I don't remember the HIMYM one. Was that with Ted's "Honey"? Or Robin's "Scooby"?

Okay, this is just turning into the episode of TBBT where Sheldon is conditioning Penny and sprays Leonard with water and the whole gang looks up the difference between negative reinforcement and positive punishment.

Maybe I'm just your basic bitch*, but it's Twilght Sparkle for me. I just like her look; last time I had my hair dyed it it was modeled after her mane / her anthro's hair. I didn't really like the show, but I only watched a few episodes.

is that word gender-neutral in context, or should I be using "bastard" or something else?

I think the satire is to via hyperbole. My suicidal episodes did not make be think money would instantly appear in hand / in bank accounts, just that moving forward I would be no longer be a resource burden. This comic takes the results beyond reality to show how unreasonable even realistic expectations might be. (?)

That's my best defense of the satirical intent. The initial impression I got from the comic was not the satirical one; it did feel "toxic", or at least a like a mean-spirited (not funny) "be careful what you wish for".

It's "choosing the easy option" and "being soft". There's no deeper meaning that I can discern.

Evidently, "real men" choose "hardship" so they are ready when "hardship" chooses them?

Also I think the pictured "(Alpha Male)" account is intentional satire of the Tates of the world.

Sometimes I think that would be a nice solution: go into suspended animation for 7-10 years and see if I can slot myself into the new madness later. It would be self-extinction-lite, but that's not an option at our current tech*wealth level.

So, I try and remember all the positive coping mechanisms I can and hope the next day is better. (And, so far, something has worked eventually.)

There's a suicidal way of thinking that when you are gone everyone will be better off. I think the comic could contribute to that thinking, but maybe it's meant to be a satirical rebuttal to that thinking instead.

Poe's Law

I can't sleep in my tents, only navigate with them. That's because all my tents are sex-tents (sextants).

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

I actually hate this quote because idiots around me use this thought pattern to reject the results of rigorous scientific studies in favor of their isolated, personal experiences.

To them, "Science" is an much an authoritarian imposition as "The Party" and "Scientism" is the worst "cult".

Yes, your experience is valid. But, it doesn't trump shared objective reality, which good science reveals.

Where do you rank the kind of tired where consciousness is pain and waking is disaster?

No, I think more MS users = MS shady shit. So, to discourage MS shady shit, I encourage people to not use MS software. I also think that people who are worried about abuse by priests should not tithe or otherwise donate to Catholic churches (belief matters less than action here; and it's less reasonable to swap out belief system, I guess.)

That's why your analogy seems backwards to me.

Doesn't matter anyway. I guess I just don't get it. Have a nice day.

The VM protects somewhat from network attacks and spread. But, I do imagine most vulnerabilities of Win10 would still be exploitable, and you would be sacrificing some performance, yes.

I didn't like the name, but it was a nice option for Nvidia laptops esp. from System76.

I ended up replacing it with Ubuntu; but I can't remember exactly why. I normally use Debian.

I'm not sure I get the analogy here... Do you think there will be less abuse by priests if there are more Catholics?

I'm been using Linux full time since 2004, and while I think it is good to let people know it is there, I don't recommend it to people I'm not willing to personally support. But, I also let them know I just can't help with Windows problems either, and they should address their complaints to their OS vendor.

I file Debian bugs if I have a problem with my OS, and have received fixes that way. This is better support that I ever received from MS during my first 2 decades of using MS OSes.

Would you like to exchange data?

Contradiction isn't argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLlv_aZjHXc&t=110

(It's not discussion either, but that might be too much to expect.)

Human behavior can be modeled. It is often modeled quite well with game theory.

We do have to be cautious tho. Models can let you derive a lot of results, but some or all of those results may not apply to reality depending on how much your model differs from it.

We know the iterated game theory model is largely valid because it is derived in the absence of historical examples and but history shows it in action repeatedly, albeit imperfectly.

So, while I agree on principle, I don't agree that it is the "dunk" / refutation of all game theory that you think it implies.

That's just not true. There's a lot of change that is incremental and comes from within.

That said, if you have enough fighting the system to do that you absolutely can't find time to cast a vote, please do that.

And, I also agree that the system is going to be trying to change you instead, but it's going to be trying to do that whether you "comply" or participate or not. It is possible to vote without being instantly and irrecoverably corrupted.

If you mean a more favorable outcome in Palestine, I... don't think so. I mean I voted for Harris, and a mostly democratic ballot from top to bottom, but I really don't think she would have changed the behavior of Israel in Palestine or even significantly change U.S.A. actions that support that behavior.

But, she wouldn't have trashed our relationship with every trading partner, ruined the NIH and FDA, published military plans in the newspaper. She might have been better on trans rights, but maybe not. So, yeah a more favorable outcome overall, at least IMO.

Because they understand iterated game theory. (Watch the first video at https://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom/ and you might understand it, too.) FPtP means you vote for the a candidate that has a chance to win. Among those candidates you pick your most preferred / least bad option.

(Other videos at that link provide alternatives to FPtP that would better represent that preferences of the populace, and some areas in the U.S. do use non-FPtP for some parts of the election process.)