December Deductions 2020; Day 32!?

 If you're like me, sometimes it helps to have a reference to remember something, so I'm going to pull out the old classic of Zombieland for our 32nd December Deductions post:

Rule 32: Enjoy the Little Things

Not everything is bad. There are some good things left, and it's good to take time to enjoy them. To that effect, I wanted to share a few little things that I take time to enjoy every now and then. It's just going to be a bunch of links, but they're there for you to check out if you wish. 

Eyebleach subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eyebleach

Illegally Smol Cats subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/IllegallySmolCats

Le Internet Medley by The GAG Quartet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mghhLqu31cQ

My favorite Markiplier video of all time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YArClaHvoT0

Cyanide and Happiness Random Comic Generator: https://explosm.net/rcg

Universal Paperclips Idle Game: https://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips

There you go. Hope you can find some little things to enjoy as well. Goodbye!

December Deductions 2020; Day 31

 Today's the final day. After weeks of posting, and for you reading the posts, we're finally at the end of December, and of 2020. Today I have one very important task for you to do:

Celebrate. 

We did it! I hate to say it, but this was hard. I haven't done daily posting like this in years, and frankly, reading it has to have been hard too, so today I just wanted to share a few things I can recommend to do to celebrate. 

First, if you like, go online and find a diploma template, and make one for yourself. December Deductions, class of 2020! 

Second, treat yourself to something small. We're all hurting financially right now, so I'm not talking about something that would necessarily cost money. Listen to a song you loved but haven't heard in a long time, or watch a video you used to watch over and over. 

Third, I can't really afford to treat you to something, but I can try, kind of. If you like video games, I suggest going to the Free Game Findings subreddit. You don't need a Reddit account, you can just click on the link below this paragraph, and check to see what's available. Usually it's just links to other sites where you can get a specific game for free. 

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeGameFindings/

Finally, take a breath, count to three, breathe out, and relax. You did it. You made it through all I have for you for the time being. There will be one more post, a bonus post, but it's not something you need to stress about. If you're reading this, it's probably already up on the blog. 

That's it. There's no more following along, my daily posting is over for now, but should you ever come back to re-read what I've posted, or read stuff I post in the future, I will "see" you in those posts, and have a great year. Goodbye!

December Deductions 2020; Day 30

 Today's lesson is nearly the last, and I saved this one for now because after all we've been through this month, after dragging yourself through all of those previous posts, it's a lesson that you need to learn, and a lesson that's very hard to learn:

Self-regard; be willing to admit when you do well. 

If you're like me, this will be something you struggle with your entire life, but it's important to try. You are not a universal failure. You are not a mistake. You are not worthless. You are not useless. The way to get around the beliefs and feelings that we are these things is to take the time to focus on what we do right. It's not easy, but it's important enough to do it anyway. 

If you've been following along, or even if you haven't and you're just stopping in to read this one post, you're actively doing more to improve yourself than you otherwise would have. You deserve to feel good about that. 

There are a lot of tools and tricks to help you learn this lesson, but I think I'll just share one of the few that have worked for me. At the end of the day, or whenever you're not feeling good, think back to everything you accomplished, big or small. For today alone, I got out of bed, I heated up something for breakfast, I got myself dressed, I wrote this down, etc. etc. Try to take a moment to think about all the things you accomplished today, and even if only in your own mind, be grateful to yourself for them. You did good, and you can feel good about it. 

Alright, that's it for today. Tomorrow's the last day of the month, and I've got something special planned that I hope you'll enjoy. As I've said before, if you're following along, I'll "see" you in the next post, and otherwise have a great day. Goodbye!

December Deductions 2020; Day 29

 Today we're going to talk about a concept in philosophy that makes a lot of people, including many philosophers, uncomfortable:

It's okay to not know the answer (Agnosticism).

The most common use of the term "agnostic" today refers to those who do not have a strong belief one way or another about the existence of a god, in comparison to "atheist" which is a strong belief that no such god exists. However, the actual concept of being agnostic just means you refrain from having a belief on a particular subject. This idea is very old, but rarely put into practice. 

Sometimes, despite all the information at our fingertips, and all the different tools we can learn to use from epistemology, we just don't have enough evidence to support a belief on something. A very low-risk example of this is the weather right now in an uninhabited portion of Antarctica. Without looking up some kind of weather satellite that might cover the area, I have literally zero evidence to support a belief on whether or not it is snowing right now. As a result, I am agnostic on the subject; I just don't know, and won't claim to know. 

That approach becomes harder and harder the more the belief seems to matter. A lot of people, for instance, hold a very strong belief over whether or not a particular political move was good or bad. Without an in depth analysis of the alternatives and effects of that move, it's hard to say. In that case, it's not unreasonable to be agnostic on the question, but often you'll be treated as if you're weak for not blindly supporting one side or another on the subject. 

In the end, agnosticism helps us and those around us. If we don't know something, and can comfortably say we don't know it, we reduce the chances of people relying on under-supported beliefs that we may hold. It can also help others deal with the fact that they don't know some things. Not knowing is frightening these days, since it seems like we should be able to know everything since all the world's knowledge is often literally in our pocket, but that's not the case. It's okay to not know the answer to a question, and outside of school, it's generally not the worst thing in the world to not know something in the moment. If nothing else, you can say you don't know now, but you will find out. 

Oh, and don't feel the need to use the term "agnostic" if you think it might make others uncomfortable. It's just a more academic way of saying that you don't know one way or another for sure. It can be a fun term to pull out in a friendly discussion, but don't feel obligated to use it. 

Alright, that's enough for now. As I've said before, if you're following along I'll "see" you in the next post, and otherwise have a great day. Goodbye!

December Deductions 2020; Day 28

 Alright, today we're going to cover how to properly handle an argument by analogy, and the basic test on whether or not it'd good. 

Arguments by Analogy. 

An argument by analogy generally uses the following basic form: Thing A and thing B are similar in that they both have properties W, X, and Y. Thing A has property Z, so it is reasonable think that thing B also has property Z. As an example, all Call of Duty games to date have been first person shooters. Since the next Call of Duty game will be made by the same company for the same fans and under the same series name, it's reasonable to believe that it will also be a first person shooter. 

There are two things you need to look at when testing an argument by analogy. The first is that the form makes sense, specifically that the two things are similar in a meaningful way. For instance, if I were trying to make an argument by analogy about Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps, they are similar in a lot of important ways: they're both Olympic athletes, they're both gold-medal winners, and they're both well known public figures. The second thing to look at is whether or not they have any significant differences that affect the conclusion. If, for instance, I said that Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt are Olympic gold medalists so they can probably run the same speed, you could point out that Usain Bolt's gold medals are in running, while Michael Phelps' gold medals are in swimming, so Usain Bolt probably runs significantly faster than Michael Phelps. 

Use that test when assessing any argument that's trying to make a point by comparing two things. If, for instance, people claim that belief in the conspiracy that lizard people run the government is reasonable because the Watergate scandal was a conspiracy theory until it was proven, you can point out that the Watergate scandal has proof associated with it, and that it took relatively few people to pull off, while lizard people running the government would take thousands of people who are in the know to just not talk about it. Sure, they're both conspiracies, but one is significantly more reasonable than the other. 

I hope this one comes in handy for you all. As I've said before if you're following along I'll "see" you in the next post, and otherwise have a great day. Goodbye!

December Deductions 2020; Day 27

 Today we're going to address one of the most common cop-outs on the internet: 

"Do your own research" and other nonsense arguments. 

Let me start out by saying that doing your own research is a good thing; check sources, find alternate viewpoints, seek the truth. That being said, "do your own research" isn't a good argument. This has been used a lot lately for two purposes. The first is a great example of the genetic fallacy: they'll say "do your own research" when you use a reliable but commonly known source, like a news organization, the CDC, the NIH, or scientists in general. The implication is that your source is unreliable because they found more reliable ones, but they won't share them with you. It's little better than a smokescreen. The second purpose is a vain attempt to shift the burden of proof to you. "Do your own research, I don't work for you." Yeah, but you made a claim, so back it up or deal with the fact that you're going to face the same criticism as anyone who throws out an unsupported claim. 

Another similar "argument" is the concept that if someone failed the trust of the public once, nothing they say is true. Something akin to "you can't trust them! They did this thing!" This is another great example of the genetic fallacy. If someone is untrustworthy, then obviously I suggest looking for sources on their claims, but if they provide sources and those sources are reliable and applicable to the claim, then the claim isn't completely without merit. Yes, that includes the exact public personality you're thinking of where you'd "not believe the sky was blue if they said so." 

These kinds of arguments are there to derail the discussion from being about the merits of any argument, evidence, or theory. They seek to make it seem like the speaker is somehow superior than others involved because they have superior knowledge and understanding that they can't be bothered to share. If it can't be shared, it's not useful to anyone but the person who already has it. If you notice that someone seems to think that they don't have to do any of the "work" in a discussion, ignore them, they're not trying to be helpful or educate or anything that's worth your time, and yes, you can quote me on that. 

Alright, that's enough for now. As I've said before, if you're following along I'll "see" you in the next post, and otherwise have a great day. Goodbye!

December Deductions 2020; Day 26

 I think today will be the last of the rules of thumb, tomorrow we'll go back to reason and arguments. But first:

Praise in Public, Reprimand in Private. 

This is an excellent rule to follow for anyone who has any sort of authority over others. Following this will generally result in higher morale, higher productivity, and just a better culture around you in general. Praising someone publicly not only gives them recognition, but it also shows others what you consider to be praiseworthy, and so what they should do to earn your praise on their own. Reprimanding in private preserves the dignity of the other person, gives them an opportunity to provide explanation, and gives you the opportunity to judge if correction and education will work, or if it's time to consider letting them go. Harsh, but true. 

Praising in private doesn't tend to do a lot of harm, you just miss out on some of the benefits, but reprimanding in public does a lot of harm. Not only does it turn the conflict into something very one-sided and final, since they can't really provide a reasonable explanation when they're having to defend themselves publicly, but it also causes others to be hesitant to act as well. Ruling through fear doesn't work these days, not unless you're a dictator who can actually execute people, so please don't try. Take the time to properly address the issue, not just turn it into a major problem. 

That's all for today. As I've said before, if you're following along I'll "see" you in the next post, and otherwise have a great day. Goodbye!

December Deductions 2020; Day 25

 Today we're continuing with those rules of thumb. 

If it's not your business, don't attack it. 

This obviously sounds a lot like yesterday's, but it's important enough to me to make an entire post on the topic. A lot of people like to butt into other people's business, and they're rarely nice about it. I've done it, most people I know have done it, it's a common thing to do as humans. We need to not do that. 

A really good example of this is someone's gender. I could literally go into a full dissertation on how gender works and why very few of the loudest people talking about it are getting it right, but for the sake of your sanity I can sum it all up in one simple phrase: The two situations in which what happens to be in someone's pants should matter to you are if you are their doctor or if they want you in them as well. Bar none. If it doesn't kill you to call someone by their preferred nickname ("Bob" instead of "Robert" for instance), it won't kill you to use someone's preferred name in general, or preferred pronouns. Otherwise, even if they're "wrong" about their gender, let them be, it doesn't affect you in the least. Get over yourself.

The same thing applies with personal problems; if you're just going to shit on someone for their problems, don't bother. You're wasting your time, doing harm, and nothing good is coming out of it. You can spend your time better by just shutting up and finding something else to occupy your mind. 

Seriously, the concept of "mind your own business" is so old it hurts, and yet people still aren't getting it. Just let people live. 

OK, I'll shut up now. Thanks for reading, and as I've said before, if you're following along I'll "see" you in the next post, and have a great day. Goodbye! 

December Deductions 2020; Day 24

 The next few posts are going to be rules of thumb I find to be very helpful in day-to-day living. Let's start with the first one:

If it does no harm, don't attack it. 

Now, you probably immediately thought of stuff online, but this comes in handy in a lot of ways. A great example is spiders; they're small, they can creep us out, but 99 times out of 100, they don't want to be anywhere near you, and they take care of other pests that can cause harm. Don't get me wrong, there are some species of spider you should be sure to remove, like the brown recluse, but for most of those calling a pest control expert is better than trying to handle it yourself. If they're invading your living space, then find ways to remove them, but if you can, do so without hurting them. I say this as someone who, thanks to a quirk in my brain, can literally go into convulsions upon seeing them, so if anyone has cause to want them gone, it's me. 

Of course this does apply to online stuff too. A lot of people have a lot of hobbies that other people don't understand, everything from interest in a particular IP to strange kinks not everyone thinks are okay. By and large, if they're not hurting anyone, don't waste your time and energy attacking them. Furries aren't going to take over the world, Marvel fans and DC fans will keep arguing but that's as far as it generally goes, and those people you know that like to be tied up, blindfolded, and left completely in the hands of someone else are generally doing so safely and with consent. It's okay to let people enjoy things. 

As a side note: if you wish to encourage others to follow this rule, do so gently. Attacking people for attacking people just makes them feel like they were right to do it. That, and it's usually a lost cause if they get defensive. You have limited time and energy, maybe don't waste it on trying to hurt people for hurting people. That doesn't tend to help much in the end anyway. 

Well, that's all for today. As I've said before if you're following along I'll "see" you in the next post, and otherwise have a good day. Goodbye!

P.S. Yes, I know this is late. I'm sorry about that. 

December Deductions 2020; Day 23

 Today we're going to face a harsh reality; my last tip doesn't fix everything, it doesn't give complete control, and it can be tracked and undone, but that's also a good thing. 

Any system can be exploited, but the people that know the system know how it can be done. 

This is obviously somewhat topical, as there was a system that many people who are not experts on that system insisting it was exploited, but can't tell you how, while the actual experts are saying it wasn't exploited because they know how it could have been exploited, it was checked repeatedly, and therefore wasn't exploited. 

This is something that is generally true of any system. Yes, those that know a system can bend it in many strange ways to get what they want or need, but anyone else who knows the system just as well will know how to do that. There are very few systems that have so few experts that major exploitation can exist. The more a system is used, the more people are likely to understand it. So if a system is used my millions of people, and administrated by tens of thousands of people on an local level, it's almost impossible for large-scale exploitation of that system to go unnoticed. 

Now, that doesn't mean a system can't be noticeably exploited and the guilty parties get away with it. For instance, the fact that we all know what a "swing state" is should tell you that the electoral college, as a system, is exploitable, a lot of people know how to do it, it's regularly exploited, and no one gets in trouble for it. There's also the possibility that the exploitation can be discovered, but tracing it back to a source isn't possible. That situation is fairly common in cyber-attacks, where we can see the results of the attack, even fix the problem, but can't definitively trace it back to it's exact origin point, though we can usually get some idea from out intelligence community. 

That's it. If you plan on exploiting a system, be aware that someone else probably can too and will know how you did it, so I suggest not doing something that can force you to face punishment. Anyway, as I've said before, if you're following along, I'll "see" you in the next post, and have a great day. Goodbye!