  |
はてなキーワード: I’ll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 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.
ま～た日本語すら検索すら検索しない人による謎の主張が出ているので、コピペしとくね
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Afro-centrists-claim-that-the-first-samurai-warrior-was-a-black-African
一例：
7mo
The original answer and your comment are both wrong. It is very easy to prove Yasuke was a samurai, you just have to check a Japanese dictionary. I searched for 侍・士 (samurai) on the Japanese online encyclopedia コトバンク (Kotobank), which produced a result from 精選版 日本国語大辞典 (Carefully Selected Edition of the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten, aka Shogakukan’s Japanese Dictionary). I’ll post the link at the bottom, but here is the relevant section in Japanese and my translation in English.
(3)鎌倉幕府では、侍は僕従を有し、騎上の資格ある武士で、郎従等の凡下と厳重に区別する身分規定が行なわれた。しかし、鎌倉中期以降、その範囲が次第に拡大、戦国時代以降は、諸国の大名の家臣をも広く侍と称するようになり、武士一般の称として用いられるようになる。
(3) In the Kamakura Shogunate (1185 - 1333 AD), samurai were professional warriors who had servants and were qualified to ride on horseback, and their status was strictly differentiated from ordinary subordinates such as roju. However, from the middle of the Kamakura Shogunate onwards, its scope gradually expanded, and from the Sengoku Period (1467 - 1615 AD) onwards, vassals of feudal lords in various provinces came to be widely referred to as samurai, and it came to be used as a general term for professional warriors.
Now we have to ask three questions to see whether Yasuke met this definition:
Q: When did Yasuke work for the feudal lord Oda Nobunaga?
A: From April 1581 to June 1582. We know this from multiple eyewitness accounts, which I also mention below.
Q: Was Yasuke a vassal of Oda Nobunaga?
A: Yes, as evidenced by the fact that he was given a stipend, a house, and a job as spear-bearer (a type of bodyguard for the leader of a samurai family). He was also given a short sword called a koshigatana, which was worn as a status symbol and weapon for self-defense at all times by high status samurai. This we know from the Chronicle of Lord Nobunaga, written by Oda Nobunaga’s vassal Ota Gyuichi.
Q: Was Yasuke a warrior fighting for Oda Nobunaga?
A: Yes, as evidenced by the fact that he fought in three important conflicts. One, Yasuke fought in the Second Tensho Iga War in September 1581. This we can infer because the Jesuits said Oda Nobunaga took Yasuke everywhere with him and he led his own troops into this war. Two, Yasuke fought in the Koshu Conquest from February to March 1582. This we know from the Diary of Ietada, written by Matsudaira Ietada, a vassal of Tokugawa Ieyasu, who was himself a vassal of Oda Nobunaga. Three, Yasuke fought in the Honno-ji Incident of June 1582, in which he tried but failed to save the lives of both Oda Nobunaga and his son Oda Nobutada until Yasuke was the last Oda man standing and surrendered to the traitor Akechi Mitsuhide, who spared his life and returned him to the Jesuits. This we know from letters written by the Jesuits, who were glad to have Yasuke back. According to the Oda family today, Nobunaga’s final order was for Yasuke to help him commit seppuku (ritual suicide by stomach cutting) by decapitating him and bring his head to a courier that returned it to the Oda family, so it could not be used as evidence of victory by Akechi Mitsuhide.
So there you have it. Yasuke was a vassal and a warrior for the most powerful feudal lord in all of Japan, during the Sengoku Period. He even assisted his lord’s suicide, a role strictly reserved for samurai. Therefore, he was a samurai. Below is a link to the definition of samurai on Kotobank.
"For a Samurai to be brave, he must have a bit of black blood "
日本人ならそんなことわざないこと誰でも知ってると思うんですけど、当然アサクリ関係ないサイトで見ることになる
https://www.levelman.com/where-black-people-fx-shogun/
リンク貼れないけど下記とか
ちな、悪気なさそうな教師向けサイト・子ども向けサイトでも、YASUKEサイキョーは見ますよ
というか、そもそもUBIがインタビュー動画の中で日系人っぽいアジアンの監修スタッフに『YASUKEは日本で広く受け入れらている』とか言わせてますし
YOASOBI「Into the night」はご存知でしょうか？
「夜に駆ける」の英訳バージョンとして発表されたこの楽曲、まずはとりあえず日本語バージョンから聴いてみてください。そのあと英語バージョンへ。
https://www.uta-net.com/song/284748/
https://www.uta-net.com/song/304176/
そう、この楽曲、「日本語の発音に英語を当てはめながら英訳としても意味を成している」んですね。
この英訳の音の当てはめ方。聴いた瞬間にもう膝を打ってしまったわけですが、英語の成績はそこまで良くなかった私では英訳の上手さを十分に理解しきれない、よりこの英訳について掘り下げたい！と思い、英語が堪能な友人と少しTwitterのDMで話し合ってみました。
____________________
自分…日本在住。英語は多少の理解、会話が可能。（簡単な道案内ができる程度）
文法はなどはあまり理解しておらず、ノリと勢いで会話を乗り切る人間。
英会話で困った時は「幼稚園の子供に話すようにしゃべって！」と言って苦笑いされるタイプ。
友人…英国在住。英語話者のパートナーを持つ。学生時代から成績優秀。語学に堪能であり、大学では談話分析などに触れる。
最近ではTwitterでゆるく繋がっているくらいの距離感であり、一対一で会話のやりとりをするのは数年ぶりでした。
____________________
急な連絡ごめんなさい！
ちょっと気になったことを聞いてみたくて英語に堪能なあなたにご連絡した次第です。
暇なときにふわっとなんか返してくれると嬉しいな！
日本で最近有名なアーティストさんが、もともと日本語の曲を全部英訳して英語バージョンを出したのね。
聞くとわかるかと思うけど「日本語の発音を英語バージョンでも織り交ぜて似た響き」にしてるんだよね。
日: 沈むように溶けていくように
英: Seize a move, you're on me, falling, and we were dissolving.
みたいな。
自分は聞いたとき、うわっ、日本語への音の一致が巧みすぎるな！と感動したんだけどふと疑問に思って。
これって英訳としてちゃんと意味を成した歌詞になってるのかな？
簡単な英文なら読めるけど詳しい文法とかになるとてんでダメだから詳しい方の分析を聞いてみたい！っていう、ほんとただ趣味の質問でした。
____________________
友人
むしろ大歓迎！
YOASOBIのこの曲はギリ知ってますよー。
耳に残りやすい語尾は完全に一致されるように作られてると思う。
(例えば「沈むように」「騒がしい」とか）
あまり日常的には聞かないような文章の作り方をしてる部分があるかな。
例えば、サビのSaw what got seen hid beneath, and louder nights keep beatingは、
「騒がしい日々に笑えない君に」を指してるけど
日本語では騒がしい日々という一つの句になってる部分が、louder nights keep beatingが英詞一つの文に落とし込んでたり。
Saw what got seen hid beneathは本来の英文法だったら、(I) saw what (I) got seen (is) hid(den) beneath.
意味も「僕は見たもの( i.e. 君)が影に隠してるのを見た」だしね。
それが完全に変とは言えないけどね。
Be動詞を全部ain’tに変えたりとか、
三人称単数のhasになるところをhaveにしてみたりとかさ。
あと、英語はどうしても主語ありきなところと、1拍に一音以上乗せられるから※、
新たな情景が多少追加されてる部分があるかな。
具体的にはAメロのSeize a move, you’re on meは
直訳は「動きを止めて、君は僕にいる ( = コントロール下にいるイメージ)」は
サビのI’m going to youは歌い手の「僕」が「君」に近づいてっちゃってるプラス、
You could run with meとか更に逃げ道の選択肢を与えてる気がするかな。
日本語の発音でcatを言ったら、キャ-ット (kya-tto)で二拍必要になる
→ 同じメロディ・拍数があっても載せられる情報量が変わってくる。
____________________
こういうのを待ってた！！！
めちゃくちゃに勉強になる〜、一拍に一音の説明もわかりやすい…最高…。
意味はほぼ一致してるという点は自分もそう読み取ってたから合っててよかった〜情景の描写とかは割と忠実だよね。
自分が引っかかってたのは
「英訳の方が歌詞の主観者が能動的」だなぁって若干感じていたんだよね。（意味伝わるかな…）
「二人今、夜に駆け出していく」
が、二人と描写されてるからここだけ第三者目線で描かれて「僕」から離れているのに対して英訳では
「you and me are running through the night in the dark, I'll take you」
となって、視点が「僕」から変わらないままである。なおかつただ駆け出すだけでなくI'll take you.つまり「僕が君を連れ出す」と能動的に動いている。
この辺りの視点の違いになんとなく不思議な感覚を覚えたので今回質問に至ったんだよね。
でも「英語は主語ありき」という説明でめちゃくちゃに腑に落ちた！
英語だと音を詰められるから歌詞を追加する必要があるのと主語をハッキリさせる必要があったために、そこで新たな描写が増えていて「僕」の主観がより顕著になっていたと！！
そういう解釈…であってるよね？
いやこれめちゃくちゃ楽しいわ、こんな楽しい会話ができる素敵な方、君しかいないわ〜！！本当に付き合ってくれてありがとう！！
あと主語ありきの話で言うと、よくよく考えると日本語だと少なくとも歌詞の世界の中では君と僕に性別は設定されてない（想定されているかもしれないが明言はされていない）のに対して英語版だとSheと少なくとも「君＝女性」と確定しているのもなんとも言語の特徴が表れてるな〜って感じました。
なんかもうちょっと情緒というか、三人称に性別の明確性を持たない言葉があればいいのにね〜ってちょっとだけ思った、蛇足だけど。
____________________
友人
そうだね、多分能動的だなって感じるのは、
英訳版が主語が明確じゃない部分でさえも主語を明示的にしてるのと、
拍の量と文化的に「僕」の描写を若干足してるからだと思うんだ。
というのも追加された「僕」の描写や純粋な日本語の訳を考えたときに、
英語に直した時にやっぱり誰の話？というか
誰が動いてるのかが顕著に足りない気がするんだよね。
君のいう通り、
歌詞に「二人」という表現がいくつも出てきて、僕と君から視点が離れてるけど、
日本語では感覚的と前後の文章で君と僕 (you and me)の話をしてることがすぐに分かるじゃない？
英語だと both of them, both of you, two people, both of us, theyとか選択出てくると思うのよ。
でも現実的にboth of them, both of you, two people, theyは、
この場合の「二人」の代わりにはならないし、
で、ご指摘のyou and me are running ~は言葉を顕著に受け取ると、
すでに夜の中を走ってるわけだから、
”I’ll take you”を入れることで「駆け出し」感？ 今始まる感を演出してると思う。
駆け出すきっかけを作ってるのは僕だし、主語ないと今から始まる感が今ひとつになる気がする。
あと、蛇足の君がsheになってるのは、やっぱり主語抜きにできないし、
無理くり主語抜きにして、受動態とか使うと情景がボケるからでは？
最近はLGBTQ+の台頭によって、
theyを三人称単数でも使われることも出てきたのね。
(sheでもheでもないノンバイナリーの方もしくは性別が分からない人等場合はthey)
でも、まだまだメインストリームな使い方じゃないし、
ここでtheyが使われたりしたら、きっとどこか”LGBTQ+”を意識してると思われそうよね。
一瞬大学の談話分析とか思い出しちゃったけどw、すごく楽しかった！
____________________
数年ぶりの対話でここまで付き合ってくれる友人神かよ…。
そんなこんなで久しぶりの会話が割と弾んでしまい、なんだかもっとたくさんの意見を聞いてみたい！と思い今回投稿をしてみた次第です。
YOASOBI「Into the night」を聴いて、皆さんはどんなことを考えましたか？
個人的にもう少し掘り下げてみたいな〜って感じているのは、
・「日本語らしさ」とは何か？（発音をどこまで崩しても「日本語」として認識されるか？）
という点ですね。
似たような試みをしたのは
COLTEMONIKHA「そらとぶひかり」
https://music.apple.com/jp/album/natural-lips/1538259833?i=1538259836
あたりかと思いますが、なんか言語学に詳しい方いらっしゃったらご教示頂けたら幸いです。
長文ご覧頂き誠にありがとうございました。
ガレージの中は身を切る寒さで、キーを持つ手が悴んだ。毎日こうも寒いと、地球温暖化はでっち上げだなんていう冗談の一つも言いたくなる。
知人の頼みで留学生を空港まで迎えに行くとメイリンに話したところ、自分も行くというものだから、僕は直接空港に行くという当初の予定を変更し、彼女の家に向かっていた。
ここ数日は晴れていて、雪は随分捌けてはいたが、路面の凍結があるかもしれず、神経質にならざるを得ない。バスを使っても良かったが、大きな荷物を抱えてやってくる右も左もわからない留学生には、足がないのは心許ない。
２ブロックほど走行しメイリンの家に到着すると、車を道路の脇に寄せ、彼女が現れるのを待った。
Me: I’m here （着いたよ)
Meiling: k （わかった）
Meiling is typing… （メイリンが入力中……）
Meiling: I’ll be there soon （もうすぐ行く）
あと４分。そう僕は打算した。彼女が「良い」と言ってから出発しているのに、どうして到着してからさらに待つことになるのか、時々不思議に思ったりもするが、これはいつものことだ。
＊＊
４年前、僕が初めてシアトル・タコマ国際空港に到着したとき、僕はBITの寮に向かうシャトルバスを探して、空港内を歩き回っていた。
海外に行くのはそれが初めてのことで、文字通り右も左もわからなかった。
やっと見つけたターミナルは、タクシーが行き交っていて、シャトルバスが停まるところではなかった。疲労で立ち尽くしていた僕に、タクシー運転手が声をかけた。
「タクシーを探してるのか」
「どこの大学」
彼は僕を空港内のインフォメーションセンターに連れて行った。そうして僕が探しているターミナルを案内員の女性に問い合わせてくれた。
その女性は、僕にターミナルへの経路を伝えるだけでなく、わざわざ近くまで付き添って歩いてくれた。
そうして僕は、やっとの事で正しいターミナルに辿り着いたのだった。親切に恵まれて。
ターミナルのベンチには先客がいた。きっとこれは幸運なのだと、僕はわけもなく直感した。
それは小柄なアジア人の女の子で、彼女は僕に親しげに話しかけた。
「BITに？」
「はい」
「良かった。私もです」
彼女が続けた。
「シャトルバス、もうずっと待ってるんです」
「どのくらいですか？」
「１時間くらいです。もしかして場所を間違えたんじゃないかって思ってたんです」
「やっぱりここですよね」
「もうすぐかも」
「そうだと良いんですけど」
「……」
僕は会話に言葉を継ぎ足すことができなかった。
彼女の座っているベンチはまだスペースに余裕があったけど、僕はなんとなく気が引けてそこに座ることができなかった。脚は棒のようになっていたのに。
手持ち無沙汰になって、僕はバックパックから、宮部みゆきの『火車』の文庫本を取り出した。
その時、
「来た」
彼女が叫んだ。
BITのマスコットである、ブルドッグの『ジュリアン君』のプリントが入った白いバンが、僕たちの目の前に止まった。
僕は慌てて文庫本をバックパックに戻して、車輪の滑りの悪くなったスーツケースを引きずり始めようとしていた。
「ところで、」
歩き始めた彼女が踵を返して言った。
「お名前聞いても良いですか？」
僕はサトシと答えた。彼女はメイリンと名乗り、ピカッと笑った。
＊＊
偶然、僕は親切と幸運に恵まれたが、宮本恵梨香が同じだとは限らない。彼女が迷わないように、僕は昨晩、手荷物レーンから僕が迎えに行くターミナルまでの経路をできるだけ詳細に説明して、空港のマップとともに彼女宛にメールした。僕の車の車種とナンバーも添えて。
窓をノックする音がした。
メイリンが手を振っていた。ピカッと笑いながら。
こう言ういい加減な解釈を見てしまったのでイラッとした。なので書いとく
ユニゾン「fake town baby」の歌詞の意味は？解釈と考察！
「溢れんばかりの厨二病ワードが飛び交うこの作品がどうにも肌に合わない僕は、このアニメの視聴を諦めてしまった。」
つーことでやってみた。
かつてニューヨークと言われた街は、異界と人界とが交差して一晩で変わり果て、これにより異界ならではの超常日常・超常犯罪が飛び交う「地球上で最も剣呑な緊張地帯」となった街、「ヘルサレムズ・ロット」が構築される。この街は深い霧と超常現象により外界と隔離されているとはいえ、一歩間違えば人界は不可逆の混沌に飲み込まれてしまう。
そんな中、この街のいつ破れるとも知れぬ均衡を守るために秘密裏に活動する者たちがいた。クラウス・V・ラインヘルツ率いる「秘密結社ライブラ」である。彼らはさまざまな能力を駆使し、「血界の眷属（ブラッドブリード）」を筆頭とする異界の住人と日夜戦っていた。
半年前の事件で異界のものに遭遇し、妹が自ら差し出した彼女の視力によって救われた少年、レオナルド・ウォッチ。妹を救うすべを求めてヘルサレムズ・ロットを再訪した彼は、「ライブラ」の新人と間違われたことをきっかけとして、魔神による無差別襲撃事件に巻き込まれる。異界のものから与えられた「神々の義眼」の力で事件を解決し、正式に「ライブラ」の一員に迎えられた彼は、クラウスらとともに様々な事件（あるいは異界ならではの日常）へと挑んでいくのだった。
I’m sane, but it’s trick or treat？
I’m right, but it’s truth certainly.
Well then “awesome！” welcome to tragedy.
Fake town, Fake town, baby？
直訳すると「おいらは正気だが、そりゃまるで「トリックオアトリート」だ。おいらは正しい、でもそれは確かに真実だ。"まあすげえんだよ" 悲劇へようこそ。ここはフェイクタウンだぜフェイクタウン、ベイベー？」
つまりこれはレオナルドの視点から見た「ヘルサレムズ・ロット」の描写でこの街を訪れた第三者（おそらく視聴者）に向けて話している「ようこそ、この街に来るなんてマジ悲劇だねぇ、『マジすげぇよ』ここは。だって毎日ハロウィーン（悪霊と人間が同じ世界にいる様子）だぜ、気ぃ狂ったと思うっしょ。こっちはマジで正気。だってここは『ヘルサレムズ・ロット』なんだぜ。」
（1番）
情に伏すなんて到底無駄
束の間の安堵は当面邪魔
Hello me, Hello you, 「待った」は効かない
Fake town, Fake town
せっかく勝てる準備してたのに 残念だな 騒々しくて
（2番）
Hello me, Hello you, time to Rock ‘n’ Roll
Fake town, Fake town
前途多難なぐらいがおあつらえだね
始まるぞ 揺さぶられたら
レオナルドは強力な特殊能力持ちだが、いかんせん戦闘に向かない。ヘルサレムズ・ロットでは否応なくラブルに巻きこまれる。
「ヘルサレムズ・ロット」では予想以上に外界の常識が通じないので、外界で有効だった成功法が通じない。だから、これまでの経験値からはどうすればいいか計算が立たない。
という旨をレオナルドから第三者に説明しているというのが「血界戦線」のOPとしてのこの歌詞の内容（以下「」内はレオナルドによる「ヘルサレムズ・ロット」説明）
（1番）
ここは誰の現在地だ？
「嫌いなもんは嫌い うるせえ 黙れ」
それじゃ 多分とうに立ち行かない
ぐだぐだ言ってるだけじゃ 見向きされないのが この街のルール
またとない このcall or dropに乗るだけ
悪鬼羅刹さえも手を叩く さあ喝采万来、お待たせ
（2番）
期待斜め45度
前提享受して 走れ 進め
それで もしも叶っちゃうのならば
「外界の常識が通じないので、神頼みも通じない（神クラスの魔物結構住んでる）。もうわけがわからない。外界じゃ多少腕に自身があってツッパったところで立ち向かえるほど甘く無い上に、立ち止まってる暇すら与えてくれない。」
「眼前の出来事に対して「伸るか反るか」を決めてかないといけない。その厳しさは悪鬼羅刹が喜んじゃうくらい。とにかく頑張れ、うまくいくかどうかは君次第だから。」
どこまでが本当で どこからが嘘なのか
愛してる この街を 愛してる それでも
ああ 生きるsession もう当分は 飽きる気配がない
「こんな街なんで何がホントもう確かめるのも馬鹿らしいくらいなんだけど、この街が大好き。ほんと生きるだけで精一杯なんだけど、飽きないよねぇ。」
「嫌いなもんは嫌い うるせえ 黙れ」
それじゃ 多分 ぶっ飛ばされちゃうぜ
苦言雑言言ってるだけじゃ 見向きさえされないから
生命session 全部巻き込んで 楽しむのが この街のルール
ああ またとない このcall or dropに乗るだけ
もう驚天動地 バカ騒ぎ 後悔するぐらいで just just
ああ またとない このcall or dropに乗るだけ
悪鬼羅刹さえも手を叩く さあ喝采万来、お待たせ
「つーことこう言うルールの街なんで、全ては君次第。まあ頑張れ。」
さあ勝算万全、お待たせ
「てな訳で説明終わり、さあ行こっか」
感動したので訳してみました。
---
大きくなったら
ヒーローになるんだ
あがって、くだって
あがって、くだって
ぼくの頭で、そして心で
風にのって飛ぶよ！
When I grow up
And rise and fall
My head, my heart
大きくなったら
毎朝太陽が出迎えてくれる
１つ１つの波を捕まえながら泳いでいく、
疲れるまで
直感で
When I grow up
And every day
I’ll catch each wave and swim until I’m tired
I’ll practice every move, so inspired
大きくなったら、強く良い人になる
When I grow up I’ll be good and strong
I’ll create a world where I belong
When I grow up
大きくなったら、
あがって、さがっても
丘、星空
はじまりは美しい。
それを繰り返していくんだ
When I grow up
With purpose and see through
The ups and downs
The hills, the starry skies
The beautiful beginning and reprise
When I grow up
※わかんないところははしょってあります
「ブログなんてクソしかないんだ」
「そんなことないよ」
I know， I know I’ve let you down
「そうだとしても、玉に当たることが滅多にない。本当に、ないんだ」
「それでも、絶対に玉はあるんだよ」
I’ve been a fool to myself
I thought that I could
「ぼくの目の前に広がるのは、いつも瓦礫ばかりなんだ。ぼくは、そう、絶望している」
「じゃあ一緒にさがそうよ！」
But now through all the hurt & pain
「……」
「一緒にさがそうよ……」
「……嫌だ」
―沈黙―
It’s time for me to respect the ones you love mean more than anything
「私はひとりでもさがすよ。ネットのこと、大好きだから」
So with sadness in my heart
I feel the best thing I could do is end it all and leave forever
「嘘だ！」
「ほんとだよ」
「嘘だっ！ ブログには何もないんだ！ 空っぽの洞窟なんだよ！ ひとの感情をネタにして弄んで、またひとつ不愉快な思いして、何になるっていうんだよ！」
「そうやって、人の気持ちを踏みにじってきたのね」
「クネクネだとか、プロレスだとか、意味のわからないニヤニヤ笑いが僕を追いつめるだけだ。だったら何もしないほうがいい」
「そうやって、自分の耳を塞いできたのね」
「2chにひどいことされたんだ。ブログもmixiも、誰も僕にやさしくしてくれないんだ」
「そうやって、何もかもひとのせいにしてきたのね」
what’s done is done it feels so bad
what once was happy now is sad
I’ll never love again my world is ending
「何を願うの？」
「何を望むの？」
「……」
「そのためにあなたは何をしてきたの？」
「そのためにあなたは何ができるの？」
「……」
I wish that I could turn back time
’cause now the guilt is all mine
can’t live without the trust from those you love
「自分が好きなのね。好きで好きで、だから嫌いといわれるのがつらいのね」
「……」
「そうやって、嫌なものを全部排除しようと、子供みたいにぐずっているのね」
「……はてなユーザーのくせに！ なんにもわかってないくせに！」
I know we can’t forget the past
you can’t forget love & pride because of that， it’s kill in me inside
「はてなだからどうだってぇのよ！ あんたが今ここで何もしなかったら、私、許さないからね。一生、あんたを許さないからね！」
「……」
「今の自分が絶対じゃないわ！ 後で間違いに気付き、後悔する。わたしはそれの繰り返しだった。ぬか喜びと自己嫌悪を重ねるだけ、でも、そのたびに前に進めた気がする」
「……」
「もう一度、ブログを書いてケリをつけなさい。ブログを書いてきた自分に、何のためにブログを書いたのか、何のためにブログを書くのか、今の自分の答えを見つけなさい。そして、ケリをつけたら、一緒に面白いものをさがしにいきましょう」
「……んっ！」
「……大人のキスよ。帰ってきたら、続きをしましょ」
カタカタと響くタイプ音。嗚咽が入り交じりながらも、その音には一抹の決意が感じられた。
「ぼくをゆるしてください。あなたは、ぼくが何をしたらゆるしてくれますか」
終劇
