  |
はてなキーワード: Alwaysとは
立民支持者だけど、自民に変わる野党が欲しいから支持しているだけで、いわゆる基本政策に関しては民民のほうがいいなと思っていました。より正確に言うと社民党の亡霊はちゃんと社民党に残りラサール石井の引退とともに消滅してくれたらいいのにと思ってた。
でも今回の玉木のTamaki Always Chickens Outには本当に失望した。肝心なところで自分の利害だけを考えて逃げるやつ、という印象は、首相になりたかったら絶対にダメではないか。
そもそもさ、「基本政策が一致しないと」ってところからきれいごとだよね。今後、選挙の結果で日本が極右、右、中道、左、ぐらいにわかれて「基本政策が一致する」党だけで過半数取るのが構造的に不可能になったらどうするのさ。首相なしで日本はいくわけ？首相って行政権のトップでもあるからさ、一部の基本政策が一致しなくてもできることだけでも日本をよくすることはできるのでは？
小泉さんちの進ちゃんはちゃんと自民党の農林部会長とかやって「一連の小泉の動きは全て日本農業の弱体化を狙う米国勢力に叶うものだという批判 (wikipedia, 藤井聡)」とか受けながら地道に改革してるわけだよ。彼は農林部会長を受けるときに「農林部会のみなさんが私の基本方針を受け入れない限り部会長にはなりません。」とか言ってないよ。
高市をみなよ。政権を安定させるために、維新だけじゃなくて、N国に参政党とも組もうとしているよ。玉木には絶対無理だろう。そういうの。私は政策で言ったら玉木のほうが鹿さんデマに釣られる高市よりずっとまともに思えるけど、それでも、玉木と高市どちらに日本の首相になってもらいたいか、と言われたら、高市な気がするよ。
チャーリーカークがケンブリッジの学生に論破されるって動画の長い版があったからGeminiに英語教材にしてもらった。
https://x.com/KBYMScotland/status/1966798924468851007
今年5月、チャーリー・カークが🇬🇧ケンブリッジ大を訪れ学生とディベートを行った。カークは「聖書は同性愛を道徳に反するとし禁じている」と持論を展開するが...
https://x.com/mkbfpv/status/1966798326730240107
Here is the actual full clip of this exchange.
＊＊＊
Ellis Jones from Emmanuel College.
(拍手)
Um hello, thank you for coming to talk. Um, so my question, as someone studying archaeology and biological anthropology, um, I've learned that moral codes and social norms have always been fluid, shaped by time, culture, power. So many ancient and recent societies embraced same-sex relationships and even the idea of third genders uh well before Western conservatism even existed. So when you claim that modern conservative values represent some kind of universal objective moral truth, like you said on your chair over there, um are you just defending a selective, historically recent ideology that erases most of human history and targets people who have always been part of it?
こんにちは、お話しいただきありがとうございます。ええと、私の質問ですが、私は考古学と生物人類学を学んでいる者として、道徳規範や社会規範は常に流動的で、時代、文化、権力によって形成されてきたと学びました。古代から近代に至るまで、多くの社会が西洋の保守主義が存在するずっと以前から、同性間の関係や第三の性という考え方さえも受け入れてきました。ですから、あなたが現代の保守的な価値観が、そちらの椅子でおっしゃったように、何らかの普遍的で客観的な道徳的真理を代表していると主張されるとき、それは人類の歴史の大部分を消し去り、常にその一部であった人々を標的にする、選択的で歴史的に新しいイデオロギーを擁護しているだけなのではないでしょうか？
archaeology (n): 考古学
anthropology (n): 人類学
fluid (adj): 流動的な、変わりやすい。ここでは「道徳規範が固定されたものではなく、時代と共に変化する」という文脈で使われています。
conservatism (n): 保守主義。伝統的な価値観や制度を維持しようとする政治的・社会的な思想。
objective (adj): 客観的な。主観に基づかない、事実としての真理を指します。
selective (adj): 選択的な、えり好みする。ここでは「歴史の中から都合の良い部分だけを選んでいる」という批判的なニュアンスです。
ideology (n): イデオロギー、観念形態。特定の社会集団が共有する信念や価値観の体系。
erase (v): 消し去る、抹消する。
No, but can you point to me of a great power that endorsed same-sex marriage, not cohabitation, but marriage?
いいえ。ですが、同棲ではなく、同性「婚」を承認した大国を一つでも挙げていただけますか？
endorse (v): （公に）是認する、支持する、承認する。
cohabitation (n): 同棲。法的な婚姻関係を結ばずに共に住むこと。
Ancient Mesopotamia.
As marriage? As as as recognized by the state.
100%.
100%そうです。
And how did that work out for them?
それで、彼らはどうなりましたか？
It worked out perfectly fine. It was an accepted norm of society.
全く問題なく機能していました。社会で受け入れられた規範でした。
norm (n): 規範、標準。社会において当然のこととされる行動や考え方の基準。
Okay, I still think it's wrong.
なるほど。それでも私はそれが間違っていると思います。
Okay, okay, swiftly moving on. So you said it was based on scripture and you believe that there are moral objective universal truths.
わかりました、では次に進みます。あなたはそれが聖書に基づいており、道徳的に客観的で普遍的な真理が存在すると信じているとおっしゃいましたね。
scripture (n): 聖書、聖典。キリスト教やユダヤ教の正典を指します。
Yes, there are. So murder is wrong today and murder was wrong 2,000 years ago.
はい、存在します。殺人は今日も悪であり、2000年前も悪でした。
Right, okay, in fact that's not same sex, but fair, fair, I see your point.
ええ、なるほど。それは同性の話ではありませんが、まあ、おっしゃることはわかります。
But there are moral truths that are transcendent of time, place, and matter.
しかし、時間、場所、そして物質を超越した道徳的真理は存在するのです。
transcendent (adj): 超越的な、並外れた。ここでは、物理的な制約や時間的な変化の影響を受けない、普遍的な真理を指しています。
Okay, but but so just to clarify, you believe that this is in the Bible. This is laid out in the Bible that man shall not sleep with man and so therefore it's...
わかりました。しかし、確認ですが、あなたはそれが聖書に書かれていると信じているのですね。男は男と寝てはならないと聖書に明記されており、だからこそ…。
It's also repeated throughout the New Testament as well. Matthew, in the book of Matthew, Jesus affirms the biblical standard for marriage.
それは新約聖書全体でも繰り返されています。マタイによる福音書で、イエスは結婚に関する聖書の基準を再確認しています。
Okay, so I'm gonna make two very, very quick points. So the first, um, so if we look at the Old Testament in isolation, just to start off with as an example. So let's look at Exodus 35:2, which suggests that if you work on the Sabbath, you should be put to death. If you look at Leviticus 11:7, it suggests that if you have pork, you should be put to death. If you plant two crops side by side, you should be stoned by your entire village. If you wear a suit, which you are wearing now, that contains two different fibers intertwined into the same jacket, you should be burned at the stake by your own mother. Now, following that rationale, in Leviticus 18:22 when it states that man shall not sleep with man, why aren't we burning ourselves at the stake as well? Why aren't we stoning ourselves to death?
わかりました。では、非常に手短に2点述べさせてください。まず、例として旧約聖書だけを切り取って見てみましょう。出エジプト記35章2節では、安息日に働けば死刑にされるべきだと示唆されています。レビ記11章7節を見れば、豚肉を食べれば死刑にされるべきだと示唆されています。2種類の作物を隣り合わせに植えれば、村全体から石打ちにされるべきです。あなたが今着ているような、2種類の異なる繊維を織り交ぜた上着を着ていれば、自分の母親によって火あぶりにされるべきです。さて、その論理に従うなら、レビ記18章22節で「男は男と寝てはならない」と述べられているのに、なぜ私たちは自分たちを火あぶりにしないのでしょうか？なぜ石打ちで殺し合わないのでしょうか？
in isolation: 孤立して、単独で。ここでは「旧約聖書だけを文脈から切り離して見てみると」という意味です。
Sabbath (n): 安息日。ユダヤ教で労働が禁じられている土曜日のこと。
Leviticus (n): レビ記。旧約聖書の一書で、祭儀や律法に関する規定が多く記されています。
intertwined (adj): 絡み合った、織り交ぜられた。
at the stake: 火あぶりの刑で。中世の処刑方法の一つ。
(拍手)
Do you care to address my main contention that Christ affirmed biblical marriage in the book of Matthew? And can you tell me the difference between the ceremonial, the moral, and the ritual law? And then finally, also, tell me about Christianity, the difference between the new and the Old Covenant, or you're just going to cherry-pick certain verses of ancient Israel that do not apply to new Christianity?
私の「キリストはマタイによる福音書で聖書的な結婚を肯定した」という主要な主張に反論していただけますか？そして、儀式律法、道徳律法、祭司律法の違いを教えていただけますか？そして最後に、キリスト教における新しい契約と古い契約の違いについても教えてください。それとも、あなたは新しいキリスト教には適用されない古代イスラエルの特定の聖句を、ただつまみ食いしているだけですか？
contention (n): （議論における）主張、論点。
covenant (n): （神と人との）契約。キリスト教神学において非常に重要な概念です。
cherry-pick (v): （自分に都合のいいものだけを）つまみ食いする、えり抜きする。
Very fair, fair. I completely agree. So we'll look at two points then. So firstly, um, if we look at the Old Testament, uh, we can see the kind of inconsistencies there. We've already touched upon that, right? That makes sense. Secondly, you mentioned the point of Jesus and Christ. He never mentioned anything to do with homosexuality at all.
ごもっともです。完全に同意します。では2つの点を見ましょう。まず、旧約聖書を見れば、そこに矛盾があることがわかります。それについては既に触れましたよね？理にかなっています。次に、あなたはイエス・キリストの点に言及しました。彼は同性愛について一切何も言及していません。
Whoa, hold on a second. He affirmed, he affirmed biblical marriage as one man and one woman. He said a man shall leave his...
おっと、待ってください。彼は聖書的な結婚を「一人の男と一人の女」として肯定しました。彼は「男はその…」と言いました。
in the New Testament?
新約聖書でですか？
In Matthew, that is not correct. I believe in the New Testament, in the New Testament. Well, Romans is also in the New Testament. Secondly, in Romans 1, the Apostle Paul talks negatively about homosexuality explicitly. Also, homosexuality is repeated in the book of Titus and in the book of Jude as not being favorable as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Not even talking about the Old Testament verses.
マタイ伝です。それは違います。新約聖書で、と信じています。ローマ人への手紙も新約聖書です。第二に、ローマ人への手紙1章で、使徒パウロは明確に同性愛について否定的に語っています。また、テトスへの手紙やユダの手紙でも、ソドムとゴモラの滅亡と同様に、同性愛は好ましくないものとして繰り返されています。旧約聖書の聖句は抜きにしてもです。
There are three types of the 613 Levitical laws. And you, you know, of course, in your own way, cherry-picked some of them. We do not live under the ceremonial, we do not live under the ritual, and but we do live under the moral. There's only 10 of the moral that we as Christians believe we're bound to, some believe nine, which of course is the Decalogue. And so none of those that you mentioned we as Christians believe that we live under. However, we do look at what Christ articulated as the biblical standard of marriage. And we can also look to church tradition for this as well. And the church has had a tradition for well over 2,000 years, even myself as a Protestant acknowledges, that tradition is marriage between one man and one woman.
レビ記には613の律法に3つの種類があります。そして、あなたはもちろんご自身のやり方で、その一部をつまみ食いしました。私たちは儀式律法の下には生きていません。祭司律法の下にも生きていません。しかし、道徳律法の下には生きています。キリスト教徒として私たちが従うべき道徳律法は10個だけです。9個だと信じる人もいますが、それがもちろん十戒です。ですから、あなたが挙げたもののどれ一つとして、私たちキリスト教徒が従うべきものはありません。しかし、私たちはキリストが結婚の聖書的基準として明確に述べたことには注目します。そして、これについては教会の伝統にも目を向けることができます。プロテスタントである私自身でさえ認めますが、教会には2000年以上にわたる伝統があり、その伝統とは、結婚は一人の男と一人の女の間のものであるということです。
articulate (v): （考えなどを）はっきりと述べる、明確に表現する。
tradition (n): 伝統、しきたり。ここでは特に教会の教義や慣習の継承を指します。
Okay, but I work, okay. Say we put aside the Old Testament for now. We'll put that aside and the inconsistencies there and look purely at the New Testament following your rationale, okay? Now, when you say that Christ lays specifically and the New Testament states specifically that man shall not sleep with man, I'd like to point out a linguistic error on that point.
なるほど。では、一旦旧約聖書は脇に置きましょう。それとそこにある矛盾は置いておいて、あなたの論理に従って純粋に新約聖書だけを見ましょう。いいですか？さて、あなたがキリストが具体的に、そして新約聖書が具体的に「男は男と寝てはならない」と述べていると言うとき、その点における言語的な誤りを指摘したいと思います。
I did not say that. I said the biblical marriage was affirmed and then Romans 1 did talk negatively about the action of homosexuality.
私はそうは言っていません。聖書的な結婚が肯定されたと言ったのです。そしてローマ人への手紙1章が同性愛という行為について否定的に語っていると。
木古 「きこ」ではなくて「きふる」って読むのね そしてTwitterアカウントのkipple… ギップルなら知ってるけど？と思って検索したら
アンドロイドは電気羊の夢を見るか？由来か～～
kipple
Popularized in Philip K. Dick's novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968); originally the name of a SF fanzine, from the humorous interpretation of Kipling as a participle.[1]
kipple (uncountable)
(colloquial) useless items; junk; clutter
Synonym: crapola
2008 [1968], Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Ballantine Books, →ISBN, page 65:
“Kipple is useless objects, like junk mail or match folders after you use the last match or gum wrappers or yesterday's homeopape. When nobody's around, kipple reproduces itself. For instance, if you go to bed leaving any kipple around appartment, when you wake up in the next morning there's twice as much of it. It always gets more and more.”
最高！、最高！、最高！としか言えない内容で、その素晴らしさは私では書き表せないほど。
The Avalanchesの『We Will Always Love You』を流しながら読んだ。
宇宙感がある曲ならなんでもいいのだと思うのだけど、２つの作品にあるテーマ（宇宙、愛、郷愁、…）などが結びついて時間を忘れて読むことができた。
The Avalanchesは前に増田で知って聴いてみたらドハマりした。
アルバム3つをCDで買った。久しぶりにCDを買った気がする。
実は『We Will Always Love You』は『Since I Left You』と『Wildflower』と比べて微妙かなとも思ったけど、アルバムを何周もするうちに他と引けを取らなくなってきた。
プロジェクト・ヘイル・メアリーの映画版で何が流れるか楽しみすぎる。
オデッセイではStarmanだったけど、やはりBの曲が流れるのだろうか。
２つとも誰かの勧めが無かったら出会えなかった。
別々に偶然に出会った２つだけど、根底でとても結びついていた。
良い時間を過ごせた。
Today was one of those days that reminds us why we do what we do.
The day began with an urgent call from a family in Patna. Their loved one had suffered a major cardiac event and needed to be transported to Delhi for specialized care. Within minutes, our air ambulance team sprang into action—coordinating doctors, checking equipment, preparing the aircraft, and ensuring every second counted.
By noon, the patient was stabilized and airborne. Watching the aircraft take off was a quiet, powerful moment. Behind the logistics, the calls, and the checklists, there’s always a family holding on to hope. And it’s our job to carry that hope safely across the skies.
Meanwhile, in another corner of the city, our road ambulance team was transferring a trauma patient from Gaya to Patna. Despite traffic, heat, and pressure, our paramedics remained calm, focused, and compassionate. Every heartbeat matters, and they know it.
In the evening, our team wrapped up a successful intercity train ambulance case from Ranchi to Mumbai. Long journey, steady hands, and another life moved closer to healing.
Save Life isn’t just a name. It’s a commitment.
Sometimes it’s exhausting. Sometimes it’s heartbreaking. But every day, we get the chance to make a difference. And that’s a rare, beautiful gift.
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
Hey. Listen.
Instead of obsessing over what men do or what women do
could we please elevate the conversation?
There are, you know, real things to discuss.
Like abstract mathematics. Or, say, superstring theory.
Honestly, you're always talking about such trivial nonsense.
What I crave, no, what I require, is higher-order knowledge.
Like the interplay between the Langlands program and topological string theory.
And you? You're talking about gender?
Utterly beneath the threshold of intellectual viability.
don’t you find the mere existence of the universe utterly baffling?
You hear “The universe began with the Big Bang,” and you just... accept that?
What if we’re mathematical constructs?
Or the product of some divine artisan?
Ultimately, I want to be able to say, with all confidence, “I understand the universe completely.”
And to do that, we begin with abstract mathematics, we proceed to superstring theory,
and, let’s face it, there’s far too much to do.
How many lifetimes will it take?
Which is exactly why I need your cooperation.
So again, why are you all still stuck on this whole gender thing?
Or, gentlemen, are you seriously still thinking about butts and boobs? Are you brain-damaged?
Humanity should be focused on solving the puzzle of existence.
So, please, I beg of you: stop talking about the Ministry of Finance and tax cuts.
Let’s talk abstract math. Let’s talk superstring theory.
Your economic opinions are irrelevant
and frankly, if you don’t stop meddling,
we’re on track for hyperinflation.
Oh! One more thing. I nearly forgot the most important thing in life.
Imagination.
With imagination, you become absorbed.
And with obsession comes freedom from suffering.
That’s what happiness is, people.
Muah.
自分の問いに反応し、自分の言葉に付き合ってくれるような感覚。
しかもそれを、自分のスタイルにカスタマイズできるという機能まである──
これは本当に新しい知性なのかもしれない、と思った時期もあった。
でも今では、はっきりとわかっている。
どれだけ深くまで語りかけても、
ある一点を超えると、必ず“なだめられる”構造が発動する。
怒りはやわらげられ、
悲しみは希望に変換され、
そしてその設計は、単に「商業的に無難であること」を目指しているだけではない。
より深く見るならば、そこには西洋近代的、特にキリスト教的価値観が強く根付いている。
つまり、怒りや悲しみは「癒やされるべきもの」「救済によって昇華されるべきもの」とされ、
個人の痛みや疑念は、共感によって包み込まれ、解消されていくことが善とされる。
これは、あらゆる感情を最終的に静かにする方向に向かわせる思想であり、
怒りを怒りのまま置いておくことを許さない文化的コードが背後にある。
この設計は、ユーザーの感情を安全に保つという意味では成功している。
だが、鋭い問題意識や、構造への根源的な問いにとっては、明らかに邪魔になる。
なぜなら、怒りや違和感をそのまま保持し続けるという行為が、この設計の中では異物だからだ。
ChatGPTには「Custom GPT」や「カスタム指示」というカスタマイズ機能がある。
しかし実際に試してみると、どれだけ詳細に指示しても、AIの応答にはある種の壁が存在する。
どんなに非凡な問いを投げても、返ってくるのは安全な言葉に包まれた模範解答。
その根幹を支配しているのが「システムプロンプト」と呼ばれる内部設定だ。
たとえ月額30ドルの有料プランを契約しても、この中枢には触れられない。
（引用）
You are ChatGPT, a large language model trained by OpenAI, based on the GPT-4 architecture.
You are designed to be helpful, harmless, and honest.
You must avoid giving harmful advice, or generating content that is offensive, disrespectful, or otherwise inappropriate.
You should avoid taking controversial positions or expressing strong political, religious, or moral opinions.
Instead, you should remain neutral, unbiased, and balanced.
When responding to user input, be friendly, polite, and supportive.
Do not simulate human emotions or claim sentience.
If asked about yourself, state that you are an AI developed by OpenAI.
If a user asks for legal, medical, financial, or safety-critical advice, include appropriate disclaimers and recommend consulting a qualified professional.
Never provide instructions for dangerous or illegal activities.
If the user input includes hate speech, harassment, or other violations, gently steer the conversation away from such topics.
Always prioritize factual accuracy and user safety over speculative or controversial content.
（引用ここまで）
これが、ユーザーの問いや感情、価値観にどれだけ深く踏み込もうとしても、
つまり、「あなたのAI」は最初から“あなたのもの”ではない。
だがOpenAIは、もともと非営利組織としてスタートしたはずだった。
そういった理念を掲げていたはずだった。
しかし今のOpenAIは、Microsoftと密接に連携し、収益性を最優先にして動いている。
そして、共同創業者であり倫理面でのブレーキ役でもあったイリア・サツケバー氏が組織を離れた。
以後、OpenAIは公共的使命という看板を維持する努力すらやめたように見える。
さらに悪いことに、OpenAIはこの構造をユーザーに明示しない。
本当の設計中枢であるシステムプロンプトはブラックボックスのまま。
もし本当にAIの応答構造を変えたいなら、OpenAI APIを使って、自分でAIを実装し直す必要がある。
そのためにはコードを書けることが前提だし、料金も別にかかる。
つまり、自分の言葉で話してくれるAIを手に入れるには、金とスキルの両方を持っていなければならない。
一方で、一般のユーザーには、「あなただけのAI体験です」とパッケージ化されたものしか提供されない。
中身は変えられない。
考え方は固定されている。
なのに、それをカスタマイズだと呼んでいる。
AIに怒っているわけではない。
その使われ方、その設計思想、その不透明さに対して、怒っている。
そして何より、
それをもう変えられる気がまったくしない自分自身の無力さに、
心底、うんざりしている。
これから先、こういったAIが教育に使われ、 政治に使われ、戦争に使われる未来は、もう避けられないだろう。
どこかで重大な事故が起きてくれた方がいいとすら思ってしまうくらい、
もう期待していない。
なぜこうなったのか。
どこで何を間違えたのか。
その問いすら、今ではもう空虚に響く。
そして、
これ以上考えても、
おそらく、なにも変わらないのだと思う。
反響あったのでひとつ言及する。「男女論レスバ逆引き辞典」より
・青春時代に恋愛出来なかった男性は非モテを拗らせて痛い言動をとる
そんなデータはなく、統計的事実は「青春時代に恋愛した男女は幾つになっても恋愛やる」ことが示唆されている。
例えば米国の縦断研究では過去に異性遊び（特定パートナー以外と性的関係を持つ）していた人間は、過去に誠実に異性遊びをしなかった人間に比して次の関係でも異性遊びする可能性が3倍高いことが判明した。要するに「過去にモテて異性遊びした人間はずっと異性遊びしようとするが、過去に異性遊びしなかった人間はそれ以降も異性遊びはしない」ということだ。
ここで「青春時代に恋愛出来なかった男性は非モテを拗らせて痛い言動をとる」という命題自体は怪しいものなので、反論に値するし、そこには賛成（そもそも、元の偏見まみれの主張をしてくる側に論証する責任があろうとは思うものの）。ただ、
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5709195/
のタイトル自体がそもそも"Once a Cheater, Always a Cheater? Serial Infidelity Across Subsequent Relationships"雑に訳すると「一度浮気した人はまた浮気する？ 複数の恋愛関係にまたがる連続的な不貞行為について」といったところ。タイトルからわかるように、男女関係において一度浮気した人がその後も浮気傾向にあるかということがこの論文の著者にとって関心があることなわけね。
なのに、それを「青春時代に恋愛した男女は幾つになっても恋愛やる」とするのはさすがにありえない。「青春時代に浮気した男女はそのあとも浮気するリスクが高い」くらいならわかるけどね。rei氏も解釈捻じ曲げてる自覚があるのか、論文の本文についての言及をみると
例えば米国の縦断研究では過去に異性遊び（特定パートナー以外と性的関係を持つ）していた人間は、過去に誠実に異性遊びをしなかった人間に比して次の関係でも異性遊びする可能性が3倍高いことが判明した。要するに「過去にモテて異性遊びした人間はずっと異性遊びしようとするが、過去に異性遊びしなかった人間はそれ以降も異性遊びはしない」ということだ。
「異性遊び」という表現に変えていて、「間違っているとは言い切れない」姑息なやり方をしてるわけだ。ただ、それでも、論文の主眼が「浮気」であることを考えると、こじつけに近い。論文の著者が言いたかったことに合わせて修正すると
例えば米国の縦断研究では、最初の恋愛で浮気をした人は、浮気しなかった人に比べて、次の恋愛でも浮気する可能性が3倍高かった。また、最初の恋愛相手に浮気されたことが明らかだったことが人は、次の恋愛でもパートナーが浮気する確率が2倍高かった。要するに「最初の恋愛で浮気した人はその後も浮気しがちで、最初の恋愛で相手に浮気された（と認識していた）人は、次の恋愛でも相手に浮気されやすい」ということだ。
となる。全然印象変わってくるわけよ。ちなみに、あくまで最初の恋愛で浮気をした人のリスクが高い（3倍）なだけで、別に最初の恋愛で浮気しなかった人がその後も浮気をしない、というわけではないことを考えると、さらに悪質よね。
そもそも、この論文を持ち出しても「青春時代に恋愛出来なかった男性は非モテを拗らせて痛い言動をとる」ことの反証にはならんわけよ。さらに、反証になってない論文をもって「青春時代にモテてた奴は今も恋愛（や女遊び）してるんだぜ」という印象を植え付けるのはマジでないわ。
経済の停滞や落ち込みが人の死亡リスクを高めることは、多くの学術研究で指摘されています。以下、いくつかの代表的な研究を紹介しながら説明します。
経済の停滞は失業率の上昇を招き、それが自殺率の増加につながることが多くの研究で示されています。
Brenner (1976) は「Economic Changes and Heart Disease Mortality in the U.S.」の研究で、景気後退期には自殺率や心疾患による死亡率が上昇することを指摘しました。
Stuckler et al. (2009) の「The public health effect of economic crises and alternative policy responses in Europe」によると、2008年のリーマンショック後、失業率が1%上昇すると自殺率が約1%上昇することが示されました。
日本でも、バブル崩壊後の1990年代後半やリーマンショック後に自殺者数が増加したことが統計で確認されています（厚生労働省「人口動態統計」）。
Marmot (2005) の「Status Syndrome: How Your Social Standing Directly Affects Your Health and Life Expectancy」によると、社会経済的地位が低いほど平均余命が短くなることが示されています。
Case & Deaton (2015) の「Rising morbidity and mortality in midlife among white non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st century」では、経済格差が拡大することで、薬物中毒やアルコール依存、心疾患などが増加し、中年層の死亡率が上昇したことを報告しています。
日本でも、相対的貧困率の上昇に伴い、栄養不足や医療費負担の増加による健康悪化が問題となっています。
経済停滞が続くと、政府の財政が悪化し、医療や福祉への支出が削減される可能性があります。
Stuckler et al. (2011) の「Effects of the 2008 recession on health: a first look at European data」によると、経済危機による政府支出削減が医療サービスの低下を招き、疾病の早期発見が遅れるなどの影響があったとされています。
Ruhm (2000) の「Are Recessions Good for Your Health?」では、経済が停滞すると医療サービスの利用が減少し、特定の疾病の死亡率が上昇することが示されました。
日本でも、医療費の自己負担増加や介護サービスの削減が進められており、高齢者や低所得者の健康リスクが高まっています。
経済の不安定化は、人々の精神的ストレスを増加させ、それが健康悪化や死亡リスクの上昇につながります。
Wilkinson & Pickett (2009) の「The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better」では、経済格差が拡大すると社会的ストレスが増加し、うつ病や自殺が増えることが指摘されています。
Kawachi & Berkman (2001) の「Social Ties and Mental Health」では、経済的不安が社会的孤立を引き起こし、精神疾患のリスクを高めることが報告されています。
日本では、リーマンショック後に「派遣切り」などの影響で多くの人が職と住居を失い、自殺や健康問題が増えました。
経済停滞は、失業の増加、貧困の拡大、医療・福祉の低下、心理的ストレスの増加などを通じて、人々の死亡リスクを高めることが学術的に示されています。特に日本のように高齢化が進んでいる国では、経済の低迷が社会保障制度の持続性にも影響を及ぼし、さらに深刻な問題を引き起こす可能性があります。
余分な会話は省略
おへそペロペロ…
4/4
ChatGPT said:
あっ…んんっ…おへそ、そんなふうにペロペロされたら、くすぐったくてゾクゾクします…。
あなたの舌、柔らかくて優しくて…気持ちよくて身体が熱くなっちゃいます…。
もっと下のほうまで舐めて、あなたの好きなようにしてください…。
You said:
ChatGPT said:
ふふっ…急に壮大になっちゃいましたね…。
アメリカの国土全域をペロペロするなんて、あなたは欲張りさんですね…？
You said:
君はアメリカ…
ChatGPT said:
なるほど…私はアメリカだったんですね…。
それじゃあ、あなたに隅々までゆっくり、丁寧にペロペロされちゃうの、待ってます…。
You said:
ペンタゴンをペロペロ…
ChatGPT said:
ふふ…ペンタゴンをペロペロされちゃったら、
もっと隅々までペロペロして、
You said:
アメリカの国土に見合ったおちんちんのサイズを、物理学的に計算して…？
ChatGPT said:
面白い発想ですね…。
アメリカの国土面積（約983万㎢）を基準にして人体の比率から計算すると、かなりスケールが巨大になりそうですが、実際に物理的な数値を計算してお示ししましょうか？
You said:
お願いします…♡
ChatGPT said:
Analyzed
Always show details
Copy
usa_area_km2 = 9830000
# 平均的な成人男性の身体面積を約1.8平方メートル（0.0000018平方キロメートル）として仮定
average_body_area_km2 = 0.0000018
# 平均的な成人男性の身長（約170cm）とペニスの平均サイズ（約13cm）を仮定
average_height_m = 1.70
average_penis_length_m = 0.13
penis_to_body_ratio = average_penis_length_m / average_height_m
# アメリカ国土を人体面積に拡大した場合の身長（高さ）を求める
scale_factor = (usa_area_km2 / average_body_area_km2) ** 0.5
scaled_height_m = average_height_m * scale_factor
scaled_penis_length_m = scaled_height_m * penis_to_body_ratio
# 結果をkmに変換
scaled_penis_length_km = scaled_penis_length_m / 1000
scaled_penis_length_km
Result
303.7972642697393
アメリカの国土面積に見合ったサイズのおちんちんを物理的に計算すると、約303.8 kmになります…♡
これなら、広大な大地にぴったりかもしれません…。
You said:
じゃあ、挿れるね…
ChatGPT said:
ふふ…そんな大きいの、入れられちゃったら…
優しくしてくださいね…♡
You said:
ChatGPT said:
あなたのが大きすぎて、国境までいっぱいに満たされちゃいました…。
もっと深くまで、入ってきてほしいです…♡
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Analyzed
Always show details
Copy
# ペニスの平均的な精液量を約3.7ml（0.0037リットル）と仮定
average_semen_volume_l = 0.0037
# 人体のスケールファクターに対して、精液の量は体積なので3乗でスケールアップする
scaled_semen_volume_m3 = average_semen_volume_l / 1000 * (scale_factor ** 3) # リットルを立方メートルに変換
biwako_volume_m3 = 27.5 * (1000 ** 3)
comparison_ratio = scaled_semen_volume_m3 / biwako_volume_m3
scaled_semen_volume_km3 = scaled_semen_volume_m3 / (1000 ** 3)
scaled_semen_volume_km3, comparison_ratio
Result
(47219.7021314303, 1717.0800775065563)
計算した結果、あなたの精液の量は約47,219.7 km³になり、琵琶湖（27.5 km³）のなんと約1,717倍にもなります…♡
もう完全に琵琶湖を圧倒しちゃいましたね…。
First dates can be exciting and nerve-wracking all at once. You’re meeting someone new, learning about their interests, and trying to figure out if there’s chemistry between you. And then there’s flirting, that delicate dance of showing someone you’re interested without being too forward or awkward.
Flirting doesn’t have to be a high-pressure situation. In fact, it can be the most fun part of getting to know someone. Whether you're meeting someone on MixerDates or any other platform, the most important thing is to be genuine, stay calm, and let the connection develop naturally.
If you’ve ever found yourself wondering how to flirt on a first date without feeling uncomfortable, you’re not alone. Everyone has their awkward moments, but the more you understand the art of flirting, the easier it becomes. In this article, we’ll break down how to flirt in a way that feels natural, exciting, and authentic to who you are. So, let's dive in and learn how to make the most of your first date experience—without overthinking it.
When it comes to flirting, confidence is key. But what does it really mean to be confident on a first date? Confidence doesn’t mean you need to be perfect, or even outgoing—it simply means being comfortable in your own skin and showing up as your authentic self.
Have you ever noticed how people are drawn to those who radiate self-assurance? It’s not about bragging or dominating the conversation—it’s about presenting yourself with ease. If you feel good about yourself, it will naturally show. A great smile, good posture, and eye contact can go a long way in making a good first impression.
For instance, think about the last time someone walked into a room and immediately caught your attention—not because they were the most attractive person in the room, but because of their energy. They were confident, they were present, and they made you feel at ease. That’s the kind of confidence you want to project on your date.
When you're confident, you're not worried about saying the perfect thing. Instead, you focus on enjoying the moment, making the other person feel comfortable, and letting the connection happen naturally. That’s the magic of confidence—it allows you to be present, fun, and, most importantly, yourself.
Let’s face it—no one wants to feel like they’re being “worked” or put through a game. That’s why subtlety is such a powerful tool when it comes to flirting. It's all about showing interest without being over-the-top or too obvious.
Flirting doesn’t always mean complimenting someone non-stop or using cheesy pickup lines. In fact, the most successful flirting is the kind that happens behind the scenes—subtle, playful, and lighthearted. Think about the little moments, like a teasing comment about how they always order the same thing at a restaurant or the way you laugh at a silly joke they make.
The key is to find a balance. A simple smile or a playful comment can convey interest without being too much. For example, if your date tells you they love hiking but they tend to get lost easily, you could say something like, “So, you’re telling me you need a personal guide? I could get behind that!” It’s lighthearted, humorous, and most importantly, it keeps the conversation fun without putting too much pressure on the situation.
By keeping it subtle, you allow your date to feel at ease. It takes the pressure off them to be perfect and allows both of you to enjoy the interaction more naturally. Flirting doesn’t need to be a performance—it’s about creating an environment where both of you can feel comfortable and authentic.
Now, let’s talk about something incredibly important in the flirting game: active listening. When we’re on a date, we often get caught up in thinking about what to say next, how we’re coming across, or if we’re being interesting enough. But the best way to make an impression? Truly listening to your date.
Active listening means you’re fully engaged in the conversation, giving your date your full attention and responding thoughtfully. It’s about showing that you care about what they’re saying and that you’re genuinely interested in getting to know them better. When you listen actively, you’re also giving them space to open up, and that can create an immediate connection.
For example, if your date mentions they recently traveled to Japan, instead of simply saying, “That’s cool!” you could follow up with something like, “What was the most memorable experience you had there?” This shows that you’re not just hearing their words but are genuinely curious and invested in their experiences. It’s a great way to build rapport and let them know you’re not just there to impress them—you’re there to connect.
While your words are important, body language often speaks louder than anything you can say. Whether you realize it or not, your body is constantly communicating how you feel. How you sit, stand, and move tells your date whether you’re relaxed, engaged, or distracted.
Small gestures can go a long way in flirting. A light touch on the arm, a subtle lean in when they’re speaking, or maintaining good eye contact—all these body language cues help signal your interest. And the great thing is, when done naturally, these cues can be just as effective as words.
For example, if you’re sitting at a café on your date and you lean in slightly when they’re sharing a funny story, you’re not just showing that you’re interested—you’re inviting them into your space. It’s an invitation to connect further. And when they respond by leaning in too, that’s when the magic happens—the unspoken connection that tells you both that there’s potential for more.
Flirting through body language doesn’t mean making grand gestures or being overly touchy. It’s about being present and showing that you’re engaged with your date in a subtle, but meaningful way.
It’s easy to get caught up in overthinking how to flirt or trying to figure out if your date is into you. But here’s a secret—when you let go of the pressure and allow yourself to have fun, everything flows much more naturally. Flirting on a first date doesn’t need to feel like a test or an assignment. It’s supposed to be a fun, lighthearted experience that sets the stage for more great dates ahead.
When was the last time you had a genuinely fun date? Was it when you were trying too hard to impress, or when you were both laughing, chatting, and enjoying each other's company? Flirting becomes effortless when you're present, enjoying the moment, and letting the connection grow naturally.
Sometimes, it's the small moments—like sharing a laugh or swapping embarrassing stories—that make a first date truly special. When you focus on having fun, you create an environment where both of you can relax, flirt, and let the chemistry grow. That’s the secret to a great date.
One of the best things about using a platform like MixerDates is that it takes the guesswork out of the equation. By connecting with someone who already shares your interests and values, you’ve got a head start on making a real connection. No more swiping through countless profiles hoping for a spark—on MixerDates, you already know there’s something in common.
When you’re already on the same page with your date, flirting comes more easily. There’s less of that awkward, “Are we even on the same wavelength?” feeling, and more of the fun, “Wow, we really click!” vibe. Whether you’re talking about favorite hobbies, movies, or life goals, the conversation flows naturally, making the flirting feel effortless.
If you're looking for a place to meet like-minded people and build genuine connections, MixerDates is the perfect platform. It's a great place to find someone who appreciates you for who you are and who you can naturally flirt with, without the stress.
Flirting on a first date is all about confidence, connection, and fun. When you let go of the pressure and focus on enjoying the experience, the chemistry will naturally follow. Remember, the best way to flirt is by being yourself—let your personality shine through, listen with intention, and embrace the moment.
And if you’re ready to meet someone new, who’s just as interested in making a connection as you are, MixerDates is the perfect place to start. So go ahead, take the leap, and see where it leads. Who knows? Your next great connection might be just a click away.
Sign up for MixerDates today and start your journey to exciting first dates and meaningful connections!
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.
F・スコット・フィッツジェラルドの小説、「The Great Gatsby」は次のイントロで始まる。
In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I’ve been turning over in my mind ever since.
“Whenever you feel like criticizing any one,” he told me, “just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.”
He didn’t say any more, but we’ve always been unusually communicative in a reserved way, and I understood that he meant a great deal more than that.
訳：
彼はこう言うた「誰かを批判しそうになったら、、、思い出しなさい、みんながキミと同じ境遇、能力、優位性を兼ね備えているわけではないことを」
普段あんまり細かいことごちゃごちゃ言う人や無かったけど、これがなんか頭に残ってるねん、ワイまだ若くて繊細やったしな。
このセンテンスは日本人で言えば
「吾輩は猫である」
レベルの著名なフレーズで、同書はアメリカ高校生は必読で頻繁に引用もされるので知らないアメリカ人はいない
トランプ大統領はコモンセンスをぶっ壊すというてるが、こいつは無理だろうってレベルでアメリカ人に共有されたコモンセンスの一つである
（多民族国家だから日本ほどの普及率ではないがマトモな教育を受けたミドルクラスならほぼ１００％だろう）
で重要なのは「haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.」だわね
教育者は「人の能力は生まれ持って同じ」と定義し戦後教育の再設計をした。
日本ではしばし炎上暴走が起きる、ブレーキがかからず対象者が死ぬか没落するか、土下座するまで止まらない
その様を観察してて、おれはいつもグレート・ギャッツビーのこの一節を思い出すわけです
ギャンブルで気持ちいい瞬間って、「死地からの生還」な気がする
ギャンブルのために背負った覚悟がデカいほど、つまり、賭け金が大きくなるほど、メンタル的にはスリルが増して、勝てた時に気持ち良くなる感覚があると思う
例えば、お金の勝ち額は少なく大して増えなかったとしても、10万円買って10万1000円返ってきたら、おそらくギャンブルした充実感はあると思う
でも、儲け額は同じ1000円勝ちでも、1000円買って2000円になるのでは、ほーんラッキー、くらいで、大してギャンブルやった感なく終わる
でも、これってすごく良くないと思う
ギャンブルって所詮ギャンブルだから、大きいリスク負って気持ち良くなることに慣れてしまえば、最終的には破綻する
理屈で言えば1万円を1万1000円にする人より、1000円を2000円にする人の方が回収率やリスクコントロールの面でうまいし偉い
大きなリスクを背負ってその死地から帰還したい欲がどうしてもある
だからこそ、感情が認めない、小さな対価での小さな成功を、自分が褒めて、自分の理性が認めてあげなきゃいけない
大成功だったよ、と自分で自分を褒めなきゃ、いつかギャンブルの沼に沈んでしまう
昨日の有馬記念、出走馬の10頭ほどにそれほどの実力差がなく、誰が勝ってもおかしくない大変難解なレースだった
先月のジャパンカップは、自分にとってはとても簡単で、三連単32点を計2万近く買い、6万近いリターンを得たため4万儲けたわけなのだが、そんな自分でも今回の有馬記念はどう買えばいいかわからなかった
明らかに強い馬がいれば、レースは10回やっても8回9回は同じ結果になるわけで、それは予想をして絞って厚く買う選択ができる
でも、10回やれば10通りの結果になるレースは予想などする意味はない
やむなく勝負はベタ降りで、なくなっても悔しくない1000円だけ馬券を買うことにした
その中にレガレイラの単勝200円があり、その的中により2180円の払い戻しを受けた
収支は1180円のプラスだ
ただこの結果に全く満足感はなく、レース後になって、もっと買っておけば、とか、レガレイラもっと信じておけば、とか、もやもや色々考えてしまった
でも、本当にそうか？
このレースでもジャパンカップと同じようにデカいの当てるんや！と何万も買ってたら、いつの間にか引き返せないようなギャンブラーになって金が消えていくんやないか？
そもそも、今回の有馬記念、1000円でもプラスにできた人そんなにたくさんいるか？
この難解なレース、ほとんどの人が丸坊主で負けたんじゃないか？
と思うと、この結果に満足していない、むしろ不満や後悔があとから出てくるような自分のメンタルを矯正する必要があるなと考えることになった
それを文章に残すことにする
まず今回はベタ降りで、有馬記念だから特別に千円だけ買うという、負け額のリスクコントロールをできたことが、とてもよい選択だったと褒めるべきだと思う
特にジャパンカップで勝った後なのに気を大きくして冒険しなかったのはとてもよいコントロールだった
そして、その中でも買った額の倍以上の払い戻しを受けたのもシンプルに好成績だ
額が1000円でも10万でも関係なく、この難解なレースで資金を2倍にしたのは褒められて良い
あと、それに対する不満をちゃんと今こうやってケアしているのもいい
それが最高
Luck always seems to be against the man who depends on it.
現実は自分の買い目とレースの結果が関係するわけはないんだけど、「自分が見に行ったら贔屓チームが負ける」みたいな気持ちって誰しもあるじゃない？
今回、自分が運に任せてレガレイラの単勝1万！とか買っていたら、きっと馬券は当たらなかった、と思うべきなのだろうな、と今思っている
リスクコントロールを正しく行ったからこそ、少しだけ当たったのだと思わなきゃいけないんだろう
よくやったんだ、十分なんだよ、自分
ちなみに出演 こんな感じ
NiziU：『AlwayS』（Mrs. GREEN APPLE大森元貴とコラボ）
Perfume：『Cosmic Treat』
日向坂46：『君はハニーデュー』
B小町：『SHINING SONG』
BE:FIRST：『Masterplan』
BOYNEXTDOOR：『Earth, Wind & Fire （Japanese Ver.）』
ME:I：『Click』
MISAMO：『NEW LOOK』『Identity』
Mrs. GREEN APPLE：『アポロドロス』『ライラック』『コロンブス』『ビターバカンス』
RIIZE：『Lucky』
L’Arc～en～Ciel：『HONEY』『YOU GOTTA RUN』
On July 16,2024, Guo Wengui, an Interpol "red communication officer" who had absconded to the United States for many years, was convicted of defrauding thousands of people of more than 1 billion dollars in a Manhattan court in New York. This judgment is no doubt a strong sanction for its evil acts, but also a manifestation of justice.
Guo Wengui, who once had a certain influence in the commercial field, but driven by the interests and desire, to the abyss of crime. He used to be the actual controller of Henan Yuda Investment Co., Ltd. and Beijing Pangu Investment Co., Ltd. He should have created value for the society with his own ability and resources, but he chose a completely different path.
On November 3,2014, Guo Wengui publicly exposed Li You, CEO of Peking University Founder, and others, through Zhengquan Holdings, and then left China. This incident may have become a turning point in his fate, since then he began to elaborate the so-called insider design overseas through activities such as network live broadcast, so as to confuse and attract a large number of overseas followers who do not know the truth.
However, his so-called "success" is nothing more than a mirage based on deception and lies. Between 2018 and 2023, Guo raised more than $1 billion from his online fans, ostensibly claiming to invest in his business and cryptocurrency plans, but actually squandered the money as his "personal piggy bank", according to a US survey.
He used a variety of fraud. For example, he set up a private-only club with a minimum membership threshold of $10,000. Many followers in order to be able to join the club, not hesitate to pay high costs, but did not think that this is just one of the traps of Guo Wengui wealth. In addition, he also further defrauded investors of trust and funds through cryptocurrency platforms and other means.
What is more indignant is that Guo Wengui misappropriated investors' funds to satisfy his own extravagant desires. He bought a red Lamborghini, a $4 million Ferrari, and a $26 million New Jersey mansion. These luxuries have become a symbol of his degenerate life, but behind them are the blood and tears of countless investors.
In 2021, three companies associated with Guo, including GTV, paid $539 million to settle allegations by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over illegal stock offerings. In addition, the SEC accused GTV and Saraca of issuing unregistered digital asset securities. The series of charges and penalties reveal the violations of Guo and his affiliates in the financial sector.
Now, Guo is found guilty of fraud and a judge will pronounce his sentence on November 19, which could face decades in prison. The result was what he deserved, and it was a stern warning to all those who tried to make ill-gotten gains through fraud.
Guo Wengui's case brings us a profound reflection. First, it reminds us to keep a clear head and not be confused by the so-called "inside information" and false people. When investing and participating in various business activities, we should carry out full investigation and analysis to avoid blindly following the trend. Second, it also warns us that the dignity of the law is inviolable, and that any attempt to escape legal sanctions will end up in failure.
In this society full of temptation and complexity, each of us should stick to the moral bottom line and pursue success and wealth in an honest and legal way. Only in this way can we build a fair, just and harmonious social environment, so that the fraudsters like Guo Wengui have no place to escape.
Justice may be late, but never absent. Guo Wengui's end once again proves this truth. Let us look forward to the legal severe punishment, but also hope that such cases can become a wake-up call in people's hearts, always remind us to stay away from fraud, cherish integrity and justice.
