Tldr: had an autism assessment week after appointment. Asked therapist their opinion - do you think I’m autistic? - they said “I think you can pass an autism assessment if you want to”.
Can that ever be appropriate?..
I’ve been working for around three to four months with a private therapist for what was initially presented as an addiction and compulsion control issue.
Over the course of this time I worked a lot on expressing my feelings. With the therapist quickly identifying that I don’t communicate or acknowledge them very well and that I’m very left brained. Analytical, rationalising etc.
Over the course of this time I somewhat came out to myself and my partner again. And I realised that in order to resolve identity issues around sexuality I would need to not just acknowledge my sexuality but live it openly and happily and healthily. And at this point I began to communicate to the therapist that I wanted to redirect away from the addiction focus. Because I was concerned I would put a negative spin on my renewed insights and perspectives, which were helping me in lots of areas.
I made repeated requests to look more at identity instead of addiction.
Anyway a week before the autism assessment I asked her for her opinion about it. I’d been waiting for the assessment for two years as you can imagine. But she did not know how long I was waiting. I acknowledged that it’s not her specialism or expertise and I invited her to decline to answer if she wanted to.
Every other health professional I asked this to. They say it’s not their place or role. And that that and I appreciate the honesty.
This therapist says to me “name, you can pass an autism assessment if you want to”.
I did ‘pass’. In what was really quite radical news for me the qualified assessors told me that I am autistic. And this brought about of feelings about my identity. About being an imposter. I felt like this already but the comments of the therapist who I really trusted and respected played on my mind a lot.
In our next session I began by telling her I was worried because of difficult topics to raise. Number one about the direction of work. She had sent me resources between our sessions about addiction (her area of speciality).
Number two. The comment on autism. I passed now. And what am I supposed to do with this sentiment?
The therapist stood by her comment. She asked why I had asked her as she’s not an expert. I said to her that it was a personal question of opinion and that I had said there’s no expectation to answer one way or the other. I told her that I felt her comment was irresponsible. That it has undermined the assessment or my understanding of the assessment. I said to her she would know that waiting times were long. She became defensive and said that she is not a mind reader. That she could not know if I was waiting for two years. Or whether I had paid thousands of pounds to receive a private assessment. I suggested that it didn’t really matter which one they’re both significant and that I couldn’t understand her rationale for making such a comment.
She stood by it steadfast. She said I had never raised autism specifically in any session with her so she wasn’t to know about it. ??? I said that raising it should not be a pre requisite for providing a benevolent answer which supports the client and maintains professionalism.
She was defensive and told me some things which hurt. She told me about how self sabotage about how confused I am. About how I put perfectionism on to the therapist and have such high standards and I always sabotage my therapy progress with different therapists. Note that she knows about two other therapists I’ve seen. One I met once and decided were no good. And the other one I left in a good way seeking more specialist help.
At this point I stood up and told her I did not want to listen to being put down by someone I come to for guidance. And I walked out. Cancelling any further therapy.
That night at 3am she was posting on her instagram therapy quotes which end with things like “it’s not about you” and about the importance of advocating for boundaries.
Looking further back in her instagram from months past there’s stuff about becoming happy to be the villain in others stories because they will always create their own narrative to satisfy their denial etc.
Am I the asshole here? I just told her that I’d be happier going forward in therapy with someone who acknowledges their mistakes and is not going to insult me.
Now day after I am wracked with self doubt and anxiety. What she did did not de escalate. Didn’t support. And I feel she weaponised my admissions to her against me. Trying to somehow put me down and convince me I’m a lowly addict in need of her help.
If she has opinions on the diagnosis of young people today with mental health issues she should discuss that with her friends and not let it impact her ability to work in the best interests of her clients. In my opinion.
Despite calling me analytical rational left brained with black and white thinking. And telling me I was giving her an info dump. She followed up by telling me that if I’m asking her again now that she doesn’t see any signs of autism.
I wasn’t ready to hear the words she said in the way she said them as who she was. I didn’t tell my self to someone so they could weaponise it against me. My faith in therapy as a whole is kind of shot.

I realize there are lot more things to try out then just play only sorceress every season, but that is what I do, until I am done. I always think to myself that if I like it, then I will try out other classes more than just what I had experienced during the beta, but I never get to that point.
In short,
positives :

• I have noticed much better performance which is the biggest plus for me
• Codex - great rework, although I am still not a fan of the system itself, because legendary items are really not legendary as they do not represent anything unique or special about them
• Masterworking - much better version of previous 5/5 blacksmith upgrades
• Helltides - better collection radius of cinders, mob density, more random spawns, threat level system
• Town adjustements - movement, vendor placement (I never minded this, but obvioulsy now it saves time)
• Tormented bosses - didn't get to them, but I like the idea of something player can work towards
• Tempering - I like this addition very much, but it brings problems with it. Most interesting are "secondary" effects such as chance to freeze, immobilize etc. which can diverse your build and allow it to function in a different way
• Monster highlights - undermines a little the art direction the game took, but it helps
• Visual clarity - not getting my screen covered with Necromancer's mud anymore is a great change
• NMD - affix changes

negatives : (not necessarily related to season)

• Tempering -
  • presented to us as a feature where we make choice to further customize our build and make it specialized in some way. That is the impression I got from campfire chat, but not from what I have seen in the game. In the game I see one option which is the best, second best and that's about it.
  • giving players tools to feel more powerful is understandable, but tempering effects together with masterwork are so strong that it makes most unique items (for sorc at least) unusable.
• Rare and lower quality items - maybe I am just missing something but I didn't find any use for them
• Chat -
  • I want to talk to people, ask questions or just read what people say
  • Finding a group for Duriel is almost impossible. Not finding a group and doing the boss solo makes no sense when I get 1/4 the reward from it. I will rather let those materials sink into the abyss of Eternal Realm than use them inefficiently
• Leveling -
  • it is so fast now that it definitely doesn't feel like a journey or something meaningful. I am getting D3 vibes and considering an upcoming DLC I don't see it changing the other direction. It's only going to speed up even more
  • on the brightside, apart from collecting a few aspects, there is nothing I can get during the leveling so better just get through it quickly
• Seasonal rewards - I have used one item (aspect) from all the rewards so I feel like the intention of giving us tools for specific builds is missing its mark. Even if I got useful item, it would be replaced during the leveling so fast that I don't see the point. And later on at a higher level, you don't need it, because you have everything and uniques are weaker than legendaries.
• Skill tree - is in my eyes the weakest point of Diablo. I could talk about each individual skill point and say what's wrong with it, but I want to keep it simple. One good example are final sorceress talents. They got so specific that there is no choice to be made. And if I play burning then I get 20[x] burning damage +2[x] per unique source of burning. So am I supposed stop for a second to summon hydra which then might hit one of many targets to which it adds 2[x] dmg? Or am I supposed to use firebolt as an enchantment slot? Or does it benefit just from multiple firewalls. I don't understand
• Paragon board & glyphs -
  • Now that tempering effects are so strong, glyphs along with paragon points / nodes got that much weaker. It almost doesn't matter what you pick there as long as you use 6 glyphs with active bonus effects. Interesting is that with rare glyphs being much weaker, magic glyph Slayer (damage to elites) can be used now
• Open world & Level Scaling - This might be one of those moments where you would say "you think you do, but you don't". But I would rather have places with locked difficulty.

Bugs -

• Force move doesn't work while channeling incinerate. I have to let go of both keys to press force move key again for it to work. Imo Force move should override everything and if there are any settings for it in game options, it should be set by default
• Flame shield enchantement should activate only upon recieving fatal damage but I think it activates everytime I lose 100% life in total. I am basing this on my feeling and observation. I did not care enough to test it

Final thoughts -

• Itemization - fundamentals are the same as they were
• When I play this game and there is a problem I want to overcome it by looking for a solution, but there usually is very little room for it. It feels like all is given with not much choice to be had. I don't use guides because I never needed to. I am not a youtube guide gamer. I am the gamer. My math skills are good and I want to use my brain and think about what is or isn't possible. To have something to think about when I am not playing. That is when I have fun.
• The paragraph above (planning and figuring stuff out) along with a good execution creates a challenge for me. Not infinite Pit /GR levels. That is grind
• I realize that what I want varies from what majority wants, but that is ok.

Still, S4 is overall a very good change. Best so far

If you are unable to Handle your Comptia Certification Exam, get paid help from Online Helpers at Hiraedu!
Contact Details for Hiraedu Helper:
WhatsApp: +1 (213) 594-5657
Call: +1 727 456 9641
Website: hiraedu. com
Email: [info@hiraedu](mailto:info@hiraedu). com
The Ultimate Guide to CompTIA Certification Study Resources: Prepare with Confidence
CompTIA certifications are a great way to kickstart or advance your IT career, offering a wide range of certifications that can be overwhelming to navigate. In this comprehensive guide, we'll provide you with a detailed overview of CompTIA certification study resources, helping you prepare for online exams with confidence.
CompTIA Certification LevelsBefore diving into study resources, it's essential to understand the three main levels of CompTIA certifications:

1. Core Certifications: Entry-level certifications covering IT fundamentals, such as:
   • CompTIA A+
   • CompTIA Network+
   • CompTIA Security+
2. Specialty Certifications: Mid-level certifications focusing on specific areas like:
   • Cybersecurity
   • Data analytics
   • Cloud computing
3. Professional Certifications: Advanced certifications for experienced professionals, such as:
   • CompTIA CASP+
   • CompTIA PenTest+

Study Resources

Official CompTIA Resources

1. CompTIA Learning and Training: Download practice questions, exam objectives, and study guides.
2. Certification Study Guides and Books: CompTIA offers study guides in both ebook and print formats.
3. Online Learning Platform: Interactive online courses and study materials.

Free Study Resources

1. CompTIA Free Practice Tests: Get free practice test questions for CompTIA certification exams.
2. Reddit Study Groups: Join online communities, like CompTIA_, to connect with others studying for the exam.
3. YouTube Study Channels: Channels like Professor Messer and CompTIA offer video study materials.

Paid Study Resources

1. Udemy Courses: Comprehensive online courses covering various CompTIA certifications.
2. Pluralsight: Interactive online courses and study materials.
3. Study Guides and Books: Third-party study guides and books from publishers like Wiley and Sybex.

Additional Tips

1. Make a study plan: Set aside dedicated time to study and review material.
2. Practice, practice, practice: The more you practice, the more confident you'll feel on exam day.
3. Use flashcards: Flashcards can help you memorize key terms and concepts.
4. Join online communities: Connect with others studying for the exam to stay motivated and get help when needed.

Preparing for CompTIA certification exams requires dedication and the right study resources. By leveraging official CompTIA resources, free study materials, and paid study resources, you'll be well on your way to passing your exam and advancing your IT career. Remember to stay focused, practice regularly, and join online communities for support. Good luck on your exam!
Additional Resources

1. CompTIA Certification Website
2. CompTIA Study Guides
3. CompTIA Free Practice Tests

By utilizing these study resources and tips, you'll be well-prepared to tackle your CompTIA certification exam and take your IT career to the next level.

So I was fat since 6 years old ( because my genius mom was so worried about me being thing and started cooking everything in ghee and over fed me that year ). Fat stayed on despite my life being mildly chaotic after 7 years of age and even periods of not eating properly missing meals cause mom was ill never helped. I never truly lost weight until I was 9 and went to boarding school ( where we had lots of activities) and after a few months and lots of diarrhoeas, I lost 5 to 10 kgs but was still overweight. Then I got pneumonia, became a long term asthmatic and couldn’t be active much making me gain more. Then the next boarding school had less physical activities sadly and more mental stress which kinda made me gain a bit more . By the time I was yanked out of boarding school and thrown back into living with my dysfunctional parents , I basically went back to my original BMI. Never truly ate much however which is what pains me although I was not aware enough to learn about calories and blindly followed my mothers weird dieting and exercising advice. Immigration don’t help one bit and I gain 6 kgs ( which has been constantly fluctuating around 5 years) . Then my doc advised losing 6 kgs at least to prevent any health complications. My health checks on the other hand is perfect. In fact my cholesterol level is very healthy apparently according to my doc 😳. Just that lack of exercise makes me more breathless and I am determined to change that.
So my immediate goals are losing upto 5 kgs and developing aerobic which might put me in a healthier BMI but won’t make me not fat either (I am 95 kgs , 171 cm / 5’5” ).
My mom is upset that I am not taking up her offer on personal trainer and dietician because I think gives bad advice and only find folks who agree with her ideas. But the bigger question is why do I need to ? Sure health is a reason but my mom is a horrible chain smoker as it is ( second hand smoking from her created my asthma in first place). She gets really really mad even if just ask her not to smoke at home or cut back so I find her very hypocritical. And my health reasons are not even related to weight. However she is just frustrated that her AM proposals for me has not worked out even in first phase ( We think the boy saw my pics and said no) .
Slowly I realised I don’t want to live with a person in a relationship since I am a very private person. Plus sex is quite easy to get if that’s what one needs and friendship is better. Dating and marriage prospects may increase if I lose 20 kgs along with gaining points for pretty privilege ( which also has its limits especially in more advanced societies) . But I am already 28 and last thing I wanna do is cater to men especially since I am bisexual. I also think given how my default body is fat, I should not even consider a person who cannot be attracted to fat people lest I gain all that weight back.
What do you think about my rationale?

Hi all, as the title says Hesychasm has "pushed" me towards leaving the EO Church. It may seem like a minor thing to leave EO over, but for me I've been torn between EO and RC for some time now and this issue is the "smoking gun" (imo). Let me explain my line of thinking and please correct me where/if I'm wrong or misinformed.
EO and RC split around 1054, RC proceeds to introduce some "new" additions to the faith (Purgatory, Immaculate Conception etc.) but nothing that is necessarily that impactful on a day to day basis. (E.g. whether or not Mary was immaculately conceived doesn't weigh on my conscious daily and doesn't really impact my prayer life or spiritual life in a meaningful way). I understand that there are obviously doctrines that do impact RC lives daily (e.g. indulgences) but I still believe this is on a minor scale compared to my next point. EO on the other hand, kept their traditions mostly the same after the split with a few minor additions of their own as well. That was UNTIL the Palamas/Hesychasm debates in the 14th Century. During this era of EO history, the EO monks began to embrace some very odd practices involving breathe work, postures (i.e. yoga), meditation, and supposedly began seeing the "uncreated light of God". These practices very obviously are identical to the pagan practices we see in yoga and Islam etc. and were foreign to The Faith until after the split when the EO embraced them. Barlaam the theologian/monk and scholar proceeds to condemn these practices as unorthodox and Palamas is considered a heretic until that decision is overturned and eventually EO embrace Palamas and his Hesychasm teachings, and I believe Barlaam went on to convert to RC afterward. That's a very abridged version, but all that to say, if EO fully embraced this teaching that by sitting in a certain yoga poses, tucking your chin in, breathing through the diaphragm, and navel gazing will provide Christians with the possible ability to "see God", isn't this a MAJOR erroneous development in our tradition? I get it, RC introducing Purgatory is a tough pill to swallow, but doesn't that at least stay within the parameters of Christian faith comparatively speaking to our "side" that accepted full blown demonically centered yoga? I think at the time in the 1350s all the Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/Islamic monks doing this practice were having experiences, but I think as the science has caught up in the 21st Century, we're kinda left with egg on our face as we now know it isn't "God" they were seeing, but was due to the blood flow and oxygen levels that are manipulated by meditative yoga. If an atheist can reproduce this identical experience as many do through meditation/yoga, then we know it wasn't a supernatural experience as Palamas and ultimately EO doctrinal defined it.
All that to say, if anyone has 15 mins to watch this clip from 2:06-17:26 (Youtub = Eastern "Orthodoxy" Exposed: Their Heretical Doctrine of God - by Vaticancatholic.com) outlining these practices in Hesychams and teachings of Palamas I'd love to hear a thoughtful rebuttal (FYI the content creator is uncharitable and difficult to stomach at times, but his historical account/quotes are spot on according to reputable Orthodox online resources I've found). I don't want to leave EO but feel as though if our fathers got it THIS wrong in this area and embraced full blown pagan demonic yogi practices and affirmed it in our "Spirit lead" synods/councils, then we are in grave error and thus prone to error in other areas as well (i.e. the Papacy perhaps?). Accepting the Pope has spoken infallibly 5-10 times over the last 2000 yrs has been much easier for me to accept then EO fundamentally shifting to a Palamas-ish theology. And honest question, if this has become part of the EO tradition, how many of you actually practice this? Seriously, if we can potentially "see God" tonight through breathwork and special postures, why wouldn't we do this daily? (I have a sneaking suspicion most of us don't participate in this practice because something within us knows better).
Thank you in advance! And if you don't have time to watch the clip, here are the major quotes that I see as being irreconcilable for the EO:
“Striking parallels exist between the physical techniques recommended by the Byzantine Hesychasts and those employed in Hindu Yoga and in Sufism” - Bishop Timothy (Kallistos) Ware
“It was Gregory’s achievement to set Hesychasm on a firm dogmatic basis by integrating it into Orthodox theology as a whole. His teaching was confirmed by two councils held at Constantinople in 1341 and 1351, which, although local and not Ecumenical, yet possess a doctrinal authority in Orthodox theology scarcely inferior to the seven general councils themselves.” - Bishop Timothy (Kallistos) Ware
“One of the most thoroughgoing attempts in the history of Christian spirituality to ascribe a positive and dynamic role to the body during prayer was made by the fourteenth-century hesychasts. As an accompaniment to the recitation of the Jesus prayer they proposed a physical technique that has obvious parallels in yoga and among the Sufis of Islam.” - Bishop Timothy (Kallistos) Ware
"How should such a one not gain great profit if, instead of letting his eye roam…he should fix it on his breast or on his navel, as a point of concentration?...he will also, by disposing his body in such a position, recall into the interior of the heart a power which is ever flowing outwards…” - Gregory Palamas, The Triads
“By fixing one’s gaze on one’s navel and resting one’s chin on one’s breast, one could make one’s breathing coincide with the repetition of the prayer.”- Hesychast Monk's instructions
“Just as the aspirant in Yoga is taught to concentrate his thought in specific parts of his body, so the Hesychast concentrates his thought in the cardiac centre.” - Hesychast Monk's instructions
"Rest your beard on your chest, and focus your physical gaze, together with the whole of your intellect, upon the center of your belly or your navel.” - Hesychast Monk's instructions
EDIT: I am fully aware that Vatican Catholic are sedevacantists and have no intention of being affiliated with them, as I stated in my OP, they are are insufferable and hence why I prefaced it the way I did. BUT that doesn't mean the material presented on this particular topic are inaccurate. I looked up the quotes and confirmed their authenticity. These practices in Hesychasm are confirmed as essentially being dogma in EO.

The G-virus is somewhat peculiar in that after infecting its host, it transforms them into the so called “perfect lifeform,” unlike the T-virus which alternates it’s host’s genome, giving them additional strength and agility when paired with the “perfect genes,” somewhat similar to (but not the same as, because it was a different virus) Albert Wesker’s enhanced strength and speed.
The G-virus does something different, it fundamentally changes the host’s DNA and cellular structure. Transforming them into a new organism known as ‘G.’ Seemingly, the only way a ‘perfect G’ can be created is through a parasitic reproduction process. Patient 0 infects the host with an ‘embryo,’ which, similar to a facehugger in Alien, uses the host’s DNA to ‘fertilize’ itself, allowing the ‘embryo’ to grow into a G.
There is a caveat however, as the host’s DNA must be similar to the DNA of patient 0. Otherwise the ‘embryo’ will not take, and will exit the host to grow into an ‘imperfect G.’ If the host’s DNA is similar to patient 0, the ‘embryo’ will merge with the host’s body, and begin transforming them into a ‘perfect G.’
This is seemingly different to being simply infected by the virus, as neither William Birkin, nor Lisa Trevor (both individuals infected with the G virus) as Trevor maintained her human form, not exhibiting any of the reproductive process observed in Gs, and Birkin’s body suffered so much damage that it mutated out of control until he became an amorphous mass. Hardly a ‘perfect lifeform.’
The only known circumstance in which this occurred was when Dr. William Birkin, infected with the G-virus, infected his daughter, causing her to undergo the process of becoming a G, she was however treated by Clair Redfield with the DEVIL vaccine before the process could complete, leaving her almost unchanged, save for an incredible healing factor. Birkin also infected several others, but their DNA was not compatible, causing the immature Gs to reject their host. These ‘imperfect Gs’ can be encountered in the Raccoon City Sewer System.
So, all of this begs the question, what would a ‘perfect G’ look like? What would have become of Sherry Birkin if she had not been treated?

Hi all,
I’m an Emerald ADC looking for more advice to improve as I want to push for Diamond this split, but feel as if I am at a disadvantage when it comes to the knowledge of the game and would love to hear your guys’ thoughts.
First, I want to share how I understand the game and my thought process. Then, I would love for you to challenge why I misunderstand key concepts that might be affecting my fundamentals.
Champ Select: During champ select, I try to give prio to Top or Mid for last picking as I feel like ADC’s typically do not get hard countered in lane and being counterpicked can be mitigated by a strong support pick or jungle presence. That being said, if I am laning with a roaming support such as a Pyke or Naut, I will try to pick a long range, high wave clear ADC such as Jhin, Cait, or Jinx
Laning: Trading and farming aside, I try to keep an eye out for the enemy jungle’s position and prioritize vision control over CS even if multiple waves are crashing to prevent a dive. I feel like in lane, I struggle to earn or extend a lead unless its through wave management which can be difficult if the support hard pushes the wave too early or if the enemy lane has wave clearing advantage.
Mid-Game Macro: I prioritize objectives and rotating mid after bot tower falls. This is where my CS/min tends to fall the most as I mistime my recalls or prioritize objectives. I try to avoid team fighting unless someone is overextending or an objective is up, especially when behind.
Late-game Macro: Now that I’m online, team fight or 1-3-1 to pressure objectives and end.
I think on paper, my thought process makes sense to me. Where I think I can improve is how to adjust my gameplan for different team comps for laning.
For example, how would I adjust if they have an extremely dive heavy comp? Do I sack waves until laning is over or pick a self peel ADC like Xayah or Ashe and try to keep pace with enemy ADC? What if their lane has strong wave clear like a Cait + Seraphine and I have a roaming support? Do I concede to farming under tower and risk a dive or play even safer and just wait for my support to come back?
I feel like these types of questions show where I struggle, but would love to hear if my thought process and approach is just plain wrong.

tldr: I want to design, be that model architecture or hardware that is optimized/can accelerate those models. I’m equally interested in both. Which one would offer better returns as a career choice?
This is my first post on Reddit lol. I’m not really sure how to word the question, but i’m at quite a crossroads and i’m at the point where I really could invest heavily in either route.
Hi 😸 I’m Will, I’m a 20 year old computer engineering student who is taking a gap year to focus on my math fundamentals (i.e. vector calculus, linear algebra) and have been extremely interested in ML/DL for probably a decade, but only now is my maturity matching my interest to learn with some technical depth. I’ll return to my university (Santa Clara University) in the fall as a Sophomore.
I have two avenues of strong interest, and I wanted to ask what you guys think is the more stable/prosperous/interesting career path…
So, first is trying to be a research scientist on the software side. Designing models is what I would really want to do in this path, testing out architectures and training them based on ideas I have seems really rewarding and interesting. It is very selective though, and a phd or equivalent research experience is required. I’ve done some undergrad research but didn’t even publish from it. But, trying to work with reinforcement learning, training multiagency systems, even trying to design something that could possibly outperform transformers as a general-purpose parallelizable and efficient computer. I love the idea that artificial neural networks are universal function approximations. I’ve developed a strong foundation of (simple) math to where I can clearly understand the back propagation and gradient descent algorithms, I can see the matrix calculations as something somewhat geometric, and the neural network as a series of linear transformations with nonlinear activations. I know that this is the bare minimum (not even), but this was all just in the past 6 months. I want to write my own simple library to test my understanding. There’s also applications of a bit higher level math such as using fourier series techniques on low dimensional input situations, and manifold learning/dimensionality reduction. It really excites me to look down these avenues and see what’s there. And it goes deeper than that by far, those are just examples off the top of my head.
The second one is to be a hardware architect. This aligns more with the trajectory of my studies. Plenty of innovation is to be done here, I think. I have plenty to learn as well, but designing systems specialized to run specific kinds of models, such as convolutional architectures or transformers, or recurrent models. Idk. I want to build computers that aren’t a bit “naive” like GPU’s seem to be. Maybe i’m uninformed, but it doesn’t seem like we’re getting the most efficiency out of them that we could be getting. It kind of seems like we’re hijacking a parallel pixel computer to do matrix multiplications. I’m also interested in neuromorphic architectures, but that seems to be a little underdeveloped at the moment. It does intuitively seem like combining memory and compute is the right way to go, but … how? 😅 So, doing any of this would be fucking sick i think. And i think the barrier for entry is just a bit lower here.
What do you guys think. I’m really very immature in my understanding of the whole field, both on the hardware and software sides, but i’d love any guidance and advice possible. Like idc, flame me, cook me, but any realistic advice would really help. Yeahhhhh! 🦕🤞🏼🧟🦇🐋

I'm stumbled with the interesting by my view question: How to become a man who knows deeply about world's fundamentals? It's appeared me as an question when I got myself into math and learned a understanding of algebra and a little about advanced algebra(Differentiation\Integrating stuff mostly). Right now I want to explore about some physics, philosophy and chemistry to know almost all fundamentals, if someone got through this stage(After school and no I don't need them in my university). So if someone got through this path and got good understanding of the fundamentals or was interested in it too, could you please give me some information about this topic and maybe expand my view.

Since backing SC in 2013, I've advocated that profession-based gameplay should be the cornerstone of building the player experience.
After playing the 3.23 experimental mode and watching (for the first time) the CitCon 2023 segment, I can say engineering gameplay doesn't do a thing to make me feel like an engineer.

1. Engineering gameplay is mostly devoid of engineering principles.
2. What seems to be the intended source of "fun" won't work at all scales.

Addressing the second point first, even watching the devs play, it seems the design is leaning into the idea of frenetic action, bouncing from crisis to crisis, being a driver of "fun." On a larger, multi-deck ship like a Hercules, this design can deliver. But what happens to the frenetic feeling on smaller ships like a Connie or Freelancer where moving from crisis to crisis means walking a few meters or simply turning your body a little?
Returning to the first point, with repairing ship components - Resource Management would be a topic for another discussion - CIG has delivered Barotrauma's gameplay in a spaceship. Instead of using a magic wrench to fight flooding and repair equipment in a submarine, we have a magic pistol to fight fires and repair equipment in a spaceship.
Back in 2021, I authored a post on the importance of authentic-feeling profession-based gameplay in which I deconstructed and rebuilt mining as an example. If the mining gameplay mechanic had instead been introduced as part of hacking gameplay - siphoning data off a network while keeping the data flow rate high enough to finish in time but low enough to not alert intrusion detection systems - nobody would have questioned it. Nothing about mining gameplay makes it feel specific to working on large rocks.
Now, like rocks, ship components are non-descript containers filled with numbers, and repairing them entails no more than pointing a magic beam that improves the health number. Where's the engineering?
Instead, imagine if ship components had two, three, or four printed circuit boards (like your computer's motherboard) in them. Conductive lines, called traces, connect bobs and doodads that combine to fulfill some function.
The repair process would entail using the cutting tool to remove the damaged area of a board. The board is scanned, and a mobile 3D printer - maybe a couple of levitating dinner plate-sized discs - prints a replacement patch and inserts the bobs and doodads. The engineer affixes the patch, which fuses into place. They then use an extruder attachment on the multitool - think a plumber's caulking gun - to fill conductive RMC in groves that indicate the trace locations.
Simple enough that doing routine maintenance doesn't become drudgery while being involved enough that performing it in a stressful situation is non-trivial.
Simple additions like a curing time for the 3D-printed patch material could add more engineering flavor to a mission's story.
"Captain, engines are functional again, but I'll need to refurbish the whole thing when we get back to port if we put too much stress on them now."
Imagine now if each quadrant of a board fulfilled some function. This cluster of bobs and doodads together perform power regulation. Another cluster does signal focusing, etc. With this design, an engineer could restore partial functionality in time-sensitive situations.
"Captain, the shields are back online, but someone will have to babysit the power triangle if we run them at more than 50%."
Further, imagine if the actual layout of traces, bobs, and doodads on the board mattered in the context of simple principles: coherence and interference.
Coherence - E.g., to perform the function of power regulation, these seven bobs and doodads must be physically located near enough to one another.
Interference - Bobs, doodads, and traces all generate fields of "interference" in both electrical (current) and thermal domains. Too close proximity impacts wear and tear and can result in failures.
So, we have a tug-of-war between competing objectives on a surface with limited real estate. Factors like total trace length could impact performance, power efficiency, or whatever.
How does this design impact the player experience?
While mining a lucrative field of rocks in the upper atmosphere of a gas giant, an Orion's sensors go down. The engineer finds two traces showing overcurrent damage in adjacent locations on board #3. Repairs are made, but forty minutes later, another failure. More precisely, the same failure. The engineer suspects something about the environment is causing an electrical arc between the two traces.
Knowing there's a lot more wealth to be mined at the planet, the captain contracts a Reliant Sen to survey the upper atmosphere of the giant. The Sen captain delivers a computer simulation of the atmosphere to the Orion's engineer who plugs it into their workbench. Testing reveals that, in this environment, the interference in the "current domain" for traces is exaggerated. So, the board layout needs to be adjusted to move the closest traces further apart; time to play tug-of-war.
Engineering gameplay that makes you feel like an engineer...
For me, too much of too many profession-based systems is being abstracted at too high a level to deliver engaging gameplay. Moreover, abstraction at a high level means the universe lacks fundamental structures that can tie different professions, and players, together.
Imagine in our gas giant example, if the failure wasn't caused by forty minutes of accumulated electrical damage, but by waves of high-energy particles arriving in 40-minute intervals. The Sen pilot may want to investigate the source of the particles, but she'll need an engineer's solution for her ship first. Furthermore, an Orion crew member may think to ask, "If these particles are wrecking our equipment, what are they doing to our bodies?"
Miners, engineers, scientists, and doctors all writing their personal chapters in a larger, authentic, and connected story.
Crossposted to Spectrum.

Every worldview, every Weltanschauung, has a common denominator, as it is encapsulated and arises with and within a framework of presuppositions, "a priori" postulates, intuitions, meanings, an hereditary genetic apparatus for apprehending reality, concepts, language, and empirical experiences.
These -— we might define them —- postulates, these presuppositions of variegated nature, these assumptions, these Husserlian originally given intuitions, can be discussed, articulated, refined, unfolded, and connected in different ways and with different degrees of fundamentality, but never radically denied.
Why? Because every minimally articulated negation of them inevitably occurs through and within the limits of a Weltanschauung which arises from them and on them has erected its supporting pillars... thus even in their negation (or in negating that their negation is not a legimate of feasible operation), they find nothing but further confirmation.
One of the primary tasks of epistemology should be to identify, articulate, define, and clarify -- as precisely as possible -- these, for the lack of better terms, "postulates".
Not to dogmatically absolutize them or crystallize them in such a way that inhibits any future re-examination or architectural rethinking, but rather to ensure that philosophical and scientific inquiry (especially the latter when it ventures into philosophical speculation, I dare say) does not endlessly bog itself down in questions, answers, and wild theories that, in Wittgenstein's terms, are devoid of actual meaning, since doubt can exist only where a question exists, a question only where an answer exists, and an answer only where something can be said.
My theory? My "falsifiable prediction"? If we take and scan 5,000 years of western and eastern ontological, epistemological, ethical, theological, scientifical and philosophical reflection and arguments, we will find Xs (statements about how things or how we know things) that have been recurrently confirmed, discussed, disputed, denied, and debated using arguments that postulate and assume (implicitly or indirectly) those very Xs.
Xs that are, metaphorically, always smuggled into every discourse, against or for.
We have to hunt them down, like beagles descending into the rabbit hole.
I would add -- as a side note -- that in this endeavour, a linguistic-computational AI -- identifying underlying patterns -- could prove to be highly useful.

‘Hitler was solely responsible for the Holocaust’.
How far do you agree with this statement?
The Holocaust, run by the Nazi regime during World War II, resulted in the extermination of six million Jews and millions of other victims. Adolf Hitler's influence was prominent, but the genocide's execution involved numerous actors, including high-ranking Nazi officials, bystanders, and the Allied powers. I partially agree with the statement, ‘Hitler was solely responsible for the Holocaust’ as he played a crucial role in initiating the holocaust but it is wrong to deny that there weren’t any other contributors.
One person responsible for the Holocaust was Adolf Hitler, whose ideology, beliefs and orders were fundamental to the genocide. Source A states that in 1922, Hitler remarked, “As soon as I have the power... Then the Jews [in Munich] will be hanged one after another... and that will continue until the last Jew in Munich is exterminated. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cities until Germany is cleansed of the last Jew!”. Source A presents a direct quote from Hitler, reflecting his early and explicit intent to exterminate Jews. While the source is reliable in providing insight into Hitler's genocidal intentions, its origin as a speech may raise questions about context and potential audience manipulation. This shows that Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust because his deep anti-Semitism and violent orders set the genocidal policies in motion. While Hitler’s ideology was the driving force, it is critical to recognise that the Holocaust's implementation relied on the cooperation and actions of others within the Nazi regime.
Another group responsible for the Holocaust was the Nazi hierarchy, including key figures such as Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich, and organisations like the SS and Einsatzgruppen. In Source B, it states Rudolf Hoess, Commandant of Auschwitz, recounted, “The Fuhrer has ordered the Jewish question to be settled once and for all... Every Jew that we can lay our hands on is to be destroyed now, during the war, without exception”. Furthermore, Heydrich established the first Jewish ghetto and was chosen to administer the Final Solution at the Wannsee Conference which is stated in source E. Source B is from the memoirs of Rudolf Hoess, providing a firsthand account of orders received from Hitler. While Hoess' account is valuable for its quickness, it should be approached with caution due to potential biases or attempts to remove harshness from guilt. Source E, originating from a historical analysis, offers a researched overview of Heydrich's role, enhancing its reliability as a scholarly source. This shows they were responsible for the Holocaust because their actions and organisational skills were essential in transforming Hitler's genocidal vision into reality. While Hitler provided the ideological framework, the efficiency and dedication of Nazi officials like Himmler and Heydrich were crucial in executing the mass extermination, indicating a shared responsibility.
Another group indirectly responsible for the Holocaust was the bystanders, both within Germany and internationally, whose unbothered attitudes facilitated the genocide. In source C Martin Niemöller, a German pastor, poignantly illustrated this passivity: “First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew...”. In source D A policeman testified in 1961, “I believed the propaganda that all Jews were criminals and subhumans... The thought that one should disobey or evade the order to participate in the extermination of the Jews did not enter my mind at all”. Source C, a poem by Martin Niemöller, reflects personal experiences and serves as a touching critique of society’s lack of empathy. Its reliability lies in Niemöller's firsthand experience, though its emotional tone may influence interpretation. Source D, a testimony from a policeman, offers insight into the mindset of ordinary Germans but should be critically evaluated for potential biases or attempts to shift blame. This shows they were responsible for the Holocaust because their passivity and acceptance of Nazi propaganda allowed the regime to operate without resistance. While bystanders did not actively participate in the genocide, their failure to oppose the Nazis contributed to the environment that made the Holocaust possible.
Another group indirectly responsible for the Holocaust was the Allies, whose delayed intervention and restrictive immigration policies exacerbated the situation for potential Holocaust victims. In source F Alan Farmer notes that the Allies, particularly Britain and the United States, made limited efforts to assist Jews, partly due to fears of a flood of Jewish immigrants and disbelief in the extent of the genocide. Source F, an adaptation from Alan Farmer's historical analysis, offers a scholarly critique of Allied responses to the Holocaust. Its reliability lies in Farmer's research, but interpretations may vary depending on historical context and biases. This shows they were responsible for the Holocaust because their actions and policies failed to lessen or halt the genocide when opportunities existed. While the primary focus of the Allies was defeating Nazi Germany, their insufficient response to the Holocaust underscores a shared responsibility.
In conclusion, while Adolf Hitler’s passion and dictatorial power were central to the Holocaust, the genocide was the result of factors simultaneously contributing by involving high-ranking Nazis, passive bystanders, and delayed actions by the Allies. Therefore, attributing sole responsibility to Hitler hides the broader collective actions that facilitated one of history's most horrific atrocities.

I'm midway through Act 3 (Honour Mode), and unfortunately I have to respec my Minthara out of Paladin because I accidentally broke her oath last night, and I killed the Oathbreaker Knights days ago because he aggro'd to my Astarion when I bit a hireling in my camp to get the lucky buff and I couldn't find a way to leave combat with him. I was playing an unconventional support Paladin build, so losing out on it isn't a terrible loss. I think based on what I need for my team currently, a combined Spore Druid/Abjuration Wizard is a good option for her replacement, Jaheira. I've been using her largely in a tanky support role with healing and buffs; Spore Druid allows me to double down on the tankiness with Arcane Ward and SI temp HP while also accessing all the great buffs from Wizard/Druid AND great summons. The biggest question to me, though, is where to make the level split.

1. 1 Wizard/11 Druid gives 6th level Druid spells and spell scribing, which is great. No Wizard subclass, though, which I'd really like, and I am cheesing it a bit with camp casting this run so losing out on Minthara casting Heroes' Feast isn't a huge loss. My main 6th level spell cast will be upcasted Conjure Elemental, which I can get through Wizard spell scribing.
2. 2 Wizard/10 Druid seems like the worst possible option. It gives Dilophosaurus Wild Shape, but I'd rather be using Symbiotic Entity as a Spore Druid, and you don't really get a ton of utility our of Arcane Ward maxing at four.
3. 3 Wizard/9 Druid gives 6 Arcane Ward and 5th level spell access from Druid, as well as 36 temp HP from Symbiotic Entity. I think 6 Ward is still a bit on the low end, but I could see a rationale for this.
4. 4 Wizard/8 Druid gives 8 Arcane Ward and 32 Temp HP, which seems like a nice sweet spot for protecting SI HP. It also gives 3 feats, though I'm not exactly feat starved on this build. Loses out on 5th Level spells.
5. 5 Wizard/7 Druid gives 10 Arcane Ward, 28 temp HP. I lose out on 5th level spells and 6th level spells, but this is my scroll/support/summons caster, and most of their higher level spell slots will be used for upcasted summons anyway so I don't think it's the end of the world. The major 5th level druid spell I lose is Conjure Elemental, which I get from scribing anyway. Importantly, this also gives Counterspell - something that my current party only gets from Bard Magical Secrets.
6. 6 Wizard/6 Druid gives 12 Arcane Ward, 24 temp HP, as well as both subclass abilities in Fungal Infestation (which all of the above get) and Projected Ward as a means to reduce damage for the rest of my party. Projected Ward does compete with Counterspell for my reaction, though, which is a small non-bo. This loses 4th level spells, and I actually do think losing out on double summons from Conjure Woodland Being is a bit of a loss.

Of these, I think 5 and 6 are probably the two best options, with 1 coming in third. I don't think 2-4 give enough Arcane Ward to really matter, though I might be missing something. I think I'm leaning towards 5 Abjuration Wizard/7 Spore Druid for access to Counterspell and Conjure Woodland Being, but I'm also struggling with the idea of being so close to Projected Ward and not being able to grab it. I'm interested in hearing other people's opinions, though!
I'm not considering any Druid level below 6 currently, though if I'm missing a combination there feel free to point it out!

Hello all,
For context I'm Malay guy who's been living abroad and basically I've gotten myself into a relationship with a European girl. Now it's not my first rodeo dating foreigners but nowadays I'm trying to take relationships more seriously cause I'm not looking to jump between flings and potential gfs anymore. With this in mind, I'm looking for options on how to make such a relationship work cause last thing I want is to go so far without a choice besides breaking up given how I still hold a Malaysian passport and keeping in mind that she might not wish to convert in the long run (she's Christian).
If this was the situation, then my best choice is to honestly get married with her in her country (they don't consider religion-based marriages to be legal anyways) so we only have to worry about the civil side. Live there for enough time to be eligible for naturalization through marriage and give up my Malaysian nationality since Malaysia would not recognize this marriage legally anyways so at least if we come for holiday we're both seen as foreigners so no problem.
My question is, is this the only way? I'm someone who would be willing to compromise to such lengths given I can be with someone I truly love. I will never try to force the idea of conversion to her since I fundamentally believe that Islam is a religion that should be accepted wholeheartedly (I'm not religious myself anyways). All thoughts would be appreciated on how to tackle this issue

Just curious how you got to the point you were in. I'll start.
I spent probably the first 19 years of my life without really knowing much about Calvinism. I went to a Lutheran private school for a couple years, and it didn't really come up more than once or twice, so I didn't really give it much thought. Thinking back, I was probably what you would consider a Provisionist.
I went to a private Bible College that was predominantly Calvinist. I was confronted a number of times about my views, and ended up embracing more of a Classical Arminian view similar to Molinism. I didn't know how to defend my views* because I had never been confronted about it before. I think this came about from a misunderstanding of Total Depravity, Limited Atonement, and Perseverance of the Saints. I would have described myself as a 2 1/2 point Calvinist. I saw enough verses that contradicted Calvinist soteriology to plant seeds of doubt, but passages like Romans and Ephesians made me wonder.
*Taking a view prior to establishing it yourself is bad epistemology.
So this 2 1/2 point Calvinism was my view until I had a profound spiritual experience in 2018 which started my journey back into theology as a field of personal interest. I was attending a 5-point Calvinist church at the time along with my wife, which I did for a number of years through a long multi-year study of Romans. This was actually really good for me because it gave me an opportunity to study the Calvinist position in detail. I became intimately familiar with the arguments. I realized that they weren't engaging very well with the "Arminian" position so I hit a point where I decided I was going to re-evaluate my positions on soteriology. I found Steve Gregg (The Narrow Path) on the radio and started listening to his program and learned he had a free lecture series on the topic. What I liked is that he systematically goes through all the major prooftexts and quite a few of the minor ones without skipping the hard ones. When I realized that you couldn't establish Total Depravity without it already being established (i.e. begging the question), I became a Provisionist. I think a careful reading of Romans 3 is what sealed the deal for me. I took the "John Piper Challenge" and started highlighting Calvinist leaning passages in blue and non-Calvinist leaning passages in yellow. Unlike John Piper, however, I started realizing the overwhelming evidence of the non-Calvinist position. I also found Leighton Flowers (Soteriology101) and Kevin Thompson (Beyond the Fundamentals) about that same time which helped a great deal to further demolish my presuppositions. It took a while before I really had a robust definitions of Election and Predestination, but when I saw Kevin's seminal word studies on Election and Predestination, it was eye opening. Before then I had an Arminian view of those terms and I thought they were the same thing.
Now I have taken a slightly different approach, and my main focus is on Epistemology rather than Theology. It is more broad reaching and touches on a lot more issues than Theology does.
So that's my story in a nutshell, what is yours?

"Avoidant Attachment Recovery: 5 Steps to Overcome Fear of Intimacy, Strengthen Connections and Transition from Avoidant to Secure Attachment" by Amy Harper is a self-help resource meant to assist individuals overcome avoidant attachment styles and cultivate healthier, more rewarding relationships.
Harper begins by introducing the concept of avoidant attachment and its origins in early events. She investigates how avoidant persons may struggle with intimacy, fear of rejection, and trouble expressing their emotions in relationships. Through relevant experiences and psychological insights, Harper offers readers a deeper understanding of their attachment patterns and the impact they have on their lives.
The core of the book resides in Harper's five-step strategy to overcoming avoidant attachment and shifting to a more secure attachment style. Each phase is complemented by practical activities, introspection questions, and actionable tactics geared at helping readers identify and challenge their negative thought patterns and actions.
One of the book's merits is its emphasis on self-awareness and self-compassion. Harper invites readers to explore the fundamental causes of their avoidant behaviors with love and curiosity, rather than judgment. By building a sense of empathy and understanding towards oneself, readers can begin to break free from old patterns and cultivate healthier ways of relating to others.
Harper's writing is straightforward, sympathetic, and approachable, making difficult psychological principles easy to understand and implement. Her compassionate tone gives a safe and supportive space for readers to explore their innermost ideas and feelings, fostering a sense of empowerment and agency in their personal growth journey.
While "Avoidant Attachment Recovery" offers significant insights and practical techniques for persons battling with avoidant attachment, some readers may find that book lacks depth in key areas. The book largely focuses on the experiences of avoidant persons and may benefit from integrating viewpoints from partners and loved ones affected by avoidant attachment dynamics.
Overall, "Avoidant Attachment Recovery" is a great resource for anyone wishing to overcome avoidant attachment behaviors and create more secure and rewarding relationships. Harper's compassionate attitude, practical direction, and achievable methods make this book a great companion on the journey towards healing and personal growth.
Listen for free with a free trial of Audible at freeaudiobookstrial .com

I'm barely even a hobbyist but I'm learning, so please excuse me if I use an incorrect term here and there.
I'm having some trouble with a 2007 Mazda 2 that doesn't want to start. It has a stock 1.3l ZJ engine. I have a suspicion to the cause, but would like some general advice. Even if the solution turns out to be simple, this would be a great learning opportunity.
Here are the symptoms:
The engine cranks when the ignition is turned. After a few attempts at starting (2-9) it weakly starts and after a few seconds revs up to idle at around 1.5krpm. The idling is initially particularly rough. It then calms down to idle at around 500-700rpm and sounds perfectly normal.
While in neutral, revving the engine to above 1.5krpm results in a rough noise. I'm not trained enough to recognize a misfiring engine yet. It could be that, but I'm not sure.
While actually driving at any speed, the engine sounds perfectly normal and there is no noticeable loss in power. The car responds well to throttling. Its possible that the rough sound at higher revs is still there but muffled by the wind or other ambient noise, of course.
My friend is adamant that braking while starting the car works. I initially told her that this must be confirmation bias. After testing it in various conditions over the course of a week, I can confirm that pressing on the brake peddle while starting does in fact have a >50% chance of starting the engine in 2 or fewer attempts.
I've consulted with my brother, a qualified mechanic, who informed me that the brake booster does interact with the air intake tract via a vacuum line. I might be misquoting him on how exactly the vacuum line coupled but I know that it does couple to the engine. Out of respect for his time, I'm researching further on my own. I'm not adding to his workload. His work is bad enough. He's also about 8 hours way so he can't inspect himself.
This problem has persisted for at least a year. I recently serviced the car, replacing spark plugs. Visual inspection didn't reveal any issues with the coil packs and the new spark plugs seem to spark fine once the car has started. I'm not an expert though so I might have missed something.
I did notice during the service that a clamp on a pretty major air pipe was loose and the thread probably stripped. The pipe is coupled, but barely and it definitely doesn't seal. I tried to tighten it, but was unable to. I also didn't have a replacement clamp on hand. I suspect that this might be a vacuum leak. It seems to be aftebehind the air filter. I don't remember where the throttle body sits in relation to the pipe in question.
My current thought therefore is:

1. AiFuel ratio is off. Possibly due to a vacuum leak.
2. Pressing on the break increases pressure on one side of the brake booster
3. The compressed diaphragm reduces the volume on the low pressure side
4. Reduced volume increases the pressure. That is, reduces the vacuum strength.
5. This equates to more air per unit fuel, which rectifies the ratio. Even if only momentarily.
6. Combustion is achieved and the car starts
7. Not sure why it keeps running. Maybe the ECU maintains the ratio despite the leak once it runs?

I'm going to replace the clamp this weekend and will see if it works. My request for advice is less about whether that is the problem and more about being able to reason about the problem from first principles. Am I fundamentally misunderstanding any part of the car's operation as it relates to this issue?
Thanks in advance!

Simulation theory is a philosophical concept that suggests reality as we perceive it might be a simulated or artificial construct rather than an objective, independent existence. Proponents argue that advanced civilizations could create realistic simulations, and if such simulations are numerous, the odds are that we are living in one. It's a thought experiment rather than a scientifically proven theory.
Simulation theory posits that our reality may be akin to a computer-generated simulation rather than an independently existing, fundamental reality. This idea stems from the possibility that technologically advanced civilizations could create highly realistic simulations populated with conscious entities. If such simulations outnumber actual realities, the likelihood of being in a simulated existence increases. However, it's crucial to note that this is speculative and lacks empirical evidence. It's more of a philosophical concept than a scientific theory at this point.
The concept of a simulated reality has roots in philosophical and scientific discussions over time, but the modern articulation of simulation theory is often credited to philosopher Nick Bostrom. In 2003, Bostrom presented a paper titled "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?" where he formulated the simulation argument, outlining the idea that advanced civilizations could create ancestor simulations, and the likelihood of us living in one of these simulations. While Bostrom popularized the contemporary discussion on simulation theory, it's essential to acknowledge that similar ideas have appeared in various forms throughout history.
Philip K. Dick, a science fiction writer, explored themes related to reality, identity, and the nature of existence in many of his works. While he didn't explicitly propose simulation theory, some of his writings, such as "Ubik" and "A Maze of Death," delved into the blurring boundaries between reality and illusion. Dick's stories often questioned the nature of perception and the subjective experience of reality, influencing discussions on topics that align with aspects of simulation theory. While not a proponent of the formal simulation theory, Dick's ideas have contributed to the broader exploration of reality in science fiction literature.
Philip K. Dick's works frequently explore the concept of alternate realities, simulated environments, and the fragility of perceived truths. In novels like "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" (the basis for the film "Blade Runner"), he delves into the nature of consciousness and the artificial creation of beings that question the boundaries of humanity.
Dick's narratives often involve characters experiencing a shifting, uncertain reality, prompting readers to question the nature of their own existence. While not explicitly framing his stories within a simulation theory context, Dick's exploration of these themes has influenced the broader cultural conversation about reality, perception, and the potential for simulated experiences.
Several other writers have explored themes related to simulated realities, alternate dimensions, and the nature of existence. Some notable examples include:

1. Arthur C. Clarke: In his "Odyssey" series, particularly "2001: A Space Odyssey," Clarke touches on themes of extraterrestrial influence and the evolution of human consciousness, hinting at the possibility of a higher intelligence shaping human experiences.
   
2. William Gibson: As a pioneer in cyberpunk literature, Gibson's works like "Neuromancer" and "Virtual Light" delve into virtual realities, cyberspace, and the blending of human consciousness with technology.
   
3. Stanisław Lem: The Polish science fiction writer explored philosophical and existential questions in works like "Solaris," where the nature of reality is profoundly questioned in the context of an alien planet.
   
4. Isaac Asimov: While best known for his contributions to robotics and artificial intelligence, Asimov's stories often touch on the impact of advanced technology on human perception and reality.
   
5. Greg Egan: A contemporary science fiction writer, Egan's works such as "Permutation City" and "Diaspora" explicitly engage with ideas related to simulated realities, consciousness, and the nature of existence.
   

These authors, among others, have contributed to the rich exploration of these themes in science fiction literature. Each brings a unique perspective to the question of what it means to exist and the potential complexities of reality.

1. Neal Stephenson: In "Snow Crash," Stephenson blends cyberpunk elements with a virtual reality metaverse, exploring the implications of a digital realm on society and identity.
   
2. H.P. Lovecraft: While primarily known for cosmic horror, Lovecraft's stories often involve encounters with incomprehensible entities and dimensions that challenge the sanity of those who perceive them, hinting at the fragility of human understanding.
   
3. Douglas Adams: In "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" series, Adams uses humor and absurdity to comment on the arbitrary and chaotic nature of the universe, prompting readers to question the reliability of their perceptions.
   
4. Greg Bear: In "Queen of Angels," Bear explores the intersection of neuroscience and virtual reality, raising questions about the malleability of consciousness and the potential for constructed realities.
   
5. Rudy Rucker: A mathematician and science fiction author, Rucker's "Ware Tetralogy" delves into the world of artificial intelligence, uploaded consciousness, and the blurring of boundaries between the physical and digital realms.
   

These writers have made significant contributions to the exploration of reality, consciousness, and simulated experiences within the realm of speculative fiction. Their diverse perspectives and imaginative storytelling continue to influence discussions about the nature of existence and the possibilities of alternate realities.

First off - I am new to LLMs so I do not really know what I am doing.
I was given the task to build a summarization and analysis pipeline. The pipeline has to analyze about 100 news article, scan for some specific information and summarize the articles which hold the wanted data. In a last step the model is supposed to assess if certain criterias are met by the summaries and give an according grade. I already implemented this using only the openai API with chatgpt-3.5 and the langchain framework, which works just fine.
Unfortunately the system may not send data into the cloud so I need a way to reproduce the pipeline locally. My first instinct was to download meta-llama-3-8B from hugging face and try it out but I got stuck pretty early into the project. Like I said, I am quite new to LLMs and the frameworks that come with them. To get into it I simply wanted to "talk" to the model to see how the answers are generated. I used the transformers framework, loaded the llm, created a "text generation" pipeline and put in some text.
But no matter what I try, I won't get a proper answer. Sometimes text gets generated, sometimes it does not. The only consistency I can find is, that it does not want to answer my questions directly. I can't even get an answer to the question "How are you?".
So my guess is that I am doing something fundamentally wrong here. Any suggestions where I took the wrong turn?

Let me first start by saying that these are just me exploring my ideas on the topic of AGI and the current state of the art. I am not trying to convince you to agree with me, I just want to have a casual conversation and see what others think of my ideas.

First is my definition and thoughts on General Intelligence (GI)

I want to preface this by saying there is not much agreement on the definition of GI and therefore I provide my own. Disagree if you like, but please read the rest knowing what I mean when I use that term.
General intelligence is the ability of a problem solver to engage with completely new problems (to it), and crucially to be able to recognize its own failings, formulate a plan to overcome those failings, implement that plan, and ultimately rinse and repeat until a valid solution is found.
This can be further broken into two major kinds of plans. The first is to check if knowledge of solutions to this kind of problem already exist in the world and to seek out and incorporate that knowledge. The second, and ultimately only important kind is when no existing solutions exist. The GI must attempt to model the problem following a varied field of possible solutions then explore those areas. Usually this occurs in many steps of explore and validation. This kind of exploration of possibilities is the core feature of solving new problems. It fundamentally requires “imagination” which is a loaded word so I will also define it here
Imagination in this context means the ability to predict ways the world might work which are not necessarily real and which may have only a very loose connection to existing understanding. In other words, to solve problems generally we need a way to make “random” leaps into a possible solution space near the border of this far explored and validated solution space, then to check if those leaps land in places which match how the world is known to work (aka. A hypothesis followed by testing).
How do we (humans) make leaps into solution space? Thats an open question.
I do not think the current strategy of train then run AI can actually achieve this. We need AIs which are both training and working at the same time, the AI needs to be able to genuinely modify itself to approach situations differently across many attempts.

Are individual humans capable of GI?

Can humans even really do that? I mean can a singular human really solve different novel problems? It seems that virtually every solution humans have managed was in fact a group effort, building on others.
On reflection I think humans are capable of the above concept of making leaps into the solution space, and this is the core of GI. But I think most humans only make one, or two, leaps on any single problem. Most make an intuitive (aka, completely hidden to our conscience mind) assumption about the solution then spend a lot of time trying to show how it does match a real solution to the problem. Some people may explore a few ideas in this intuitive leaping but often settle on one. It is truly the exception that a human explore dozens or hundreds of jumps into the solution space. In fact, I doubt any human has done more than 10 on one problem. Instead we make progress by more than one human trying to make leaps. This, while individual humans are capable of GI it is only really in the collective that we solve difficult new problems.
What does this mean to AGI? I think it means we may be being unreasonable and unrealistic to expect a single AI entity to be capable of solving problems generally..or it means that an AGI would have to be more inventive or have better imagination (see above definition) than any one human. But I expect this would be hard as I think the variety of imagination in humans is actually a product of their genetics and life, so one AI is not likely to have the variety in parameters needed to make hundreds of different leaps into the solution space and we may in fact need AIs which are not all just clones from the same training to solve problems in a collective manner as we do. Although perhaps we could package many minds into one external interface to give the illusion of an individual.

Are we close to AGI?

I do not think we are as close as others. Definitely GPT4o is not it and I think the entire current method of making these AIs will fail to yield GI as we know it. I cant say how far off we are, but I dont think its in the next 5 years due to "barking up the wrong tree". I do not think the train then run model can work for GI.
However, I don't think GI is needed for AI to disrupt the world.
I believe advancements along our current path of non-general artificial intelligence will still be completely disruptive to our society.
I think AI of the current and near future will be able to do anything we already know how to do, but faster, more reliably, and cheaper. This alone will change the world to one where all “menial” mental tasks are meaningless. This will still cause a singularity, just not a super intelligence singularity.
All value will shift onto new solutions until we solve the last problem we will ever solve, how to make machines with GI.
Thanks for reading.

I came across this Quora answer for "Why does Kerala Government impose an economically worthless Malayalam in Kerala schools instead of making it as an optional language because a Malayali cannot get lucrative employment by learning Malayalam?" from this post.
The answer is a lengthy one, and may seem irrelevant to the title "How is time perceived in Telugu?", but please keep reading, I have my questions at the end of the post...

This question reminds me of a story of the Roman emperor Vespasian. One day, an inventor visited the emperor and showed him the blueprint of a mechanism that could transport columns and beams to a construction site quickly and without any manual labor. This brilliant machine could've kickstarted industrial revolution 1700 years before it actually happened. But much to the inventor's shock, Vespasian turned him down, saying “my people need jobs, our slaves need jobs. If the machine does all the work, our people will be jobless. Our slaves would get free time to organize themselves and would start revolts”.
Vespasian feared that the new technology was ‘economically worthless', as it would make people and slaves jobless and send the country into total chaos. In short, he was technologically shortsighted. The inability to foresee what technology could bring to his people in the long run pulled him down. He was deluded by the fragile nature of the economy and had no idea how to rebuild it if this revolutionary mechanism would be allowed to operate.
This was the reason why ancient Rome was never industrialized, despite having a lot of excellent inventors and engineers. Those in power were worried about the unemployment a sudden revolutionary idea would create and failed to accept how beneficial this would be for the people in the long run.
The reason for narrating this story is that it is remarkably similar to the dilemma mentioned in the question. Vespasian thought, “allocating resources to inventive technology instead of manual labor is economically worthless since people and slaves won't get lucrative jobs”.
Replace ‘manual labor' by ‘English' and ‘inventive technology' by ‘Malayalam', and you get our question.
“Allocating resources to English instead of Malayalam is economically worthless since people and slaves won't get lucrative jobs”.
Likewise, English persists as the language of official usage for most jobs not because Malayalam is incompetent or inefficient, but because the current ‘system' revolves around English. That makes Malayalam seem like a burden on students, with no economic worth. An engineer who does all his learning from foreign textbooks and uses English terminology has no lucrative use of Malayalam. A software developer who needs to know all computer-related terms in English has no use of Malayalam. The same goes for an accountant, a doctor, a clerk, and pretty much all ‘white collar' jobs you can think of. Even those who might benefit from learning Malayalam like historians or linguists might consider English infinitely more useful since most of the written books and research work on those fields are in English. There is enough reason for people to think that spending government resources for teaching Malayalam is worthless like how Vespasian thought that appreciating technology was worthless.
But time proved Vespasian wrong, although by sheer luck. Christianity replaced Paganism as the dominant religion in Europe. Since slavery is forbidden in Christianity, European kingdoms started banning it. Feudalism and class based labor also started declining as the plague wiped out significant fractions of each class and as the military shifted from armies to professional fighters, thereby weakening the nobility’s hold on power. With the lack of a powerful ruling class to impose and manage heavy manual labor, the stage was finally set for a technological revolution and the industrial revolution finally began in Europe, 1700 years after Vespasian.
Some of you might be doubtful of comparing the case of English vs Malayalam with manual labor vs automated machines. Are they even comparable in the first place?
Industrial revolution made life easier for people because it freed people from the heavy manual labor and made it possible for them to spend more time for their personal development. Likewise, teaching in Malayalam instead of English would make people engage more with their personal and cultural lives. Teaching lessons of science and history in English forbids Malayalis from using them in their lives. This is because these two languages are different at a fundamental level since they belong to two different language families. If you are a Malayalam speaker and you learn science and history in English, it'll be impossible for you to use them in your daily lives because you conceptualize the world around you in completely different ways while you speak or think in these two languages. In linguistics, this changing of cognitive metaphors while using different languages is known as code-switching.
Let me share my own experience. I studied in Malayalam medium in primary and high school. Hence my way of understanding science and history is through Malayalam's (or Dravidian) cognitive metaphors. Those who study in English or other related languages like German, Persian or Hindi would use the Indo-European cognitive metaphors. Once I started reading books in English, I started to realize how different these are.
Let us take time for example.
How an English speaker views time
Speakers of Indo-European languages like English and Hindi conceptualize time as a long line through which you move at a steady rate. Your past is the segment behind you and your future lies in front of you. Time is a one-dimensional straight line in Indo-European languages (the only exceptions are Italic and Hellenic branches. They see time as a growing volume instead of a long line).
This is why these languages describe the duration of events as either “long” or “short”, which represent the length of a line segment.
Consider the statement “I've been waiting for a long time”.
The italicised part, translated into different Indo-European languages would be:
English (Germanic) : “ long time”
Sanskrit (Indo-Aryan) : “dīrghakāla”
Hindi (Indo-Aryan) : “lambi der”
Persian (Iranian) : “moddat zamân tulâni”
Lithuanian (Baltic) : “ilgas laikas”
Irish (Celtic) : “tamall fada”
All those words indicated with bold letters are synonym for “long”. The same could be observed for events with less duration. All these languages use the adjective “short”, just as what you might expect from their way of perceiving time as a horizontal line.
Hence many words describing events associated with time like emotions in these languages are derived from roots that mean “long” or “short”. The English words “longing” (from ‘long') and “hope” (ultimately from Greek ‘kúptō' (to bend forward) ) are examples.
(By the way, there are two slightly different variants of the Indo-European concept of time. This video explains it beautifully with a riddle)
.
How a Malayalam speaker views time
Speakers of Dravidian languages like Malayalam have a much more sophisticated three-dimensional view of time. For Malayalis, the passage of time is vertically upwards, not to the front. Also, time isn't a single line here. Multiple vertical lines of progression of time arise from the two dimensional patches of land. In Malayalam, this two-dimensional ‘area' or patch of time is known as “pāḍu” (പാട്) which literally means “a bounded area” (hence the adjectives like “orupāḍu” and “appāḍe”). Related events that take place at a particular location are visualized as multiple vertical lines growing from that patch. A different place or a different person would be visualized as a different patch with its own vertical growths.
You have to be a Dravidian speaker to fully understand this. Imagine a set of events.
If it is the same event occurring over and over again, it is perceived as looping around a small vertical segment over and over again. In Malayalam language, this corresponds to the adjective ഒത്തിരി (ottiri) - literally “many turns/loops” (root ‘tiru' - turn/spin).
If that set of events represent a growing process or emotion, it is perceived as a line that grows vertically. In Malayalam, the adjective in this case is ഏറെ (ēṟe) - literally “climbing up/ascending” or വളരെ (vaḷare) -literally “growing upwards”.
If those events are concurrent yet different, they are perceived as multiple vertical growths originating from the same patch on the plane. In Malayalam, the adjective is ഒരുപാടു (orupāḍu) - literally “an area of” (‘pāḍu' - a bounded area).
If those events are completely independent, then they exist in different patches and the adjective പല (pala) is used.
In short, a Malayalam speaker has four different ways of translating something like “a long time”, depending on how the person spent that time. If they spent that time by counting sea waves, they might say “ottiri nēram”. If the time was spent, say, by building a sand castle, they might say “ēṟe nēram”, and if they were doing many different things, they might say “orupāḍu nēram”.
This is true in the case of other Dravidian languages as well. For example, in Kannada, the word ಪಿರಿ (piri) - heightened/advanced - (now mostly displaced by the loanword ಬಹಳ (bahaḷa)) would correspond to Malayalam “ēṟe” and ತುಂಬಾ (tumbā) - literally, a crowd of/amassed - would correspond to Malayalam “orupāḍu”. A Kannada speaker would say “bahaḷa samaya” for the time spent for building a sand castle and “tumbā samaya” for the time spent for doing multiple things
(However, in some Dravidian languages, this way of visualizing time has been replaced by the Indo-European linear time because of Sanskrit imperialism. But that is a different story.)
In short, as a Malayalam speaker, I conceptualize my entire life in front of me. My brain visualizes all the places I've been to and the people I've interacted with as different patches (pāḍu), each one having multiple vertical segments that grow or add a new one each time I visit again. However, when I speak or learn in English or Hindi, it is completely changed and I'm forced to visualize time and events to be part of a long line with my past behind me and my future in front of me. This switching of conceptual metaphors is known as code-switching in cognitive linguistics.
This means that I as a bilingual describe an event that happened the day before yesterday as “two days back” in English and “raṇḍụ nāḷ munpu” in Malayalam. Here, “munpu” means “frontside” and back means, backside. For an English speaker, the past lies as the line segment behind them (back), and for a Malayalam speaker, the past is a patch that is much further to the front than the one they are in at present. Notice how the concept of past flips completely with the change of language.
Think of English's concept of time as a long railway track with a train (representing the person) passing through it and Malayalam’s concept of time as a sugarcane field with multiple patches of land having a bunch of upwards growing stems.
The reason for describing all this is to highlight how different the perception of events are in these two languages. And remember that we have considered only time. Nearly all abstract concepts are visualized differently in unrelated languages. A Dravidian’s world is completely different from that of an Indo-European.
Now let us come back to the original question. What happens if a Malayalam speaker is given education only in English? The result is, they could never use the science and history they learn in their personal and cultural lives. Personal and cultural aspects would be pictured in one way and things that they learn at school would be visualized in the other way. This means that all those things would be useful only for earning money or doing research and they would be useless for their personal growth and the cultural development of the society.
In fact, this is exactly what is happening in Kerala now. All those highly educated people conceptualize the world in the Indo-European way thanks to being educated in English or sanskrit-imposed Malayalam while the common people view the world with the classic Dravidian metaphors. This stunts the growth in cultural, political, religious and scientific fileds in Kerala.
Not to mention that English's concept of time is much too simple and inefficient for describing things and when it comes to fields intricately connected to time like history or biological evolution, it often fails miserably. I recently wrote an an answer on how the public perception of evolution is incorrect and horribly misleading. In fact, the visualization of time as a simple long line is one of the reasons for this. This metaphor is much too simple to handle a complex probabilistic theory like evolution.
However, for someone who learned evolution in Malayalam, it would be a much more sophisticated process and it would be easier to visualize it without being misguided. Learning in Malayalam is much more efficient and productive in this case. I consider myself lucky for having had most of my schooling in Malayalam medium thanks to which I routinely apply the things I've learned in all aspects of my life.
So, to summarize,
Malayalam being economically worthless is a reality of the present, but it is not so because Malayalam is inefficient or unproductive in usage. As we saw here, educating in Malayalam is actually necessary for the learned things to be put into practice in life and society. It is just that the current system uses English and a total change would require nothing less than a revolution. Nevertheless, the cost of not educating kids in Malayalam is huge, as it leads to a stagnation in cultural, religious, political, and scientific aspects of Kerala.

--END OF THE ANSWER--
I wanted to share this answer here too and wanted to discuss about its points (specifically how different people view time).
How Telugu language and Telugus view time? Does it differ by dialects? Did Sanskrit influence this part of Telugu? What other things does Telugu perceive in a different manner compared to other languages?

This means that I as a bilingual describe an event that happened the day before yesterday as “two days back” in English and “raṇḍụ nāḷ munpu” in Malayalam. Here, “munpu” means “frontside” and back means, backside.

The only aspect I recognised which I use in Telugu like "rendu dinalu mundu" (Two days ago).