I’d been off and on using Linux for a while, never really able to convince myself to switch and going right back to windows after every minor inconvenience. However, as soon as windows 10’s end of life was announced, I went straight to linux and haven’t looked back. I had a laptop I had windows 11 on and I hated it so much I refuse to ever use it again.
I run Fedora with KDE Plasma on most of my PCs now.

It’s always “different this time.” Every generation.
Spoken as another gen Z person, I know exactly one other gen Z person who’s bad with tech. The rest are great with it. It’s entirely Dependant on who you surround yourself with.

Indeed, though it did take a few upgrades before it ran smooth enough for my tastes. Ironically I’m using mint over a more lightweight distro because it’s the only one that ran correctly. All the lightweight ones I tried refused to recognize the GPU I shoved in it (which is reasonable, it’s a very bizarre PCI version that wouldn’t even run on XP without hacking the driver.)
It even runs a few old games via Lutris. Got Starseige: Tribes running on it smoothly. My goal is to use an XP partition on it to run most offline games, and use the linux partition to play any online games since it’s more secure than XP.

Bupropion was by far the most effective med I ever took, but I personally got really bad side effects and I had to stop really quickly. None of the side effects you got though. Just extreme tiredness and getting over emotional. I also might have had a mild seizure, but it’s not known if it was the bupropion that caused it. I was in the ER pumped with a load of other drugs that also could potentially cause it, but my psychiatrist took me off it anyway just to be safe.

deleted by creator

Yeah, and the worst is when people are talking about something I know a lot about, getting virtually every detail wrong, and I have to resist saying anything because I know my input will either be ignored, or worse, straight up unwelcome.
Luckily the blessing of being dumb as bricks is that that doesn’t happen a lot, but I sure hate when it does.

I suppose I was overly vague about what I meant by “exact copy.” I mean all of the knowledge, memories, and an exact map of the state of our neurons at the time of upload being uploaded to a computer, and then the functions being simulated from there. Many people believe that even if we could simulate it so perfectly that it matched a human brain’s functions exactly, it still wouldn’t be conscious because it’s still not a real human brain. That’s the point I was arguing against. My argument was that if we could mimic human brain functions closely enough, there’s no reason to believe the brain is so special that a simulation could not achieve consciousness too.
And you’re right, it may not be conscious in the same way. We have no reason to believe either way that it would or wouldn’t be, because the only thing we can actually verify is conscious is ourself. Not humans in general, just you, individually. Therefore, how conscious something is is more of a philosophical debate than a scientific one because we simply cannot test if it’s true. We couldn’t even test if it was conscious at all, and my point wasn’t that it would be, my point is that we have no reason to believe it’s possible or impossible.

I see, so your definition of “physical” is “made of particles?” In that case, sorta yeah. Particles behave as waves when unobserved, so you could argue that they no longer qualify as particles, and therefore, by your definition, are not physical. But that kinda misses the point, right? Like, all that means is that the observation may have created the particle, not that the observation created reality, because reality is not all particles. Energy, for instance, is not all particles, but it can be. Quantum fields are not particles, but they can give rise to them. Both those things are clearly real, but they aren’t made of particles.
On the second point, that’s kinda trespassing out of science territory and into “if a tree falls in the forest” territory. We can’t prove that a truly unobserved macroscopic object wouldn’t display quantum properties if we just didn’t check if it was, but that’s kinda a useless thing to think about. It’s kinda similar to what our theories are though, in that the best theory we have is that the bigger the object is, the more likely the interaction we call “observation” just happens spontaneously without the need for interaction. Too big, and it’s so unlikely in any moment for it not to happen that the chances of the wave function not being collapsed in any given moment is so close to zero there’s no meaningful distinction between the actual odds and zero.

There shouldn’t be a distinction between quantum and non-quantum objects. That’s the mystery. Why can’t large objects exhibit quantum properties? Nobody knows, all we know is they don’t. We’ve attempted to figure it out by creating larger and larger objects that still exhibit quantum properties, but we know, at some point, it just stops exhibiting these properties and we don’t know why, but it doesn’t require an observer to collapse the wave function.
Also, can you define physical for me? It seems we have a misunderstanding here, because I’m defining physical as having a tangible effect on reality. If it wasn’t real, it could not interact with reality. It seems you’re using a different definition.

A building does not actually enter a superposition when unobserved, nor does Schrodinger’s cat. The point of that metaphor was to demonstrate, through humor, the difference between quantum objects and non-quantum objects, by pointing out how ridiculous it would be to think a cat could enter a superposition like a particle. In fact, one of the great mysteries of physics right now is why only quantum objects have that property, and in order to figure that out we have to figure out what interaction “observation” actually is.
Additionally, we can observe the effects of waves quite clearly. We can observe how they interact with things, how they interfere with each other, etc. It is only attempting to view the particle itself that causes it to collapse and become a particle and not a wave. We can view, for instance, the interference pattern of photons of light, behaving like a wave. This proves that the wave is in fact real, because we can see the effects of it. It’s only if we try to observe the paths of the individual photons that the pattern changes. We didn’t make the photons real, we could already see they were real by their effects on reality. We just collapsed the function, forcing them to take a single path.

I think you’re a little confused about what observed means and what it does.
When unobserved, elementary particles behave like a wave, but they do not stop existing. A wave is still a physical thing. Additionally, observation does not require consciousness. For instance, a building, such as a house, when nobody is looking at it, does not begin to behave like a wave. It’s still a physical building. Therefore, observation is a bit of a misnomer. It really means a complex interaction we don’t understand causes particles to behave like a particle and not a wave. It just happens that human observation is one of the possible ways this interaction can take place.
An unobserved black hole will still feed, an unobserved house is still a house.
To be clear, I’m not insulting you or your idea like the other dude, but I wanted to clear that up.

On the contrary, it’s not a flaw in my argument, it is my argument. I’m saying we can’t be sure a machine could not be conscious because we don’t know that our brain is what makes us conscious. Nor do we know where the threshold is where consciousness arises. It’s perfectly possible all we need is to upload an exact copy of our brain into a machine, and it’d be conscious by default.

We don’t even know what consciousness is, let alone if it’s technically “real” (as in physical in any way.) It’s perfectly possible an uploaded brain would be just as conscious as a real brain because there was no physical thing making us conscious, and rather it was just a result of our ability to think at all.
Similarly, I’ve heard people argue a machine couldn’t feel emotions because it doesn’t have the physical parts of the brain that allow that, so it could only ever simulate them. That argument has the same hole in that we don’t actually know that we need those to feel emotions, or if the final result is all that matters. If we replaced the whole “this happens, release this hormone to cause these changes in behavior and physical function” with a simple statement that said “this happened, change behavior and function,” maybe there isn’t really enough of a difference to call one simulated and the other real. Just different ways of achieving the same result.

My point is, we treat all these things, consciousness, emotions, etc, like they’re special things that can’t be replicated, but we have no evidence to suggest this. It’s basically the scientific equivalent of mysticism, like the insistence that free will must exist even though all evidence points to the contrary.

I don’t have direct examples because I suck at googling, but what I saw that made me think of this was an ancient Greek philosopher insulting another, presumably in a rude tone, but still translated to look super polite and old timey. The explanations people have given here have really shed a lot of light for me on why that is though, so it makes sense to me now.

I tried to find examples but turns out I’m really bad at googling. Quotes of ancient Greek philosophers is one example though. Surely not all of them spoke formally, and I’ve heard some even spoke rather rudely, and yet when they’re translated they’re still translated into really formal, old timey language. There’s been some nice explanations here of why that is though, so I understand a lot better.

I’m gonna go against the grain and say this is the only change I’ve seen them make in a long time that I’m glad to see. I often read comments while watching the video, especially now that dislikes are gone to quickly tell if a video is real or not, or if there’s anything else to be wary of. I never scroll video suggestions until after I’m done watching the video, to decide what to watch next. This layout just makes more sense for that.

Trans, wasn’t ready to use my new name IRL, or come out to anybody, so I took the word “Somber” and shoved a Y in it because it makes it really similar to my chosen name, so I could feel like I was being called my preferred name every time somebody said it.

Now that I’m this far into my transition it’s nothing but a relic, but I like the username anyway.

Starvation after all the people supporting me die and I refuse to get help any other way, eventually leading me to forget to go shopping for food until I’m too hungry to get up, leading me to just wait for death to take me.

I skip the fourth step from the bottom on every staircase. It started because multiple staircases I regularly traversed coincidentally all had spiders make their homes on the fourth step, so I’d step over them. And then I just never shook the habit.

Not exactly a coherent collection of a specific thing, but I like to gather older video game consoles and retro tech to hook them all up in the most interesting way possible. I’ve currently got an SNES, N64, GameCube, and Sega Saturn hooked up to an old decent quality CRT security monitor over s-video. I plan to get an s-video matrix to hook up all the consoles at once and switch between them easier, and I also plan to at some point add a PS2, Xbox, and Dreamcast into the mix.

I might also at some point try to find an old early 2000s or even late 90s computer and hook that up too. I don’t have a lot of space, so I might have to hook it up to the TV, but as long as it can play the games from my childhood without issue, I don’t care what wonky setup I need. Old games just aren’t as fun on an LCD.
I do probably need to degauss the CRT though. When I first picked it up it looked fine, but I ran a metal fan a little too close to it for too long and now it’s got distorted geometry on that side.

So I suppose I collect retro electronics. I don’t even collect games for the consoles I own. I just bought them for the fun of hooking them up.