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.

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.

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.

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.

If a human being takes people’s work and pieces it together in a way that resembles other works without using any LLM/AI or automation tool, is the final result content theft too?

Yes, obviously. Artists and writers can learn from others and can be inspired by other’s works, but they can’t use parts of those works. That is content theft. Imitating a style is fine, but you have to create something new. LLMs cannot create, only steal.

While it’s true that the writers made a point to learn nothing about the franchise before writing it, there’s an argument to be made that at that point there wasn’t really much lore from the games. It came out in 93. If today they made a game where Mario and Luigi from our world follow Princess peach through a portal to save her from being kidnapped by Goombas, only to find Dinosaur New York and get jump powers from technology, then you find out Bowser has usurped the Mushroom Kingdom power structure by de-evolving the king to the point of him now being a fungus who spends the entire game gently helping Mario occasionally… That would be an amazing modern day Mario game. Forget Galaxy, that would be the most complex and interesting game in the franchise.

Plus, it’s got the funniest joke I’ve heard in any movie.

Desk Sergeant: Name?

Mario: Mario.

Desk Sergeant: Last name?

Mario: Mario.

Desk Sergeant: (rolls eyes) Okay, what’s your name?

Luigi: Luigi.

Desk Sergeant: (exasperated) Luigi Luigi?

Luigi: No. Luigi Mario.

The whole movie is a masterpiece and the twist that the king was the fungus that’s been choking the city is great, and on re-watches you notice all the times the Marios are saved or helped by the fungus. It also implies that the convergent evolution of this parallel world includes both dinosaurs and fungus turning into basically identical people, and the mushroom people managed to become the ruling class.

My favorite of his is Futuristic Violence and Fancy Suits, and it’s sequel. Pargin is a competent writer, so while it’s not typically my type of book (Almost constant action gets old to me), he does a competent job that kept me reading. And I think it would be pretty good for someone with a shorter attention span like OP.

Your inability to understand is not my problem. I suggest a reading comprehension class. I understand that some of those big words like “Probabilities” and “math” might be too much for you. It’s okay. We all have things we’re good at. You’ll find yours one day.

Ah. Sorry, I assumed you knew what you were talking about about and not just copy/pasting a thing you found. My bad.

Questioning doesn’t mean you have to come to a different conclusion. I’m cis-het(ish) and don’t just take that for granted. I’ve thought about my gender identity and sexuality and done the introspection. I’m definitely more of a gender abolitionist, so I don’t necessarily follow the loosely ascribed gender traits consistently, but I’m not trans. Questioning and defying social norms does not make one not cis. And that government comment is weird. Society assigns them to us. The government just writes it down.

So not really then. I’ve always heard this but not seen it explained. But what you’re saying is that with every interaction the likely hood of finding a match goes up. But realistically, probabilities like that are just fun quirks of math, not representations of reality. Probabilities are doing the math on events, but these are events discussing concrete and unchanging dates. Every person paired up isn’t given a random date in every interaction. They have a set date from the outset, you just don’t know it. There’s not a random number generator picking a number from a set every time. Unless you’re in a simulation and none of this is real and birthdays don’t exist and the computer you’re plugged into has to make up a random birthday every time you interact.

Because time and direction are different metrics? West is a metric that only means anything in relation to something else in a straight line. It’s a direction. West doesn’t stop being west if you go too far. It’s always west.

But basic math means that those are the exact same thing. Divisible by 4 means multiples of 4 means every 4 years, right? It seems more likely that they “happen when the year is divisible by 4” came about after they said “let’s do it every four years, but we have to phrase it more officially when we write it down.”

But aren’t the tides caused by external gravitational forces (the moon?)

Oof. Yeah… Sometimes there’s just no getting around it. That’s rough. I’ve had some that when I was working on them I just knew that it should take 5 minutes but will end up being 30 because every input means I wait 5 minutes for it to catch up. We also have some that are used and continuously updated every day. I was finally able to convince them to archive old ones and get a new sheet every quarter.

My workplace switched from G Suite to all MS a while back. I was livid at first. MS Excel does have some good features that Sheets doesn’t, and some of their formulas can be better functionally. But Google understands user experience better and it definitely runs more efficiently than Excel. Like, Excel, This workbook isn’t set to share yet, it’s entirely local. Why is every other window of Excel also updating every time I change something? They aren’t affected!

Anyway, if possible, when I’m working on a really chunky workbook, if possible I’ll do all the work offline in the app and everything else open in the browser. If I have to add it to a shared sheet, I’ll just paste it in when I’m done and know it works. I work with excel lot, but it’s mostly data sifting and I tend to use Excel in ways it was not designed for, so my formulas can get out of hand sometimes and be a bit much on larger sheets.