I love Google maps but recently the “Recommendations” and “Reviews for things close by” gets annoying. It’s.becoming intrusive that I might switch to other service. I just want A to B direction, not “A to B and everything in between you might like.”
I feel like it depends on where you are. I used to travel a lot for work and Google maps would be less reliable than Here maps. Kept taking me to unpaved roads that no one used or like dead-ends. It was even more useless in a lot of third world countries I went to. They are really good at navigating around traffic and their POI data is way bigger than any other mapping solution.
a bro and a sis, live in different countries all of us. crossed water and fire, internal conflicts from time to time, but if somebody dares to touch from the “outside” - we become one buddha palm ;)
I’m a man and the oldest of 6. My brother and I grew up being part of the same group of friends but grew apart in our early 20s (we’re now around 40), he has his own group of friends now, we rarely see each other but we’re in good terms. We have 4 sisters, 3 of them and I hang out whenever we get a chance and we’re very close, our other sister stopped hanging out with us because of some drama.
Schiptol in Amsterdam is my most hated airport I have ever visited. Last year it had huge wait times and even after "it was back to normal", it was often that the queues were ridiculously long.
So when you have to wait 4,5 hours just to get to security check, you know that you will miss your flight for sure... So I had to take a night train to Duesseldorf, wait all night in the airport, and get the first flight home. Which was delayed 2 hours....
I’m the oldest. I have a younger sister and brother.
We’re all close and extremely comfortable with each other, but they’re closer with each other than me, given their closeness in age.
I don’t live at home with them anymore, but our relationship always feels natural and picks up where it left off even after being away for so long. I think we’ve been fortunate in that we’ve never felt to the need to compete with each other, and I think of them as a constant in my life that that I can always count on
Thank you I’m am really enjoying reading all the answers, I was fairly sure most people would have and like laptops etc not being tied to a desk is a bonus. Also yup I didn’t word things well but thanks for answering in the spirit of my question. Its great seeing the answers coming in on here and seeing the surveys data.
I taught my daughters the usual logical fallacies from a young age. While doing that I learned that while occasionally, they appear in pristine form (looking at you, Slippery Slope and No True Scotsman), usually, they come rather nuanced, often clustered together, and difficult to identify.
A great way to get good at them is watch Fox News and identify them as they come. You can watch other networks and find them, but for a constant stream, Fox is a goldmine.
A great way to get good at them is watch Fox News and identify them as they come. You can watch other networks and find them, but for a constant stream, Fox is a goldmine.
Honestly a great way to learn them is to argue with people online in places like Lemmy / Kbin. When people argue against you on something you know to be right, it forces you to either a) reconsider your own stance or b) think about why they’re wrong or why their argument is invalid and how to point that out, either way it often leads to logical fallacies, and the more you intentionally try to identify examples of them, the easier they are to intuitively recognize.
All news is a goldmine, you just find them easier to identify on Fox because you disagree with them, which sets off your alarm bells. It’s A LOT harder to identify fallacies that support your own biases.
Your final statement is very true, however there is a reason that Fox News had to defend themselves by claiming they are entertainment. Anyone who believes that Fox News does not have more logical fallacies than most other news really needs to assess their own cognitive biases. I can see logical fallacies on topics I agree with and they piss me off more because I believe that they throw discredit on the perspective that can be argued on it’s own merits.
The trouble with ‘Slippery Slope’ and ‘No True Scotsman’ is that they themselves are not fallacies. Invoking them without proper justification is the fallacy. The same sort of thing happens all the time with ‘Appeal to Authority’, you can probably trust a scientific consensus about a subject in which they are all experts, but you probably shouldn’t trust an individual expert on a topic for which they are not recognized as an expert.
For an example of Slippery Slope: Fascists will absolutely try to demonize the most available target, and then because they always need an out-group, they continue cutting at what they consider the ‘degenerates’ of society until they are all that remain. (And then they find some new definition of degenerate)
“No True Scotsman” is valid in that there is at some point by definition after which you are no longer talking about something. “No true vegetarian eats meat” is valid, as this is definitional. “No true member of Vegetarians United eats meat” lacks proper justification, and refers to an organization, not a proper definition. This gets really messy when people conflate what group people are in with what they ‘are’ or what makes them a good example of a group. Especially when religion is involved.
No true Scotsmanis a fallacy, more specifically ad hoc while defending a generalisation about a group defined by another criterion. Easier shown with an example:
[Alice] Vegetarians don’t eat cheese.
[Bob] I know plenty vegetarians who eat cheese. They just don’t eat meat.
[Alice] Those who eat cheese are not true vegetarians.
If we accept the definition of vegetarian that you implied (someone who doesn’t eat meat), “not eating cheese” is at most a generalisation. As such, when Alice says “Those who eat cheese are not true vegetarians”, she is incurring in the fallacy.
The slippery slope is an interesting case, because it’s both a fallacy and a social phenomenon. And evoking the social phenomenon doesn’t automatically mean that you’re using the fallacy.
As a fallacy, it’s failure to acknowledge that the confidence in the conclusion is smaller than the confidence in the premises - so if you’re chaining lots of premises, your trust in the conclusion will degrade to nothing. Here’s a simple example of that:
if A happens, then B will happen 90% of the time. if A doesn’t happen, B never happens.
if B happens, then C will happen 90% of the time. if B doesn’t happen, C never happens.
[…C then D, D then E, E then F, in the same fashion as above]
if F happens, then G will happen 90% of the time. if F doesn’t happen, G never happens.
So if A happens, what’s the likelihood of G also happening? It is not 90%, but (90%)⁶ = 53%. Even with rather good confidence in the premises, the conclusion is a coin flip. (Incidentally, a similar reasoning can be used to back up Ockham’s Razor.)
As a social phenomenon, however, the slippery slope is simply an observed pattern: if someone (or a group, or an entity) does something, it’s likely to do something similar but not necessarily identical in the future. That covers your example with fascists.
The same sort of thing happens all the time with ‘Appeal to Authority’, you can probably trust a scientific consensus about a subject in which they are all experts, but you probably shouldn’t trust an individual expert on a topic for which they are not recognized as an expert.
The reason why appeal to authority is a fallacy (more specifically, a genetic fallacy) is because the truth value of a proposition does not depend on who proposes it. If an expert said that 2+2=5 (NB: natural numbers), it would be still false; and if the village idiot said that 2+2=4, it would be still true.
We can still use authority however, but that requires inductive reasoning (like the one I did for the slippery slope), that is considerably weaker than deductive reasoning. And it can be still contradicted if you manage to back up an opposing claim with either 1) deductive logic, or 2) inductive logic with more trustable premises.
I think part of it is they’re logical fallacies. For instance, the scientific consensus on climate change is not technically proof of climate change; rather, it’s all the observations, statistics, etc. that are the evidence for climate change. Thus, it is true that claiming an argument is true solely because of scientific consensus is indeed a logical fallacy, as logical fallacies are relating to, well, logic.
For all practical purposes, however, we live in a complex world with lots of uncertainty, and we can generally trust expert consensus if for no other reason than they’re more likely to understand the facts of a certain technical matter better than us, and thus more likely to be able to ascertain the truth. And when discussing complex, technical concepts, I’m generally going to trust expert consensus so long as I am reasonably assured that they are indeed experts and that they have no systemic conflict of interest.
‘Appeal to Authority’, you can probably trust a scientific consensus about a subject in which they are all experts, but you probably shouldn’t trust an individual expert on a topic for which they are not recognized as an expert.
That in itself is the ad hominem fallacy: you need to judge the claim based on its merits, not the merits of the person making the claim.
For example when David Suzuki talks about climate change and people say “well he’s just a biologist, he’s not qualified!” That may be true but it doesn’t invalidate his statements.
First- understand that everyone goes through this, everybody has an answer for you, but the answer that worked for them may not work for you. There’s no right or wrong answer. A lot of people say ‘the way to get over someone is to get under someone’ personally I’ve never subscribed to that sort of thinking. It leads to unhealthy rebound relationships IMHO.
The only thing that will really fix this is time. So there is no magic bullet. There are things you can do to help though or pass the time faster. The biggest one is find ways to not ruminate. Focus your attention on other things, ideally useful things. Take some time to improve yourself in fun ways. Hit the gym is an obvious one, but I generally recommend take up a hobby or learn an instrument or take a class. Basically learn some fun new skill and focus your attention on that. It serves as a distraction from your grief, but also a source of engagement and a little happiness.
It WILL get better.
"the keyboard and touchpad make me angry"
I think you need to try this out with an open mind. Plenty of people use laptops as their only computer, only with trackpad. Plenty others just toss a Bluetooth mouse in their bag and use that.
I get using a PC, but a laptop does have its advantages.
asklemmy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.