lol Adam Smith called this. The Wealth of Nations is all about how nominal increases in how the rich measure their wealth aren't really 'good economy', it's the goods and services and upward economic mobility everyday people have access to
I'm very open about sex and art and I am offended by the censorship in models, but my reading of that line is more with chatgpt. But idk Shakespeare at all. Can you elaborate on how he's definitely describing semen on her?
I've studied and taught Shakespeare, and been professionally acquainted with Shakespeare scholars whose names (at least) other Shakespeare scholars know. That's an... eccentric reading. There's no "definitely" in literature, of course, and GP's reading can be made to work.
If I were to try to defend it in an academic setting I'd be looking for how securely or inevitably "groan" is used as a synecdoche for orgasm (I can think of at least three instances in Shakespeare where it doesn't, and off the top of my head no others where it does), and for other period instances where the neck is eroticized as a site of ejaculation (I am not aware of any).
I did it once. Felt like my consciousness rocketed "up" out of my body, but not up through physical space, through some 'adjacent' space. Then I saw/felt "infinity". There was no time, and I saw a hundu-esque god/goddess with infinite arms. I had no interest in eastern religion prior. Not disinterested either. I just didn't think about it, the way I don't think about golf.
I saw exactly the same infinite arms thing with zero prior interest in religion. It took me to place “I was once before and should know well” other entities protested because why bother when he needs to go back soon. Then I came back to my room and had no idea what to do with that experience.
These stories never fail to astonish me. Why the same deity? It’s so interesting.
The fact the mind is able to create these powerful visions and patterns and other realities is really incredible. We have this machinery for perceiving the world and moving though it, but that machinery is capable of so many other insane and beautiful and terrifying things - capabilities which are inaccessible except in rare instances.
It’s really quite remarkable. Underneath our prosaic experience of consciousness is something that can generate infinite fractals, awe-inspiring visions of otherworldly creatures, dream landscapes of colour and shape. Why? Where does it all come from? Is this what life would be like all the time without us filtering the information coming into our senses?
May I suggest "Man And His Symbols" by Car Jung? It was his final writing and, I believe, his only one that focused on the common(ish) reader as the audience. The basis of the book (and generally his studies and beliefs) is that the subconscious is as meaningful as the conscious, it just communicates in ways that are harder to access in modern society, and therefore it's been pushed away and ignored.
Hmm, I'm making a site and I planned on using a PWA for the app experience instead of a native app. Am I setting up for a bad time? I'm not too worried about the installation hurdle, my potential early adopters are motivated and smart.
If you're using React, I'd recommend using Silk (silkhq.com) to create native-like bottom sheets, pages, sidebar, etc.
Most animations, including the swipe, are hardware-accelerated, and it deals with a lot of common issues you encounter on the mobile web (body scrolling, on-screen keyboard, etc).
Just make it a VSCode plugin, I don't want to install a new IDE (which is just VSCode anyway) to use your product. It might be better than claude and chatgpt5.1 but not better enough to justify me re-doing all my IDE configs.
He's talking about BBC editing a Trump documentary in such a way that Trump looked even guiltier of inciting the January 6th riot at the U.S. Capitol than he already did.
Functional programming is a different way of thinking about solving problems. People say it's about thinking about "what you're trying to compute" versus "how you're computing it," but quite frankly that never made sense to me. I prefer to think about it in terms of thinking about relationships (FP) versus thinking about steps over time (procedural).
This, at least for me, brings the act of writing a specific piece of code more inline with how I think about the system as a whole. I spend less energy worrying about the current state of the world and more about composing small, predictable operations on relationships.
As for what you can read, I find it's just best to get going with something like OCaml or F# and write something that can take advantage of that paradigm in a relatively straightforward way, like a compiler or something else with a lot of graph operations. You'll learn pretty quickly what the language wants you to do.
