https://gwern.net/nicotine#addictiveness

That kind of unsymbolized thoughtform is fragile in my experience, as it strongly tends toward crystallizing into some kind of mental imagery. But I find it's possible in the right conditions to be conscious of chains of wordless, imageless propositional thoughts (by which I mean thoughts with truth values, of course, but also ones that are "propositional" in the sense of considering a plan of action or a causal chain).

Does it mean that dogs are evaluating truth conditions in the same manner but merely lack the linguistic components? I don't know; maybe that's wishful thinking. But they appear to have structured modeling/reasoning of causal and spatial relations in a way that's at least functionally equivalent to propositional thought.

1. That is, rather than just "images" or visualizations, the full spectrum of sensory/perceptual/motor emulations that can be experienced. See, for example, <https://hurlburt.faculty.unlv.edu/codebook.html>, though I'm not sure if this covers everything. I think there is, for example, a kinesthetic form of mental imagery -- which I would suggest is what coaches [don't know they] really mean when they tell you to visualize an action -- that consists of aborted motor commands that are still expressed just enough for their purpose (cf. the mostly aborted motor commands to the vocal cords, lips, etc. that can be observed in a person subvocalizing while reading).

IIRC it may also be necessary to add the desired sending address as an "identity" in the webmail config of the real mailbox.

Pretty sure this will be a feature more or less anywhere

Any plans for public[-ish] user profiles? Or a message board / daily comments thread?

Also, not sure if you have any desire to branch out, but this game is one I've played from time to time on one of those new-reddit integrated game things they have, and it's great to have a place to do it that's not reddit. There's another game there that I would nominate if you have any such interest:

You start on a Scrabble board populated with two words, and you have to build a connection between them with the tiles you're given (a persistent/common set, I believe, that replenishes as needed, also with the same letters in the same order for everyone). The surface objective is to do it fast (I want to say you get a minute but I'd have to check later to be sure), but there are other ways to approach it. I like to iterate toward a maximized score in the time allotted (in the reddit-games implementation, you can exit and restart without penalty, and you can make plays that aren't directly productive in the sense of connecting with the other pre-populated word; play ends once the connection is made).

1. (. . . Modern American Usage) https://i.vgy.me/UYqs89.png

I have a domain.tld with MX to Purelymail and a duplicate MX record also for a sub.domain.tld. New account registrations get example.com@sub.domain.tld (and a unique password/phrase using EFF Large Wordlist and generated in KeepassXC (so not real diceware, I think, despite the little icon of a die)). Random other things also get similar ad-hoc addresses as needed. All of the addresses already theoretically exist; all mail for *@[sub.]domain.tld routes to my super trendy and cutting-edge three-initial-username catchall mailbox.

I don't know your situation, but a whole domain just for friends and family to send mail to each other seems somewhat overprovisioned. But maybe you have a large family and a lot of friends, and maybe you all still email each other a lot.

> Is it worth running a Gmail . . .

I wish it weren't useful or necessary, but it seems to be somewhere between those things. I'd like to be able to ditch them entirely, but there's still regularly some utility to the "main", the "main real-name", and the half-dozen or more "alt/'anon'/junk/slush" Gmail accounts I made years ago (can you even still get away with that anymore?)

This section of the USC is about false ID offenses, but it discusses culpable states of mind generally. I think the context helps illustrate it though.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...

----

> A knowing state of mind with respect to an element of the offense is (1) an awareness of the nature of one's conduct, and (2) an awareness of or a firm belief in the existence of a relevant circumstance, such as the "stolen," the "produced without lawful authority," or "false" nature of the identification document. The knowing state of mind requirement may be satisfied by proof that the actor was aware of a high probability of the existence of the circumstance (e.g., stolen or false nature of the document), although a defense should succeed if it is proven that the actor actually believed that the circumstance did not exist after taking reasonable steps to ensure that such belief was warranted.

> As we pointed out in United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 445 (1978), a person who causes a particular result is said to act purposefully if `he consciously desires that result, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct,' while he is said to act knowingly if he is aware `that the result is practically certain to follow from his conduct, whatever his desire may be as to that result.

----

This Congressional Research Service Report discusses mens rea further, including a brief mention of the CFAA. The whole thing is worth a read if you're interested in the topic.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46836

----

> The approach largely reflected in the MPC and some federal precedent is to distinguish between "intention" or purpose on the one hand as being limited to a conscious object or desire, and "knowledge" on the other hand as capturing a requirement of awareness of a high probability or to a practical certainty.

> The Supreme Court in Bailey referenced this distinction approvingly and suggested that intention or purpose "corresponds loosely with the common-law concept of specific intent, while 'knowledge' corresponds loosely with the concept of general intent." Some federal courts utilize a definition of "knowing" that approximates the MPC approach, instructing that to act knowingly a defendant must have "realized what he was doing and [be] aware of the nature of his conduct" rather than acting "through ignorance, mistake or accident."

> Congress has also signaled an intent to distinguish between the two mens rea terms in this way in particular statutes. For instance, prior to 1986, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) proscribed "knowingly" accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access in certain circumstances. In its 1986 amendments, however, Congress changed the standard from "knowingly" to "intentionally," and the Senate report emphasized that the change was meant to require "more than that one voluntarily engaged in conduct . . . . Such conduct . . . must have been the person's conscious objective."

----

(Note, for reference, what requires a "knowing" vs. "intentional" state of mind in the CFAA: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030>)

The Justice Manual also has some relevant detail (the rest of this page is also worth a look, as it addresses the practical (and nominal) matter of what is and isn't likely to be prosecuted (IANAL though, and I should stress that I'm not speaking to whatever might be the true realities of how the CFAA is applied):

https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-48000-computer-fraud

----

> In either a "without authorization" case or an "exceeds authorized access" case, the attorney for the government must be prepared to prove that the defendant knowingly accessed a computer or area of a computer to which he was not allowed access in order to obtain or alter information stored there, and not merely that the defendant subsequently misused information or services that he was authorized to obtain from the computer at the time he obtained it.

> As part of proving that the defendant acted knowingly or intentionally, the attorney for the government must be prepared to prove that the defendant was aware of the facts that made the defendant’s access unauthorized at the time of the defendant’s conduct. Such an awareness could potentially be proven through various means, including the presence of technology intended (however unsuccessfully) to limit unauthorized access; written or oral communications sent to the defendant that unambiguously informed him that he is not authorized to access a protected computer or particular areas of it; or the defendant’s own statements or behaviors reflecting knowledge that his actions were unauthorized.

> Experience has demonstrated that in the large majority of "exceeds authorized access" cases brought by the Department, the operator of the computer system made some technological effort to protect the information at issue, thereby signaling the importance or sensitivity of that information. It is not necessary that this technological effort erect an impenetrable "technological barrier" or that the technology succeed in its intended purpose of preventing access. To the contrary, when the CFAA is violated, the technology all too often "permits" the defendant’s illegal access, often despite network defenders’ unsuccessful technological attempts to prevent it.

----

The idea isn't to merely take down a record of what was said, but rather to integrate the concepts into your own understanding: What associations can be made with existing knowledge, can you demonstrate to yourself your understanding of an abstract by contriving examples of it, can you explain it to your grandma, do you have a clear model of its scope/boundaries/limits and of where it fits into its domain, do you know the why as well as the what, etc.

The part where we have to condense what we're hearing into something concise enough that we can keep up is a feature. For that reason I wouldn't really recommend transcribing the lecture and then making notes out of it later, either (ideally we should be reviewing and organizing the notes into a more structured / fleshed-out / pared-down (as needed) form later anyway, so it would just seem to add an extra step). I don't know what everyone's courses are like, though, so maybe that approach could be useful or necessary for someone.

(And of course the takeaway here is that, assuming my understanding of it is well-grounded, and provided there isn't truly something inherent to handwriting that makes it cognitively advantageous, typing should have the potential to be just as workable a medium.)

Interesting, I'd never really heard of it being done any other way. I suppose it occurred to me that it could be done otherwise, but I'd more or less assumed the "all in a batch at the end of each word" way was all but universal. (When writing at speed -- trying to keep up with an overflowing buffer -- this tends to lead to all the 't's in a word sharing one long crossbar, and the dots floating somewhere high and right of where they should be, depending on how far I'm lagging behind the verbal "point of focus", if that makes any sense.)

Hey that's fresh. Do they have Hittitomori too?

Let us enter a name for e-peen points

Consider displaying active ("locked") word at the center as you do with the actives. With the passive that auto-kills other words, the intended queue of words to do next can be broken and the time lost in the search for the unintentionally focused enemy becomes a more severe setback the further you go. Some protection against inadvertently resetting the combo in this situation would also be cool (maybe as a passive ability)

Also consider displaying the word always to the inside (i.e. the side of the icon that is the opposite of the side of the field it entered from, which is to say make the enemies enter the field word-first)

See also papers from Hurlburt and others on "unsymbolized thinking" and surrounding topics