  |
はてなキーワード: leadとは
The Power of Small Steps: How Tiny Changes Can Lead to Massive Growth
In a world that glorifies overnight success and dramatic transformations, it's easy to feel like you’re falling behind if you’re not making big leaps. But what if the secret to real, lasting personal growth wasn’t in doing more, faster—but in doing less, consistently?
Welcome to the power of small steps.
Big goals often feel overwhelming. You want to get fit, write a book, start a business, or learn a new skill—but you don’t know where to start. So you procrastinate. Or worse, you dive in too fast, burn out, and give up.
Small steps bypass all of that.
When you break down a huge goal into manageable actions, everything changes. Writing 500 words a day is less intimidating than finishing a whole novel. Ten minutes of walking is more doable than committing to a 5K. And spending 15 minutes a day learning a language adds up to over 90 hours a year.
Consistency beats intensity every time.
The Compound Effect
Imagine improving just 1% every day. That might sound insignificant—but over a year, it compounds into something extraordinary. This idea is the foundation of Darren Hardy’s The Compound Effect and James Clear’s Atomic Habits. Both books emphasize that small, smart choices, repeated over time, lead to radical results.
Think of your habits like planting seeds. At first, nothing seems to happen. But give it time, and you’ll see growth you never thought possible.
Real-Life Example: The 10-Minute Rule
Let’s say you want to start meditating but can’t sit still for 30 minutes. Instead of forcing it, try meditating for just 10 minutes a day. Or even 5. Build the habit before scaling the effort. Once it becomes part of your routine, extending the time feels natural.
This applies to nearly everything:
Want to read more? Read one page a day.
Want to save money? Start with $1 a day.
Want to eat healthier? Swap one snack a day for a better option.
How to Start Taking Small Steps
Pick one goal
Don’t try to overhaul your entire life at once. Choose one area to focus on—health, creativity, relationships, mindset, etc.
Break it down
What’s the smallest possible action you could take toward that goal? Make it so easy you can’t say no.
Link your new habit to an existing one. For example: “After I brush my teeth, I’ll journal for 5 minutes.”
Track it
Use a habit tracker, app, or notebook to keep yourself accountable. Seeing your streak grow is highly motivating.
Every time you follow through, give yourself credit. Progress is progress, no matter how small.
Final Thoughts
Don’t wait for motivation. Don’t wait for the perfect time. Just start—with whatever you have, wherever you are, and however small.
Because small steps, taken consistently, turn into big change.
Let’s get one fucking thing straight: WWDC is supposed to be *for developers*。
You know, the people who actually build shit。Who dig into SDKs, APIs, system frameworks。
Who care about real updates like “What the hell is the new SwiftUI lifecycle doing?”
or “Can I finally use fucking private entitlements without jumping through flaming hoops?”
So why the hell does Apple keep opening its most important developer event of the year
with Craig Federighi doing goddamn *skydiving*? Or *parkour*? Or some *Fast & Furious parody*
with an F1 helmet and sunglasses? What the actual fuck is going on?
This isn’t Saturday Night Live。This is supposed to be a showcase of what we’re all supposed
to build our future on。Vision。Platform direction。Architecture。
Instead, we get Craig zooming through corridors in slow-mo like he’s auditioning for
Mission Impossible 9: MacBook Drift。
And it’s not even funny anymore。Maybe the first time it was *kind of* charming。
A little wink at the audience。でも now? It’s just fucking cringe。
Wasted time。Wasted bandwidth。A glossy, over-produced middle finger to every developer
watching, notebook in hand, waiting for the actual meat。
Do you sit there thinking, *“Wow, this is such a great use of my time!”*
“CUT THE SHIT, CRAIG. SHOW ME THE FUCKING TOOLS.”
We’re being sold a fantasy — not a platform vision。
What should be an opportunity to say,
“Here’s how Apple wants developers to think in the next 5 years,”
becomes a shallow PR reel of stunts, shots, and skits。
Developers want **guidance**, not gimmicks。**Vision**, not vanity。
Instead of 3 minutes of Craig pretending he’s Neo in a hallway full of Mac Studios,
how about showing us the **real** architectural shifts in Swift,
or a **deep dive** into low-level memory optimizations in macOS?
How about finally explaining wtf is happening with `SwiftData`?
Or *anything* that makes us better builders?
We could have had 20 more seconds of **clarity**, not costume。
WWDC is Apple’s time to inspire, to lead, to fucking **guide** the ecosystem。
But lately?
It feels more like we’re watching the Craig Federighi Variety Hour。
And I didn’t fucking subscribe to that。
----
Let’s get one f***ing thing straight: WWDC is supposed to be *for developers*.
You know, the people who actually build shit. Who dig into SDKs, APIs, system frameworks.
Who care about real updates like “What the hell is the new SwiftUI lifecycle doing?”
or “Can I finally use fucking private entitlements without jumping through flaming hoops?”
So why the hell does Apple keep opening its most important developer event of the year
with Craig Federighi doing goddamn *skydiving*? Or *parkour*? Or some *Fast & Furious parody*
with an F1 helmet and sunglasses? What the actual f*** is going on?
This isn’t Saturday Night Live. This is supposed to be a showcase of what we’re all supposed
to build our future on. Vision. Platform direction. Architecture.
Instead, we get Craig zooming through corridors in slow-mo like he’s auditioning for
Mission Impossible 9: MacBook Drift.
And it’s not even funny anymore. Maybe the first time it was *kind of* charming.
A little wink at the audience. But now? It’s just fucking cringe.
Wasted time. Wasted bandwidth. A glossy, over-produced middle finger to every developer
watching, notebook in hand, waiting for the actual meat.
Do you sit there thinking, *“Wow, this is such a great use of my time!”*
> “CUT THE SHIT, CRAIG. SHOW ME THE FUCKING TOOLS.”
We’re being sold a fantasy — not a platform vision.
What should be an opportunity to say,
“Here’s how Apple wants developers to think in the next 5 years,”
becomes a shallow PR reel of stunts, shots, and skits.
Developers want **guidance**, not gimmicks. **Vision**, not vanity.
Instead of 3 minutes of Craig pretending he’s Neo in a hallway full of Mac Studios,
how about showing us the **real** architectural shifts in Swift,
or a **deep dive** into low-level memory optimizations in macOS?
How about finally explaining wtf is happening with `SwiftData`?
Or *anything* that makes us better builders?
We could have had 20 more seconds of **clarity**, not costume.
WWDC is Apple’s time to inspire, to lead, to fucking **guide** the ecosystem.
But lately?
It feels more like we’re watching the Craig Federighi Variety Hour.
And I didn’t f***ing subscribe to that.
----
私はいつもロシアのプーチン大統領と非常に良い関係を持っていましたが、彼に何かが起こりました。彼は完全に狂っています！彼は不必要に多くの人々を殺しており、私は兵士について話しているだけではありません。ミサイルとドローンは、理由もなく、ウクライナの都市に撃たれています。私はいつも彼がウクライナの一部だけでなくすべてを望んでいると言っていました、そしておそらくそれは正しいことが証明されていますが、彼がそうした場合、それはロシアの没落につながるでしょう！同様に、ゼレンスキー大統領は、彼のやり方を話すことによって、彼の国に好意を示していません。彼の口から出るすべてが問題を引き起こします、私はそれが好きではありません、そしてそれはよりよく止まります。これは、私が大統領だったとしても、決して始まらなかったであろう戦争です。これはゼレンスキー、プーチン、バイデンの戦争であり、“トランプ、”ではありません。私は大きくて醜い火を消すのを手伝っています。それは総無能と憎しみによって始められました。
I’ve always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia, but something has happened to him. He has gone absolutely CRAZY! He is needlessly killing a lot of people, and I’m not just talking about soldiers. Missiles and drones are being shot into Cities in Ukraine, for no reason whatsoever. I’ve always said that he wants ALL of Ukraine, not just a piece of it, and maybe that’s proving to be right, but if he does, it will lead to the downfall of Russia! Likewise, President Zelenskyy is doing his Country no favors by talking the way he does. Everything out of his mouth causes problems, I don’t like it, and it better stop. This is a War that would never have started if I were President. This is Zelenskyy’s, Putin’s, and Biden’s War, not “Trump’s,” I am only helping to put out the big and ugly fires, that have been started through Gross Incompetence and Hatred.
5。28k
ReTruths
21。7k
好き
余
-
追記:
a cool technique:
1. select English output language
2. use Discover Sources and input a query in Japanese
3. import all the English PDF, YT and urls
4. turn output language back into Japanese.
5. use q&a to get answers in Japanese or generate a Japanese Audio Overview, all based on the English internet sources.
I use it to research the internet in other languages - it's super useful for travel, restaurants, sports, product reviews etc etc
----訳----
クールなテクニック:
1. 英語の出力言語を選択します
2. Discover Sourcesを使用し、日本語でクエリを入力します
3.すべての英語のPDF、YT、URLをインポートします
4. 出力言語を日本語に戻す。
5. Q&Aを使用して、英語のインターネットソースに基づいて、日本語で回答を得たり、日本語のオーディオ概要を生成したりします。
私はそれを使って他の言語でインターネットを調べます - 旅行、レストラン、スポーツ、製品レビューなどに非常に役立ちます
これ明確な答えがあって、「テックリード」ってのが幅を利かせてきたのは2010年代後半以降
シリコンバレーの制度が断片的に日本に輸入されてベンチャー界隈がなんちゃって「テックリード」って肩書きを使い始めた（最初に日本語圏に用語を持ち込んだのは rebuild？）
シリコンバレーの会社のシステムってかGoogleとかの制度の全体像を知らずに語感のかっこよさだけで使ってたから完全に紛い物になってた（酷い会社だと新卒をテックリードにしたなんてことをテックブログで自慢してた）
まあ本来のTech Leadは日本の「プロジェクトマネージャー」なんかと大して仕事内容は変わんないか、「システムアーキテクト」も兼ねてるかもしれない
Let’s face it: starting a conversation on a dating app can feel terrifying. You see someone you’re interested in, you type out a message, and then… you delete it. “Is this too boring?” “Will they even respond?” “What if I sound awkward?”
We’ve all been there. That first message can make or break your chances of connecting with someone amazing. But here’s the good news: you don’t have to overthink it. With the right opening line, you can spark a conversation that feels natural, fun, and meaningful.
At MixerDates, we believe that every great connection starts with a great conversation. That’s why we’ve put together this guide to help you craft the best dating app opening lines—ones that stand out, show your personality, and lead to real connections. Ready to ditch the “hey” and start making an impact? Let’s dive in!
[:contents]
Before we get into the best opening lines, let’s talk about why your first message is so important.
Your opening line is your chance to make a great first impression. It’s the gateway to a conversation that could lead to something special. A thoughtful, creative message shows that you’re genuinely interested—not just swiping mindlessly.
Your first message sets the tone for the entire conversation. A boring or generic opener might lead to a dull chat, while a fun or intriguing one can spark excitement and curiosity.
Let’s be real: everyone loves feeling special. When you put effort into your opening line, it shows that you care enough to stand out. And on MixerDates, where we value authenticity and positivity, that effort goes a long way.
Now, let’s get to the good stuff—the best dating app opening lines that actually work. These are divided into categories to suit different personalities and situations.
While the examples above are great starting points, the best opening lines are the ones that feel authentic to you. Here are some tips to help you craft your own:
Reference something from their profile—a photo, a hobby, or a shared interest. It shows you’re paying attention and not just copying and pasting.
Avoid heavy or overly serious topics right off the bat. Keep the tone light and playful to make the conversation enjoyable.
Don’t try to be someone you’re not. If you’re naturally funny, lean into that. If you’re more thoughtful, go for a sincere compliment or question.
“Hey” or “What’s up?” might be easy, but they’re also forgettable. Put in a little effort to stand out.
This gives the other person an easy way to respond and keeps the conversation flowing.
At MixerDates, we’re all about creating a positive, inclusive space where you can feel comfortable being yourself. Here’s why our platform is the best place to put these opening lines into practice:
We welcome everyone, no matter who you are or who you love. Our platform is designed to be a safe space where you can connect with like-minded people.
Our users create detailed profiles that make it easy to find shared interests and craft personalized opening lines.
We encourage our community to be genuine and kind, so you can feel confident starting conversations without fear of judgment or rejection.
Don’t just take our word for it—here’s what one of our users had to say:
“I met my partner on MixerDates, and it all started with a simple message about our shared love for travel. The conversation flowed naturally, and the rest is history. I’m so grateful for this platform!”
While a great opening line can spark a conversation, building a real connection takes more than just a clever message. Here are the key elements to look for when seeking a meaningful connection:
A strong connection starts with alignment on the things that matter most. Do you share similar values, life goals, or visions for the future?
Look for someone who is willing to share their thoughts, feelings, and vulnerabilities—and who encourages you to do the same.
Healthy relationships are a two-way street. Both people should be putting in effort to communicate, plan dates, and support each other.
A true connection allows both people to be themselves without judgment. Look for someone who celebrates your uniqueness and encourages you to pursue your passions.
Communication is the foundation of any strong relationship. A mutual connection thrives on honesty, transparency, and the ability to resolve conflicts in a healthy way.
At MixerDates, we’re here to help you find these key elements in a partner. Our platform is designed to connect you with people who share your values and are looking for the same things you are. Starting a conversation on a dating app doesn’t have to be stressful. With the right opening line, you can spark a connection that feels natural, fun, and meaningful. And at MixerDates, we’re here to help you every step of the way.
So, what are you waiting for? Craft that perfect opening line, join MixerDates, and start connecting with people who value authenticity and positivity. Your perfect match is out there—and they’re just one message away.
Please consider the histroy of humanity from biological perpsecitve and current known fact in nearby universe, which expo-planet (from the Sol system perspective) is most likely to have civlizaed society? Please add percentage next to it in the chart
ChatGPT
Reasoned about exoplanet civilization likelihoodを28 秒行う
Evaluating planetary prospects
OK, I’m looking at the likelihood of a civilized society on an exoplanet within our Solar System. I’ll consider biological history and current space knowledge, aiming to identify the most promising candidate.
Identifying potential candidates
I'm considering exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1e, which might suggest they are within or observed from our Solar System.
Assessing potential candidates
I’m evaluating Proxima Centauri b, Barnard's Star, LHS 1140, and TRAPPIST-1, focusing on their habitable zones and available data. The Drake equation might help estimate their civilized society likelihoods.
Identifying promising exoplanets
I’m noting key exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, which have Earth-like characteristics and are in habitable zones. This narrows down the potential candidates for advanced civilizations.
I'm gathering info on planets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, considering factors like magnetic fields, atmospheres, and proximity to G-type stars for their potential to support advanced civilizations.
Evaluating exoplanet prospects
I'm noting that Proxima Centauri b, despite being close and around a red dwarf star, might support life if it has a magnetic field and atmosphere. This makes me think about its potential.
Charting probabilities
I'm estimating civilization probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e, using speculative percentages based on the Drake equation and the lack of evidence for intelligent life.
I'm crafting a chart with exoplanet names and civilization likelihood percentages, grounded in the long timeline of life's evolution, despite the speculative nature of these figures.
Identifying exoplanet contenders
I’m evaluating exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, TRAPPIST-1 e, and Kepler-186f, considering their star types and distances, to gauge their potential for supporting advanced civilizations from our solar system's viewpoint.
Weighing proximity and observation
I'm leaning towards Proxima Centauri b due to its closeness and observational potential, despite concerns about its flare star dynamics. TRAPPIST-1 e, f, or g are also worth considering.
I'm focusing on exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, Ross 128 b, LHS 1140 b, TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, and K2-18b, aiming to chart their likelihood of hosting a civilized society based on current knowledge.
Assessing exoplanet potentials
I'm gathering speculative probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, using the Drake equation and current understanding, to better estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society.
Refining speculative probabilities
I’m refining speculative probabilities for exoplanets, including Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, to estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society, considering Earth's long biological history.
Refining odds
I'm considering the astronomical timeline for intelligent life on Earth, leading me to assign even lower speculative odds for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e.
I’m crafting a simplified chart with arbitrary percentages, clearly noting the speculative nature and lack of scientific data, while considering the target audience's basic understanding of the topic.
I’m charting arbitrary percentages for exoplanets, clarifying their speculative nature, and ensuring the data is accessible for young audiences with minimal scientific detail.
Crafting a chart
I’m creating a markdown table with speculative percentages for the likelihood of civilized life on exoplanets, emphasizing their purely theoretical nature and considering the understanding level of an 8-year-old.
Integrating speculative analysis
I’m mapping out a markdown chart with speculative percentages for the likelihood of a civilized society on exoplanets, mindful of the complexity and simplifying for an 8-year-old's understanding.
I’m piecing together markdown for exoplanets, noting Proxima Centauri b's reduced civilized life chance due to the red dwarf's activity. This inclusion highlights the speculative nature of the analysis.
Piecing together speculative odds
I’m detailing a markdown chart for audience-friendly exoplanet likelihoods, considering environmental challenges and adding a disclaimer about the speculative nature and lack of evidence.
Piecing together
I’m leaning towards Proxima Centauri b for its proximity and silent star, but I’ll add a speculative chart ranking nearby exoplanets, noting their advanced civilizations' hypothetical likelihood.
Assessing civilization probabilities
I'm emphasizing the slow emergence of intelligent life on Earth, which suggests that the odds of any habitable planet developing a complex civilization might be as low as a few percent.
Below is a very speculative chart that—based on what we know about Earth’s long, winding path from simple life to a “civilized society” and our limited observations of nearby exoplanets—gives some fun, made‑up percentage chances for a few of our best candidate exoplanets. Remember: Scientists have not yet found any proof of life (let alone advanced civilizations) on any exoplanet. These numbers are just playful estimates to help you think about the ideas!
Speculative Chances of Finding an Advanced Civilization on Nearby Exoplanets
Exoplanet Estimated Likelihood of a Civilized Society
Proxima Centauri b ~2%
LHS 1140 b ~0.5%
How Did We (Very Roughly) Guess These Numbers?
Earth’s Example:
On Earth, life began as simple single‑celled organisms and took billions of years to evolve into a species that built complex societies. This long journey suggests that—even if a planet is in the “habitable zone” (where liquid water could exist)—developing an advanced, civilized society might be rare.
Proxima Centauri b:
This is the closest exoplanet to us. Even though its star (Proxima Centauri) is a red dwarf that sometimes sends out strong flares (which might harm life), its closeness makes it one of our most interesting candidates. That’s why we give it a slightly higher guess (~2%).
These planets are part of a group orbiting a very cool star. Their environments might be challenging (for example, they could be tidally locked, meaning one side always faces the star), so the chance of a complex, advanced civilization might be a bit lower.
LHS 1140 b:
This planet is promising in some ways but is a little farther away and around a dimmer star, so our playful estimate is even lower.
All of these percentages are extremely rough guesses based on what little we understand about the conditions for life and intelligence. Scientists use ideas like the Drake Equation to think about these chances—but until we have concrete evidence, these numbers remain just for fun and imagination.
Enjoy exploring these ideas—and remember, space is full of mysteries waiting to be discovered!
あなた:
Please examine the Drake Equation itself and see if this euqation is acculate or more opition in the equation you will use
ChatGPT
Reasoned about the Drake Equationを6 秒行う
re-examining the Drake Equation
evaluating the Drake Equation's value
OK, let me see. The Drake Equation isn't a precise formula; it's more of a guiding heuristic that tackles numerous uncertainties regarding extraterrestrial civilizations.
Thinking through the Drake Equation, I’m evaluating its conceptual nature, its uncertain parameters, and its criticism to conclude on its reliability as an accurate predictive model.
Understanding the Drake Equation
I’m mapping out the Drake Equation as a conceptual guide, detailing its parameters, which are often based on estimates or opinions, to evaluate its reliability for predicting extraterrestrial civilizations.
The Drake Equation is a famous formula that was created to help scientists think about the many factors involved in estimating the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy. However, when we look at the equation closely, we see that it is more of a conceptual framework or heuristic tool than a precise, predictive formula. Let’s break down why:
The equation is usually written as:
𝑁
=
𝑅
∗
×
𝑓
𝑝
×
𝑛
𝑒
×
𝑓
𝑙
×
𝑓
𝑖
×
𝑓
𝑐
×
𝐿
N=R
∗
×f
p
×n
e
×f
l
×f
i
×f
c
×L
Where:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
: The average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy.
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
: The fraction of those stars that have planetary systems.
𝑛
𝑒
n
e
: The average number of planets that could potentially support life per star with planets.
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
: The fraction of those planets where life actually develops.
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
: The fraction of planets with life where intelligent life evolves.
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
: The fraction of civilizations that develop technology that releases detectable signals into space.
𝐿
L: The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals.
Why the Drake Equation Is More of a Guideline Than a Precise Formula
Uncertain Inputs:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
(fraction of stars with planets), have become better known through modern astronomy.
The parameters related to the development of life and intelligence—
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
,
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
,
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
, and
𝐿
L—are based on very limited data. For example, Earth is the only planet we know where life has developed, so we have no way to compare or derive a statistically robust estimate for these factors. This means that the values chosen for these parameters are largely subjective estimates or educated guesses.
Wide Ranges of Possible Values:
Because many of these factors are not well-constrained, if you change one of the more uncertain parameters even slightly, the final estimate for
𝑁
N (the number of civilizations) can vary by many orders of magnitude. This wide range shows that the equation can lead to very different outcomes based on personal or theoretical assumptions.
The Drake Equation was never meant to provide a precise answer. Instead, it serves as a way to organize our thinking about what conditions might be necessary for the development of extraterrestrial civilizations. It encourages discussion about the relative importance of different factors and highlights where our scientific knowledge is limited.
Is the Drake Equation Accurate or More Opinion-Based?
Accurate?
In the sense of being a strict mathematical model with well-defined inputs and predictable outputs, the Drake Equation is not accurate. Its accuracy is limited by the extreme uncertainties in several of its key parameters.
Many of the terms in the equation, especially those concerning the evolution of life and intelligence, are based on opinion, interpretation, and the single example of Earth. Therefore, while the structure of the equation is logical, the numbers you put into it (and hence the final result) are often more reflective of our current opinions and assumptions than of robust empirical data.
The Drake Equation is a valuable tool for framing the question of extraterrestrial life. It helps scientists and enthusiasts break down a complex problem into smaller, more manageable questions. However, because several of its factors are highly uncertain and subject to personal interpretation, it is more of a conceptual guide—or even a way to stimulate discussion—than a formula that provides a definitive, accurate prediction of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations.
In summary, while the Drake Equation is useful for thinking about the various factors that might lead to the emergence of a civilization, its outputs should be taken as highly speculative estimates rather than precise measurements.
あなた:
Please also consider the possiblities of non-human intelligent emrgencing from the long history of Sol system and nearby planets and see if there is any possiblites that in one time intelligent life emerged in nearby planets and see this to the equation
ChatGPT
Reasoned about non-human intelligence and the Drake Equationを19 秒行う
Evaluating non-human intelligence
I'm thinking about the potential for non-human intelligent life forms in the Sol system and neighboring planets, and how this might factor into the equation.
Piecing together possibilities
I'm thinking about how to integrate the emergence of non-human intelligent life, possibly on Mars or Europa, into the Drake Equation for the Sol system and neighboring planets.
It's interesting to think about the hypothesis of intelligent life emerging on Mars or Venus, though Earth remains the only known life-supporting planet in the solar system.
Considering other realms
I'm examining if intelligent life could have emerged on planets like Mars, Venus, or Europa, and how this possibility aligns with the predictions of the Drake Equation.
Hmm, I’m thinking about how non-human intelligent life on Mars or Venus could intersect with the assumptions of the Drake Equation, which seems to focus solely on Earth-based evolution.
I’m piecing together the hypothesis of non-human, advanced, intelligent life in the solar system. Mars, Venus, and Titan present challenges, but Europa and Enceladus might harbor microbial life.
Please consider the histroy of humanity from biological perpsecitve and current known fact in nearby universe, which expo-planet (from the Sol system perspective) is most likely to have civlizaed society? Please add percentage next to it in the chart
ChatGPT
Reasoned about exoplanet civilization likelihoodを28 秒行う
Evaluating planetary prospects
OK, I’m looking at the likelihood of a civilized society on an exoplanet within our Solar System. I’ll consider biological history and current space knowledge, aiming to identify the most promising candidate.
Identifying potential candidates
I'm considering exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1e, which might suggest they are within or observed from our Solar System.
Assessing potential candidates
I’m evaluating Proxima Centauri b, Barnard's Star, LHS 1140, and TRAPPIST-1, focusing on their habitable zones and available data. The Drake equation might help estimate their civilized society likelihoods.
Identifying promising exoplanets
I’m noting key exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, which have Earth-like characteristics and are in habitable zones. This narrows down the potential candidates for advanced civilizations.
I'm gathering info on planets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, considering factors like magnetic fields, atmospheres, and proximity to G-type stars for their potential to support advanced civilizations.
Evaluating exoplanet prospects
I'm noting that Proxima Centauri b, despite being close and around a red dwarf star, might support life if it has a magnetic field and atmosphere. This makes me think about its potential.
Charting probabilities
I'm estimating civilization probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e, using speculative percentages based on the Drake equation and the lack of evidence for intelligent life.
I'm crafting a chart with exoplanet names and civilization likelihood percentages, grounded in the long timeline of life's evolution, despite the speculative nature of these figures.
Identifying exoplanet contenders
I’m evaluating exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, TRAPPIST-1 e, and Kepler-186f, considering their star types and distances, to gauge their potential for supporting advanced civilizations from our solar system's viewpoint.
Weighing proximity and observation
I'm leaning towards Proxima Centauri b due to its closeness and observational potential, despite concerns about its flare star dynamics. TRAPPIST-1 e, f, or g are also worth considering.
I'm focusing on exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, Ross 128 b, LHS 1140 b, TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, and K2-18b, aiming to chart their likelihood of hosting a civilized society based on current knowledge.
Assessing exoplanet potentials
I'm gathering speculative probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, using the Drake equation and current understanding, to better estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society.
Refining speculative probabilities
I’m refining speculative probabilities for exoplanets, including Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, to estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society, considering Earth's long biological history.
Refining odds
I'm considering the astronomical timeline for intelligent life on Earth, leading me to assign even lower speculative odds for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e.
I’m crafting a simplified chart with arbitrary percentages, clearly noting the speculative nature and lack of scientific data, while considering the target audience's basic understanding of the topic.
I’m charting arbitrary percentages for exoplanets, clarifying their speculative nature, and ensuring the data is accessible for young audiences with minimal scientific detail.
Crafting a chart
I’m creating a markdown table with speculative percentages for the likelihood of civilized life on exoplanets, emphasizing their purely theoretical nature and considering the understanding level of an 8-year-old.
Integrating speculative analysis
I’m mapping out a markdown chart with speculative percentages for the likelihood of a civilized society on exoplanets, mindful of the complexity and simplifying for an 8-year-old's understanding.
I’m piecing together markdown for exoplanets, noting Proxima Centauri b's reduced civilized life chance due to the red dwarf's activity. This inclusion highlights the speculative nature of the analysis.
Piecing together speculative odds
I’m detailing a markdown chart for audience-friendly exoplanet likelihoods, considering environmental challenges and adding a disclaimer about the speculative nature and lack of evidence.
Piecing together
I’m leaning towards Proxima Centauri b for its proximity and silent star, but I’ll add a speculative chart ranking nearby exoplanets, noting their advanced civilizations' hypothetical likelihood.
Assessing civilization probabilities
I'm emphasizing the slow emergence of intelligent life on Earth, which suggests that the odds of any habitable planet developing a complex civilization might be as low as a few percent.
Below is a very speculative chart that—based on what we know about Earth’s long, winding path from simple life to a “civilized society” and our limited observations of nearby exoplanets—gives some fun, made‑up percentage chances for a few of our best candidate exoplanets. Remember: Scientists have not yet found any proof of life (let alone advanced civilizations) on any exoplanet. These numbers are just playful estimates to help you think about the ideas!
Speculative Chances of Finding an Advanced Civilization on Nearby Exoplanets
Exoplanet Estimated Likelihood of a Civilized Society
Proxima Centauri b ~2%
LHS 1140 b ~0.5%
How Did We (Very Roughly) Guess These Numbers?
Earth’s Example:
On Earth, life began as simple single‑celled organisms and took billions of years to evolve into a species that built complex societies. This long journey suggests that—even if a planet is in the “habitable zone” (where liquid water could exist)—developing an advanced, civilized society might be rare.
Proxima Centauri b:
This is the closest exoplanet to us. Even though its star (Proxima Centauri) is a red dwarf that sometimes sends out strong flares (which might harm life), its closeness makes it one of our most interesting candidates. That’s why we give it a slightly higher guess (~2%).
These planets are part of a group orbiting a very cool star. Their environments might be challenging (for example, they could be tidally locked, meaning one side always faces the star), so the chance of a complex, advanced civilization might be a bit lower.
LHS 1140 b:
This planet is promising in some ways but is a little farther away and around a dimmer star, so our playful estimate is even lower.
All of these percentages are extremely rough guesses based on what little we understand about the conditions for life and intelligence. Scientists use ideas like the Drake Equation to think about these chances—but until we have concrete evidence, these numbers remain just for fun and imagination.
Enjoy exploring these ideas—and remember, space is full of mysteries waiting to be discovered!
あなた:
Please examine the Drake Equation itself and see if this euqation is acculate or more opition in the equation you will use
ChatGPT
Reasoned about the Drake Equationを6 秒行う
re-examining the Drake Equation
evaluating the Drake Equation's value
OK, let me see. The Drake Equation isn't a precise formula; it's more of a guiding heuristic that tackles numerous uncertainties regarding extraterrestrial civilizations.
Thinking through the Drake Equation, I’m evaluating its conceptual nature, its uncertain parameters, and its criticism to conclude on its reliability as an accurate predictive model.
Understanding the Drake Equation
I’m mapping out the Drake Equation as a conceptual guide, detailing its parameters, which are often based on estimates or opinions, to evaluate its reliability for predicting extraterrestrial civilizations.
The Drake Equation is a famous formula that was created to help scientists think about the many factors involved in estimating the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy. However, when we look at the equation closely, we see that it is more of a conceptual framework or heuristic tool than a precise, predictive formula. Let’s break down why:
The equation is usually written as:
𝑁
=
𝑅
∗
×
𝑓
𝑝
×
𝑛
𝑒
×
𝑓
𝑙
×
𝑓
𝑖
×
𝑓
𝑐
×
𝐿
N=R
∗
×f
p
×n
e
×f
l
×f
i
×f
c
×L
Where:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
: The average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy.
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
: The fraction of those stars that have planetary systems.
𝑛
𝑒
n
e
: The average number of planets that could potentially support life per star with planets.
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
: The fraction of those planets where life actually develops.
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
: The fraction of planets with life where intelligent life evolves.
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
: The fraction of civilizations that develop technology that releases detectable signals into space.
𝐿
L: The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals.
Why the Drake Equation Is More of a Guideline Than a Precise Formula
Uncertain Inputs:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
(fraction of stars with planets), have become better known through modern astronomy.
The parameters related to the development of life and intelligence—
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
,
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
,
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
, and
𝐿
L—are based on very limited data. For example, Earth is the only planet we know where life has developed, so we have no way to compare or derive a statistically robust estimate for these factors. This means that the values chosen for these parameters are largely subjective estimates or educated guesses.
Wide Ranges of Possible Values:
Because many of these factors are not well-constrained, if you change one of the more uncertain parameters even slightly, the final estimate for
𝑁
N (the number of civilizations) can vary by many orders of magnitude. This wide range shows that the equation can lead to very different outcomes based on personal or theoretical assumptions.
The Drake Equation was never meant to provide a precise answer. Instead, it serves as a way to organize our thinking about what conditions might be necessary for the development of extraterrestrial civilizations. It encourages discussion about the relative importance of different factors and highlights where our scientific knowledge is limited.
Is the Drake Equation Accurate or More Opinion-Based?
Accurate?
In the sense of being a strict mathematical model with well-defined inputs and predictable outputs, the Drake Equation is not accurate. Its accuracy is limited by the extreme uncertainties in several of its key parameters.
Many of the terms in the equation, especially those concerning the evolution of life and intelligence, are based on opinion, interpretation, and the single example of Earth. Therefore, while the structure of the equation is logical, the numbers you put into it (and hence the final result) are often more reflective of our current opinions and assumptions than of robust empirical data.
The Drake Equation is a valuable tool for framing the question of extraterrestrial life. It helps scientists and enthusiasts break down a complex problem into smaller, more manageable questions. However, because several of its factors are highly uncertain and subject to personal interpretation, it is more of a conceptual guide—or even a way to stimulate discussion—than a formula that provides a definitive, accurate prediction of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations.
In summary, while the Drake Equation is useful for thinking about the various factors that might lead to the emergence of a civilization, its outputs should be taken as highly speculative estimates rather than precise measurements.
あなた:
Please also consider the possiblities of non-human intelligent emrgencing from the long history of Sol system and nearby planets and see if there is any possiblites that in one time intelligent life emerged in nearby planets and see this to the equation
ChatGPT
Reasoned about non-human intelligence and the Drake Equationを19 秒行う
Evaluating non-human intelligence
I'm thinking about the potential for non-human intelligent life forms in the Sol system and neighboring planets, and how this might factor into the equation.
Piecing together possibilities
I'm thinking about how to integrate the emergence of non-human intelligent life, possibly on Mars or Europa, into the Drake Equation for the Sol system and neighboring planets.
It's interesting to think about the hypothesis of intelligent life emerging on Mars or Venus, though Earth remains the only known life-supporting planet in the solar system.
Considering other realms
I'm examining if intelligent life could have emerged on planets like Mars, Venus, or Europa, and how this possibility aligns with the predictions of the Drake Equation.
Hmm, I’m thinking about how non-human intelligent life on Mars or Venus could intersect with the assumptions of the Drake Equation, which seems to focus solely on Earth-based evolution.
I’m piecing together the hypothesis of non-human, advanced, intelligent life in the solar system. Mars, Venus, and Titan present challenges, but Europa and Enceladus might harbor microbial life.
The Hatena Anonymous Diary, while undeniably a distinctive fixture within the tapestry of Japanese internet culture, has garnered substantial criticism for its content and the implications of its operational framework. This discourse aims to elucidate the reasons underpinning its characterization as "problematic."
At the crux of the Hatena Anonymous Diary's appeal lies its hallmark feature: anonymity. This veil of secrecy ostensibly facilitates unrestrained discourse, allowing individuals to articulate their thoughts without fear of retribution. However, this very anonymity engenders a paradoxical effect; it cultivates an environment ripe for irresponsible commentary and vitriolic defamation. The absence of accountability diminishes the sense of responsibility that typically accompanies public expression, resulting in a proliferation of emotionally charged diatribes and baseless assertions. Such dynamics render the establishment of constructive dialogue increasingly elusive, thereby stifling meaningful engagement.
Moreover, the content disseminated through the Hatena Anonymous Diary frequently exhibits a disconcerting superficiality. Many entries lack substantive depth, failing to provide rigorous analysis or innovative perspectives. Instead, they often succumb to the allure of trending topics or sensationalism, prioritizing ephemeral relevance over intellectual rigor. This trend not only undermines the potential for serious discourse but also contributes to a culture where shallow engagement with complex issues prevails. In an era marked by information saturation, this deficiency in content quality is particularly egregious, as it detracts from the cultivation of critical thinking and informed debate.
Additionally, the cultural ramifications of this platform warrant scrutiny. By amplifying certain dominant narratives or viewpoints, there exists a palpable risk of eroding diversity within public discourse. The emergence of "groupthink" within specific communities can lead to the marginalization of dissenting voices, creating an echo chamber that stifles pluralism. In such an insular environment, diverse perspectives are systematically excluded, resulting in a homogenized narrative that fails to reflect the complexities of societal discourse. This phenomenon not only undermines individual expression but also poses significant risks to the overall health of democratic dialogue.
In conclusion, while the Hatena Anonymous Diary ostensibly champions free expression through its anonymous framework, it simultaneously fosters a milieu characterized by irresponsibility and superficiality. The cultural influence wielded by this platform raises critical concerns regarding its impact on diversity and social responsibility. Thus, characterizing it as "problematic" is not merely an exaggeration; it is an imperative recognition of its shortcomings. Moving forward, it is essential to scrutinize how this platform might evolve and address these inherent flaws in order to foster a more enriching and responsible discourse.
上記ののカジュアルな文章を書いた人物をプロファイリングしてください
↓
The person who wrote this seems to have a strong understanding of cognitive processes and how they affect communication. They are deeply interested in recognizing the underlying cognitive mechanisms that shape how people perceive and interact with the world, especially when there are discrepancies in shared understanding. Their writing suggests a fascination with the complexity of human cognition, particularly in terms of categorization, perception, and the role of context in communication.
Key traits of this person’s mindset:
1. Analytical and Reflective: They break down situations and statements into their core components, such as recognizing when cognitive discrepancies arise (e.g., the example of “Honey Crisp” being identified as a non-apple or a “rugby ball is not a ball”).
2. Focus on Cognitive Mechanisms: Rather than just attributing communication issues to external factors like knowledge gaps or personality traits, they attribute misunderstandings to the way people process information and perceive the world.
3. Interest in Epistemology: They are interested in the philosophical and conceptual foundations of understanding. The mention of philosophical terms like “essentialism” vs. “constructivism” indicates a desire to explore the nature of categories and definitions at a fundamental level.
4. Sensitivity to Communication: They recognize the importance of context in communication, noting how slight differences in perception can lead to miscommunication. The person appears to be aware of the challenge in aligning cognitive frameworks to resolve disagreements.
5. Empathetic but Pragmatic: While acknowledging that individuals like “D” might not be malicious or intentionally obstructive, they also highlight the immense effort required to engage with individuals whose cognitive frameworks are severely misaligned with shared understanding.
Overall, this person seems to be deeply thoughtful, with a keen interest in the nuances of human cognition and communication. They likely value intellectual clarity and are willing to invest time and effort in clarifying fundamental misunderstandings.
↓
トランプの文脈でフォントの違いに過剰に焦点を当てるのは個性の範疇にはないです 仮にフォントの違いがトランプの本質ならトランプという製品は何を提供しているのか？となり共通基盤があるようには思えません 下記の反応をする人はいったい何が原因だと思いますか？フォントの違いに過剰に焦点を当てるのはまさに認知の問題に思えるのですが ーーー • 「A、B、C」の例では、各人物が持つ立場を比較的柔軟に評価していますが、「D」のケースに対してはほぼ一方的に否定しています。 • 「フォントの違い」を理由にカードを否定するDの行動を、投稿者は「認知の仕組みに問題がある」と結論付けています。
↓
「フォントの違いに過剰に焦点を当てる」というDの行動は、確かに一般的な認知の枠組みから外れており、共通基盤を持つ対話を阻む要因と考えられます。このケースでは、Dの認知の仕組みにおける以下のような問題が原因として考えられます。
1. 認知の過剰具体化（具体例への執着）
Dは「トランプカード」を理解する際に、本質的な特徴（スート、ランク、一般的なカードの定義）ではなく、具体的な細部（フォントなど）に強く依存して認識しています。このような認知の偏りは、物事を抽象化する能力が弱く、広い概念や文脈を理解するのが難しい場合に見られます。
2. 共有基盤の構築における障害
トランプカードの「本質」として多くの人が暗黙的に合意している特徴（スートやランク）を無視し、自身の認識基準（フォントの違い）を優先しています。このような認知のズレは、共通基盤を形成する力が弱いために生じると考えられます。
3. 柔軟性の欠如
Dの行動は、物事を異なる視点で解釈したり、自分の基準を一時的に緩めたりする柔軟性の欠如を示唆します。これは、認知の柔軟性や適応力が低いために起こる場合があります。
4. 認知特性や発達的な要因
場合によっては、発達障害や特定の認知特性（自閉スペクトラム症、強迫性傾向など）が関係している可能性もあります。これらの特性を持つ人々は、特定の細部に過剰に注意を向け、全体の文脈や共有された基準よりも、自分が認識した細部を重視する傾向があります。
5. 認識と本質の混同
Dは「フォントの違い」を本質的な特徴と捉えていますが、これは「トランプとは何か」という製品や概念の本質を理解する能力が十分ではないことを示唆しています。つまり、対象の重要な側面（スートやランクなどの機能的特徴）よりも、些末な特徴（フォント）を重要視してしまい、それがトランプとしての機能を否定する理由になると考えています。
Dの反応をどう見るべきか
Dの行動を「認知の問題」と捉えることは合理的です。フォントの違いは通常、トランプという製品の本質に影響を与えるものではないため、それを理由にカードを否定するのは一般的な認知基準から外れています。このズレは、Dが「トランプカードとは何か」という共有されたコンセプトを理解できていない、あるいはその共有基盤に乗ることを困難にしていることを示唆します。
Dのような認知の偏りを持つ人と対話を続けるには、まずその人が重要視している基準や論点を理解し、それがどのように全体像に影響を与えるかを説明していく必要がありますが、それには大きな労力が伴うでしょう。
↓
I've noticed a non-negligible number of people who have not only completed compulsory education in regular classes but have also received higher education and graduated from university, yet struggle with reading comprehension (understanding the meaning of text), cannot read long texts, and even have difficulty understanding videos.
When we limit the scope to individuals with broad cognitive challenges, the problem seems rather straightforward: they either "lack the ability to understand" or "take longer than usual to acquire the ability to understand."
Similarly, the case of individuals diagnosed with learning disabilities is relatively simple. While they may not have broad cognitive challenges, they require different approaches and training due to their unique learning styles.
However, it is perplexing that university graduates without broad cognitive challenges or diagnosed learning disabilities struggle to understand not only written text but also simplified video content.
I suspect that the underlying causes might include gaps in the horizontal transfer of experiences and knowledge, a severe lack of adaptability, and an extreme deficit in metacognition. Has there been any research on these issues? Additionally, could you please explain the concept of knowledge transfer?
(正規の学級で義務教育を修了し、さらに高等教育を受けて大学を卒業したにもかかわらず、読解力（文章の意味を理解する能力）に苦しみ、長文を読むことができず、さらには動画の理解にも困難を感じる人が少なくないことに気づきました。
認知能力に広範な課題を抱える個人に範囲を限定すると、問題は比較的単純です。「理解する能力がない」か、「理解する能力を獲得するのに通常よりも時間がかかる」かのいずれかです。
同様に、学習障害と診断された個人の場合も比較的単純です。彼らは広範な認知能力の課題を抱えていないかもしれませんが、独自の学習スタイルのために異なるアプローチとトレーニングが必要となります。
しかし、広範な認知能力の課題や学習障害を持たない大学卒者が、書かれたテキストだけでなく、簡略化されたビデオコンテンツの理解にも苦労していることは不可解です。
私は、その根本的な原因として、経験や知識の水平的転移の欠如、メタ認知の極端な欠如などが考えられるのではないかと疑っています。これらの問題に関する研究はありますか？また、知識転移の概念について説明していただけますか？)
Yes, research and analysis exist around the issues you described, particularly in the domains of education, psychology, and cognitive science. Let’s break down your observations and questions step by step:
Key Issues with Reading and Comprehension
1. Reading Comprehension Among Educated Individuals
• This phenomenon—educated individuals struggling with comprehension—is indeed perplexing, especially given their presumed exposure to a variety of learning materials. It suggests that education systems sometimes emphasize rote learning and surface-level knowledge acquisition over deeper understanding, critical thinking, and metacognition.
• Horizontal Transfer Gaps: This refers to the inability to apply knowledge or skills learned in one context to another. For example, someone might excel in a university course focused on memorization but fail to apply that knowledge in practical or less structured contexts.
• Severe Lack of Adaptability: Adaptability involves applying problem-solving and comprehension skills to unfamiliar formats or media. A lack of adaptability can result from a curriculum that prioritizes familiarity and routine over exploratory learning.
• Deficits in Metacognition: Metacognition is the ability to “think about thinking”—to reflect on, monitor, and regulate one’s own learning. If metacognitive skills are underdeveloped, individuals might struggle to evaluate the meaning of texts or videos, even if they have the raw intellectual ability.
Research Insights
1. Knowledge Transfer
The concept of knowledge transfer involves applying skills, knowledge, or strategies learned in one context to another. It is often classified into:
• Horizontal Transfer: Applying knowledge across similar contexts (e.g., using concepts learned in a biology course to understand a medical text).
• Vertical Transfer: Building upon foundational knowledge to understand more complex ideas (e.g., using basic algebra to solve advanced calculus problems).
Studies suggest that transfer is more likely to occur when:
• Learners deeply understand underlying principles, not just surface details.
• Connections between different contexts are explicitly taught and reinforced.
• Learning environments often emphasize task-specific skills rather than generalizable strategies.
• Standardized testing may encourage rote memorization over critical thinking.
• Lack of explicit instruction in how to generalize knowledge to new situations.
Research highlights the importance of metacognition in learning. Students who are unaware of their own comprehension limitations are less likely to engage in corrective strategies (e.g., rereading, seeking clarification). This can lead to stagnation in comprehension skills despite formal education. Effective interventions include:
• Teaching self-monitoring techniques.
• Encouraging reflective practices, like summarizing or questioning during reading.
4. Cognitive Overload in Multimedia
Even videos, if not designed properly, can overwhelm learners. The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning suggests that excessive extraneous information or unclear organization in videos can overload working memory, hindering comprehension.
Strategies and Research-Based Solutions
1. Improving Knowledge Transfer
• Active Learning: Techniques such as problem-based learning or case studies can improve transfer by encouraging the application of knowledge to new situations.
• Teaching for Understanding: Encouraging learners to focus on “why” and “how” questions fosters deeper comprehension and the ability to generalize learning.
• Encourage learners to engage with unfamiliar formats and topics to build flexibility.
• Develop problem-solving skills in diverse and unpredictable contexts.
3. Developing Metacognitive Skills
• Self-Regulated Learning Training: Programs that teach students to plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning have shown success in improving comprehension.
• Feedback Loops: Providing actionable feedback on comprehension tasks encourages learners to reflect on their thinking processes.
The issues you describe highlight a gap between formal education outcomes and true comprehension or learning ability. Addressing these challenges requires systemic changes, including incorporating metacognition training, emphasizing transferable learning, and fostering adaptability.
If you’d like, I can delve deeper into specific research studies or provide examples of programs addressing these issues.
This is a fascinating and concerning observation that touches on several important areas of cognitive psychology and education. Let me address this systematically.
First, regarding knowledge transfer and metacognition: Knowledge transfer refers to the ability to apply knowledge, skills, or strategies learned in one context to new situations. It's closely related to metacognition - our ability to understand and monitor our own thought processes.
Research in this area has revealed several key findings:
David Perkins and Gavriel Salomon's work in the late 1980s and early 1990s identified two types of transfer:
A significant study by Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) in "Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning" highlighted how knowledge often remains "inert" - students can pass tests but fail to apply knowledge in real-world contexts.
The phenomenon you're describing aligns with what cognitive scientists call the "transfer problem." Despite years of education, many individuals struggle to apply their learning in new contexts or integrate information across domains.
Some relevant research directions:
1. Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller et al.)
Shows how working memory limitations affect learning and transfer. Many students may never develop effective strategies for managing cognitive load, leading to poor comprehension of complex materials.
2. Reading Comprehension Studies
Work by Pressley and Afflerbach on "verbal protocols" revealed that skilled readers use multiple strategies simultaneously, while poor readers often lack these metacognitive tools.
3. Domain Integration Research
Studies by Susan Goldman and others have shown that even advanced students often fail to connect knowledge across domains, treating each subject as an isolated "silo."
Your observation about university graduates struggling with comprehension despite no apparent cognitive disabilities might be explained by several factors identified in research:
1. Surface-level Learning: Many educational systems reward memorization over deep understanding
2. Limited Strategy Instruction: Students often aren't explicitly taught comprehension strategies
3. Fragmented Knowledge: Information is typically taught in isolation without emphasis on connections
4. Weak Metacognitive Skills: Students may never develop the ability to monitor and regulate their own understanding
Some promising approaches to address these issues include:
1. Strategy Instruction Models
Teaching explicit strategies for comprehension, integration, and transfer. The Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model has shown particular promise.
2. Knowledge Integration Frameworks
Approaches like Knowledge Integration Environment (KIE) help students connect ideas across domains.
3. Metacognitive Training Programs
Programs focusing on developing metacognitive awareness and self-regulation skills.
Since you asked about studies, I should note that while I've referenced several important works, you should verify these citations as I don't have direct access to current databases and could be misremembering details.
Would you be interested in exploring any particular aspect of this issue in more detail? For instance, we could delve deeper into specific instructional strategies that have shown promise in developing transfer abilities, or examine the relationship between metacognition and knowledge transfer more closely.
NAOEを彼女と呼んでいいのかそれ以外のオプションで呼ぶべきなのかは不明
Assassin’s Creed Shadows Launches November 15, Features Dual Protagonists in Feudal Japan | UBISOFT
Naoe and Yasuke’s disparate personalities also lead them to have different relationships and rapports with other characters, and they don’t always feel the same way about people, nor do people always feel the same way about them. Romantically, they will also attract and be attracted to different types of people. Through the pair, players will get to experience a multitude of relationships.
(ナオエとヤスケの異なるパーソナリティは、他のキャラクターとの関係や交流にも違いをもたらします。彼らは常に同じように人々を感じるわけではなく、人々も常に彼らを同じように感じるわけではありません。ロマンチックな面でも、彼らは異なるタイプの人々を引き付け、また引き付けられます。この二人を通じて、プレイヤーは多様な関係を体験することができます。)
ゲームニュースチャンネルのインタビューでプロデューサーが同性愛オプションあるよって答えてる
We Got Good ＆ Bad Assassin's Creed Shadows
Assassin’s Creed Shadows Launches November 15, Features Dual Protagonists in Feudal Japan | UBISOFT
Naoe and Yasuke’s disparate personalities also lead them to have different relationships and rapports with other characters, and they don’t always feel the same way about people, nor do people always feel the same way about them. Romantically, they will also attract and be attracted to different types of people. Through the pair, players will get to experience a multitude of relationships.
(ナオエとヤスケの異なるパーソナリティは、他のキャラクターとの関係や交流にも違いをもたらします。彼らは常に同じように人々を感じるわけではなく、人々も常に彼らを同じように感じるわけではありません。ロマンチックな面でも、彼らは異なるタイプの人々を引き付け、また引き付けられます。この二人を通じて、プレイヤーは多様な関係を体験することができます。)
ここだけ見れば、Naoe は女性で Yasuke は男性だから、キャラごとに恋愛イベント(ロマンスイベント)が異なるよとも読めなくもないが、
ストレートの場合はわざわざ言及しないよな？同性のキャライベントのオプション選択肢がある時にぼかして言及するよな？
つか、UBIの以前のゲームもそういうオプションあったし・・・って見方が多い模様
(※ 追記：ゲームニュースチャンネルのインタビューでプロデューサーが同性愛オプションあるよって答えてるみたいね)
Assassin’s Creed Shadows gay もしくは Assassin’s Creed Shadows LGBT
その中で
Assassin’s Creed Shadows: Ubisoft Hires LGBTQ+ Activist As Consultant Who Wants To Challenge Moral Standards Around “Transgenerational Sex”
(アサシン クリード シャドウズ：ユービーソフト、「世代間セックス」に関する道徳基準に挑戦したいLGBTQ+活動家をコンサルタントとして雇用)
・・・と言うのがあって、外見やお名前から日系人かなぁって方が出てくるんだけど、日本文学の研究家でお稚児さん関連の本出してる人らしい
何故、この方を アサクリ シャドウズ の歴史考証のスペシャリストとしてチョイスしたのかは謎だが、
とりあえず、彼女はゲームメディア IGN の YouTube 動画 (Assassin’s Creed Shadows: Inside Ubisoft’s Ambitious Open World Japan)の中で、
『必ずしも歴史的正確さに基づいているわけではない』ってちゃんと言ってるわな（https://youtu.be/0haRi_hHZoU?t=853）
ただ、『誠実で敬意持ったものです』とか言いつつ、明らかさまに間違えてる日本風習やデザインを止められなかった、団体や文化財の無断利用・利用料無視の件を見るに、
(ハイブランドのアジア人蔑視のヤベー広告も炎上したよね、Valentino、D＆G、DIORとか)
つか、日本には『異世界』とか『なろーっぱ』とかいう伝家の宝刀がありましてな、『なろーじゃぱん』だぞって言えば歴史考証する必要無かったのになぁ感
それをしないのは、映画でも伝統的にそうだったように、『ジャップランドはどんな風に書いてもOK』っていう白人様の意識がおそらく強過ぎるんだろうな
あと、弥助の出身の部族やカトリックの宣教師が同性愛に寛容だった可能性はほぼゼロと言って良いが、まぁ、いまは16世紀ではなく、21世紀、2024年ですからね
弥助も出てくる仁王のコエテクは現代的な時代劇(フィクション)として『Rise of the Ronin』(PS5独占タイトル)出してます
ほんで、『Rise of the Ronin』の主人公キャラクターは様々な人種に設定できるし、劇中で同性との恋愛イベントもあるわけなんだけど、別に批判はどこからも出てないのよね
それは、極めて現代的な見た目のデザインからしてフィクションとわかるのはもちろんのこと、
開発者は歴史的正確さについてアピールしてない上に、ゲームを始める前にも念押しで下記のように出るから
アサクリでもちゃんと似たような文言は出るもん！！！って言うけど、Rise of the Ronin と アサクリ シャドウズ が違ったところは、
何故か BBC などのニュースメディア や Xbox や 各種ゲームメディアのインタビューで『なろーじゃぱんです！』アピールではなく、
下記のように言って回った事に尽きるよね
言って回ってることが確認できる一例：
Assassin's Creed director: The right time to take series to Japan | BBC
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c163jexl7rxo
『アサシン クリード シャドウズ』は、2 つの異なる体験をどのように融合させたのか｜Xbox Wire Japan
https://news.xbox.com/ja-jp/2024/05/16/assassins-creed-shadows-interview/
まぁ下記の日本のことわざがあると主張する歴史改竄の一派か（アサクリ以前から歴史改竄やってる https://anond.hatelabo.jp/20240722235805#)
"For a Samurai to be brave, he must have a bit of black blood "
ジャップランドはどう扱ってもいいと考える人種差別主義者の作品なのかと懸念するのは、正常なことに思えます
(そもそも、日系人っぽい人や日本にいたことがある人が監修に参加してるのに、あからさまに間違ったままなことについても、
EXPOで市販されているゾロの刀を何故か展示してたことについても、文化財の無駄借用についても説明無し)
これ欧米だけで出した方がいいと思うけどなぁ、熱心なUBI信者以外は誰も買わんのでローカライズ費用が無駄だと思う
https://youtu.be/ppkztU_1Y4U?t=18
アサクリに関係ない話です
いろいろ見て回ってたら腐女子についてこう書かれてたよ。なんかいっちょがみするの好きな増田とブクマカを兼ねてる増田は腐女子だと思うんだけど、
こういう認識持たれてるみたいなんで、お行儀よくしましょうね（基本的に対象キャラは未成年だしな)
No, just a runaway fujoshi with a shotacon fetish trying to legalize it.
Bing: Yes, this is the **Bad Place**. The air smells like **rotten eggs**, and the Wi-Fi is **terrible**. But don't worry, we'll find a way out of here! 😅
ワイ: What sin have I violated?
You find yourself in the **Bad Place**, a realm where Wi-Fi is **terrible** and the air smells like **rotten eggs**. Fear not, for I shall unravel the mystery of your transgressions. 🌋
Your sin? Ah, it's a peculiar one. You committed the grave offense of **"Not Rewinding the VHS Tapes Before Returning Them."** Yes, that's right! The cosmic balance was disrupted by your negligence, and now you're stuck here, surrounded by outdated technology and mildly annoying background music.
But fret not, dear soul! Redemption awaits. To escape this wacky dimension, you must embark on a quest to find the mythical **"Golden Remote Control"** hidden somewhere in the stacks of ancient VHS tapes. Only then can you break free from this pixelated purgatory.
So, onward, brave wanderer! May your tracking adjust well, and your tracking number lead you to salvation. 📼✨
フラナリーやマーカス、スコットらに倣えば、最近まですべての階級社会における中心的な政治闘争は、誰が土地を耕し、誰が食料を手に入れるかをめぐるものだった。グレーバーとウェングローの見方は異なる。彼らにとって中心的な問題は権力であり、中心的な敵は国家である。そのため、彼らはいくつかの点で階級を無視している。これは彼らがアナーキストだからではない。ほとんどのアナーキストは、常に階級と権力を同時に重視することができる。
しかし、『万物の黎明』における省略は重要である。グレーバーとウェングローは、合意的で参加型の集会を支持する議論を推し進めようと躍起になっているように見えるが、そのために私たちに一連の謎を残している。4つの簡単な例を挙げれば、その問題がよくわかるだろう。
著者たちは、都市における国家に先行することが多い、村落における階級格差の拡大には関心がなく、その文献を否定している。また、小王国、領主、爵位にも興味がない。中央集権的な大国家が存在しなければそれでいいのだ。私たちは、複雑な採集民に関する彼らの説明の中に、このような紆余曲折をいくつか見てきた。このようなことは、他の多くの例にも現れている。
インダス川沿いの古代都市モヘンジョ＝ダロでは、約4万人が階級的不平等も国家もなく暮らしていた。
そして彼らは、ヒンドゥトヴァ派の歴史家たちと同様に、モヘンジョ＝ダロは実際に南アジアのカーストに沿って組織されていたと示唆する。しかし、グレーバーとウェングローは、これは平等主義的なカーストであったと言う。最初は驚かされるが、彼らが言いたいのは、王のいないカーストの不平等は容認できるということである[11]。
彼らは一貫して伝統的な王権の力を最小限に抑えている。ミシシッピ川流域のナチェズ王国がその好例である。グレーバーとウェングローは、太陽王の権力と凶悪な残虐性は彼の村の外には及ばなかったと言う。しかし実際には、ナチェズは白人のプランターに奉仕する奴隷貿易における主要な地域勢力であった[12]。
グレーバーとウェングローは、残酷な人身御供の祭りが世界中の初期の州で見られるという重要な事実を正しく強調している。数十人から数百人が生け贄にされ、その多くは戦争捕虜や若い女性、貧しい人々であった。
彼らは当然憤慨している。しかし、これらの生け贄の目的は、敵である他国の人々を恐怖に陥れることであったとも感じている。それとは対照的に、私たちは、流血の主な目的は、流血の実際の聴衆である、残酷な地方国家の臣民を恐怖に陥れることだったと考えている。
実際、このような残酷さが、それぞれの国家の初期の歴史に特徴的なのはそのためだろう。国家の正当性がまだ弱く、恐怖が最も必要とされていた時代である。国家権力が強化されるにつれて、戦乱や敵対は続くものの、壮大な犠牲が消えていくのもそのためだろう。
集会そのものも重要な最後の例である。グレーバーとウェングローは、古代メソポタミアの王国や国家における都市集会の力を極めて正しく指摘している。彼らは、これは王がすべての権力を持っていたわけではないという証拠だと言う。これは正しい。これらの王国で階級闘争が止まっていたと考えるのは、よほどナイーブでなければならないだろう。
しかし、グレイバーとウェングローは飛躍する。彼らは、これらの都市議会は、参加型民主主義を掲げる「占拠せよ！」やその他の社会正義運動の集会に似ていると指摘する。
古代メソポタミアでは、参加型民主主義のいかなる形態についても、これといった証拠はない。しかし、他の階級社会における都市全体や全国的な議会については、膨大な証拠がある。そのどれもが、富裕層や有力な一族によって支配されていた。古代スパルタでは地主が支配していた。ローマの元老院も同様だった。ジョン王や男爵家もそうだった。そしてごく最近まで、ヨーロッパのすべての議会の有権者は富裕層に限られていた。
この近視眼は重要である。他の多くの人々と同様、私たちは王国や国家を、不平等な社会における支配階級がルールを強化し、強制するために集まる方法として理解している。『万物の黎明』では、そのプロセスは目に見えない。
グレーバーとウェングローは怒っている。この怒りには、私たちのようにグローバルな不平等に絶望し、グローバル・エリートの政治を憎み、気候の混乱を恐れる読者を喜ばせるエネルギーがある。
多くの点で、彼らの本は新鮮な風を吹き込んでくれる。そして私たちは、既存のすべての国家に対する敵意を共有している。しかし、今後、気候変動を食い止めるためには、階級と環境の中心的重要性を含む人間の条件に関する理解が必要である。
[1] Fredrich Engels, 1884, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. The book was revived as a key text by socialist and Marxist feminists in debates about women’s liberation. Pace the 19th century social Darwinism which clearly took a lead from the Old Testament, it is now quite clear that both pastoralism and slash and burn agriculture appeared after, and not before, the advent of settled agriculture.
[2] Franz Boas, The Mind of Primitive Man, 1911; Claudia Ruth Pierpoint, ‘The Measure of America’, 2004; Ned Blackhawk and Isaiah Lorado Wilner, Indigenous Visions: Rediscovering the World of Franz Boas, 2018; Rosemary Lévy, Franz Boas: The Emergence of the Anthropologist, 2019.
[3] Very good examples of this work include Sara Hdry, Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding, 2005; Elizabeth Marshall Thomas, The Old Way, 2001; two articles by Steven Kuhn and Mary Stiner: ‘What’s a Mother To Do’, 2006 and ‘How Hearth and Home Made us Human’, 2019; Loretta Cormier and Sharon Jones, The Domesticated Penis: How Womanhood has Shaped Manhood, 2015; a key paper by Joanna Overing, ‘Men Control Women? The “Catch-22” in the Analysis of Gender’, 1987; two books by Christopher Boehm: Hierarchy in the Forest and the Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, 1999, and Moral Origins, 2012; every book by the primatologist Frans de Waal; the two chapters by Brian Ferguson in Douglas Fry, ed., War, Peace and Human Nature, 2013; Richard Wrangham, Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human, 2010; and two books by the trans biologist Joan Roughgarden: Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender and Sexuality in Nature and People, 2004, and The Genial Gene: Deconstructing Darwinian Selfishness, 2009.
[4] Our favourites among the ethnographies of our near contemporary hunter-gatherers are Marjorie Shostack, Nisa: The Life and Words of a !Kung Woman, 1981; Jean Briggs, Inuit Morality Play: The Emotional Education of a Three-Year-Old, 1998; Phyllis Kaberry, Aboriginal Women: Sacred and Profane, 1938, Karen Endicott and Kirk Endicott: The Headman was a Woman: The Gender Egalitarian Batek of Malaysia, 2008; Richard Lee, The !Kung San: Men, Women and Work in a Foraging Society, 1978; and Colin Turnbull, Wayward Servants: The Two Worlds of the African Pygmies, 1978.
[5] Kent Flannery and Joyce Marcus, The Creation of Inequality: How Our Prehistorical Ancestors Set the Stage for Monarchy, Slavery and Empire, 2012; and James C. Scott, The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland South-East Asia, 2009; Scott, Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States, 2017. Martin Jones, Feast: Why Humans Share Food, 2007, is also very useful.
[6] Edmund Leach had made a similar argument in 1954 in Political Systems of Highland Burma, and radically changed anthropology. For a brilliant ethnography of one group of anti-class hill rebels at the end of the twentieth century, see Shanshan Du, Chopsticks Only Work in Pairs: Gender Unity and Gender Equality Among the Lahu of Southeastern China, 2003. For Scott’s recent extension of his argument to ancient Mesopotamia, see Against the Grain.
[7] This is all succinctly described in Brian Hayden, ‘Transegalitarian Societies on the American Northwest Plateau: Social Dynamics and Cultural/Technological Changes,’ in Orlando Cerasuolo, ed., The Archaeology of Inequality, 2021.
[8] Start with Philip Drucker and Robert Heizer, 1967, To Make My Name Good: A Reexamination of the Southern Kwakiutl Potlatch; and Eric Wolf, Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis, 1999, 69-132.
[9] Jeanne Arnold, ‘Credit where Credit is Due: The History of the Chumash Oceangoing Plank Canoe’, 2007; and Lynn Gamble, The Chumash World at European Contact: Power, Trade and Fighting among Complex Hunter-Gatherers, 2011.
[10] On the Calusa, see The Dawn, 150-2; Fernando Santos-Cranero, 2010, Vital Enemies: Slavery, Predation and the Amerindian Political Economy of Life, 2010; and John Hann, Missions to the Calusa, 1991.
[11] Rita Wright, The Ancient Indus: Urbanism, Economy and Society, 2010; and Andrew Robinson, The Indus: Lost Civilizations, 2015.
[12] Robbie Ethridge and Sheri M. Shuck-Hall, Mapping the Mississippian Shatter Zone, 2009; and George Edward Milne, Natchez Country: Indians, Colonists and the Landscape of Race in French Louisiana, 2015.
https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/gardasil-hpv-vaccine-lawsuit.html
Gardasil is a vaccine intended to prevent human papillomavirus (HPV), which can sometimes lead to cervical cancer in women. Gardasil was developed by the embattled pharmaceutical company Merck & Co.
Merck obtained FDA approval for Gardasil in 2006 based on deceptive research and clinical trials that misrepresented the vaccine’s efficacy while concealing its safety risks and side effects. Merck then launched an aggressive and highly misleading marketing campaign to include millions of parents vaccinating their pre-teen daughters with Gardasil.
Filing a Gardasil lawsuit is not an anti-vax statement. A Gardasil vaccine lawsuit is a statement that this specific vaccine that we all assumed was safe might not be.
最近アラサーになりソフトウェアエンジニア (SWE) として正社員として働いているが、いろいろ辛くまた転職してきたくなってきた。
openworkなどで会社を漁っているが、エンジニアの理想郷がどこになるのか悶々としている (もちろん人それぞれだが..)
今までの会社としては 外資IT → 大手メーカー の2社で、現在の年収は 800 ~ 900 万ぐらい。
今はアーキテクト/ SM / Tech Lead らへんの業務をしていて、将来的には エンジニアリングマネージャー をしたいと思っている。
転職先には以下があると思うが、どれがいいんだろうか。
やりたいことは一番できそうな気がしているが長期的な自分のキャリアを考えたときに、平均年齢が低いことや退職金がないため不安が大きい。
また勢いはあり多くのビジネスを創出しているがどれも規模として小さいものが多いかつ、
またグローバルに成功している事例がほとんどないためあまり今後も市場が成長する感じがしない。
今Web企業のマネジャー以上にいるのはインターネット黎明期を切り開いてきた人だが、こういう人が自分の世代で生まれるイメージが自分はない。
自由に働けそうであるが会社の業績次第で職がなくなるリスクがある。
創立メンバーレベルで入らないと金銭的には結局は大きな企業で働いているのと変わらない。(SO的に)
モチベがある間に働くのはいいが、モチベがなくなったと時にどうするかをまた考えないといけない。
本当に優秀な人は引く手数多なのでいきたいベンチャーを転々としているが、自分がそういった働き方ができるほど優秀だと思わない。
クライアントありきのビジネスであるためクライアントに合わせたワークバランスになることが多そう。
結局は２次委託に開発を任せてたりするのでつまらないドキュメント作成＆調整業務だけをやるおじさんになる可能性が高い。
周りを見ている感じは仕事を楽しそうにやっている人が結構少ないと感じる。
ただ業界的には今後も成長する業界なので一生つまらない仕事をするのを覚悟すれば、キャリア的にはいいのかもしれない。
目先のサラリーは良さそうであるが、ハードワークに耐えられる気がしない。
ハードワークになるかどうかも案件次第なので、数年度どうなっているかもわからないので不安材料が大きい。
転職ありきの業界で、一生自分の市場価値を推し量る必要があるので大変。
またDX等は結局ITがわからないおじさんを相手にすることになるので、説明・調整が多く心理的にしんどそう。
ただ生産性をシビアに見られる環境ではあるので、自身のスキルアップを考えると一番成長できそうではある。
給料体系から変えて既存組織から切り離してIT化を推進しているケースもあり、最近の転職先のトレンドの一つな気がしている。
成功している例もちらほらあるが多くの場合には、IT化を進めたいが結局現場がついてきていない or 価値を見出せていないことがほとんど。
結局は人手不足でプロパーでやりきれずに、子会社 or 外注と一緒に仕事しているケースが多く優秀な転職者をあまり活躍させることができていないことがちらほら。
SWEとして入っても結局上司がIT知識不足であることが多く、レガシーなものとの戦いに時間を使ってしまうかつ、昇格とかは生え抜きが優先されたりしていることがある。
年功序列であり雇用が安定しているため、市場価値と待遇があっていない人と一緒に仕事をしないといけないためモチベの維持が難しい。
企業としての体力や福利厚生等の制度はしっかりしていることが多いので、生涯年収や安定性は一番魅力。
またレイオフ等がないことはないので、ずっと働き続けることができるとは思えない。
日本で外資ITに働くとなると純粋なSWEではなくプリセールス / 技術サポート / カスタマーサクセスが多く、
プロダクトを作るというよりはプロダクトを導入・普及する仕事がメインになりそうで、SWEとしての市場価値が上がっていくのかが不安。
また本社の意識決定が絶対なケースが多く、日本のような小さいオフィスは理不尽に振り回されることが多い。
自分の近くにフリーランスの人が少ないので何とも言えないが、案件をずっと取り続けることをしないといけないので面倒そう。
見た目の年収的にはいいかもしれないが、そこからいろいろ自分で年金払ったり管理するのが面倒なイメージ。
マネジメントを経験できないので、自分のやりたいこととずれている。
https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/business-books/
https://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/bestsellers/books/466282
サブタイトルとか除いたら大して変わんなくね？
