はてなキーワード: veryとは
まぁ一般的にそういうのはアホって呼ばれるよね
関連：Good News Donald Trump, You Don't Have to Be Very Smart to Be a Good Leader
https://www.newsweek.com/intelligence-leadership-donald-trump-710376
関連：Why highly intelligent people suffer from more mental and physical disorders
一方でホーキングは、下記のようにバッサリやで
“People who boast about their I.Q. are losers.”
関連：Good News Donald Trump, You Don't Have to Be Very Smart to Be a Good Leader
https://www.newsweek.com/intelligence-leadership-donald-trump-710376
関連：Why highly intelligent people suffer from more mental and physical disorders
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.
In the labyrinthine realm of digital content dissemination, an enigmatic phenomenon has surfaced, challenging our axioms regarding the nexus between content ubiquity and viewer cognitive acumen. This disquisition endeavors to elucidate the paradoxical inverse correlation between video viewership metrics and the intellectual quotient of the audience, propounding that audiovisual content amassing prodigious view counts tends to captivate viewers with a mean Intelligence Quotient (IQ) of 100, while their more esoteric counterparts allure a demographic boasting an average IQ of 120.
To fathom this counterintuitive paradigm, one must first grapple with the multifarious nature of human cognition and the intricate interplay between intellectual capacity and media predilections. This hypothesis, positing an inverse relationship between a video's popularity and the mean IQ of its viewership, necessitates a rigorous examination of the underlying psycho-sociological and neurocognitive factors that may engender such a paradoxical outcome.
The application of Cognitive Load Theory to media consumption habits provides a plausible explication for this phenomenon. Videos achieving viral status often employ reductionist narratives and readily assimilable information, minimizing cognitive strain. Conversely, less ubiquitous videos may delve into more abstruse subject matter, demanding heightened cognitive engagement and a more sophisticated intellectual framework for comprehensive assimilation.
The pervasive influence of recommendation algorithms in content distribution platforms cannot be discounted in this analysis. These algorithmic arbiters, designed to maximize user engagement, may inadvertently engender epistemic bubbles that reinforce existing cognitive predispositions. Individuals with superior IQs may actively seek out more intellectually challenging or esoteric content, thereby circumventing the algorithmic propensity towards homogenization and cognitive stasis.
It is imperative to consider the socioeconomic dimensions that may influence both IQ development and media consumption patterns. Higher IQ individuals often correlate with elevated socioeconomic status, potentially affording them greater access to diverse epistemological resources and fostering a predilection for more intellectually stimulating content. This demographic may be less susceptible to the allure of mainstream, highly-viewed videos that cater to a broader, less discerning audience.
The ramifications of this inverse relationship between viewership and viewer IQ are profound for content creators and platform developers alike. It challenges the prevailing paradigm that equates popularity with quality or intellectual value. Content creators targeting a more intellectually discerning audience may need to recalibrate their expectations regarding view counts and engagement metrics, focusing instead on cultivating a dedicated niche audience that values cognitive stimulation over mass appeal.
In summation, the observed dichotomy between high-viewership videos attracting an audience with an average IQ of 100 and their less popular counterparts appealing to viewers with a mean IQ of 120 underscores the complex relationship between intellectual capacity and media consumption in the digital age. This phenomenon necessitates a reevaluation of how we measure content value and success in the online sphere, prompting a more nuanced approach to content creation, curation, and consumption that acknowledges the diverse cognitive needs of the audience spectrum. The implications of this paradigm shift extend far beyond mere metrics, touching upon fundamental questions of epistemology, cognitive diversity, and the very nature of intellectual engagement in the digital era.
The assertion that English constitutes a "hostile language" is emblematic of a profound misunderstanding of the intricate relationship between language, culture, and communication. Such a reductionist viewpoint, often stemming from cultural insularity or an oversimplified interpretation of global dynamics, fails to recognize the multifaceted and adaptive nature of language as a vehicle for connection rather than division.
Language, in its most fundamental form, serves as a sophisticated instrument for human expression and interaction. It encapsulates the complexities of thought, emotion, and cultural nuance. To label English as "hostile" is to overlook its role as a global lingua franca that facilitates dialogue among diverse cultures. This designation not only undermines the rich tapestry of English-speaking societies but also dismisses the language's capacity for evolution and adaptation, reflecting the very societies it serves.
Critics often conflate the global dominance of English with cultural imperialism, positing that its prevalence signifies an erosion of local languages and cultures. However, this perspective neglects the agency of non-native speakers who actively adopt and adapt English to meet their communicative needs. The expansion of English is not merely an imposition; it is a testament to its utility and flexibility in diverse contexts. By embracing English, individuals from various linguistic backgrounds enhance their communicative repertoire without relinquishing their cultural identities.
To characterize English as "hostile" implies an intrinsic aggression or antagonism within the language itself—a notion that is fundamentally flawed. Hostility is not an inherent characteristic of language but rather a reflection of the sociopolitical contexts in which it is employed. The potential for misunderstanding or conflict arises not from the linguistic medium but from the intentions and attitudes of its speakers. Thus, vilifying English misplaces responsibility for interpersonal and intercultural tensions that are often rooted in broader societal issues.
In an increasingly interconnected world, English functions as a crucial bridge across cultural divides. It enables collaboration in vital fields such as science, technology, diplomacy, and commerce, fostering innovation and mutual understanding. Proficiency in English can empower individuals and communities by providing access to resources and opportunities that might otherwise remain elusive. This empowerment challenges the notion of hostility; instead, it highlights the language's role as an enabler of progress and cooperation.
In conclusion, the characterization of English as a "hostile language" represents a reductive oversimplification that fails to capture the complexities inherent in linguistic interaction within our globalized society. Rather than viewing languages through a lens of hostility or division, we should embrace their potential for fostering understanding and collaboration. It is imperative to cultivate a more nuanced appreciation for the role of English—and indeed all languages—in shaping our shared human experience. Only through such intellectual rigor can we transcend divisive narratives and celebrate the rich diversity that language offers in our interconnected world.
The Hatena Anonymous Diary, while undeniably a distinctive fixture within the tapestry of Japanese internet culture, has garnered substantial criticism for its content and the implications of its operational framework. This discourse aims to elucidate the reasons underpinning its characterization as "problematic."
At the crux of the Hatena Anonymous Diary's appeal lies its hallmark feature: anonymity. This veil of secrecy ostensibly facilitates unrestrained discourse, allowing individuals to articulate their thoughts without fear of retribution. However, this very anonymity engenders a paradoxical effect; it cultivates an environment ripe for irresponsible commentary and vitriolic defamation. The absence of accountability diminishes the sense of responsibility that typically accompanies public expression, resulting in a proliferation of emotionally charged diatribes and baseless assertions. Such dynamics render the establishment of constructive dialogue increasingly elusive, thereby stifling meaningful engagement.
Moreover, the content disseminated through the Hatena Anonymous Diary frequently exhibits a disconcerting superficiality. Many entries lack substantive depth, failing to provide rigorous analysis or innovative perspectives. Instead, they often succumb to the allure of trending topics or sensationalism, prioritizing ephemeral relevance over intellectual rigor. This trend not only undermines the potential for serious discourse but also contributes to a culture where shallow engagement with complex issues prevails. In an era marked by information saturation, this deficiency in content quality is particularly egregious, as it detracts from the cultivation of critical thinking and informed debate.
Additionally, the cultural ramifications of this platform warrant scrutiny. By amplifying certain dominant narratives or viewpoints, there exists a palpable risk of eroding diversity within public discourse. The emergence of "groupthink" within specific communities can lead to the marginalization of dissenting voices, creating an echo chamber that stifles pluralism. In such an insular environment, diverse perspectives are systematically excluded, resulting in a homogenized narrative that fails to reflect the complexities of societal discourse. This phenomenon not only undermines individual expression but also poses significant risks to the overall health of democratic dialogue.
In conclusion, while the Hatena Anonymous Diary ostensibly champions free expression through its anonymous framework, it simultaneously fosters a milieu characterized by irresponsibility and superficiality. The cultural influence wielded by this platform raises critical concerns regarding its impact on diversity and social responsibility. Thus, characterizing it as "problematic" is not merely an exaggeration; it is an imperative recognition of its shortcomings. Moving forward, it is essential to scrutinize how this platform might evolve and address these inherent flaws in order to foster a more enriching and responsible discourse.
https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/items/528f479f-fd3c-43fd-9463-7c2923560573
ある人の嗅覚倫理に関する論文だけど、文献だけで匂いが影響を与えると書いてるから女性に学位を与えるのは無駄だと言われる。
論文書くなら、裁判官にセンサーを取り付けるなり、何人かの被験者にルールを守った上で反応を調べるとかやりようはあったはず。
アタリマエのことを調べるというのは裁判での証拠提出のときに役立つからもっと調べてほしい。
けど、統計学的手法を駆使するなどして、裁判官が9割型認める内容でないと価値がない。
contemporary relevance. I suggest that smell very often invokes identity in a way that signifies an individual’s worth and status in an inarguable manner that short-circuits conscious reflection. This can be accounted for by acknowledging olfaction’s strongly affective nature, which produces such strong bodily sensations and emotions that reflexivity is bypassed in favour of a behavioural or cognitive solution that assuages the intense feeling most immediately. Olfactory disgust, therefore, tends to result in rejection, while harmful forms of olfactory desire may result in sublimation or subjugation. My thesis is particularly attentive to tensions and ambivalences that complicate the typically bifurcated affective spectrum of olfactory experiences, drawing attention to (dis)pleasurable olfactory relations that have socio-political utility. I argue that literary fiction is not only an arena in which olfactory logics can be instantiated, but also a laboratory in which possibilities for new kinds of relations and connections can be fostered and tested. Chapter One explores how smell can be used to indicate class antipathies, partly as they relate to homelessness, beginning with George Orwell’s seminal non-fiction text, The Road to Wigan Pier (1936), before considering Iain Sinclair’s The Last London (2017) and Bong Joon Ho’s Parasite (2019). In Chapter Two I explore the fantastical, idealistic, and utopic thinking that surrounds olfaction, which presents smell as fundamentally non-human, by addressing J. M. Coetzee’s Disgrace (1999), Virginia Woolf’s Flush (1933), Rachel Yoder’s Nightbitch (2021), and Laura Jean McKay’s The Animals in That Country (2020). Chapter Three focuses on the intersectional olfactory dimensions of ‘misogynoir’—the coextensive anti-Black racism and misogyny that Black women experience—and considers Toni Morrison’s Tar Baby (1981), Bernice McFadden’s Sugar (2000) and Raven Leilani’s Luster (2020). In Chapter Four, I conceptualise an oppressive olfactory logic, which is used against women and girls in order to legitimise their harassment or abuse, drawing primarily on Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita (1955), but also Patrick Süskind’s Perfume (1985). Chapter Five discusses two forms of olfactory desire—perversion and queerness—which have separate moral valences. I address J. M. Coetzee’s The Master of Petersburg (1994), Ann Quin’s Berg (1964), and Sam Byers’ Come Join Our Disease (2020), and argue for fiction’s role in reorienting readers’ habitual relations to olfaction.
2024-06-25
https://darioamodei.com/machines-of-loving-grace
・Behavioral interventions. I haven’t much mentioned it given the focus on the biological side of neuroscience, but psychiatry and psychology have of course developed a wide repertoire of behavioral interventions over the 20th century; it stands to reason that AI could accelerate these as well, both the development of new methods and helping patients to adhere to existing methods. More broadly, the idea of an “AI coach” who always helps you to be the best version of yourself, who studies your interactions and helps you learn to be more effective, seems very promising.
(Google翻訳)
・行動介入。神経科学の生物学的側面に焦点が当てられているため、これについてはあまり触れていませんが、精神医学と心理学は、もちろん 20 世紀を通じて行動介入の幅広いレパートリーを開発してきました。AI が、新しい方法の開発と、患者が既存の方法に従うのを支援することの両方で、これらを加速させる可能性もあるのは当然です。より広い意味では、常に最高の自分になれるよう支援し、あなたのやり取りを研究して、より効果的になる方法を学ぶのを手助けしてくれる「AI コーチ」というアイデアは、非常に有望に思えます。
・Everyday problems that we don’t think of as clinical disease will also be solved. Most of us have everyday psychological problems that are not ordinarily thought of as rising to the level of clinical disease. Some people are quick to anger, others have trouble focusing or are often drowsy, some are fearful or anxious, or react badly to change. Today, drugs already exist to help with e.g. alertness or focus (caffeine, modafinil, ritalin) but as with many other previous areas, much more is likely to be possible. Probably many more such drugs exist and have not been discovered, and there may also be totally new modalities of intervention, such as targeted light stimulation (see optogenetics above) or magnetic fields. Given how many drugs we’ve developed in the 20th century that tune cognitive function and emotional state, I’m very optimistic about the “compressed 21st” where everyone can get their brain to behave a bit better and have a more fulfilling day-to-day experience.
(Google翻訳)
・臨床疾患とは考えていない日常的な問題も解決されるでしょう。私たちのほとんどは、通常は臨床疾患のレベルに達するとは考えられないような日常的な心理的問題を抱えています。怒りっぽい人もいれば、集中力に欠けたり眠気を催すことが多い人もいれば、恐れや不安を感じたり、変化に反応しにくい人もいます。今日、覚醒や集中力を高める薬（カフェイン、モダフィニル、リタリン）はすでに存在していますが、他の多くの以前の分野と同様に、さらに多くの薬が開発される可能性があります。おそらく、そのような薬はもっとたくさん存在し、発見されていないでしょう。また、標的を絞った光刺激（上記のオプトジェネティクスを参照）や磁場など、まったく新しい介入方法もあるかもしれません。20世紀に認知機能と感情状態を調整する薬がどれだけ開発されたかを考えると、誰もが脳の働きを少し良くし、より充実した日々を送れるようになる「圧縮された21世紀」について私は非常に楽観的です。
・Human baseline experience can be much better. Taking one step further, many people have experienced extraordinary moments of revelation, creative inspiration, compassion, fulfillment, transcendence, love, beauty, or meditative peace. The character and frequency of these experiences differs greatly from person to person and within the same person at different times, and can also sometimes be triggered by various drugs (though often with side effects). All of this suggests that the “space of what is possible to experience” is very broad and that a larger fraction of people’s lives could consist of these extraordinary moments. It is probably also possible to improve various cognitive functions across the board. This is perhaps the neuroscience version of “biological freedom” or “extended lifespans”.
(Google翻訳)
・人間の基本的な経験は、もっと良くなる可能性があります。さらに一歩進むと、多くの人が啓示、創造的なインスピレーション、思いやり、達成感、超越、愛、美しさ、瞑想的な平和といった特別な瞬間を経験しています。これらの経験の性質と頻度は、人によって大きく異なり、同じ人でも時期によって異なり、さまざまな薬物によって引き起こされることもあります（ただし、多くの場合は副作用があります）。これらすべては、「経験可能な空間」が非常に広く、人々の人生の大部分がこれらの特別な瞬間で構成されている可能性があることを示唆しています。さまざまな認知機能を全面的に改善することもおそらく可能です。これはおそらく、神経科学版の「生物学的自由」または「寿命の延長」です。
発達障害持ちでスペックが低い上、達成感とかの青春な感情を体験できなかった自分からすると夢のようだが、同時にこういうのを人工的に作れて皆良い人間になれるのってなんか怖くもあるな
はてなだとシロクマ先生とかがよくそういう話してる気がするけど
Hey guys, we have a gift for you! We just need you to answer a few questions first, then you'll earn a nice reward. It's very quick and simple! It only takes a minute. So come on, click on the following link to claim your gift. Don't wait, time is running out! Click on the link and enjoy your free gift. Now hurry up!
anond:20240904032316についてたブクマカの初めて買ったCDのリリース年を調べた。
for (let a of document.body.getElementsByClassName('entry-comment-text js-bookmark-comment')) console.log(a.textContent)
ってやってテキスト集める。
Microsoft Copilotに「以下の文章に出てくる、音楽CDのタイトルとリリース年を一覧で表にしてください。」って指示。
途中で切れたので分割する。 続き→ anond:20240905115337
There are some things that people who come to Japan to visit should be aware of. I have not read much mention of this and it may be new to many of you.
That is, many Japanese do not like the smell of perfume. On trains, in crowded places, and in restaurants, the smell of perfume is considered very annoying. In Japan, it is considered good public manners to wear perfume only to the extent that it is only faintly fragrant or faintly scented.
Some people may want to use perfume to control body odor. Even in Japan, body odor is an important issue, especially during the hot and humid summer months.
The single most important measure against body odor in Japan is to keep the body clean. Take a bath at least once a day, or twice if necessary. This is the norm in Japan, a country blessed with abundant water resources.
In addition, paper wet-sheets for wiping perspiration are sold everywhere, including convenience stores and pharmacies. They are a necessity during Japan's dangerous summers.
In short, the important thing is to get rid of body odor. If you try to cover it up with a stronger smelling perfume, you will be disliked by the Japanese.
Once I had a quite cold attitude to Nagasaki’s Atomic Bomb Victims Memorial Peace Prayer Ceremony, I was like “here comes another Peace rally LMFAO”. But just look at this, the ambassador of Israel attacked Nagasaki’s mayor fiercely saying “The mayor took over the ceremony for his ideology”, a bigwig at the Simon Wiesenthal Center said “the Nagasaki’s atomic bomb ended World War 2” and now he’s criticizing the non-invitation of Israel’s rep to the ceremony as “unethical”, and top of that, the ambassador of the US, the one who dropped the atomic bomb, is talking nonsense, saying “if Israel don’t join we also don’t join lol.” With hearing all these I’m so surprised of finding myself very much pissed off…are you all making light off victims of such a cruel weapon you sons of bitch?
If you want to beat up the mayor of Nagasaki, it's fine to criticize the Shinkansen project in Kyushu area, corruption, welfare arrangement, or other issues (*This is just an example of some topics, I'm not claiming that I’m actually frustrated by any of these). But don’t these morons know that the Nagasaki’s peace ceremony is essentially a memorial ceremony? No one is crazy enough to start screaming in memorial service about his relatives whom he doesn’t like. If someone was yelling, ”Why didn't you invite me to the memorial service!!”, Its clear in everyone’s mind saying, ”It's because you behave that way..” … If you claim yourself as a grown-up, “it was really a shame, lets talk it over and get things straight” should be your response. Does Gillard Cohen realize that he is making a personal attack on someone who in Western terms would be the director of the Auschwitz museum?
(as a side note, I am fed up also to the vulgar accusation by the Palestinian Ambassador when Hiroshima City invited the Israel rep to their ceremony. Please go ahead and be aggressive in UN conferences, but again is that a proper behavior in connection with the memorial ceremony?)
I haven’t say enough to the reaction of reps of Western countries to Nagasaki. Why don’t you think twice before reacting impulsively? No doubt Japan is one of the most pro-Western countries in Asia, they support Ukraine most earnestly among Non-NATO countries. Still even quiet and shy Japanese people is totally put off by military operations of Israel. It is too easy to imagine how Israel is hated in non-pro-Western countries. When will you have an imagination to realize your such attitude making many countries having distance from Ukraine. If western countries close their eyes to horrors in Gaza and be determined to defend Israel anyway, why aren’t others allowed to keep their relationship with Russia even after devastating scenes in Bucha?
(btw I was so impressed when Zelenskyy expressed his support to Israel, are you serious? Don't you think of a scenario where Ukrainian militias rise up in Donetsk or in Luhansk, resulting in heavy casualties among Russian settlers, leading to Russia denouncing this as a despicable terrorist attack targeting Russian civilians? That's exactly what's happening in Palestine.)
Anyway you morons should come to your senses, and admit Israel’s outrageous actions are no difference from that of Russia. And know that calling the criticism to Israel as “antisemitism” is making you look so smart. Refusing Neo-Nazism ain’t discrimination to Germans, doxing Zaitokukai (*a nationalist group which calls for an end to state welfare and alleged privileges afforded to Koreans in Japan) ain’t Japanese-hate, and impeachment against Zionists ain’t anti-Jewish either.
海外在住でも自称弱者男性の俺が無償で英訳してやったぞ。乱暴な口調もできるだけ残しておいたんでGoogle翻訳にかけて粗を探すなり海外掲示板に投稿するなりどうぞ
Once I had a quite cold attitude to Nagasaki’s Atomic Bomb Victims Memorial Peace Prayer Ceremony, I was like “here comes another Peace rally LMFAO”. But just look at this, the ambassador of Israel attacked Nagasaki’s mayor fiercely saying “The mayor took over the ceremony for his ideology”, a bigwig at the Simon Wiesenthal Center said “the Nagasaki’s atomic bomb ended World War 2” and now he’s criticizing the non-invitation of Israel’s rep to the ceremony as “unethical”, and top of that, the ambassador of the US, the one who dropped the atomic bomb, is talking nonsense, saying “if Israel don’t join we also don’t join lol.” With hearing all these I’m so surprised of finding myself very much pissed off…are you all making light off victims of such a cruel weapon you sons of bitch?
If you want to beat up the mayor of Nagasaki, it's fine to criticize the Shinkansen project in Kyushu area, corruption, welfare arrangement, or other issues (*This is just an example of some topics, I'm not claiming that I’m actually frustrated by any of these). But don’t these morons know that the Nagasaki’s peace ceremony is essentially a memorial ceremony? No one is crazy enough to start screaming in memorial service about his relatives whom he doesn’t like. If someone was yelling, ”Why didn't you invite me to the memorial service!!”, Its clear in everyone’s mind saying, ”It's because you behave that way..” … If you claim yourself as a grown-up, “it was really a shame, lets talk it over and get things straight” should be your response. Does Gillard Cohen realize that he is making a personal attack on someone who in Western terms would be the director of the Auschwitz museum?
(as a side note, I am fed up also to the vulgar accusation by the Palestinian Ambassador when Hiroshima City invited the Israel rep to their ceremony. Please go ahead and be aggressive in UN conferences, but again is that a proper behavior in connection with the memorial ceremony?)
I haven’t say enough to the reaction of reps of Western countries to Nagasaki. Why don’t you think twice before reacting impulsively? No doubt Japan is one of the most pro-Western countries in Asia, they support Ukraine most earnestly among Non-NATO countries. Still even quiet and shy Japanese people is totally put off by military operations of Israel. It is too easy to imagine how Israel is hated in non-pro-Western countries. When will you have an imagination to realize your such attitude making many countries having distance from Ukraine. If western countries close their eyes to horrors in Gaza and be determined to defend Israel anyway, why aren’t others allowed to keep their relationship with Russia even after devastating scenes in Bucha?
(btw I was so impressed when Zelenskyy expressed his support to Israel, are you serious? Don't you think of a scenario where Ukrainian militias rise up in Donetsk or in Luhansk, resulting in heavy casualties among Russian settlers, leading to Russia denouncing this as a despicable terrorist attack targeting Russian civilians? That's exactly what's happening in Palestine.)
Anyway you morons should come to your senses, and admit Israel’s outrageous actions are no difference from that of Russia. And know that calling the criticism to Israel as “antisemitism” is making you look so smart. Refusing Neo-Nazism ain’t discrimination to Germans, doxing Zaitokukai (*a nationalist group which calls for an end to state welfare and alleged privileges afforded to Koreans in Japan) ain’t Japanese-hate, and impeachment against Zionists ain’t anti-Jewish either.
https://x.com/BuckAngel/status/1820076126234169384
Birth certificate is not proof of sex. My birth certificate was actually changed many years ago to reflect male. I am a biological female XX chromosomes. I can prove to you who keep telling me that Algeria’s Imane Khelif is female because the birth certificate says so. That is proof of nothing. What is proof of sex is XX and XY chromosomes.
This is me before and after testosterone injections. I did NOT change my sex I changed my appearance.
BTW this is a very personal thing I am sharing with the world in order to help us all get back to sanity and fairness in women's sports.
出生証明書は性別を証明するものではない。私の出生証明書は何年も前に男性に変更された。 私は生物学的に女性のXX染色体を持っている。 アルジェリアのイマネ・ケリフが女性だと言い続けるあなたには、出生証明書にそう書いてあるから証明できる。 それは何の証明にもならない。性別を証明するのはXX染色体とXY染色体だ。
これはテストステロン注射の前と後の私です。性別を変えたのではなく、外見を変えたのです。
ちなみに、これはとても個人的なことで、私たちみんなが正気と女子スポーツの公正さを取り戻すために、世界と分かち合っているのです。
賞金総額93億円のEsports World Cup（EWC）が7/3からサウジアラビアで開催中。
今、最後の出場権をかけた最終予選（Last Chance Qualifier：LCQ）がサウジアラビアで行われている。
8/2の0時からはストリートファイター6のLCQが行われているが、ここでのモラルが問題になっている。
ストリートファイター6のLCQには149人がエントリーしていたが50名近い人間がDisqualified（DQ）になっている。
Disqualifiedはスポーツ大会用語では様々な規定違反での「失格」という意味で使われているが、
e-sports界隈では「ドタキャン」の意味でつかわれることが多い。
簡単に言ってしまえば、エントリーはしたが当日会場に来ていなかったので「失格」になったということ。
LCQはトーナメント方式となっており、当然だが「全員参加する前提」で試合が組まれている。
３分の１近い参加者がDQになったことにより、初日は一試合もせずに通過してしまうような参加者も出ており、
既に本戦出場を決めているプロゲーマーのOil King選手も
Join for the EWC LCQ this time is free, and then I saw that many "well-known" good players were not shown up(DQ).I am really tired of this kind of thing. If you know very early that you can't participate , why not tell the organizer, this makes the bracket very unfair, I hate it
(今回のEWC LCQは無料で参加できるのに、「有名な」上手いプレイヤーがたくさん出てこないのを見て(DQ)、こういうのは本当にうんざりです。参加できないことがかなり早い段階でわかっている場合は、主催者に伝えてみてはいかがでしょうか。これではブラケットが非常に不公平になります。私はそれが嫌いです。)
出ないのがわかってるんなら早く主催に伝えろ。大会が不公平になる。
と警鐘を鳴らしている。
現状、ほとんどの大会が大会参加費は無料となっており、誰でもエントリーできるようになっており
これはまだ格闘ゲームで安定して大きな金を稼げる人間が多くないことや
なのに多くの"国外"大会で「とりあえずエントリーしておいて当日に参加しない」という行為が横行している。
勝てなければ丸々赤字になる。なので大会直前に「やっぱ自信ないからやーめたｗ」となるのだろう。
だが、こういうことが増えれば参加費の徴収やDQした場合のペナルティが課される可能性は非常に高くなる。
こうなると既にファンとスポンサーがついていて湯水のごとく金が使えるおじさんはともかく、
今回のLCQのDQには日本のプロ選手も少なくない数含まれていた。
中にはLCQが行われている時間に自宅で他ゲー配信して遊んでいたプロまでいる。
こういう何千万がかかった試合の最終予選ですら「行けたら行くわｗ」の精神でやってるのを見ると
ロシアがアラスカをアメリカに売却したとき、そこに入植していたロシア人はアメリカ人になったのだろうか
ロシア人が新天地に植民して毛皮の仕事をしていたら、なんか突然自分の国籍がアメリカに変わった……変わるのか？
どういう扱いになるんだろう
パスポートを発行するのはロシアとアメリカのどちらになるのか（パスポートの歴史は何年から始まる？）
そもそも「ロシア人」だとか「アメリカ人」だとか、「○○人」であるということはつまりどういうことなのか
国籍って何？という点をそもそも自分はよく知らないのか そこから知る必要があるか
アメリカ独立とか北方領土問題とかについて書かれた本でも読んでみるか
そこに住んでいた人の帰属先がどうなるか、についての例を知ることができるかもしれない
あるいは、ずばりアラスカについて書かれた本を探す
ここらへんで紹介された資料でめぼしいものをピックアップして目を通しましょうね
アメリカがロシアからアラスカを購入した経緯などが知りたい。 | レファレンス協同データベース
在日朝鮮人とか在朝日本人とかの国籍がどういう扱いかも気になるが、今知りたい内容を知るには他の膨大な話題の海を泳ぐ必要があるから不適か
あっ この本面白そうだな
『無国籍と複数国籍 あなたは「ナニジン」ですか?』という新書
（というか、アラスカを売却したタイミングでそこに植民していたロシア人はそもそも存在するのか？植民していたとしても出稼ぎ的な感じで定住しておらず本籍的なものはロシアのままだったりしないか？それも知りたいな、やはりレファレンス協同データベースで提示された資料を第一に漁るべきか）
あー 国籍という概念自体が比較的最近に生まれたのか 最近……18世紀を最近と言ってしまっていいか知らんが……
これでこの日記は終わり
---
Nearly all Russian settlers left Alaska in the aftermath of the purchase; Alaska would remain sparsely populated until the Klondike Gold Rush began in 1896.
購入後、ほぼすべてのロシア人入植者はアラスカを去り、1896 年にクロンダイク ゴールド ラッシュが始まるまでアラスカの人口はまばらのままでした。
After the transfer, a number of Russian citizens remained in Sitka, but nearly all of them very soon decided to return to Russia, which was still possible at the expense of the Russian-American Company.
移管後、多くのロシア国民がシトカに留まったが、彼らのほとんどはすぐにロシアへの帰国を決意した。露米会社の費用でそれはまだ可能だった。
ほとんどのロシア人はアラスカを去ったのだなあ。じゃあ国籍問題も発生しなかった、と。
疑問は解決したがせっかくなので調べた本は読んでみるか
ま～た日本語すら検索すら検索しない人による謎の主張が出ているので、コピペしとくね
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Afro-centrists-claim-that-the-first-samurai-warrior-was-a-black-African
一例：
7mo
The original answer and your comment are both wrong. It is very easy to prove Yasuke was a samurai, you just have to check a Japanese dictionary. I searched for 侍・士 (samurai) on the Japanese online encyclopedia コトバンク (Kotobank), which produced a result from 精選版 日本国語大辞典 (Carefully Selected Edition of the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten, aka Shogakukan’s Japanese Dictionary). I’ll post the link at the bottom, but here is the relevant section in Japanese and my translation in English.
(3)鎌倉幕府では、侍は僕従を有し、騎上の資格ある武士で、郎従等の凡下と厳重に区別する身分規定が行なわれた。しかし、鎌倉中期以降、その範囲が次第に拡大、戦国時代以降は、諸国の大名の家臣をも広く侍と称するようになり、武士一般の称として用いられるようになる。
(3) In the Kamakura Shogunate (1185 - 1333 AD), samurai were professional warriors who had servants and were qualified to ride on horseback, and their status was strictly differentiated from ordinary subordinates such as roju. However, from the middle of the Kamakura Shogunate onwards, its scope gradually expanded, and from the Sengoku Period (1467 - 1615 AD) onwards, vassals of feudal lords in various provinces came to be widely referred to as samurai, and it came to be used as a general term for professional warriors.
Now we have to ask three questions to see whether Yasuke met this definition:
Q: When did Yasuke work for the feudal lord Oda Nobunaga?
A: From April 1581 to June 1582. We know this from multiple eyewitness accounts, which I also mention below.
Q: Was Yasuke a vassal of Oda Nobunaga?
A: Yes, as evidenced by the fact that he was given a stipend, a house, and a job as spear-bearer (a type of bodyguard for the leader of a samurai family). He was also given a short sword called a koshigatana, which was worn as a status symbol and weapon for self-defense at all times by high status samurai. This we know from the Chronicle of Lord Nobunaga, written by Oda Nobunaga’s vassal Ota Gyuichi.
Q: Was Yasuke a warrior fighting for Oda Nobunaga?
A: Yes, as evidenced by the fact that he fought in three important conflicts. One, Yasuke fought in the Second Tensho Iga War in September 1581. This we can infer because the Jesuits said Oda Nobunaga took Yasuke everywhere with him and he led his own troops into this war. Two, Yasuke fought in the Koshu Conquest from February to March 1582. This we know from the Diary of Ietada, written by Matsudaira Ietada, a vassal of Tokugawa Ieyasu, who was himself a vassal of Oda Nobunaga. Three, Yasuke fought in the Honno-ji Incident of June 1582, in which he tried but failed to save the lives of both Oda Nobunaga and his son Oda Nobutada until Yasuke was the last Oda man standing and surrendered to the traitor Akechi Mitsuhide, who spared his life and returned him to the Jesuits. This we know from letters written by the Jesuits, who were glad to have Yasuke back. According to the Oda family today, Nobunaga’s final order was for Yasuke to help him commit seppuku (ritual suicide by stomach cutting) by decapitating him and bring his head to a courier that returned it to the Oda family, so it could not be used as evidence of victory by Akechi Mitsuhide.
So there you have it. Yasuke was a vassal and a warrior for the most powerful feudal lord in all of Japan, during the Sengoku Period. He even assisted his lord’s suicide, a role strictly reserved for samurai. Therefore, he was a samurai. Below is a link to the definition of samurai on Kotobank.
"For a Samurai to be brave, he must have a bit of black blood "
日本人ならそんなことわざないこと誰でも知ってると思うんですけど、当然アサクリ関係ないサイトで見ることになる
https://www.levelman.com/where-black-people-fx-shogun/
リンク貼れないけど下記とか
ちな、悪気なさそうな教師向けサイト・子ども向けサイトでも、YASUKEサイキョーは見ますよ
というか、そもそもUBIがインタビュー動画の中で日系人っぽいアジアンの監修スタッフに『YASUKEは日本で広く受け入れらている』とか言わせてますし
トランプ氏とのテレビ討論会でバイデン大統領の低調な受け答えが波紋を呼んでいるが、個人的にはアメリカ人の婉曲表現があまりに直球で笑ってしまった。「ええ時計してはりますなぁ」 で有名な京都人が言われたら、ショック死するレベルである。
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/02/politics/house-democrat-call-biden-withdraw/index.html
Earlier on Tuesday, Democratic Rep. Mike Quigley of Illinois had signaled an openness to replace Biden as the party’s presidential nominee.
（中略）
“We have to be honest with ourselves that it wasn’t just a horrible night, but I won’t go beyond that out of my respect and understanding of President Joe Biden, a very proud person who has served us extraordinarily well for 50 years,” he added.
これに先立ち、イリノイ州の民主党下院議員マイク・クイグリー氏は、党の大統領候補をバイデン氏から変更することに前向きな姿勢を示していた。
（中略）
「単にひどい夜だったというだけではないことに、私達は正直にならなければいけない。だが、50年間、私たちに並外れた貢献をしてきた誇り高き人物であるジョー・バイデン大統領への敬意と理解から、それ以上のことは言わない」と同氏は付け加えた。
「それ以上のことは言わない」」って、それ、もう言ってるようなもんだろ。和訳すると酷い皮肉のようにしか読めないが、英語ネイティブ的にはこれは婉曲表現として機能しているのだろうか。