🔥 Popular | Latest

Alive, Animals, and Apparently: flamethrowing-hurdy-gurdy: flamethrowing-hurdy-gurdy I have had this on my mind for days, someone please help: I mean, how do we see a pug and then a husky and understand that both are dogs? I'm pretty sure I've never seen a picture of a breed of dog I hadn't seen before and wondered what animal it Do you want the Big Answer or the Small Answers cos I have a feeling this is about to get intense Oooh okay are YOU gonna answer this, hang on I need to get some snacks and make sure the phone is off The short answer is "because they're statistically unlikely to be anything else The long question is "given the extreme diversity of morphology in dogs, with many subsets of dogs' bearing no visual resemblance to each other, how am 1 able to intuit that they belong to the 'dog set just by The reason that this is a Good Big Question is because we are broadly used to categorising Things as related based on resemblances. Then everyoneI have Fun Facts like "elephants are ACTUALLY closely related to rock hyraxes!! Even though they look nothing alike!!" e realized abou t genes and evolution and so on, and so now we These Fun Facts are appealing because they're not intuitive. So why is dog-sorting intuitive? Well, because if you eliminate all the other possibilities, most dogs are dogs. To process Things- whether animals, words, situations or experiences our brains categorise the most important things about them, and then compare these to our memory banks. If we've experienced the same thing before- whether first-hand or through a story then we know what's happening, and we proceed accordingly If the New Thing is completely New, then t question marks, shunts into a different track, counts up all the Similar Traits, and assigns it a provisional category based on its similarity to other Things. We then experience the Thing, exploring it further, and he brain pings up a Our brain t categorises the New based on the knowledge and traits. That is how humans experience the universe. We do our best, and we generally do it well. This is the basis of stereotyping. It behaviours (racism), some of our most challenging problems (trauma), helps us survive (stories) and sharing the ability with things that dont have it leads to some of our most whimsical creations (artificial In fact, one reason that humans are so wonderfully successful is that we can effectively gain knowledge from experiences without having experienced them personally! You dont have to eat all the berries to find the poisonous ones. You can just remember stories and descriptions of berries, and compare those to the ones you've just discovered. You can benefit from memorics that aren't your own! On the other hand, if you had a terribly traumatic experience involving say, an eagle, then your brain will try to protect you in every way possible from a similar experience. If you collect too many traumatic experiences with eagles, then your brain will not enjoy eagle-shapecd New Things. In fact, if New Things match up to too many cagle-like noise!! 。The hot Glare of the Yellow Eye CLAWS VERY BAD VERY BAD Then the brain may shunt the train of thought back into trauma, and the person will actually experience the New Thing as trauma. Even if the New Thing was something apparently unrelated, like being generally pointy, or having a hot glare. (This is an overly simplistic explanation of how triggers work, but it's the one most accessible to people.) So the answer rests in how we categorise dogs, and what "dog" means to humans. Human brains associate dogs with universal categories, such efour legs Mcat Eater e Soft friend An BORK BORK Anything we have previously experienced and learned as A Dog gets added to the memory bank. Sometimes it brings new categories along with it. So a lifetime's experience results in excellent dog-intuition And anything we experience with, say, a 90% match is officially a Dog. Brains are super good at eliminating things, too. So while the concept of physical doggo-ness is pretty nebulous, and has to include greyhounds and Pekingese and mastiffs, we know that even if an animal LOOKS like a bear, if the other categories don't match up in context (bears are not usually soft friends, they don't Bork Bork, they don't have long tails to wag) then it is statistically more likely to be a Doggo. If it occupies a dog-shaped space then it is usually a dog. So if you see someone dragging a fluffy whatnot along on a string, you will go, Mop? (Unlikely-seems to be self propelled.) ° Alien? (Unlikely-no real alien ever experienced.) Threat? (Vastly unlikely in context.) Rabbit? (No. Rabbits hop, and this appears to scurry.) (Brains are very keen on categorising movement patterns. This is why lurching zombies and bad CGl are so uncomfortable to experience, brains just go INCORRECT!! That is WRONG!" Without consciously knowing why. Anyway, very few animals move like domestic dogs!) Very fluffy cat? (Maybe-but not quite. Shares many characteristics, though!) Eldritch horror? (No, it is obviously a soft friend of unknown type) Robotic toy? (Unlikely too complex and convincing.) animal detected!!! Thi s is a good animal!! This is pleasing!! It may be appropriate to laugh at this animal, because we have just realized that it is probably a DOG!! Soft friend, alive, walks on leash. It had a low doggo-ness quotient! and a confusing Snout, but it is NOT those other Known Things, and it occupies a dog-shaped space! Hahahaha!!! It is extra funny and appealing, because it made us guess!! We love playing that game * PING! NEW CATEGORIES ADDED TO "Doggo set mopness, floof. Snout. And that's why most dogs are dogs. You're so good at identifying dog shaped spaces that they can't be anything else! The science of identifying Good Boys

The science of identifying Good Boys

Save
America, Ass, and Children: Amy Renee Wasney Monday at 9:31 PM While watching A Christmas Carol tonight, my attention was caught by Bob Cratchit's salary. He makes "15 bob a week." I got curious and looked into inflation and conversion to American money, and if A Christmas Carol happened this year, Bob Cratchit would be making $27,574 per year in American money. If someone works 40 hours a week at the current federal minimum wage, they'll make $15,080. So Bob Cratchit, the epitome of poverty, makes $12,494 more than minimum wage workers (full time) each year. And yet we have people saying minimum wage is fine where it's at. <p><a href="http://eruhamster.tumblr.com/post/169093714870/thetakubooty-libertarirynn-hst3000" class="tumblr_blog">eruhamster</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://thetakubooty.tumblr.com/post/169093033392/libertarirynn-hst3000-libertarirynn-this" class="tumblr_blog">thetakubooty</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/169092911679/hst3000-libertarirynn-this-is-a-total-load" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://hst3000.tumblr.com/post/169092756302/libertarirynn-this-is-a-total-load-from-beginning" class="tumblr_blog">hst3000</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/169092461069/this-is-a-total-load-from-beginning-to-end-first" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>This is a total load from beginning to end. First off I’m curious where you did your research because mine showed that Cratchit made about $90 a week or $4,680 a year in today’s money. That’s not even close to your number. Secondly, if minimum wage is so necessary to prevent employers from exploiting their workers, then why don’t all companies pay minimum wage?</p></blockquote> <p>A minor point on the conversion. Christmas Carol is far enough back that inflation calculations can get a bit hairy. Some things have been reduced in price dramatically due to automation and industrialization, while others have gotten way more expensive due to (funnily enough) rising labor costs. There’s about five different ways to calculate conversion, and none if them are broadly applicable to global statements.</p> </blockquote> <p>Oh definitely. Even in my calculations it wasn’t too clean-cut. Plus the modern English shilling is not the same as the shilling in 1843. I don’t want to sound like a cynic and suggest that this person just pulled a random number out of their ass without caring whether not it was accurate because they wanted to make a point but…</p> </blockquote> <p>what was their point?</p> </blockquote> <p>Their point was that Bob Cratchit made next to nothing working for Scrooge as it was, and if he got paid more than minimum wage workers today, then we have something very wrong with our society. Which isn’t necessarily wrong.</p> <p>Also <a class="tumblelog" href="https://tmblr.co/mZHrjydhp9oUbxMGBDJA8rw">@libertarirynn</a> you’re really asking why minimum wage is necessary? Of course if everyone paid the same minimum wage, then they wouldn’t get people who cared about their jobs and it’d be harder to find skilled workers– both because existing skilled workers would rather work a minimum wage job where they could do less, and because no one would want to bother to learn trades and skills because they’ll get paid the same shit amount anyway. </p> <p>Minimum wage is necessary to stop people from taking advantage of unskilled labor. Factory work and the like. Do you know what life was like for people before minimum wage was a thing? People were making so little that essentially all they did was work all day, and child labor was popular because the entire family needed to work to make ends meet– mother, father, and children. It was necessary to give people a better standard of living, along with abolishing child labor and making sure people did not end up working 12 hours a day 6, sometimes 7 days a week. Do you not know what Industrial Revolution America was like, before regulations? Child labor, people just asking to ONLY work 40 hours a week, extreme poverty, a lack of regulations that caused tragedies like the fire at the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire">Triangle Shirtwaist Factory,</a> etc. </p> <p>And before you ask why it’s necessary today now that we’ve long since gotten rid of things like child labor laws… It’s for all the people who lose their jobs or are single mothers and are forced to work multiple part time jobs in order to feed their children, because so many jobs that do not pay minimum wage today require so much experience and a degree. Maybe if employers were less selfish with hiring practices and gave more people jobs when they needed them and made it so only teenagers had to work minimum wage, we’d be alright. But that’s not how the world is.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote><p>Their point was that Bob Cratchit made next to nothing working for Scrooge as it was, and if he got paid more than minimum wage workers today, then we have something very wrong with our society. Which isn’t necessarily wrong.</p></blockquote> Except that it is wrong, because as I just pointed out Bob Crachit was making much, much less than minimum wage. <blockquote><p>Also @libertarirynn you’re really asking why minimum wage is necessary?</p></blockquote> Yep. And if you haven’t heard me do it before you must be new here. <blockquote>Of course if everyone paid the same minimum wage, then they wouldn’t get people who cared about their jobs and it’d be harder to find skilled workers– both because existing skilled workers would rather work a minimum wage job where they could do less, and because no one would want to bother to learn trades and skills because they’ll get paid the same shit amount anyway.</blockquote> Wow I literally don’t know what to say. You pointed out the exact reasons the imposition of a minimum wage is unnecessary. Companies are naturally going to offer more if they think it will give them more skilled workers. <blockquote><p>Minimum wage is necessary to stop people from taking advantage of unskilled labor. Factory work and the like. Do you know what life was like for people before minimum wage was a thing? People were making so little that essentially all they did was work all day, and child labor was popular because the entire family needed to work to make ends meet– mother, father, and children. It was necessary to give people a better standard of living, along with abolishing child labor and making sure people did not end up working 12 hours a day 6, sometimes 7 days a week. Do you not know what Industrial Revolution America was like, before regulations? Child labor, people just asking to ONLY work 40 hours a week, extreme poverty, a lack of regulations that caused tragedies like the fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, etc.</p></blockquote> Most of that has very little to do with minimum wage, nor is it particularly relevant in modernized industry. <blockquote><p>And before you ask why it’s necessary today now that we’ve long since gotten rid of things like child labor laws… It’s for all the people who lose their jobs or are single mothers and are forced to work multiple part time jobs in order to feed their children, because so many jobs that do not pay minimum wage today require so much experience and a degree. Maybe if employers were less selfish with hiring practices and gave more people jobs when they needed them and made it so only teenagers had to work minimum wage, we’d be alright. But that’s not how the world is.</p></blockquote> We can’t just magically decide to skill is worth more money because of sob stories about single mothers. I know many a single mother who did things like go to night classes to earn a degree or even just learn particular skills to make themselves a valuable employee worth more than minimum wage. And again, most low skill jobs *do* pay above minimum wage, especially to valuable workers. I’ve only been paid minimum wage once in my life, and I’ve worked several low skill jobs. Do you know why this is? Because those jobs are dime a dozen. Wendy’s knows if they pay you just minimum wage and McDonald’s offers you a dollar more, you go work at McDonald’s. Companies being able to set their wages drives competition and therefore wages up. Skill is a commodity to be paid for just like anything else. Flipping burgers simply is not worth $15 an hour and emotional appeals involving child factory workers from 1928 will not change that. I encourage you to check my minimum wage tag for more in-depth information. <a href="https://tmblr.co/mhaiNKeZ_RViwScgQtvf7CQ">@redbloodedamerica</a> <a href="https://tmblr.co/mIiX85InXZ_5gFO1XlH6zKA">@libertybill</a> <a href="https://tmblr.co/m5-xacQqloOb-oZ4F4dhAIA">@libertarian-lady</a>
Save
Ass, Christmas, and Definitely: Amy Renee Wasney Monday at 9:31 PM While watching A Christmas Carol tonight, my attention was caught by Bob Cratchit's salary. He makes "15 bob a week." I got curious and looked into inflation and conversion to American money, and if A Christmas Carol happened this year, Bob Cratchit would be making $27,574 per year in American money. If someone works 40 hours a week at the current federal minimum wage, they'll make $15,080. So Bob Cratchit, the epitome of poverty, makes $12,494 more than minimum wage workers (full time) each year. And yet we have people saying minimum wage is fine where it's at. <p><a href="https://hst3000.tumblr.com/post/169092756302/libertarirynn-this-is-a-total-load-from-beginning" class="tumblr_blog">hst3000</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/169092461069/this-is-a-total-load-from-beginning-to-end-first" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p><blockquote><p>This is a total load from beginning to end. First off I’m curious where you did your research because mine showed that Cratchit made about $90 a week or $4,680 a year in today’s money. That’s not even close to your number. Secondly, if minimum wage is so necessary to prevent employers from exploiting their workers, then why don’t all companies pay minimum wage?</p></blockquote> <p>A minor point on the conversion. Christmas Carol is far enough back that inflation calculations can get a bit hairy. Some things have been reduced in price dramatically due to automation and industrialization, while others have gotten way more expensive due to (funnily enough) rising labor costs. There’s about five different ways to calculate conversion, and none if them are broadly applicable to global statements.</p></blockquote> <p>Oh definitely. Even in my calculations it wasn’t too clean-cut. Plus the modern English shilling is not the same as the shilling in 1843. I don’t want to sound like a cynic and suggest that this person just pulled a random number out of their ass without caring whether not it was accurate because they wanted to make a point but…</p>
Save