I’d say more the latter, but people are multifaceted, so it’s likely not quite the case that it’s people being their true inner selves as just indulging a part of their true inner selves.

Identity in general doesn’t matter much on forums (as opposed to microblogs, like Twitter or Mastodon). Forums are focused on topics rather than people, and what is said is generally more important than who says it.

Intelligence is a measure of reasoning ability. LLMs do not reason at all, and therefore cannot be categorized in terms of intelligence at all.

LLMs have been engineered such that they can generally produce content that bears a resemblance to products of reason, but the process by which that’s accomplished is a purely statistical one with zero awareness of the ideas communicated by the words they generate and therefore is not and cannot be reason. Reason is and will remain impossible at least until an AI possesses an understanding of the ideas represented by the words it generates.

It’s the state of mind caused by simultaneously believing two (or more) things that conflict with each other.

Hexbear is sort of like a village of eldritch abomination worshippers in a Lovecraftian horror story - isolated, insular, entirely wrapped up in their own esoteric rituals and ideas and language, and immediately and collectively hostile to outsiders.

People on every single relatively small forum ever in the history of the internet have gotten frustrated and angry when other people do that, because it’s spammy.

Do you not know the history of the term “spam?”

It’s from a Monty Python skit

That’s what the front page of a forum (or the inbox of an email account) looks like when someone “spams” it - like “spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam, spam and spam.”

Hmm…

I would assume then that the effect is somehow tied in with the fact that the light is diffused and relatively dim, since it’s simply a fact that the blues and greens are the colors that pop. Possibly there isn’t enough light to show up orange or red - effectively, everything is sort of in shadow?

And by contrast, as I write this, it’s very smoky where I am, and yes - the light is notably orange. And I’ve noticed before that when it’s like this, shadows have an obvious blue tint.

Pretty much.

Don’t get too hung up on the name - it’s just a personal bit of shorthand. What I’m talking about is the actual phenomenon. Parrish’s paintings are just the closest popular representation I’ve seen of it.

It seems to happen most often in late summer, when (in my area at least) afternoon thundershowers are relatively common. There are times when the clouds will roll in, but they’re not dense enough to bring rain, and just at dusk, the light through those clouds is diffused but oddly clear, so in spite of the fact that the light level is low overall, colors, and especially blues and greens, really pop.

In HSL terms, it’s essentially 100% saturation but only maybe 30% light, and since the light shifts toward red/orange, the blues and greens are the colors that stand out the most.

What I call Parrish light - the distinctive tone that’s prominent in Maxfield Parrish’s paintings.

It’s a relatively subdued but clear reddish orange that I see most commonly with relatively uniform but thin thunderclouds at dusk. It makes blues and greens much more vivid, in spite of the fact that the overall amount of light is relatively low. And it’s glorious.

Just the opposite. I’m the one who goes off to do something else at family gatherings because they just talk and talk and talk.

Though it’s not so much that they talk so much as that it’s just the same stuff over and over - alternately, my brother slavishly regurgitating right-wing techbro quasi-libertarian bullshit and my mom reciting in excruciating detail some anecdote that’s maybe vaguely related to the topic at hand and that she’s told countless times already, because it’s her go-to every time something in that vicinity comes up.

And what I wouldn’t give to know them less well…

I think there are two different things at play there, and both have been mentioned, so all I can add is that it’s not one or the other but both. (Well - that and a song)

Partly it’s the common human need to feel that we matter - that our lives are in some way significant.

And partly it’s the fear of death and the resulting desire to believe that we’ll “live on” at least figuratively.

And the song is from Shriekback and is directly on topic - Dust and a Shadow

Broadly because the entire dynamic of left-wing partisanship in the US - both for the politicians and for the voters - is built around the binaristic idea that the only alternative to supporting the Democrats is supporting the Republicans, and that doesn’t work if they admit that there are more possible positions than just those two.

I like wool, but I don’t currently own any. It’s of very limited use, since it itches abominably.

It strikes me though - I should keep my eyes open for a good, heavy wool cardigan. In the winter, I wear some number of t-shirts/henleys plus a chamois shirt and a hooded sweatshirt, then some top layer - either a down vest or coat. A big, heavy wool cardigan would work well for that top layer too.

More, definitely.

Even in the summer, as soon as I can get away with it, I go to a second layer. I prefer two light layers over one heavy one.

100% cotton in layers.

I like loose clothes - baggy chinos or cargo pants (or shorts made out of old pants that have started ripping out at the knees) and t-shirts, henleys, chamois work shirts, zippered (never pullover) hooded sweatshirts and down vests. I add layers in the fall (I generally max out at six in the dead of winter) and subtract them in the spring.

Yep - I figured this was just anon hoping for a different answer from a different audience.

Again, your intent doesn’t matter and there was no social cue that you missed. The girl clearly expressed her view and you didn’t do her even the simple courtesy of believing her. That’s not what friends do. That’s what stalkers do.

Autism as an excuse can only go so far. When you go past the point at which you simply fail to pick up on non-verbal cues to the point at which you dispute and disregard other people’s clearly stated preferences, it no longer applies. That’s not autism - it’s antisocial personality disorder. You’re not just failing to understand what other people expect, but refusing to treat them as beings with rights. You’re treating them as mere objects rightly subject to your will and your preferences.

“Anon’s” opinion on whether it’s creepy or not counts for absolutely nothing.

Again, it wasn’t a social cue and “anon” didn’t miss it - girl directly expressed her opinion and instead of accepting it, “anon” argued against it, then ignored it That’s not only creepy, but borderline abusive.

Creepy.

she calls me creepy and to stop stalking her

That’s not a social cue - it’s a direct expression of a preference. And anon didn’t miss it - he ignored it.

I don’t believe that my approval or anyone else’s is at all relevant.

My position is that there’s only one person who has the right to decide whether or not it’s acceptable to trade sex for money, and that’s the person entering into the trade. Assuming that all other contractual requirements are met - they’re of legal age and acting of their own free will and so on - it’s just as much their right to trade sex for money as to trade ditch digging or code writing or coffee brewing or meeting taking for money.

(edited for clarity)

An oldie but a goodie.