Notices by Alister Braunkers 🇩🇴🇺🇸🇯🇵 (mrjunge@niu.moe), page 3

@Paradox
They exist insofar as they are derived from models applied in the right contexts. But I'm not sure if it would be reasonable to speculate they exist beyond that. The questions I asked would become relevant then: if regularities arise from objects with arbitrary properties relating to each other rather than from a universal constraint on those objects, we should not really talk about "laws" (except for ease).

The "law" metaphor itself doesn't even work too well for current physics since current physics describes and predicts based on mathematical expressions and equations first and foremost. Rules, conditional or otherwise, for how a thing must act or react (what the efficient causal chain should be) take an almost secondary role. We know x will happen because e=mc^2, rather than because x must be an effect of P which needs to be its cause. There's actually an interesting book that talks exactly about this, claiming that physics actually doesn't care about efficient causality. And afaict, "laws of nature" are essentially universal rules about efficient causation. QM blows a hole into causation of this kind as well by challenging local realism.

@kai
Never managed to go into deep sleep and kept waking up intermittently throughout the night.

@smotheredbyblankets
Yeah. I guess that just means it's war time. :blobcatninja:

@smotheredbyblankets @pry
Basically: Match should happen after conversation, not before. Both irl and online require superficial first impressions to draw people, but nobody actually "matches" on first impression irl so they shouldn't online. And first impression has the potential to be more refined online than irl, precisely because an online space doesn't *require* looks to be the first thing you see. Of course then it would just be closer to a regular social network as opposed to a "dating app" so I guess in conclusion dating apps still suck. Lol

@smotheredbyblankets @pry
I too would use it. I wish dating apps would get rid of the match-first-talk-later model and implement semi-anonymity, where the app itself can verify the profile but doesn't show photos to others, at least initially, and samples a feed of recent activity. I feel like I have a much better experience creating chemistry and then working up to find out how someone looks.

@ilovecomputers
I am absolutely intrigued! How could anyone like dogs!

@pry
Not my fault you channeled him here. :blobuwu:

Just saw a cockroach walking out in the light with no quickness or heistancy, at the most inappropriate of hours. Looks like the humidity is making them disregard all manners, the bastards. :ohohoh:

@pry
A more modest goal.

@Paradox
And I'm not sure what my metaphysical views regarding the "laws of nature" are yet since there seems to be ambiguity whenever we use this phrase. Consider the case of thermodynamics. We have what we call "thermodynamic laws," but a lot of these laws are built on statistical mechanics, which merely defines objects with certain properties in a coordinate system that are then also given some degree of random variation within particular constraints. This makes me ask: are the laws of nature emergent from the arbitrary properties of objects, or is it the other way around? Those who lean more on the constraints of the given model rather than the properties of their objects will prefer to talk about laws. Do objects produce a geometry which defines a space-time, or does space-time exist independently and objects just "interfere" with it?

@Paradox
Even if you draw that kind of distinction, I don't think it's all that easy to neatly sort everything which has fubction into those two categories given that natural functions extend into the cognitive realm even if they themselves are non-cognitive, and their ability to do so might be indicative of significant similarities. That is to say, intentionality may not make as big of a difference as we think it does. The point is if the "natural functions" are truly explanatory, they simultaneously deflate the importance of "intention" (they fail to really be explanatory, so they are irrelevant to looking at any function, including intended ones) and inflate their extensibility (the requirements for a function to be considered intended are so thin that placing emphasis on the distinction between an intended and unintended function wouldn't make much sense in a naturalistic approach).

@newt
Cooking is complicated if you make it complicated.

@danly
Hi fellow human

@pry
It's just to track your own progress. :uwu_cirno:

Thinking about this more, the one thing I never related to in masculinity was the emphasis on competitiveness.

@kai @pry
Exercising inevitably opens up appetites in my experience so don't worry about it. Just be careful not to let that lead you to go the other way and build up more fat than you'd want due to change in appetite.

@pry
BTW I recommend the Fast N Fitness app on F-Droid

@pry @Paradox
They're better because when you use them you are also conditioning your nervous system (probably for balance and posture) is one of the supposed reasons I heard floating around.

@Paradox You can call it a "human construct," but how would you account for it naturalistically nonetheless? How can we say of a trial-and-error (prediction-reaction) and reproductive machine that it imbues purpose onto things anymore than anything else? And can phenomena be explained without reference to or modeling by purpose? How does self-ascribed purpose becomr possible? etc.

Damn. The toggle for whether a pic has sensitive content confuses me a little in how its represented on some clients.