Eh, no skin off my back. Pretty sure if you search my comment history for the word “grok” this comment chain is the only time I’ve ever used it. It’s not a regular part of my speech, I just never interpreted it in the way you were saying.

or you have such trouble being understood, or understanding neurotypical people, you think you need a new word.

My background pretty heavily leans toward comp-sci and hacker culture, and “grok” in those circles is almost never used in the context of people, so I find it a bit odd that this is what you seem to be focusing on. It had very little to do with the difficulty of understanding other people, and much more to do with the understanding of a language, or nuanced hardware interactions, or programming techniques.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok#In_computer_programmer_culture

For what it’s worth, I agree on your specifics, and if someone is frequently making statements about being unable to grok others, or others not being able to grok them, than it’s at the very least off-putting.

It’s a useful word with no direct equivalent in English. You don’t need to integrate the cult aspect of the book into your identity to understand that.

Because names mean nothing Nvidia has also labeled their frame generation as “DLSS”.

Not having a degree doesn’t mean they don’t know math.

Holy cow. This is possibly the best description of how I usually think I’ve ever encountered. It was actually a bit unnerving to read. Though I’ve always conceptualized it as “shapes” and “holes” rather than vectors.

The ability to near-instantly make connections between symptoms and cause for any given issue in a system I’m familiar with especially resonated. The best explanation I could give someone without stepping back and basically re-solving the whole thing from a standing start would be “the shapes fit together”.

It feels like I’m being asked how I knew a puzzle piece fit in a space, and for some reason “I looked at it and could see that it fit” is not a sufficient explanation. No, I didn’t need to investigate other possible pieces. They are obviously different shapes. The one that you’re asking about doesn’t even belong to the same puzzle.

Similarly I am also utterly incapable of describing what a person looks like in any detail. I have a “mind’s eye” and can conjure up images of them in my head, but for whatever reason I just completely lack the ability to express what I see in words outside of very high level details. They have brown hair, they’re tall, what do you mean “what shape is their face?” Sara’s face is the shape of Sara’s face. It couldn’t be any other shape.

I do have an internal monologue or voice though, but it’s not constant. It usually only comes up when I’m dealing with other people and need to try to reason through what someone else is doing.

I feel the need to ask about the choice of “loud” as the adjective here. Are the tags actually making audible noise, or is this just a non-standard usage of it an a synonym for “overwhelming”?

Not just a US thing. Canadian pension plan and employment insurance deductions also stop once you reach a certain threshold of income within a year.

Your example of giving a poor person money which they spend and circulate into their local economy is literally the opposite of “trickle down”.

But he liked the very young teen types that could pass for even younger than they were, but would look legal to a passerby."

How does this make any sense at all? How does one “pass as even younger” but still somehow “look legal to passersby”? Those are directly conflicting concepts.

That’s more of less the starting line of my point. The Dems won’t change anything, I agree, but if the republicans never win that opens the door for another group to fill the void, or at least for things to begin shifting left at the parties chase the votes.

That was your starting point, yes, but I disagree with your conclusion. Both parties pissing everyone off just deepens the current mire. At best you can argue from an accelerationist standpoint that the faster we make things worse the sooner people rebel against it, but I’m not enough of a pessimist to believe that’s the best option.

The dems attracting consistent support would begin the lamentably slow process of digging out of the current situation. It should’ve started 20 or more years ago, but now is still better than never.

I don’t expect so.

The Democrats are unlikely to enact meaningful change, sure, but if they consistently started winning it would create a political environment more conducive to change in the future. The republicans being unable to win would start shifting things in the other direction and it’s delusional to think otherwise.

On the other hand, if both parties piss everyone off then the needle doesn’t move as the parties lose support in equal measure. This seems to be where things currently sit.

Hey. There could also be some Record<string, any>.

Everyone is clowning on the order, but clock faces also traditionally use IIII instead of IV.

This is already pretty close to how many EVs are designed.

The idea that death is an acceptable outcome from being suspected of any minor infraction underpins the conversation around basically every police killing, with every single person on the side justifying it being tacitly accepting of that premise.

It’s lunacy.

Average annual family income in the US is around $80k/a. Are you seriously suggesting that families should be looking for homes in the $20k to $30k range? What kind of home, exactly, do you think you get for that?

“me at my parents age” is in the future. It’s a hypothetical where Elon has a moon palace, *something" happened to Greta, and an organised resistance has formed.

Needs a third option then. Swipe right for “would watch”, left for “wouldn’t watch”, but also swipe up for “I strongly endorse and believe you’d enjoy it if you give it a chance”.

Maybe also a fourth. Swipe down for “absolutely not, I know you really love this movie but I just can’t watch more Jason Statham.”