontative beyond reason. Oh well, I thought we were adults.
Not to mention, your cat has the intelligence of maybe a 3 year old. You’re sitting here arguing about whether or not it’s toxic to give weed to a cat when it has the ability to consent as much as a 3 year old does.
Enjoy whatever you enjoy, IDC - you’re a bad person for exposing your cat to the smoke, moreso that you’re doing it with the intent of getting it high whilst ignoring the potential downsides.
Could be worse— I could care about imaginary internet points or be confused about the meaning of the word “toxic”. But I suppose that such is the life of one who fills their day judging internet strangers.
Not really, that theorem says there are true things that cannot be proven, whereas this question is more about running out of proofs that you can make.
In any specific axiomatic system. Other more powerful systems may still answer the questions. (Sometimes in opposite ways depending on your choice, it turns out)
How axiomatic systems relate to the real world and what math even is remain in the realm of philosophy.
kbin.life
Newest