  |
はてなキーワード: coolとは
■ウマ娘 シンデレラグレイの公開時に期待していた内容との落差
これは「1話公開時はこういうウマ娘になるんだろなと思ってたけど期待を裏切られた」という話です。
まず1話公開時は笠松（カサマツトレセン学園）の面々はトレーナーの北原以外はオグリキャップに好意的ではなかった。
笠松のエースである「フジマサマーチ」はどちらもオグリキャップに危ないから帰れと、レースは命がけだと拒絶する態度をとっていた。
そこをスタート地点としてオグリキャップとベルノライトが北原チームの一員になり、ノルンエース・ルディレモーノ・ミニーザレディも交えて7人で知恵を出し合って結束を重ねて
装蹄師のベルノライトにオグリキャップが希望を伝えてボロ靴とボロジャージしか持っていなかったオグリキャップが徐々に武装を増やしてレースの頂点を目指すような、プリティではないウマ娘を描く作品になるんだろうなと期待していた。
初戦のフジマサマーチ戦のあと数試合を快勝していた事になっており
オグリキャップはその間、ベルノライト以外の北原チームとの交渉はしていないようで、トレセン学園の学食を半ば私物化する有り様。
ミニーザレディやルディレモーノもオグリキャップが不在なら自分達が意地を見せるような活躍の場も与えられず、ノルンエース戦含めて5試合はこなしているのにベルノライトがオグリキャップに追加の武装をする様子も無し。
柴崎に至ってはフジマサマーチを窓口にだけ北原チームと接しており、柴山という偽名以外を伝えないコミュニケーション途絶男となっている。
さらにオグリキャップによる食い尽くしが起きてしまった後に学食がオグリキャップに対して行った働きかけは、これをきっかけに辞めちまえというものではなく、さらに進めと背中を押す有り様で・・・。
それらもどうかと思うけど、オープニングがダメだなって。
この作品はウマ娘プリティダービーと同じで「みんなが知ってるあのウマ娘と同じ名前を持つバ体がアレンジされてるからみんな驚いてね」というギミックに、リアル競馬のあの馬のifで楽しんでねという二重の仕掛けになっていると思うのだけど
本編で驚かせたり毎週の話題を持続させたいからって、オープニングで「まだ観ぬ強敵達」という演出をやるのを避けてる。
結果として魅力の無いオープニングアニメーションができあがってしまった。
長々となったが結論を書くと
北原チームはオグリキャップからは踏み台程度の扱いしかされていない。
さらにオグリキャップはG1の頂点を目指す気さえも無いようで、どちらかと言うと「走れること」がCoolだという全治マインドの方に比重が寄っている。
つまり、絶対王者打倒とか考えもせず、目標レース走ったら北原チームにとっての持続性とか考えずにレースを辞めそうな奴だという事だ。
信頼や友情の積み重ねの物語を期待していたのに、実際に出されたのは親元を離れたウマ娘の飯代を学食まかせにしてバ体の消耗を回復させる都合のいい舞台装置でしかなかった。
ここからシンデレラグレイが真っ当に面白くなる事があるんだろうか？
これは「劇場公開時はこういうガンダムになるんだろなと思ってたけど期待を裏切られた」という話です。
まず劇場公開時はポメラニアンズ（ジャンク屋・カネバン有限会社）の面々は社長のアンキー以外はマチュに好意的ではなかった。
ザクのパイロットである「ジェジー・ナブ」はどちらもマチュに危ないから帰れと、クラバは命がけだと拒絶する態度をとっていた。
そこをスタート地点としてマチュとシュウジがポメラニアンズの一員になり、ニャアンも交えて7人で知恵を出し合って結束を重ねて
メカニックのケーンにマチュが希望を伝えて斧と盾しか持っていなかったジークアクスが徐々に武装を増やして
クランバトルの頂点を目指すような、戦時中ではない宇宙世紀を描く作品になるんだろうなと期待していた。
マチュはその間、アンキー以外のポメラニアンズとの交渉はしていないようで、カネバンのハロを半ば私物化する有り様。
ジェジーやナブもマチュが不在なら自分達が意地を見せるような活躍の場も与えられず、シイコ戦含めて5試合はこなしているのにケーンがジークアクスに追加の武装をする様子も無し。
シュウジに至ってはマチュを窓口にだけポメラニアンズと接しており、ハラペコムシという偽名以外を伝えないコミュニケーション途絶男となっている。
さらにシュウジによるリング禍が起きてしまった後にアンキーがマチュに対して行った働きかけは、これをきっかけに辞めちまえというものではなく、さらに進めと背中を押す有り様で・・・。
それらもどうかと思うけど、オープニングがダメだなって。
この作品はガンダムSEED Destinyと同じで「みんなが知ってるあのモビルスーツと同じ名前を持つ機体がアレンジされてるからみんな驚いてね」というギミックに、1年戦争のあのキャラのifで楽しんでねという二重の仕掛けになっていると思うのだけど
本編で驚かせたり毎週の話題を持続させたいからって、オープニングで「まだ観ぬ強敵達」という演出をやるのを避けてる。
結果として魅力の無いオープニングアニメーションができあがってしまった。
長々となったが結論を書くと
ポメラニアンズはマチュからは駐車場程度の扱いしかされていない。
さらにマチュはクランバトルの頂点を目指す気さえも無いようで、どちらかと言うと「殺しができてしまうヤバいシュウジ」がCoolだという不良マインドの方に比重が寄っている。
つまり、絶対王者打倒とか考えもせず、目標金額溜まったらポメラニアンズにとっての持続性とか考えずにクランバトルを辞めそうな奴だという事だ。
信頼や友情の積み重ねの物語を期待していたのに、実際に出されたのは親元で養われている女子高生のガンダムを代わりに保管して試合をマッチングして機体の消耗を回復させる都合のいい舞台装置でしかなかった。
ここからジークアクスが真っ当に面白くなる事があるんだろうか？
| 項目 | シェルドン・クーパー（アメリカ） | 電車男（日本） |
| 登場作品 | ビッグバン★セオリー | 電車男 |
| 性格 | 天才的だが社会性に乏しく、理屈っぽくて独特なこだわりが強い | 内向的で自信がなく、恋愛に不器用だが誠実 |
| オタク属性 | 理論物理学者、SF（スター・トレック）、コミック、ゲーム（Halo） | アニメ・フィギュア収集、2ちゃんねる住人、メイド喫茶通い |
| 社会的立ち位置 | 高学歴・高収入・研究職だが社会性ゼロで浮いている | 普通のサラリーマン、陰キャ扱いで恋愛経験なし |
| 恋愛観・関係 | 科学的・理屈的にアプローチしがち。恋愛に関して極端に鈍感 | 最初は女性と話すのも苦手だが、徐々に成長していく |
| 物語の主軸 | 天才オタクたちの友情と成長、そして恋愛の珍騒動 | 非モテオタクが勇気を出して恋をして変わっていく姿 |
| オタク像の描かれ方 | コミカルで風変わりだが、徐々に人間味と魅力が描かれる | 痛々しいがリアルで、最終的に肯定される成長物語 |
| 文化的役割 | アメリカの「geek is cool」文化の象徴、知的好奇心の肯定 | 日本における「萌え文化」と「非モテ男子」救済の象徴 |
| 社会的評価 | コメディ的に受け入れられ、人気キャラとして定着 | 一種の伝説的存在で、多くの非モテに勇気を与えた |
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.
余
-
追記:
a cool technique:
1. select English output language
2. use Discover Sources and input a query in Japanese
3. import all the English PDF, YT and urls
4. turn output language back into Japanese.
5. use q&a to get answers in Japanese or generate a Japanese Audio Overview, all based on the English internet sources.
I use it to research the internet in other languages - it's super useful for travel, restaurants, sports, product reviews etc etc
----訳----
クールなテクニック:
1. 英語の出力言語を選択します
2. Discover Sourcesを使用し、日本語でクエリを入力します
3.すべての英語のPDF、YT、URLをインポートします
4. 出力言語を日本語に戻す。
5. Q&Aを使用して、英語のインターネットソースに基づいて、日本語で回答を得たり、日本語のオーディオ概要を生成したりします。
私はそれを使って他の言語でインターネットを調べます - 旅行、レストラン、スポーツ、製品レビューなどに非常に役立ちます
Masuda and Annie are talking in their classroom. Let's listen to them!
Annie: Good afternoon, Masuda!
A: A boy? Who are you talking about?
M: I'm talking about a boy who wears a white Tshirt and black jeans.
A: I can't find the boy. Where is he?
M: Are you sure? It's easy to find him! He is the brightest person in this room!
A: Masuda, I'm asking where he is. Tell me!
M: Okey, He is standing next to the whiteboard.
A: The whiteboard...?
M: Yes! He is so cool! I wanna be his friend!
A: Masuda, you souldn't be the friend of the boy.
M: What!? Why do you say such a thing!
A: Because I don't see anyone near the whiteboard.
M: ...Really?
A: You canot be a friend of a ghost. Shall we leave this room?
M: Of course! I don't want to stay here anymore!
Question1: What does Masuda see?
Question2: What does Masuda actually see?
Question3: Why is it so bright?
Question4: Can Masuda really leave the classroom?
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.
うちの妻が近年セックス好きになってきたんだけど、おれ当てはまるわ。
欧米人ほどではないけど、まあまあの長さいし、若いころの早漏気味よりかなり長くピストンできるようになったし、子育てしてからキレなくなってcoolになった。
全部当当てはまるわ〜
結論なんてとっくに出てる。
女はある程度のセックスを積み重ねると奥がとてつもなく気持ちいいんだ。
でも日本人の男は短小が多くてそこまで届かないやつがとても多い。
理由はわからないけど感情的に高まりやすい人間が多いのが原因のような気がする。
キレやすさ？とかに通じるものがあるけれど日本人ってcoolがだいぶ足りてない。
チンチンの長さが足りてないことと早漏であること、coolでないこと。
この3つがセットになると、女はセックスで満足することがない。
わたしや交際するうえでは日本人の男のほうが好きだがセックスに関しては欧米の男が断然気持ちがいい。
奥まできちんと届くチンコで長く責められたときのあの気が狂う感覚は日本人に味あわせてもらったことがない。
なかなかこんな本音を書くことは匿名に近いネット空間ですらないけど本音を書けばそういうこと。
チンチンが短いのを前戯とかで埋め合わせるタイプの男もいるが、あの奥までチンチンがとどく感じを再現することは絶対にできない。
そのような性具はあるが、チンチンに突かれることとは程遠い感覚だ。
あの長いチンコでcoolに責められるのを経験したときに始めてセックスは気持ちがいい、と思えたのを今でも思い出す。
本音を書けばそういうこと。
だからさらに本音を言うと少しでも交際相手の女のほうがセックスに興味がなさそうな素振りを見せるなら勝手にオナニーして処理して欲しい。
あなたとセックスしたくないのは全然気持ちが良くないからです、とは面と向かって言えないでしょ？
そういうのは察して欲しい。
だって考えて？人間が気持ちの良いことをやりたがらないわけないじゃない？なんだかんだ言ってセックスに消極的なのは気持ちが良くないから。
その理由は
短小であること
coolさが足りて無くて感情的に絶頂に達しやすいことが原因。
以上。
瞑想野菜睡眠女は下方婚しないエビデンス弱者男性フェミニスト倫理ちゃんと逮捕歴ある人俺に聞かんでくれ論破藁人形すいすいすいようび政治陰謀論財務省安倍英雄アベノミクスなどなかった飛鳥ＤＳブクマもらえないＡＩに書かせたわスクリプトはてな本社弱者弱者弱者男性の巣窟巣窟弱者の巣窟共産赤旗街の劇団生活保護Ｂ型通ってても稼げないおはようこんにちはこんばんは弱者弱者弱者ＤＳってダークシュナイダーのことだよな・・・？男女LGBTQ+自死自殺練炭エプシュタインアインシュタインフランケンシュタイン北京ベルリンダブリンリベリア日本は時代遅れ中国大爆発草ｗｗｗ草に草生やすな折部やすな俺より目立つな目立て目立て目立て歌えよ郷太！俺は正常だ嫌なら辞めていいなんて無責任なこと言うなだったら鬱陶しいこと書くな生活保護の方が俺より稼いでる青が棲んでいる今でもアホが住んでいる結局胴元が勝つように出来てるんだよ胴元兄弟Hey!みんな元気かい!HEYHEYHEYwanna cool we areハマタ岡村松本は実質負けてるwなんで蓮舫あんな人気ないん？やっぱHIKAKINってつええわＶ豚w人を傷つけるようなことばかり書いているこのサイトは閉鎖すべきうんちウンコチンチンパキケファロ高層マンションタワマン７８階建て一戸建て年収三千万だけど俺って勝ち組？負け組だよ寝て半畳起きて一畳のハンジョーハンジョーのイッツミー逸見政孝です。素晴らしいですねぇ。それではさよなら、さよなら、さよーなら！米津玄師lemon唐揚げにlemon掛けとくね夢ならばどれほどよかったでしょうカラカラに揚がったあなたを夢に見るヒックヒッチコック俺のはビッグコックお前のはエースコックじゃなくてブタメンが良いところだろ豚キム！豚キム！木村のにいやんってＤＶで離婚したんだっけやっぱり男はクソ！女は最高！今夜は最高！チンチン マンマン チンチラ マンチカン どげんかせんといかん マンゴー 栗饅頭個室ルームツアー マンドリル みなさんもしんどいことがあったら「しんどーい！」って言うようにしましょうね エベレスト 俺の人生のベスト１０選 １０選もねえよ ５選もねえよ 六文銭もねえよ 俺達さぁもう２６だぜごめんな友よ俺は先に店から出るよ出世払いだよ全員集合！あの頃がよかったよなって言ってる奴はもう立派なジジイだよね食う寝るところに住むところに困ってるから生活保護も受けてるし精神障害も診断してもらってんだろうがパーイポパイポよりもガンジャに感謝ナンジャラモンジャあのスポンジ剣でぶん殴るのはスポーツチャンバラチャンバラ魂よ魂よ今燃えろよシャンバラを往く者物々しいモノテンソウメツ入れた入れた入れた長究命のあなたの恋人になりたい長助
世界一かっこいいはずのドイツ人ですら「ナチ Ist cool！」だったからね。
でも気づいたら軍隊オタクは格好悪くてキモくてニキビ面でカードショップみたいな臭いがする連中って扱いになっていった。
それこそバブルが弾けるようにあまりにも突然にそれはやってきたんだよ。
他にも「皇族・王族好き」や「ヤクザ好き」といったブームがあったけど、完全にキモくてダサくてどうしようもなく時代遅れななにかへと変わった。
アニメ好きといえば言語化能力に障害があって死ぬまでバージンの憐れな生き物だった。
それがいまや「アニメが好きなのが普通。未だにアニメを叩いてるような老害って太陽の季節でセンズリしてるような奴らでしょ？」って扱いだ。
つまり、このバブルが弾けるまでのタイムリミットも早いってことだよ。
１０年は持つと思う。
２０年後、怪しいよね。
３０年後、多分きっとおそらくもう駄目だろう。
