Fair enough.

I see. Looks like it could keep things tidy. I will try to stick to this solution then.

“You can apply for benefits for yourself, your spouse, or your children.”

“You can apply for benefits for yourself, your spouse, and your children.”

No wonder you failed. The critical comparison would be ‘and/or’ = ‘or’, not ‘and’=‘or’ .

Wow did you like …parse the rest of the argument?

See my other comment, Wikipedia says the axes are as I said.

Edit: And illustrating time as the vertical axis, it is wildly uncommon. So this ‘framing’ rebuttal is like …hysterical.

I see, so you need way more knowledge to get a small increase in reward, hence the steepness. Point taken.

Edit: Wikipedia though

A learning curve is a graphical representation of the relationship between how proficient people are at a task and the amount of experience they have. Proficiency (measured on the vertical axis) usually increases with increased experience (the horizontal axis), that is to say, the more someone, groups, companies or industries perform a task, the better their performance at the task.[1]

The common expression “a steep learning curve” is a misnomer suggesting that an activity is difficult to learn and that expending much effort does not increase proficiency by much, although a learning curve with a steep start actually represents rapid progress.[2][3]

Nice premise, but I don’t think there are valid examples of everyday use of ‘and/or’ where it could not be interchangeable with just or. Like, formal logic aside.

you fuckin toad, do better next time, anyway here’s my insurance information

This de-escalated kinda uneventfully

Came here to say this. The top left guy is also pretty chill.

a smug little prick

lmao

a mug full of cold piss

worth it

I am digging up this old thread to add that the social media scrolling epidemic probably employs a behavior modification technique named ‘partial reinforcement’ when the desired behavior is not always rewarded but occasionally https://www.simplypsychology.org/schedules-of-reinforcement.html#Partial-Intermittent-Reinforcement-Schedules The learned behavior is stronger. You see people scrolling endlessly even in platforms there is no advertising. Or you see people, even the Internet is out, they will still kill some time on the computer or phone playing games they would never open otherwise. They have been conditioned to be in position to consume “content”. This persistence of learned behavior is typical of the partial reinforcement schedule. Now what is the reward? Perhaps rage, arousal, or other stimulation. You scroll and scroll anyhow, till something dopamine-inducing comes up. The behavior persists even in other platforms. If you are interested I have started a thread about an attrition approach to major platforms (https://lemmy.ml/post/17679530/12103132), and what OP calls the weaponization of psychology by advertising platforms is something that doesn’t sit well with me, from a humanitarian and anarchist perspective.

convince friends to switch to firefox from chrome

Ah yes, you reminded me of this gem https://contrachrome.com/ (It is Scott McCloud’s Webcomic against Chrome’s data mining)

It sounds glorious!

Agreed. This area of skills completely evades me though. So, yes, if you have some tips on that, they will be well received.

this shouldn’t be the main argument because people don’t really care about it now but it can be a nice secondary one

I do think that recommendation algorithms are a big culprit for the widespread scrolling addiction epidemic. Smart phones and social media platforms have positioned the population in readiness to consume ads and propaganda. So, I think this is definitely among the main arguments.

Plus note people were arguably repulsed when it was leaked that Facebook performed a sentiment analysis psychological experiment on them.

I agree. It is insane that they don’t make sure people understand computer basics, now that our life is defined by computers. I hate that people are divided to the “tech savvy” and “tech ignorant” camps at work. It makes me question what sci-fi had me believe about “technologically advanced societies”.

Layman statistics is not the hill I would die on. Otherwise (being guilty of the fallacy myself) I now think that making a subject mandatory school lesson will only make people more confidently incorrect about it, so this is another hill I won’t die on for probability and statistics. See for instance the widespread erroneous layman use of “statistical significance” (like “your sample of partners is not statistical significant”) you see it is a lost cause. They misinterpret it because they were taught it. Also professionals have been taught it and mess it up more than regularly to the point we can’t trust studies or sth any more. So the solution you suggest is teach more of it? Sounds a bit like the war on drugs.