A million-to-one chance happens 9 times out of 10.

The Handmaid’s Tale (TV Show), hands down.

The first season was emotional but I’ve gotten through it multiple times as I’ve tried re-watching to get through season 2. I got a little farther the last time I tried, but man, it’s so visceral and constantly beating down the protagonist and everyone around her. That’s the point and it’s great, it’s just so depression-inducing when there’s just no uplifting points. IT does not let up in beating you down with the horribleness. I just can’t keep going when it goes on for so long.

For me it’s definitely an RP choice. I don’t always choose one or the other, but in games that give character creation options I tend to go for a quick “non-canon” play test to get a feel for the game and setting and get an idea of how I want to play it. Then I start a new file and create a character to fit that. Sometimes I go for a lithe rogue or a buff fighter, and the gender usually depends on either how I’m feeling or possible story/world stuff that makes it fit better, or sometimes just something interesting. Like in early Cyberpunk there was a glitch where you could start with a male character, then switch some settings and you’d get the female options but it would keep the original genitalia, so I played through as a trans woman because it wasn’t something I’d done before and it was interesting and fit well into the setting. It didn’t change anything in the game and I kept my character clothed so you never saw her hanging dong. But then I hit the story with the trans woman NPC and my V found a friend who they could connect with a little better. It was a fun role-play opportunity and I felt like it helped my connect to the game and the world even better when my avatar wasn’t just a puppet I used to interact with the game. Even in games like the Witcher where you’re given a named character, my Geralt always developed his own personality. I once accidentally sold all my boots and didn’t realize for a few days that he was running around without shoes. When I noticed it immediately became part of his personality that he doesn’t wear shoes. He like feeling the grass when he fights and he’s more connected with nature. It kinda fit with the default personality but I leaned heavy into the more nature-focused choices where possible and it changed how I played.

Though I’m probably not an average case-study. I tend to eschew gender norms while identifying as a straight cis guy. I wear what I want, paint my nails or wear makeup if I’m feeling it. And I do lean heavy into the single player RPG games and avoid MOBAs or shooters. I think I’ve mostly just been playing DnD in all my video games, lol.

Speaking of DnD, my BG3 playthrough started with a female Drow monk because I haven’t played any of that in DnD before, but as I played I knew I wanted a rogue so I restarted and as I built it I started with a human male but ended up with a Gith male rogue because I liked the look a bit more for it and knowing what little I did about the Gith in the opening it would be fun RP. But in my head, he’s not from a creche but was lost as a small Gith and raised in some small village by human parents. So he doesn’t fit in with the Gith he meets but also faces the fear that most people in the world experience when they see him. It just adds so much more depth to the game when they have their own personality.

I can’t imagine them using V again. Geralt was a character in his own right that had character traits that were handed over to you to play with. The world was built for Geralt to be in. V was built as a blank slate character to insert yourself into. There’s no reason to keep them. I’m pretty sure they only gave the character a name so everyone else in the game could have voice lines for everything and refer to the character by name. It was an attempt to make it a smoother experience, but really, V was a faceless avatar for the player no different to the Fallout games. But because they did the thing with the name it’s seamless and everyone sees V as a character, but they’re all seeing them as a different character based on how they played. It was pretty clever and I’m sure they’ll do it again.

In the Witcher 3 they had a thing where if you’d played the previous game on the same system and the game file was still there you could allow it to read that file and use decisions you made there to inform the new game. Now, I never got around to finishing Cyberpunk and don’t know what the different endings are, so I don’t know how much of a difference it would be, but if they’ve done that before they could do something similar here. Like, the world and story are the same, but any reference to the past includes the choice you made. And if you don’t have a save file, they just pick the one the developers like most probably.

I’ve had this Excel workbook open for an hour now and my boss is asking why I’m just staring at it. But thank you?

There are brands that make biodegradeable bags.

Tiny bit of lemon fixes that pretty well.

I mean, the thumbs help hold stuff, sure, but it’s our large pre-frontal cortex that really comes in clutch. That and our penchant for violence. There’s evidence to show that the Neanderthals were possibly more advanced than us before they “died out,” but also less violent and selfish. It’s those traits that led us to kill them or cut off their access to resources while we took them all.

We are still animals. Any biologist will tell you that, but that’s not a negative thing, it’s just a facts. It’s like saying we’re mammals. It really comes down to how you define “better.” and “successful.” Obviously, we are making those determinations from our point of view, so we tend to define them with the things only we do. But if we’re defining successful by technological advancement or the ability to do advanced math, or even versatility in abilities, we’re at least top 3. But those orangutans are pretty nifty with their use of twigs sometimes, so don’t count them out.

remained mindful of the naivety of all people, including themselves,… to prevent allowing hubris to allow poor decisions.

Not to spoil a 60 year old book, but didn’t they have a plan to genetically engineer a literal savior to mankind with hundreds of years of selective breeding? A little like the pot telling the kettle it’s too sure of itself.

So, I find myself doing something similar at smaller meetings at work as well, when it’s just my immediate team. But I wonder if there’s some context that may make your situation different. On our team, I’ve gained a reputation for being a data goblin and supplying that data to many departments that help them focus and make decisions on changes or solving problems. With that, I’ve been able to cultivate a reputation for being very knowledgeable about the business being able to see past the fluff and cutting straight to the real issue that needs to be solved, like you talk about for yourself, so when I speak about these things, I’m taken seriously. And probably more importantly, I also always offer a potential solution, even if it’s not implemented (No one likes the guy who just brings problems but never solutions). Most importantly though, I only do this in meetings with my immediate small team. When other departments come in, they have their own ways of communication and I don’t make assumptions that my way is acceptable for them.

In summary, some things to take into account:

• Is this a meeting where your input is warranted? Would the group maybe see the problem as out of your lane? Are there people more qualified to talk about the problem already talking?
• Do they have a reason to think you “putting it in a perspective” is not your place to do? Are there higher-ups here who’s job you’re usurping?
• Are you bringing anything to the problem other than reframing it? Are you bringing solutions? -Tone is important. Does it sound like you think you’re in charge of the meeting and it’s your job to keep them on track when it’s not? (Verbal inflection can go a long way to convince people you’re working with them to solve it, not telling them how to solve it).
• Finally, and this one may be tough, are you sure you’re doing a good job of putting it in perspective? I’ve worked with people who don’t contribute to solving anything and seems to only pipe up in meetings to restate the problem as if that’s a contribution and then shut the hell up while everyone else works as a team to come up with solutions. Everyone sees their interjection as a waste that gets us off-track. Even if they think they’re helping, we usually already have that context in our heads and it was unnecessary.

None of this may apply to you, and maybe you’re actually surrounded by people that genuinely need you to help get the conversation focused. But I’ve seen people (and myself) make these missteps. And I agree with the poster who mentioned ADHD. I have it and have been over-talking people my whole life until it was pointed out to me and I got better about checking myself, while still contributing. You have to learn to read a room and know instinctively when and how your contributions are welcome.

But you need to make it clear in how you phrase things that you “highly value other people’s input.” I have phrases I use over and over that seem to help.

“I really like what Jane was saying there about the Bobbles. It got me thinking about how the doo-dad’s flipperdoodle can cause this issue. I wonder if there’s a way we can head this off? Maybe cut out the whats-it protocol? Tom, you’ve been looking at the flipperdoodle process lately, do you think that’s a possibility or if there’s something else we could do to streamline it?”

But again, this really only works if you’re in a group where that’s how equals talk to each other like that. If there’s a superior in the meeting who knows about the Bobble department, that’s probably their responsibility. You’ve got to make it sound like you’re working with the team to solve it, not sitting above them and keeping them on-track like you know better. Try listening to how other’s phrase things and try to imitate it, tone as well, not just saying the words. I did not come up working in offices so I’ve had to adapt to the environment, and that’s what I did.

But also, who cares that it’s less hard? I’m not using it for a drill bit, it’s a cosmetic piece. Literally it’s only function is visual. And moissanite is superior. All the visual markers that are used for beauty in a diamond it surpasses. And some quick googling I did to confirm that also showed me that diamond is only barely harder (“With a hardness of 9.25, moissanite is the second-hardest material used a gemstone.” a diamond is a 10.) and it turns out, less likely to break in some cases. “Moissanite doesn’t have a cleavage plane, while diamond does. (This is an internal plane along which a diamond crystal can easily split)” So if you hit a diamond in the wrong spot, it can still crack. Moissanite does not have a weak spot.

source

“I consider this harassment inappropriate for a workplace. I’d rather not get HR involved.”

Key words from the employee manual or even better, HR training. No emotion, just stating facts. Don’t trust HR, but management knows that more than anyone. They use it as a bludgeon against employees all the time, they know it could be turned against them just as easily.

Several years ago, when I was still going into the office, I made a similar decision. I tossed all my old socks and bought like, 12 pairs of argyle socks in a variety of brighter colors and deliberately wore different colors every day. They’re the same brand so they all wear the same, just sometimes bright green and orange(or whatever) on each foot. I got a few questions at first, though never negative. People thought they were being helpful letting me know my socks didn’t match, but when I told them it was intentional they thought it was a great idea. Now it’s expected for me to have mismatched socks and no one notices. Of course, being WFH now, I almost never wear socks anymore. But on the occasion someone notices these days, they don’t really care.

The main thing people get from milk is, depending on the country, vitamin D, which isn’t naturally occurring there and is best obtained by just getting some sun, and the fat, which most people cut out of it. Milk’s calcium absorption is, at best, around 30% and not a great source of calcium. You get better calcium intake from leafy greens and nuts (~50% absorption). Also, there has not been a definitive link between additional bone density from calcium and brittle bones. Japan and India are still mostly lactose intolerant and have fewer hip fractures than America, which has one of the highest milk intakes in the world. It’s more likely manual labor and sunlight is better for bone health.

The idea that milk is healthy is part of misunderstandings that have been taken as fact for decades, but it’s not really. It’s not junk food… until you start adding even more sugar to an already surprisingly sugary drink.

Quickly found source concerning meta analysis and milk’s health benefits

So I work with a lot of people from a variety of countries. Some of those countries have really bad governments. When we joke about each other’s countries, it’s about the governments. I remember this guy who used to work with me from the Philippines. It was near the beginning of lockdowns and just after Duterte was elected. He made fun of the shit Trump was saying and doing, and I got to joke that they had their own Trump(maybe worse) coming. Australian co-workers laugh along when we joke about their shit politicians.

What we don’t do is joke about the people or the culture. That’s shitty. All those people are just as much victims of their own circumstances as we all are of our own. But we’re adults who work with each other every day and it’s easy to remember that we’re all real people. The internet however…

I haven’t noticed Americans getting upset when people criticize shitty government policies or decisions. At least not from people who aren’t boot-lickers from jump. The problem is when people make fun of American stereotypes. Americans are fat and loud and whatever. Like, if all you heard was people talking about Canadians being stuck up about needing things written in French or topped with poutine, it would probably get old, right? “Go cry at your Tim Horton’s and take your polar bear for a walk.” (okay, so I had to google Canadian stereotypes and it’s a short list.)

I don’t like America’s gun culture either. And I hate when it comes up there’s always someone who comes in and preaches the gospel of the 2nd amendment. It also doesn’t feel great when people make that generalization about me. This thread is full of people saying Americans are dumb and racist. That’s just shitty behavior that no one bats an eye at because it’s normal to make those jokes. If I started making comments about like, French people smelling bad or (insert some other offensive thing. I don’t keep track of bad stereotypes and I’m done googling it) then that would also be bad and it’s a thing I think we should start calling out across the board.

You make a lot of assumptions there though, don’t you? You’re assuming that you would be motivated to “return the favor,” but where does that motivation come from? Humans reciprocal acts are learned traits. There’s nothing they get in return for that act alone. The return only comes from the potential impact on the community, which is a social function, not biological.

I used lions as a contrast specifically because they’re behavior is different. They are baser creatures who’s community does come directly from biology and it’s drastically different. I also also gave canines as an example because they are specifically social animals and those behaviors that are similar to ours are derived from the social aspect, not biological since it’s community specific, not species.

Sociology studies how humans behave as groups in relation to each other. It’s specifically about the things you’re describing. Evolution drives us to pass our genes on. That’s it. What you’re saying can be just as easily used to trace literally everything humans do back to evolution. The argument could just as easily be made that religion is a result of evolution. Humans are curious because looking for answers gave us a cognitive advantage over competition. That trait leads us to searching for answers. If none are available, we find one. And now we have gods. But religion is organized and requires groups, which brings us back to sociology again.

I think it’s really more of a sociology thing. Like, it’s pretty well accepted that our natural inclination towards fairness is not from a biological drive, but because we would want to be treated that way. The best way of ensuring that is creating a society where that is the norm. Mankind decided that killing others is wrong because we don’t want to get killed ourselves. If we think stealing from others is fine, we have no redress if someone steals from us.

When I was young, I noticed that the some of the Hammurabic Codes shared a lot in common with Christian teachings. I brought this up to my dad and he said “Yeah, where do you think Hammurabi got the idea?” Now, obviously, he’s got his timeline confused, and even as a small child I could do that math and knew the royal edicts pre-dated the 10 commandments and are of a completely non-religious nature. Groups living together need fairness to prosper.

Evolution, however, tends to lean more towards the strongest surviving. Evolutionarily, we need our genes passed on. Sure, we might manage to procreate before we die, but then we’re not around to protect that lineage. Lions are a good example of that problem. If a rival male takes over your pride after killing you, they will also kill all the cubs. Presumably so only their genes are the ones moving on. That is the evolutionary drive. Wolves, however, are much more social creatures. They function as a group that doesn’t necessarily need to be related and they make decisions similar to how we would expect our own group behaviors. If one of the pack is hurt, they don’t leave it behind to die, they protect it and even leave them behind with the pups to heal when they go out on hunts. But this only extends to their pack. Anything outside the pack does not get that consideration. It’s only in groups where being grateful and kind is an advantage.

Sociology is still a science though! A very good reason to follow those precepts.

Oh man, and that other poster thought they were rambling… I get real wordy when the Adderall kicks in first thing in the morning.

I think what you’re proposing isn’t something they can do. Are you saying “What if I asked it to create a short story who’s pieces don’t resemble any pieces of known stories?” or are you saying “What if I asked it to create a short story who’s whole doesn’t resemble any known stories?”

The first one can’t happen. The second? Yes, it’s stealing.

Where is it getting this story? LLMs don’t have creativity. They don’t understand story structure. It pulls sentences and paragraphs from work in it’s training data. If the generated output contains work that others have made, that’s called plagiarism. If it doesn’t, then your hypothetical isn’t realistic. LLMs can’t create original works. That’s the whole point. It pulls pieces of the training data and rearranges them. It would be like if I was writing a college paper and instead of writing anything myself I just pulled 100 different sources and copied a sentence or two from each source and structured them as my paper. That’s 100% plagiarism.

Good news! It is illegal!

Political campaign-related autodialed or prerecorded voice calls, including autodialed live calls, autodialed texts, and prerecorded voice messages, are prohibited to cell phones, pagers or other mobile devices without the called party’s prior express consent.

If you think you’ve received a political robocall or text that does not comply with the FCC’s rules, you can file an informal complaint with the FCC at fcc.gov/complaints. If you are receiving texts that you didn’t ask for, report the sender by forwarding the texts to 7726 (or “SPAM”). Campaigns should also honor opt-out requests if you reply “STOP.”

I file a complaint for single one I get.