Regardless, I'm stuck in captcha hell whenever I try to reach them (I've tried switching browsers and DNS servers, no luck).

The regular formalism is all about composability, and most languages don't offer a way to compose regexps, which is a real shame IMO.

In this case, they may reuse some of the sprites for the main characters (default animations). Most of the animations are custom and can't be reused.

Likewise for the voice acting (I'd expect them to start from scratch here, the mood of the games may be a bit different).

The author you mentioned may not have met the inclusion criteria at the time, or maybe you had the misfortune to fall on a zealous admin who gets dopamine kicks from that kind of behavior. That being said, if a cursory Google search was enough to establish notability, it shouldn't have taken much time and effort to add links to reliable sources and save the article.

WP is very sensitive regarding inclusion criteria for biographies of living persons, because of the flood of vanity submission they have to filter out. The notability criteria are not perfect, but the provide a good enough balance to limit the spam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#...).

In my experience, toxic behavior isn't as rewarded as it was on SO, and there are venues to discuss issues.

[citation needed]

Well here it is, and you're wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics

The article creation and edits curves are stable. The former growing at a slightly declining pace, which is expected since the amount of knowledge is finite. The latter is literally flat.

The monthly page views are in decline on mobile (from ~5.7 billions at the peak in 2024 to 4.5 billions currently). They are stable YoY on desktop at ~3.7 billions, and have been rising in the recent months.

StackOverflow is dead, the WP community is thriving, even if the page views have declined a bit.

SO had a moat because of its mass, but the place was a cesspool.

Mike Pall is the author of LuaJIT.

The reply had been either deleted or edited to the point of being wrong (memory is foggy), because Mike Pall wasn't an expert at SO, and had somehow not used the site exactly as intended. The mod was very dismissive and patronizing.

When you do cluster analysis of the symptoms of psychiatric patients, the empirical clusters don't match the DSM entries.

Schizophrenia is at least 8 distinct diseases (see GWAS), so orphaned that they don't have a name.

Psychiatry is an epistemic mess, and medicine uses it as a garbage bin for the patients it doesn't understand (because blissful ignorance is the norm over there).

Do you understand the difference between feeling the pain in your toes when you shoot in a door frame and what you experience when you see someone else do the same.

Also not everyone can relate to these sensations, it is not universal. Some people don't feel any pain in their body (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pa...).

See also colorblindness as a common example, or tetrachromacy, which is posited in some individuals with at least two X chromosomes, and the norm in several species of birds.

Their color space has four dimensions.

People who lose parts of their brains can lose the ability to conceptualize the ability encoded by the region they lost.

If you zap your occipital cortex with electromagnetic pulses, you'll experience color flashes (phosphenes).

If a blind person who can read baille does the same, they'll experience tingling sensations in their fingers [1].

People can have visual experiences through somesthesic stimuli (you can give muddy waters divers sonar-based sight by stimulating their skin with an electrode array).

AFAIK, it is not however know whether someone who was blind at birth and whose brain didn't learn to see could have such experiences.

1. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00221-007-1091-0 full text: https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/50371662/s00221-007-10...

That being said the nature/culture duality is often not the right way to frame these issues. It's both, intertwined.

These are very good analogies (and possibly experiences for those who are natural synesthetes), but even then, that won't make the who doesn't have the corresponding perceptual modality person experience that exact sensation.

This reduces to the intractable mystery of existence. A more interesting question would be, as usual "how".

There are serious attempts at this, coming from both neuroscience and physics (e.g. for the latter https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/15/11/115319/3372193/Un... )

> Then he declared that there is another distinct problem — why the brain’s behavior is accompanied by experience at all — which he christened the “hard” problem of consciousness.

The hard problem isn't about "why", it's about "what it's like".

Try to explain what it's like to hear a major and a chord to a deaf person, or what it's like to see magenta to someone who's blind.

None of the things you say, sign or write will make them experience these sensations.

Ultimately no one but you can know what it's like to be you.

This doesn't mean that subjective experience can't be modeled. but the caveats that apply to models in general are relevant here too: none are correct, some are useful.

Dualism doesn't necessarily means that subjectivity is ineffable. Mind and matter could work like mathematical duals: platonic solids (cube vs octahedron, dodecahedron vs icosahedron, tetrahedron vs itself), Voronoi diagrams and Delaunay triangulations, etc... These are intimately linked, and you can generate one from the other and inversely, yet they have their own distinct properties.

Again and again and again. Psychiatry is an epistemic mess.

Psychiatrists are touristic guides of the Paris catacombs that orient themselves with a map of the subway.