It is motivating.
Not to read like you do, but to read a book again to see if I can see what you see.
If that makes any sense.
Your political affiliations, your brand loyalties, and your opinions are all quicker, easier, and contain no user-serviceable parts.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Ret: if you're trying to say you notice traits like race and gender, but make a conscious effort to avoid judging people based on those traits, you probably don't want to express that by saying you "don't notice" those traits.
Good people notice and remember actions better than looks.I hope that didn't cause all this fighting because now that I reread that it doesn't read like a proper sentence. Noticing is a yes/no affair, so there is no better.
Just LOOK at all that virtue you're assigning to yourself. And the flip side, the malignment of those terribly shallow people who don't have the virtue of not noticing people's appearance.I'm quite aware that I am a bad person, I just don't think that my attempts to not judge by appearance is one of the reasons.
If someone sees me sitting there reading, I prefer that they notice that I'm reading and leave me the fuck alone. Why would YOU approach a stranger who is reading? I can tell you why I'm approached while I'm reading 99% of the time, and it isn't because they failed to notice my gender or appearance.I would want to be left alone as well so I wouldn't approach reading people.
But please, continue to tell women and brown people why they're lame and shallow to find "I don't see gender" and "I don't see race" facile, disingenuous, and insulting.Isn't assigning a large value to superficial traits like skin color the definition of shallow?
Sorry, is it better like this?
If someone sees you sitting and reading, would you prefer a question about your
thighshair or about your book?
Really classy brah.
I mean, what if a woman laughed and was like "Oh, LOL, you're a man? I didn't notice!"I wouldn't be insulted by that.
Shift the context just a little, and people will take it as an insult. NOT NOTICING who people are isn't flattering, it isn't nice, it isn't post-racism. It's just being a dick, unless you authentically have brain damage or a disorder that makes it difficult for you to perceive physical attributes of individual people.
Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine. White men tend to be the worst, because they assume that thinking you're just like them is some kind of compliment, like "Oh, I didn't even notice you were brown or female" is supposed to make me feel GOOD about myself.No need to apologize, I knew that beforehand.
Well... in that case most people suck!That is the correct stance on race.
And that is what (i hope all but at least some) people mean when they say they don't see skin color. It is like seeing a nose. Sure, it can be all different kinds, but the general idea is the same and it doesn't really matter.
Given the actual world we live in, when most people say they don't see skin color, they're lying, and what they mean is "my ideals would make my life easier if I couldn't see skin color".
Is it all the same? No. Any child can see that one butt is brown and another butt is light. Unless you have literal brain damage, you can see color. The difference is the social value assigned to it.
Stop insulting mayonnaise!Wasabi mayonnaise? What is this wonderful sorcery?
Terrible demon-craft you mean? That poor wasabi....
No, that actually sounds like it probably the best thing that could happen to mayonnaise. And I can't say I never eat it, it just has to be in a manner that I don't realize I am eating it. It does sound intriguing though. Certainly better than the sadness that is baconnaise.
It adds something that mayonnaise was missing.
Haha, that would definitely be an improvement and I could see that working well. If I ever cross paths with this wasabi mayo, I may have to give it a try
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikd0ZYQoDko&feature=youtu.beWow, that got damn good.
Not what you think from the title or opening words. Stick with it.
WTF? I posted this in open bar. I swear.I knew I saw it before you posted it here!
3 months so far working this desk job. I hate it mostly for the lack of being active. I come home too tired, and too lazy to do something at home. Looking into a warehouse job I could care less about making $1/hr less. The fact I get to walk around for 8hrs/day feels great versus being a fat fuck at working on the phone.I hear ya.
Well, instead of comparing Russia during communism to Russia before and after communism to determine the effect of communism on russia's quality of life they instead compare Russia under communism to a completely unrelated country, ie. the USAThanks, that clears up what the propositions are.
<snip>Thanks for the info.
As the people who wrote the thing in the first place noted in their paper, in addition to dog faces and eyes, the google imagenet model seems to have an obsession with tropical birds, pagodas, waterfalls, and gothic cathedral latticework. In fact, the architectural features are a little bit more prevalent; these images are all the result of a starting image that's just randomly colored pixels:
But, people tend to take pictures of people and animals. And, correctly recognizing organic shapes associated with animals, deepdream proceeds to overfit the definition and make animal faces look more like its conception of an average animal face (which appears to be equal parts cat, dog, and human) and make animal orifices look like its conception of the average animal orifice (an eye).
The Cold War is basically a strawman argument. Russia was a shitty place to live before the Soviet Union and it's still kind of a crummy place to live now.I can see several ways of interpreting that statement.
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a false but superficially similar proposition Y, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.