That strongly reminds me on telerik themebuilder: https://themebuilderapp.telerik.com/
They allow you to inspect the designs like a dev mode but once you start customising it they charge you for "define a variable". I really hope this is no behavior to enforce devs to pay for IDE functionalities in the future.
That's so sad. I'm pretty militantly anti-spider but jumping spiders, despite seeming like they were sent from hell to terrify us, are just little furry big-eyed arthro-bros
When I learned that they compete for territory with centipedes I decided to stop killing them. I'd much rather share my home with a tiny 8-legged cat than with a venomous centipede.
How do you know it's genetic memory and not simply popular attitudes from childhood? I know when I was a kid people generally viewed spiders as a threat and so I adopted this attitude. It was only as an adult that I learned this is basically folklore and in my area not based on fact. But I don't think that's genetic, I think it is cultural. I would be curious to see what anthropologists have discovered about this.
It's just your conditioning. If you look at it from another angle you can see that they are actually harmless and clean. And even playful amd cute if you goof around with them a bit.
Even if we are predisposed to be fearful of spiders, so what? Not all spiders are the same, and jumping spiders are certainly 100% harmless to humans of all sizes. Why not work on promoting that experience and rationality override any (often mistaken) primal urges that we have?
If you don't know anything about any wild berries, beyond some are poisonous, it might be a safe bet to never eat any of them.
If you know something about berries, like this species is definitely poisonous, and this species is definitely safe, and this species you don't know anything about, then it is perfectly safe to avoid the first and third and indulge in the second.
May be because of their unpredictability owing to their jumpiness? That seems very reasonable since humans do instinctually stay away from unpredictable organisms/animals in nature. That unpredictability doesn’t always have to correlate with the real dangerousness of those creatures.
That's a meaningless distinction to advertisers and in the context of this lawsuit.
Were brand ads placed colocated with hateful content in a user feed? That's the only question that matters to advertisers at least. Attribution doesn't change the damage to their brand.
And even this lawsuit doesn't challenge that fact that the answer is "yes", ads did get placed next to hateful content - the lawsuit just claims results were skewed by gaming ad targeting and so aren't representative.
How does mapping spelling to sound work in languages like English that have homophones?
"wear", "where", "were-" (as in werewolf), "weir" (in some regional dialects) can all be pronounced identically in modern English. If we map them all to a single spelling, is that an improvement to readability and understanding?
English has plenty of words that have different meanings but are are spelled and pronounced the same. An arm is either a limb or a weapon. A break is either a pause or a physical defect. A trunk can be a piece of clothing, a part of a tree, a cloth-covered chest, or the rear compartment of an automobile. A bat can be an animal or a stick. And while some of these words are related, some have completely different origins and just happen to be spelled and pronounced the same in contemporary English. The stick "bat" is from Old English batt, derived from Welsh and Celtic, the mammal from Middle English bakke, derived from Old Swedisch/Danish/Norse.
If you "cleaned up" English spelling, the same would happen with wear, where and were-. If the distinction were important for understanding, it would be equally important in spoken language and the pronunciations wouldn't have converged.
It's illegal to drive without a license, but your license doesn't automatically get suspended/canceled when you die - a loved one has to do the legwork to cancel it. So probably technically legal until a court case involving someone declared legally dead who's just driving around somewhere?
To extend the original metaphor - your mouth doesn't stay shut forever, or you starve. So the idea is more to sink your brain or teeth into substantive thoughts, as you encounter them. It's not about closing your mind/mouth around a new dogma, but about exercising them for nutrition not for pleasure/vice (or letting them atrophy).
I think the "re-closing" of the mind here more represents fitting new information into a new holistic, consistent worldview. New information would obviously require that exercise again.
Chesterton is simply arguing against allowing yourself to be buffeted by the winds of thought trend, to the point you have no center.
Well it's a bad one. It isn't even a metaphor really, it's a word game relying on particulars of the English language, and it breaks down quite quickly as you could just as easily express the exact opposite point with slightly different phrasing, e.g. you need new food each day. I guess you could print it on a coaster to put your "eat pray love" mug on.
> It isn't even a metaphor really, it's a word game relying on particulars of the English language
It's absolutely a metaphor, just because you didn't understand it doesn't change the meaning the author conveyed. It's written in English, I'm not sure what point you think you are making by pointing that out.
> you could just as easily express the exact opposite point
So you didn't read my comment you replied to? You need new nutritive food each day, not junk or empty calories - the metaphor covers this exact scenario.
When you're eating every day do you just grab literally the first thing at hand and stuff your face until you're full? Or do you make conscious choices about what to put in your body?
If you're in the first camp you may not understand this metaphor - it's for people who consciously consume, both food and thoughts. If you mindlessly scroll and ideate, sorry you're the target of Chesterton's criticism - that doesn't make his metaphor bad, it just makes his argument valid.
> I guess you could print it on a coaster to put your "eat pray love" mug on
The irony, considering you're engaging with this quote at the same shallow level you claim to criticize.
G.K. Chesterton has an entire body of intellectual work consistent with the quote and metaphor extension I've done above - but you've decided to tilt at the windmill of a pithy quote as if it's synecdoche.
> G.K. Chesterton has an entire body of intellectual work
As a Christian apologist. His views were a foregone conclusion. No one who engages in such games deserves to be taken seriously.
This is completely "consistent" at least with so-called "Christian intellectuals", as they want other people to be "open minded" to their proselytizing while they themselves remain completely closed to the even possibility that they're completely wrong. They do not engage in good faith and see no problems with this because they consider their ultimate aims more important.
His arguments against absolute open-mindedness weren't grounded in discussions of his faith - even just the full version of his quote shows that, it was in reply to a metaphor for theory of mind his friend told him:
"For my friend said that he opened his intellect as the sun opens the fans of a palm tree, opening for opening's sake, opening infinitely for ever. But I said that I opened my intellect as I opened my mouth, in order to shut it again on something solid. I was doing it at the moment. And as I truly pointed out, it would look uncommonly silly if I went on opening my mouth infinitely, for ever and ever."
Other variations of the quote he told included an addendum: "The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid. Otherwise it is more akin to a sewer, taking in all things equally."
Neither of those relate to grounding his epistemology in Catholicism.
While I definitely agree his Christian apologia means a heavy dose of salt with intellectual claims, he's not even arguing for a moral center in this metaphor. Simply an intellectual self, to not be a gaping maw of consumption, as you wouldn't be physically.
Discernment with respect to ideas you're willing to entertain isn't exclusively the domain of religion, as far as I'm aware.
