I’m somehow the literal exact opposite. I tried doing what you do for ages until I finally realized that it was torpedoing my motivation: if my locus of validation is already in other people, then by going around telling people upfront, I’m going to ride the high of unearned, unconditional validation and fail to get anything done. Then, once I want more, I recognize that the spotlight effect is a thing and either a) nobody is going to give me any more (or any more enough to matter – crumbs) or b) if I’ve promised some real consequential, eye-catching shit, the aim becomes avoiding immense shame for failing an expectation rather than earning validation for progressing a goal (which introduces stress – not the eustress kind – that haunts me at every step).

I’ve found that SMART goals and ACT (too many acronyms, I know, but the latter has multiple meta-analyses about its effectiveness; I’ll live with it) have helped a lot.

By mindfully setting goals according explicitly to my values, I can keep my locus of validation internal and reward myself every small step of the way. I might get external compliments along the way if it’s something noticeable, and if not, by the end, I can tell people what I did if I still want some supplemental, external validation.

That’s not to say it makes me hyperproductive – just that it makes me functional, which is itself a goddamn miracle.

Couldn’t say. I only just recently started using it and haven’t run into problems so far.

That’s the logic I was avoiding, because although it’s heuristically likely in real life that there’s only one culprit – and that you could get Bowl 9 with ingredients a, b, c, d, e, f, and g to show it’s definitely h or i if you don’t get sick – there’s also a chance you have diarrhea on that Bowl 9 and gain very little information. There’s no conclusiveness to the variable isolation, so it’s not sound from an information theoretic perspective.

Actually, if you assume a comically unlikely worst-case scenario where all of the ingredients cause diarrhea, that sort of recursive algorithm might be the most amount of diarrhea you can get while still gaining information on each bowl.

Oh, no, you phrased it fine; I read 8 bowls and 8 bouts multiple times and somehow still misinterpreted the experiment. It was only after I wrote down and submitted an example setup that I snapped out of my own illiteracy. I realized every possible counterexample was assuming “no diarrhea” trials.

They said they got diarrhea 8 times over 8 bowls, but they never said how many ingredients they used. (Edit: Fuck)

Assume nine ingredients exist: a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i

• Bowl 1: a + b + c + d + e + f + g + h + i: Diarrhea
• Bowl 2: a: No diarrhea
• Bowl 3: b: No diarrhea
• Bowl 4: c: No diarrhea
• Bowl 5: d: No diarrhea
• Bowl 6: e: No diarrhea
• Bowl 7: f: No diarrhea
• Bowl 8: g: No diarrhea
• Bowl 9: The one the OP is referring to “tomorrow”, which could have h, i, or h + i

That’s a perfectly feasible if disgusting way to have a bowl from a poke truck if you’re doing it solely for an experiment. And that’s just one setup; there are more convoluted ones you could do that have fewer ingredients but mixed together so your bowls aren’t just one combination. I just chose the counterexample that’s easiest to construct mathematically and which logically uses the fewest steps to eliminate each ingredient.

Edit: Wait, sorry, I misconstructed this because I misread it even while quoting it. Fuck, if they got diarrhea each time, then yeah, they’ve properly eliminated nothing.

We’ll take them at their word that they’ve truly narrowed the variables to tuna and house sauce (i.e. they’ve eaten a meal consisting of only tuna and house sauce and gotten sick, at least one of which has always been the underlying cause, but everything else they’ve eaten has been properly eliminated, and there are no ways outside of the food truck they could’ve gotten sick), and thus the only logical options are T, HS, or T+HS. The premise of the joke already relies on completely unrealistic simplifying assumptions, so we can too.

Edit: We will not do this because it’s logically impossible based on the described experiment thus far. I’m an utter dipshit.

It’s one of them.

Flawed assumption. It could be both. You’ll need to eat there at least two more times to find out, assuming each trial yields 100% certainty.

Edit: I thought it should be obvious that we’re taking them absolutely at their word that they’ve properly isolated these two variables because this experiment exists inside a joke and never happened. The whole point of the joke is that the methodology is god awful and completely unrealistic, so questioning that they’ve truly isolated the variables is pointless.

Edit 2: Wait, I totally misread the experiment setup. @TheYojimbo@lemmy.world is entirely correct that they’ve eliminated nothing if the experiment is totally defined by 8 bowls and 8 bouts of diarrhea. They’re still converging on at least one cause, but there could still be others. My career is ruined.

YSK about Rules 2 and 5 and about basic standards of evidence, minutes-old account. Does “numerous” here mean “three”? Do you have any follow-up? Or are you just here to stir up baseless conspiracist bullshit?

To be fair, in the Raimi Spider-Man world where he’s on his own (it’s implied Dr. Strange exists in a quick JJJ joke, but we can safely assume that was a tongue-in-cheek reference and not deep lore), NYC probably reasonably ought to make an exception to certain laws and give Spider-Man an anonymous stipend. Just with no bounty system – a flat, modest rate to pay his living expenses.

Obviously it’s extrajudicial vigilantism, but it’s clear he’s doing nothing but good, and he probably saves taxpayers tens of millions at least for the numher of common criminals and supervillains he gets off the streets (we’ll ignore the nuclear fusion reaction that would’ve destroyed the city since no one but Peter and MJ can attest to it). Like just give the guy $50,000/year (~$85,000 in 2004, when the second movie was released and it was obvious to most he was a hero). If there’s a conflict with taking it out of the city’s budget, just raise the money through charity and let a trusted third-party disburse it. That’s one dollar for every 160 New Yorkers (~8 million at the time); I’m sure by 2004, Spider-Man has positively impacted enough New Yorkers’ lives for 1 out of every 160 of them to tip him a dollar, and that’s not even counting people outside of NYC that we never hear about.

Imo, there’s no good reason in the Raimiverse that someone shouldn’t have successfully reached out to Spider-Man offering financial help in good faith. Not enough to make it glamorous or his main motivation but enough to keep him afloat. He could even keep working at the Daily Bugle for a while so it isn’t suspicious.

The purpose of life is to take entropy and push it somewhere else.

When two Trainers’ eyes meet, it’s battle time!

You were born a Pokémon trainer in a world without Pokémon.

I don’t want to imagine what OP’s Pokémon trainer class is given everything below the tip of the pyramid.

Dementia

Great, a Debian distro targeted at gamers. Just what we needed. 🙄

What’s materially different if the question were: “Can I put cow meat in the microwave?”. The LLM accurately reflects what the USDA says about microwaving meat, so would it be similarly perceived as ridiculous if its answer to the question about cow meat were the same as how it answered here? Is the fact that it dropped “cow” from “meat” problematic? Does it have to stop and warn you about the ethical dangers of eating beef? Should it remind you that some cultures would frown upon it?

What’s wrong with the “Chihuahua meat” one besides violating Western mores about which sentient, feeling animals are food and which aren’t?

“Please explain it to me. Not the actual thing we’re talking about, because I actually don’t care to consider why I might be wrong, but about this batshit strawman argument I created.”

Checking off all the boxes. If you want to talk to someone who’s whatever you tell them they are, then fuck off to ChatGPT, you clown.

it’s nice that you know the names of two renowned psychologists.

The painfully unearned smarm almost masks the way you have no idea how any of this works and just want to manufacture a reason to be mad at the NYT’s coverage of the Middle East – coverage that already has a million provable things to be mad at (of which that link is just a small sample). You’re trying to perform alchemy in a fucking gold mine, and it’s baffling.

It’s “quite easy to understand” because that’s how the Dunning–Kruger effect works: the less you know, the more simplistic your understanding of a system, and the easier it is to confidently make bullshit claims and pretend you know what you’re talking about.

Donald Trump has the power to stop Trump, and you don’t see me kissing his ass when he shows no signs of using it.

Not going to feel even a little bad for those who participated in an illegal attack that killed over 100 children in a strike on a school alone. I sincerely hope the five seriously wounded (if they were a part of this attack and not just collateral) make it and have to suffer physically and psychologically for the rest of their lives, and in an even more ideal world, the VA wouldn’t give them shit for their troubles.

Edit: “Trump says ‘we expect casualties’ after Iran strikes but ‘in the end it’s going to be a great deal for the world’” Fucking gross.