Is this what “content creators” do, nowadays?

Anyway, does she have onlyfans? Just that I know which account to avoid. /j

It’s not about “deserving”. It’s about enabling the reproduction of the proletariat so that there’s proletariat left to exploit in the future.

Also: Replace “super” (as in “superfood”) with “sacred” and it works just as well.

Japanese sword focused martial arts is notably different from everyone else in its focus to avoid certain strikes so as to not destroy or ruin the blade

There’s a reason european swords have a crossguard and Katanas don’t. ;)

Katanas are also a relatively new japanese tradition, since they

1. focused more on archery (until muskets displaced those)
2. had inferior iron, which is why they had to fold it 100 million times, which made the steel ultra brittle (which is why the orientation of the blade is so important in kendo)

There’s always org-roam. Wide adoption, plentiful documentation, ports for nvim, etc.

Haven’t tried it yet, but I’m playing with the idea of switching from Logseq to that and I at least the two-way linking works similar afaik.

There’s a ukulele in the OoT OST? O.o

Wow. Thanks for clearing that up. That was the first time I heard about the “advanced flow” and the criticism surrounding it.

Sure seems like a useful idiot at best.

You mention the title but not the content of the essay. Did you read it?

Edit: At first glance, the article seemed actually well-meant. Didn’t have the context of how bootlickery it was.

Also, if the goal is to feel empowered. Why not sign up for actual martial arts training like kick-boxing, judo, jujitsu or taekwondo?

Or, if you really want to use a european sword, HEMA is also a thing.

You fail to understand quality standards in science.

I read the article. That wasn’t a study. That was a survey where parents self-reported for their children. Hardly a study that has any scientific merit.

Tat’s part of science, too: Validate if the applied methods where actually worth anything. And aurvey of parents is not how you ro developmental science.

that you continue to reject new information only demonstrates your lack of understanding of the scientific method.

Did I miss something? Did you actually supply any “new information”, other than your anecdotal evidence?

Before you accuse me of being close-minded, you should probably supply some actual data for my mind to be open to.

I don’t require any anecdotal evidence

Why did you supply it, then?

Clearly you can’t cope with a reality where your child would attempt to deceive you.

Adding “clearly” doesn’t make any of your jumping to conclusions any less ludicrous. Stop trying to psychoanalyse strangers on the internet. That’s what we here consider “dickish behaviour”.

Their teenage years are going to be rather enlightening for you.

What? I said that you need a theory of mind that’s advanced enough to deceive someone and that this stage of ToM comes at around four. Suggesting that I think that my child woudn’t keep secrets from me as a teenager implies that I think that they’ll never develop a ToM (which would be a severe mental disability). And where did I claim that?

This article isn’t about teenagers, anyway.

Is it possible that I’ll get some false positives? Sure. But it’s not like it’ll have any consequences online.

IRL, I even talk to AfD voters (because cancelling them is counter-productive). But I’m not gonna change anyone’s mind online, so my filter is more strict there.

Speaking of understanding the state of information and when it became available to others, do you think the Wikipedia article might need to be updated based on new research findings?

You didn’t read the review I posted, did you?

I will wait until the research is replicated but based on my 3 year old son’s behaviour I’m going to say that yes, children start attempting to deceive before 4 years old.

Yes, of course your anecdotal evidence beats scientific consensus. Everything that’s matching your preconceived beliefs is true. Everything else “needs to be replicated first”. /s (even though I shared a review, not a singular study)

He’s been hiding biscuits and other treats he knows he shouldn’t have since well before he was 2.

Occam’s razor would rather suggest learned patterns (if I put these things that I like here, my parent won’t shout at me), rather than consensus in developmental science being wrong.

Are you sceptical of climate change as well?

So maybe you’re relying on outdated information, maybe you’re biased about your own child, or maybe your child is a little delayed.

The review was from 2022. “Biased” in what way exactly (my child doesn’t exhibit “deceptive behavior”)? And diagnosing the children of strangers on the internet with developmental disorders (or just suggesting as such) is something only an arrogant asshole would do. Sorry, I don’t make the rules.

From Wikipedia:

While much research has been done on infants, theory of mind develops continuously throughout childhood and into late adolescence as the synapsesin the prefrontal cortex develop. The prefrontal cortex is thought to be involved in planning and decision-making.  Children seem to develop theory of mind skills sequentially. The first skill to develop is the ability to recognize that others have diverse desires. Children are able to recognize that others have diverse beliefs soon after. The next skill to develop is recognizing that others have access to different knowledge bases. Finally, children are able to understand that others may have false beliefs and that others are capable of hiding emotions.

Edit: So, modelling a wrong state of the world in other agents apparently forms at 4, according to this review:

Fundamental developmental changes happen at around age 4, when new conceptual structures emerge. This ‘4 year revolution’ marks the onset of a fully fledged meta-representational ToM. In the course of this major transition, children gain the ability to succeed in a clus-ter of tasks that all require meta-representation. Among these are false-belief tasks, often considered a litmus test of mature ToM. These tasks explicitly require children to ascribe a subjective mis-representation to another agent and explain/predict their actions accordingly. In the most well known version, the child sees that another agent puts an object into one box and then the object is transferred to another box in the agent’s absence (Fig. 3a). The critical test question asked of the child is where the agent believes the object is or where the agent will search for the object39. Children younger than four systemati-cally answer incorrectly; they say that the agent thinks the object is where it really is and accordingly say that the agent will search in the second box. However, from around age 4, children succeed at the task by indicating that the agent will search in the first box.

Edit2:
But I’m sure your child was a criminal mastemind schooling your ass at chess five minutes after they enacted a cunning plan of tricking their way out of the womb. /s … if you even have a child.

Where have I ever said anything of the sort. I said that children under a certain age lack the social understanding to be deceptive. In order to be able to deceive someone, you need a theory of mind.

Thanks, doing my best!

Yeah, sure. I’m raising a manipulative tryant. /s Shut the fuck up, you arrogant prick.

It’s not wrong per se to be from Germany, nor to tave pride in where you came from. But displaying nationalism is that way is a surefire indicator of having bullshit opinions. No matter which country.