  |
はてなキーワード: Doubleとは
--------------
テニスにおける「エース」とは、主にサーバー（サービスを打つ人）が打ったボールを、相手プレーヤーがラケットに全く触れることができずにポイントになったサービスのことを指します。
これは正式には「サービスエース」と呼ばれ、サーバーにとって最も理想的な得点の形です。
テニスでは、エースと似た状況や、混同しやすい用語がいくつかあります。
* ウィナー（Winner）
ラリー中に、相手がラケットに触れることができなかったり、触れても有効な返球ができなかったりして得点につながったショット全体を指します。エースはサーブに限定されますが、ウィナーはラリー中のストロークやボレーなどで決まったノータッチのショットを指すことが多いです。
* ※注意点： 日本語では「リターンエース」という言葉も使われますが、これは相手のサービスをレシーブしたボールがノータッチで決まった場合に使い、海外では「ウィナー」と呼ぶのが一般的です。
サービスエースの中でも、相手が全くボールに触れられなかったことを強調する場合に使われることがあります。
逆に、サーバーが1ポイントで2回連続してサービスを失敗し、相手にポイントを与えてしまうことです。サーバーにとって最も避けたい失点の形です。
--------
いいえ、『エースをねらえ!』の「エース」は、テニスの「サービスエース」だけを指しているわけではありません。
このタイトルの「エース」には、主に次の二つの意味が込められています。
主人公の岡ひろみが、鬼コーチの宗方仁の指導のもと、名門テニス部のトップ選手、つまり「エース」へと成長していくことを目指す、という意味が込められています。
テニスでエース（サービスエース）やウィナーといった、相手が手が出せない最高のショットを「ねらえ」という、技術的な目標も含まれています。
しかし、物語の主題は、テニスプレーヤーとして、そして一人の人間として、困難を乗り越えトップを目指して成長していく主人公の姿を描くことにあります。そのため、タイトルは**「最高を目指せ！」**という成長への強いメッセージを込めていると解釈するのが最も適切です。
ちなみに、宗方コーチがひろみに残した最期の言葉は、「岡、エースをねらえ！」でした。この言葉は、単なるサービスではなく、テニスのトッププレーヤー、つまり世界のエースを目指せ、という意味が込められています。
いわゆる独身税には多少思うところがあったけどこうして並べられてみると、負担したくないから健康、高所得、東京暮し、就業、不本意で重負担の育児をする（である）ことを止めようとはならんやろと感じられて、まあある程度の応能負担はしゃあないわなと思い直してしまった
「税」と名がつかなくても、給付・支援の対象外にされることで相対的に損をしている属性の人は、実質的に「○○税を払わされている」と感じることがあります。
以下に、制度の「恩恵を受けにくい人」が間接的に負担していると考えられる「実質的な〇〇税」をリストアップしてみます。
⇒ 子育て支援重視の政策が続く中、恩恵を受けられない独身者は「実質的な独身税」と言われます。
⇒ 健康でも保険料は負担し続け、使う機会がないという意味で「健康税」と感じる人もいます。
⇒ 給付を受けずに税と社会保険料だけを多く納めることから「逆累進の罠」とされることがあります。
⇒ 地方への支援が手厚い一方で、都市部住民がその財源を支えているという意味で「都会税」とも言えます。
年金・介護保険などの保険料を負担しながら、将来の給付は不確実
⇒ 世代間不公平により、若者が損をしているという意味で「労働税」「若者税」と表現されることがあります。
🔹 6. 子どもがいない夫婦 → DINKs税（Double Income No Kids 税）
⇒ 社会保険制度の恩恵が薄い分、制度設計上の「損」をしていると感じやすいです。
🔹 8. 不妊・子なし家庭 → 子なし税
| M-theory perspective via AdS7-CFT6 | F-theory perspective |
|---|---|
| 11d supergravity/M-theory | |
| ↓ Kaluza-Klein compactification on S^4 | compactificationon elliptic fibration followed by T-duality |
| 7-dimensional supergravity | |
| ↓ topological sector | |
| 7-dimensional Chern-Simons theory | |
| ↓ AdS7-CFT6 holographic duality | |
| 6d (2,0)-superconformal QFT on the M5-brane with conformal invariance | M5-brane worldvolume theory |
| ↓ KK-compactification on Riemann surface | double dimensional reduction on M-theory/F-theory elliptic fibration |
| N=2 D=4 super Yang-Mills theory with Montonen-Olive S-duality invariance; AGT correspondence | D3-brane worldvolume theory with type IIB S-duality |
| ↓ topological twist | |
| topologically twisted N=2 D=4 super Yang-Mills theory | |
| ↓ KK-compactification on Riemann surface | |
| A-model on Bun_G, Donaldson theory |
「grokにファクトチェックさせている人は何も知らない」という記事が話題になっている。
そもそもこれ、みんながgrokにやらせているファクトチェックってのは実は「ダブルチェック」なんだよな。
ダブルチェックと言っても再発防止のアンチパターンとして忌み嫌われているアレじゃない。
ダブルチェックとは「こっちでも確認する」くらいの軽い意味だ。
例えば、サイトにアクセスできなくなったら、別PCでアクセスできるか同僚にダブルチェックを頼んでみたりとかね。
英語圏で「ダブルチェック」といえば基本的にこっちが主流で、「"@grok double-check"」とかXで検索すれば山ほどヒットする。
ダブルチェックしただけではまだ結論には遠いかもしれない。それを判定するのは発言者だ。
しかし会話の補助にはなる。
So, the Expo 2025 is actually happening, like, right now. It started a week ago. They've got this massive wooden ring structure that's apparently the biggest in the world or something. Looks kind of cool in the pictures, I guess, like something out of an old temple but huge.
The theme is "Designing Future Society for Our Lives". Sounds ambitious. Lots of talk about saving lives, empowering lives, connecting lives... all that jazz. They want it to be a "People's Living Lab" where they show off new tech for things like carbon neutrality and next-gen mobility. Over 160 countries are supposed to be there, showing off their ideas for the future.
But honestly? I keep reading about problems. Heard the test runs had massive lines, which sounds like a nightmare, especially worrying about heatstroke in summer. Ticket sales seemed slow before it opened, with lots of companies buying them up instead of regular people. Makes you wonder how excited the average person really is. Plus, the costs ballooned, almost double what they first thought.
And apparently, they plan to tear most of it down afterwards? Seems like a huge amount of effort and money for something temporary. Though they say they'll reuse materials. Still, feels a bit weird.
Will it actually be good? Or just another big, expensive event that causes traffic jams? Guess we'll see. Just feels like there's not much buzz compared to the last time Osaka had an Expo way back when.
じゃあ海外のアセクシャルコミュニティの掲示板行けば？(これ何度目だ？)
割と増田みてーな同人腐女子・生きづらいオタ女子が言いそうな発言とかも突っ込まれることなく、
穏やかにやりとりしてる(自分のアイディンティーなんて自己定義するものだからそれはそう)ので
ニコニコできるんじゃあないでしょうか？
たとえば『コンビニ人間』がAVENにアセクシャルとしてあげられていて草生えましたわ
I recently read 'The Convenience Store Woman' by Sayaka Murata (English translation)
It's a quirky, funny and quick read. I would even recommend it to people who don't like reading, if I thought the story/character/quirkiness would interest them. I'm actually going to give a copy to a friend as a gift.
The central character also appears to be aro and ace.
ーーー
風変わりで、面白くて、あっという間に読めてしまう。読書が好きでない人にも、ストーリーやキャラクター、奇抜さに興味を持ってもらえると思えば、薦めたいくらいです。実際、友人にプレゼントするつもりだ。
Asexuality and Asexual Characters in Books & Comics - a Collection
日本で恋人を作らないと云々かんぬんとか寝言言ってるやつは、アセクシャルなのにゲイを名乗らないといけない世界を見て震えろって思うわ
これが本物のカップル圧ってやつだよ、神の愛を示せないやつに居場所はないの
そもそもなんだけど、伝統的な宗教価値観が支配するカップル文化が強烈な地域、つまり日本以外じゃないと、
アセクシャルで困ること特にないぞ。カップル圧の低い日本は理想郷なのでは？
あと、同性愛者だと思われて困ること特にないし、異性となんかあったんだな(トラウマがあるんだな)って思われて困ること特に無い
日本の自称アセクシャルの人は、こういう風に思われて、具体的にどう困るのか、逆に教えて欲しいのだわな
同性に告白されたことはあるけど、それは学生時代のことだし、増田やってる年齢になってもなお起こることじゃねーのよ
異性に関しては、高齢の親族に『お前は異性を必要としていないように見える』って言われるくらいなので、誰も寄ってこないぞ(平和な世界)
強いて言えばセックスアピールが強烈な人・モテに全力で価値を置いてる人とは男女とも相性が最悪
恋愛がトラウマとか思われてるなら『時期が来たらまた向き合いと思う🥺』とか適当に誤魔化せるでしょ
(そこまで踏み込まれることはまず無いんだけど。学生じゃあるまいし)
ゲイも、異性や恋愛にトラウマがある人も、モテない人も、異常者では無いけど(理解できる範疇にいる人)、
人に情を持たない、人をセクシーだと思わないヤツは、多くの人にとって理解できる範疇になくて、
映画に出てくるナイフ持ってニタついてるサイコパスみたいなヤツなのかな？って警戒されちゃうの
そもそも友達ゼロじゃなきゃ、こういうやり取りの末に、(きっとゲイなんだな)、(きっと異性や恋愛にトラウマがあるんだな)
(この話題には触れんでおこう)ってなってると思うよ
＞その実情が発達障害というダサくて劣った症状だと突き付けられたらすぐにその看板を下ろすだろう
ググればいくらで出てくるぞ。下記のように
double minority asexuality asd adhd
Are Autism Spectrum Disorder and Asexuality Connected?
Asexuality is a lack of sexual attraction to any gender. There is some evidence to suggest that many self-identified asexuals have a formal diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder which is characterized by deficits in social interaction and communication, as well as by restricted and repetitive interests and behaviors. Additionally, the literature shows that asexuality and lack of sexual attraction or low sexual interest is overrepresented in people with autism spectrum disorder compared with neurotypical samples. Nevertheless, no studies have been conducted to investigate the relationship between autism and asexuality in depth. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to examine whether asexuality and autism spectrum disorder are connected. We conclude that asexuality and autism share various aspects, such as a possible role of prenatal factors, reference to romantic dimensions of sexual attraction and sexual orientation, and non-partner-oriented sexual desire, but future research should explore and clarify this link.
無性愛とは、どの性別にも性的魅力を感じないことを指します。多くの自己認識された無性愛者が、自閉症スペクトラム障害（ASD）の正式な診断を受けているという証拠があります。ASDは、社会的相互作用とコミュニケーションの欠陥、ならびに制限された反復的な興味や行動によって特徴付けられます。さらに、文献によると、無性愛や性的魅力の欠如、または低い性的関心は、神経典型的なサンプルと比較して、自閉症スペクトラム障害を持つ人々に過剰に表れています。それにもかかわらず、自閉症と無性愛の関係を深く調査する研究は行われていません。私たちは、無性愛と自閉症スペクトラム障害が関連しているかどうかを調べるために、文献の体系的なレビューを行いました。私たちは、無性愛と自閉症が、出生前の要因の役割、性的魅力と性的指向のロマンチックな側面への言及、パートナー指向でない性的欲望など、さまざまな側面を共有していると結論付けましたが、将来の研究はこのリンクを探求し、明確にする必要があります。
あるものなんか下記から始まって笑っちゃったw そっかw一般的な概念だったんだw
This chapter challenges the commonly held notion that individuals with ASD are asexual or inappropriate in their sexual behaviors.
この章では、自閉症スペクトラム障害（ASD）を持つ個人が無性愛者であるか、性的行動が不適切であるという一般的な概念に挑戦しています
アセクシャルやセックス依存症が発達障害である可能性は高いだろうけど、別にイコールではないだろうよってねw
ちなみにこれは発達障害＝アセクシャルは不適切、社会的助けがあれば、異性愛者として楽しめるとかいう内容みたいよ
あと、ずっと『なんでセックスするんだ😡』って言ってるが、アセクシャルはセックスするやつはするぞ。なんなら性依存症だっているし
セックスで情が深められないだけ、恋愛以前に人や気持ちに対する関する関心が無いか薄い、それにグラデーションがあるだけ
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.
興行収入の話で、ハリウッドの大きな節目は9.11だったと思っていて、ちょっと確認してみた。
当時の印象だと、事件の直後は様々な映画の公開が延期されたりキャンセルされたりして、その後数年は戦争・アクション物に偏重し、結果としてハリウッド映画の定番ジャンルの一角だったラブロマンス・コメディ映画が激減していったというイメージ。
ほかにも大作指向のような業界動向や様々な社会情勢も影響していたとは思うけど、やはり9.11が一つのターニングポイントだったと思う。日本での洋画ヒットが減っていった遠因のひとつもこのあたりにあるのではないか?
以下のリストはChatGPT調べ。
以下のリストは、主に Box Office Mojo 等のデータ（全米興行収入・未調整値）をもとにした、
「アメリカ（北米）国内での年間興行収入ランキングトップ20」
参考・補足
いずれも 北米（アメリカ＆カナダ）での累計興行収入 を概算で示しています。
順位や金額は、後年の再上映や細かな集計の修正によって若干入れ替わることがあります。
上記はあくまで「製作年」ではなく「北米公開年」を基準とし、その年に公開された作品の最終的な国内興行収入をもとにしたランキングです（年をまたいで興収を伸ばした作品も含みます）。
フィリップ・ウィルキンソン「まぼろしの奇想建築 天才が夢みた不可能な挑戦 (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC)」
麦原遼「逆数宇宙」
琴柱遥「枝角の冠」★
榛見あきる「虹霓のかたがわ」
田場狩「秘伝隠岐七番歌合」
高野秀行「謎の独立国家ソマリランド そして海賊国家プントランドと戦国南部ソマリア」
ブライアン・インズ、クリス・マクナブブライアン・インズ、クリス・マクナブ「ビジュアル 世界の偽物大全 フェイク・詐欺・捏造の全記録」
「開館20周年記念展／帝国ホテル二代目本館100周年 フランク・ロイド・ライト 世界を結ぶ建築」
岸見一郎、古賀史健 「嫌われる勇気 自己啓発の源流「アドラー」の教え」
キャスリン・ペトラス、ロス・ペトラス 「人体ヒストリア その「体」が歴史を変えた」
岸見一郎、古賀史健 「幸せになる勇気 自己啓発の源流「アドラー」の教えII」
下村智恵理「AN-BALANCE：日本非科学紀行 第S5話 鳥は見えるか？」
下村智恵理「天網恢々アルケミー Project #34 黄泉からの手紙」
下村智恵理「天網恢々アルケミー Project #35 旧針金山トンネルの悪霊」
「マリー・ローランサン ―時代をうつす眼」
芝崎みゆき「イースター島不可思議大全:モアイと孤島のミステリー」
五十嵐ジャンヌ「なんで洞窟に壁画を描いたの?―美術のはじまりを探る旅 (13歳からの考古学) 」
辻田真佐憲「「戦前」の正体 愛国と神話の日本近現代史」★★★
タイモン・スクリーチ「大江戸異人往来」
北杜夫「楡家の人びと 第二部」
北杜夫「楡家の人びと 第三部」
何となく東アジアの歴史、特に第二次世界大戦ばかり読んでいる。小説も含めて。
テレビ朝日開局65周年記念『MUCA（ムカ）展 ICONS of Urban Art ～バンクシーからカウズまで～』
「別冊日経サイエンス ホログラフィック宇宙 時空と重力の起源に迫る」
酉島伝法「隔世遺傳（かくりよいでん）『皆勤の徒』設定資料集」
スティーヴン・バクスター「〈ジーリー・クロニクル①〉プランク・ゼロ」
入江亜季「北北西に曇と往け」七巻
1000decillion「Morals under a pagoda I/II」（同人誌）
1000decillion「Morals under a pagoda III/IV」（同人誌）
「北欧の神秘―ノルウェー・スウェーデン・フィンランドの絵画」
スティーヴン・バクスター「〈ジーリー・クロニクル②〉真空ダイヤグラム」
大村幸弘、篠原千絵「ヒッタイトに魅せられて: 考古学者に漫画家が質問!!」★★
スティーブン・キング「スタンド・バイ・ミー 恐怖の四季 秋冬編」
スティーブン・キング「ゴールデン・ボーイ 恐怖の四季 春夏編」
アリク・カーシェンバウム「まじめにエイリアンの姿を想像してみた」
中野京子「怖い絵」
1000decillion「Morals under a pagoda -Kama Sutra-」（同人誌）
1000decillion「Morals under a pagoda -Egypt-」（同人誌）
1000decillion「morals under a pagoda -Greece-」（同人誌）
毎年月ごとの上位三冊を選んでいるが、ある月の四位が別の月の二位を上回って面白いことがある。つまり当たりの多かった月だ。すべての本に対して星の数で評価すべきかもしれない。
➤「救いようが最もうない、極東の自称他称の〝ジャーナリスト〟や〝学者〟、〝知米派〟は読まなくても構い。読んでもその肥大化した自己承認欲求、度し難い自己愛性人格では読むことはできないし、理解もできない。ただ見下した目線で見やるだけで、そこに自分が利用できる素材がなければ鼻で嗤うだけだ。この文章は、我がU.S.を領りたい、領ろうと下向きの反省的眼光で欲する諸君に読んで貰いたい。
I Traveled to 46 States in America This Summer. Here’s Why Trump Won.
By Frank S. Zhou
By Ezekiel A. Wells
Ezekiel A. Wells ’27 is a Double Concentrator in Environment Science & Engineering and Economics in Eliot House. He spent last summer traveling to 46 American states conducting interviews for his YouTube series, “Crossroads America.”
A week after Democrats’ election loss, accusations have flown in every direction within their Party. Some fault President Joe Biden for an egoistic refusal to drop out of the race earlier. Some blame the Harris campaign for failing to serve key demographics and communicate a clear vision for the country. And some blame Americans, claiming that racism and sexism drove voters toward Trump.
These factors certainly exist, but we’re missing a larger piece of the picture.
Over the summer, I traveled to 46 states in the U.S., creating a YouTube series highlighting slices of life across the country. In conversations from my nearly three-month road trip, I spoke with Republicans who were certain that inflation is entirely Biden’s fault and Democrats who, despite their frustrations with corporate profits and desires for universal healthcare, hoped for a more moderate candidate. From supporters of all candidates, I heard a shocking amount of misinformation.
After combing through hundreds of hours of interview footage from swing state Trump voters, I am certain that, as much as other factors influenced the outcome of the election, our crumbling media landscape — which has caused a rift in our democracy — is most to blame.
In the postwar period, news was dominated by three main channels, and because of the Fairness Doctrine, each station reported the same stories and covered multiple sides of each issue. Viewers picked which channels they watched mainly based on their preferences for news anchors’ personalities. Of course, this model had its problems, but, at the end of the day, it meant that Americans worked with a shared set of facts.
A shared set of facts is not the world we live in today.
Throughout my interviews, conspiracy theories were rampant, and on at least five separate occasions across separate states, I was told that Bill Gates tampers with our food, adding plastic to our fruits and vegetables to make his medical investments more profitable.
In conversations with voters, neither side seemed able to name many specific policy issues they cared about; everyone just seemed to repeat the words of their favorite pundits, podcast hosts, and internet personalities.
Although this behavior is harmful, I don’t blame everyday Americans. Blame falls on the media that has ostracized, disillusioned, and misinformed them.
Advertisement
I first saw this trend with low-wage workers in West Virginia, who — despite falling inflation rates — have seen stagnated salaries and clear increases in food costs. Channels like Fox News bred anger and resentment for many of them.
Take July of this summer, for example, when for the first time in his presidency, prices actually fell under the Biden administration. Traditional media establishments rushed to celebrate this victory, with one article from CNN declaring, “The White House can finally cross out ‘inflation’ on its list of presidential liabilities.” However, outside these bubbles, I observed many Americans held a different view.
In late July, I was welcomed at a massive family reunion in Tylertown, Mississippi, where one Trump voter — a middle-aged, Black, family man, pastor, and soul food enthusiast — made this clear.
“When I go in the grocery stores, and I gotta spend my last to get groceries, you mean to tell me I’m not gonna look and see who’s gonna vote to help me? I voted for Trump and I’d vote for him again, because he put money in our pocket,” he told me.
In their coverage, mainstream news organizations obsess over the Federal Reserve’s next rate cuts while failing to connect with people concerned with their next meals. With titles like “Vance: Young Americans ‘Are Becoming Paupers’ Due To Inflation, High Housing Costs,” sites like The Daily Wire had their fingers on the pulse of American sentiment, welcoming new readership from those who felt neglected by traditional media.
This problem was not just confined to the economy. While Biden’s mental state was deteriorating, liberal media outlets seemed to under-cover these stories, sheltering him from scrutiny of his declining capabilities, until the infamous presidential debate.
Formerly trusted networks slowly made themselves indigestible to the polarized American public, and in 2024, for the third year in a row, a Gallup poll found that more Americans indicated having “no trust” in the media than those who trust it a “great deal/fair amount”.
So where does the average American turn when the nation’s media cannot be trusted? For many people, it was YouTube talk shows, Newsmax, and podcasters such as Joe Rogan.
While Democrats seek to blame various internal factors for this election’s loss, I cannot help but think of Joe Rogan’s Trump endorsement, the many blind lies I heard from ordinary citizens across the country, and declining trust in American journalism.
As Harvard students and members of higher education institutions, we have a part to play in the problem. At Harvard’s Institute of Politics, those who denied the 2020 election results have been precluded from speaking at the JFK Jr. Forum. While the goal is understandable, it shields students from understanding the American viewpoints they represent.
Advertisement
There is a difference between platforming intentional and manipulative misinformation and listening to and learning about where people are and what they believe.
As a pipeline to mainstream media, Harvard, and its future journalists, have to consider the audience they lose when they stay inside of their bubble and ignore the issues of everyday Americans.
The disappearance of factual importance in our world is alarming and dangerous, but if we, as aspiring journalists, politicians, and engaged citizens, want to be taken seriously in communicating Trump’s threat to democracy, inflationary tariff policies, and so on, we owe American voters that seriousness, too.
Ezekiel A. Wells ’27 is a Double Concentrator in Environment Science & Engineering and Economics in Eliot House. He spent last summer traveling to 46 American states conducting interviews for his YouTube series, “Crossroads America."
やるも何もググればいくらで出てくるぞ。下記のように
double minority asexuality asd adhd
Are Autism Spectrum Disorder and Asexuality Connected?
Asexuality is a lack of sexual attraction to any gender. There is some evidence to suggest that many self-identified asexuals have a formal diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder which is characterized by deficits in social interaction and communication, as well as by restricted and repetitive interests and behaviors. Additionally, the literature shows that asexuality and lack of sexual attraction or low sexual interest is overrepresented in people with autism spectrum disorder compared with neurotypical samples. Nevertheless, no studies have been conducted to investigate the relationship between autism and asexuality in depth. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to examine whether asexuality and autism spectrum disorder are connected. We conclude that asexuality and autism share various aspects, such as a possible role of prenatal factors, reference to romantic dimensions of sexual attraction and sexual orientation, and non-partner-oriented sexual desire, but future research should explore and clarify this link.
無性愛とは、どの性別にも性的魅力を感じないことを指します。多くの自己認識された無性愛者が、自閉症スペクトラム障害（ASD）の正式な診断を受けているという証拠があります。ASDは、社会的相互作用とコミュニケーションの欠陥、ならびに制限された反復的な興味や行動によって特徴付けられます。さらに、文献によると、無性愛や性的魅力の欠如、または低い性的関心は、神経典型的なサンプルと比較して、自閉症スペクトラム障害を持つ人々に過剰に表れています。それにもかかわらず、自閉症と無性愛の関係を深く調査する研究は行われていません。私たちは、無性愛と自閉症スペクトラム障害が関連しているかどうかを調べるために、文献の体系的なレビューを行いました。私たちは、無性愛と自閉症が、出生前の要因の役割、性的魅力と性的指向のロマンチックな側面への言及、パートナー指向でない性的欲望など、さまざまな側面を共有していると結論付けましたが、将来の研究はこのリンクを探求し、明確にする必要があります。
あるものなんか下記から始まって笑っちゃったw そっかw一般的な概念だったんだw
This chapter challenges the commonly held notion that individuals with ASD are asexual or inappropriate in their sexual behaviors.
この章では、自閉症スペクトラム障害（ASD）を持つ個人が無性愛者であるか、性的行動が不適切であるという一般的な概念に挑戦しています
アセクシャルやセックス依存症が発達障害である可能性は高いだろうけど、別にイコールではないだろうよってねw
ちなみにこれは発達障害＝アセクシャルは不適切、社会的助けがあれば、異性愛者として楽しめるとかいう内容みたいよ
あと、ずっと『なんでセックスするんだ😡』って言ってるが、アセクシャルはセックスするやつはするぞ。なんなら性依存症だっているし
セックスで情が深められないだけ、恋愛以前に人や気持ちに対する関する関心が無いか薄い、それにグラデーションがあるだけ
https://x.com/Xbox/status/1799869701704892823
一昨日だかに配信されてたマイクロソフトのゲームソフト発表配信、新作がたくさんあるように見えて半分以上がPS5でも遊べるの、ちょっと節操ないんじゃない？
| タイトル | Xbox Series S/X | Steam | PS4 | PS5 | その他 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CALL OF DUTY BLACK OPS6 | 〇 | 〇 | 〇 | 〇 | XboxOne版なし |
| INDIANA JONES and the GREAT CIRCLE | 〇 | 〇 | - | - | - |
| GEARS OF WAR E-DAY | 〇 | 〇 | - | - | - |
| DOOM THE DARK AGES | 〇 | 〇 | - | 〇 | - |
| AVOWES | 〇 | 〇 | - | - | - |
| DIABLO VESSEL OF HATRED | 〇 | 〇 | 〇 | 〇 | - |
| MICROSOFT Flight Simulator 2024 | 〇 | 〇 | - | - | - |
| WORLD OF WARCRAFT THE WAR WITHIN | - | - | - | - | Battle.net |
| DRAGON AGE THE VEILGUARD | 〇 | 〇 | - | 〇 | - |
| ASSAIN'S CREED SHADOWS | 〇 | 〇 | - | 〇 | - |
| S.T.A.L.K.E.R 2 Heart of Chornobyl | 〇 | 〇 | - | 〇 | - |
| AGE of MYTHOLOGY | 〇 | 〇 | - | - | - |
| FABLE | 〇 | 〇 | - | - | - |
| MIXTAPE | 〇 | 〇 | - | 〇 | - |
| PERFECT DARK | 〇 | 〇 | - | - | - |
| EXPEDITION 33 | 〇 | 〇 | - | 〇 | - |
| SOUTH OF MIDNIGHT | 〇 | 〇 | - | - | - |
| STARFIELD SHATTERED SPACE | 〇 | 〇 | - | - | - |
| STATE OF DECAY 3 | 〇 | 〇 | - | - | - |
| WUCHANG:FALLEN FEATHERS | 〇 | 〇 | - | - | - |
| The Elder Scrolls ONLINE GOLD ROAD | 〇 | 〇 | 〇 | 〇 | - |
| METAL GEAR SOLID DELTA SNAKE EATER | 〇 | 〇 | - | 〇 | - |
| Fallout76 SKYLINE VALLEY | 〇 | 〇 | 〇 | 〇 | - |
| LIFE IS STRANGE DOUBLE EXPOSURE | 〇 | 〇 | - | 〇 | - |
| Sea of Thieves | 〇 | 〇 | - | 〇 | - |
| ATOMFALL | 〇 | 〇 | - | 〇 | - |
| FLINTROCK THE SIEGE OF DAWN | 〇 | 〇 | 〇 | 〇 | - |
| Winter Burrow | 〇 | 〇 | - | - | - |
| FRAGPUNK | 〇 | 〇 | - | 〇 | - |
| MECHABREAK | 〇 | 〇 | - | 〇 | - |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roOKPeV2UCc
Piano Concerto by Simon Steen-Andersen
Performed by Nicolas Hodges, Andre de Ridder and Helsinki Symphony Orchestra, February 2021 for live streaming.
Commissioned by Donaueschinger Musiktage
Program note:
In Piano Concerto the perfect, classical grand piano is confronted with a battered, almost completely broken, grand piano in a sort of virtual double concerto. The soloist, Nicolas Hodges, sits across from a video doppelgänger playing the damaged instrument that has been dropped onto a concrete floor from a height of 8 meters.
Confronted with the damaged, out of tune piano we may experience the newly tuned, classical grand piano and symphony orchestra in a slightly different light. The composer insists however that this is not just a broken instrument – it is a new, “prepared” instrument with an expanded palette of sounds and its own poetry and beauty.
野球用語は和製英語ばっかりだよね。アウトとかストライクとかの1単語からなる用語は英語でもそのまま通じるものが多いけど(1語でもバスター→fake buntなど通じないものはある)、2語以上からなる用語だと、フォアボール→base on ballsまたはwalk、デッドボール→hit by pitchとか、英語として通用する用語のほうが少ないぐらい。そのまま通じるのはホームランとかダブルプレーとかぐらいか?
おもしろいのがground rule double、すなわちエンタイトルツーベースという用語。グラウンドルールって本来はフェンスのすきまにボールがはさまって出てこなくなったとかドーム天井の屋根にボールが当たったとかの球場ごとの独自ルールのこと。しかし、ワンバウンド柵越えはちゃんと明文化された共通ルールがあって、グラウンドルールではない。安全進塁権が与えられた(entitled)という和製英語の方が正しい。英語でもentitled doubleと呼ぶべきだと思う(英語ではツーベース、スリーベースとは言わない)。
