3 ms·
> so what we remember is not exactly what we saw. Yet there are savants with nearly perfect recall which has been tested multiple times. I strongly doubt ther
by themafia 8mo ago
> so what we remember is not exactly what we saw.
Yet there are savants with nearly perfect recall which has been tested multiple times. I strongly doubt there is a single model for memory or even a single mechanism for forming memories and as a result personal understandings of it poorly generalize across any random section of the population.
- stavros 8mo ago99.9% of people understood that sentence to be correct, in the spirit in which it was written. Yet there are people who don't, but we still wouldn't say the sentence is false.
- themafia 8mo ago> but we still wouldn't say the sentence is false. Yes "we" do. It's false. It's false not because it's a lie but because it's very poorly worded and under specified. Inside of a work attempting to communicate a highly specific idea it's a genuine mistake. It invites ambiguity and misunderstanding. > 99.9% of people Good for them. What's the point here? Are you attempting to bully me by suggesting I'm not part of your crowd? > in the spirit in which it was written. Uh huh. And what spirit are you writing in?
- stavros 8mo agoI was attempting to say you're uselessly pedantic, but apparently subtlety didn't work.
- themafia 8mo agoTake your judgement somewhere else. No one asked for them. You're being rude, bullying, and arrogant. Which is worse than "useless." I would rather, all day, deal with "useless pedantry" than deal with your kind of attitude. You are the worse type of person that vistis hacker news. Perhaps a different forum would suit your, uh, "needs," a little better.
- stavros 8mo agoThat's a coincidence, I thought the exact same of you.