Natasha Tori Maru

But how do you determine those constants and know them for sure?

Haha - HAL 😈

@LordFall KEEN

Attention is a trainable behavioural resource - so algorithmic short form media isn't just this innocent entertainment source - the environment is deliberately curated to provide you with novelty & emotional salience. It ends up a its own personalised reward stream. Meta deliberately removed natural stopping points and created an almost frictionless environment to leverage continued engagement - good or bad. For anyone curious you should look into the recent lawsuits from late 2026 + internal research Meta performed themselves. It is becoming harder and harder for them to pretend they were ignorant to potential harm. The lawsuits do not mean they are admitting liability or are guilty. Meta has argued they performed research to identify and mitigate problems (compulsive use and harm) from features such as infinite scroll, autoplay and notifications. They reject the interpretation from the recent 2026 litigation (still contested I believe) they knew about the harm that could be caused. I removed the apps from my phone - I occasionally browse on a terminal. It was one of the best things I did for wellbeing, happiness and attention.

Can't AI just do the dishes, fold the laundry and do the crap I don't want to, instead of do that crap I do want to do? I don't want AI to do the shit I often enjoy or find interesting. 😈

What did you eat?

To clarify - I am not objecting to the quality of your reasoning. You are correct that speculation isn't inherently illegitimate. I am objecting to the fact that you apparently presented an inference about OP's internal state with more certainty than the available evidence warrants. It remains that you speculated - "educated guess". This is unnecessary and weakens your argument because it's another speculation. There is zero evidence for this. ____ Obviously you don't have to take this on board, but attributing an internal psychological state to someone and then building a question around that inference sort of shoots you in the foot if you want to engage in charitable, good faith conversation. It is a failure to relate to the person and can polarise them against you (put them in the defensive). And if they reply with some charged emotional defence at being "psychoanalysed" (or state inference), it can be very easy to use the defensive posture as more evidence for your inference (closed loop, self sealing model). It is a huge caveat to approaching interactions without asking neutral, open ended questions prior to labelling someone as emotionally compromised/jealous/envious/feeling negative or what-have-you. I just wouldn't personally prematurely convert a psychological hypothesis into the premise of your interaction for the above reasons. I make this mistake very often myself, which might be why I saw it when you posted.

Do we have one? Rolling. Post that shit. Shorts, reels, tick-tock turds. Do your worst short format. Boomer cringe. I love the spittle on the guys mouth 🤮🤢 https://vt.tiktok.com/ZS45V1Enf/

Authenticity. I find it ill-defined. The word is tossed about flippantly. EVERYWHERE. It is spoken about on these forums frequently. What is Authenticity (in the romantic sense, and interpersonally)? Do you think it is overrated/underrated? Only appropriate at certain times or phases of connection? I find it paradoxical. Authenticity requires enough self-awareness to distinguish your genuine values from the forces acting on you (incentive structures). I think it is about congruence. Congruence between what is actually going on inside you, how you live, make choices and relate to the world. So for me it's being able to accurately know what I experience, owning it completely and acting in accordance with it as the situation deeps appropriate. I feel like it needs these clauses because it gets muddled up with just "expressing" without censure. Authenticity IS NOT just expressing the contents of your mind. "I say what I feel", "I refuse to change for anyone", "I do what feels natural", "I am brutally honest" or "I don't care what anyone thinks, this is who I am" - all of these are not it in my definition. Philosophy wise I don't think to be authentic we require a true fixed self. Values change. We change. What is authentic will change. Existentially I see it creeping toward "am I taking ownership of the fact I am choosing?" My closest definition: Authenticity is the constant, background practice of shrinking the space between what I experience and what I understand myself to currently value. What I claim to be, and how I actually behave... while remaining willing to amend my understanding of me. Would love everyone's thoughts around this loaded topic as it applies to dating, courtship, romance, relationships, attraction etc.

@LordFall you are speculating. You even gave evidence for your speculation. Do you know OP was triggered? No. Hence, speculation.

This is framed upon a purely speculation based psychoanalysis with very little basis of evidence based on what OP stated.

We were asked our opinion. Did you think I was giving dating advice? This was not the intention.

This is a broader topic that can also apply to many users issues with understanding women ❤️❤️❤️

@Eskilon I think your definition can be coherent because: So, if this is how you frame authenticity - it is sound to me. Metaphysical authenticity. My approach was more broad but definitely more psychological. If you use another definition of self - ie the small self - that arises chiefly within the social domain, one's definition may differ. Suddenly you operate from a set of values and incentive structures that you use to define yourself - these pieces act to shape authenticity, which can loop directly back into integrity (I might call this relational authenticity if I want to get really nuanced). I am hedging toward authenticity being domain specific. This feels like a stronger model than authenticity being a single global trait. The dyad @aurum and I engaged in elaborated on this. I think it is a larger and more complex idea than initial inspection might reveal.

Do you repeat outfits? Exact same several days in a row? Find one or two that work and repeat? Or do you have a style that has essential basics but you rotate accessories? Or do you find something that works and purchase multiple of that item in differing colours? TELL ME! I am a chronic outfit repeater; I find a couple of items that work as a basic template and alternate one or two small elements. I am completely unbothered repeating an outfit 3 days in a row, exactly the same (provided it is clean). I don't want to think too much. Just slap something on I know works and go. I dislike shopping for clothes. I wear a lot of black. Special occasions I deviate. But day to day I don't give a shit if it's the same all week INTJ if that factors in

@BlessedLion interesting points regarding sexual signalling and dress. When I'm looking for a long-term partner, I want to maximise the quality of information I get about a man's interest, not just maximise the amount of male attention I receive. And while dressing in a standard provocative manner risks attracting a man who might overly value me for my appearance, it isn't a guarantee he doesn't also value other aspects. This is where courtship becomes a second phase of filtering for me. I think presentation can be used as an initial screening strategy without treating it as a definitive character test. This is also why I am not totally averse to being cold approached. The interaction after is just another level of filter.

@Monster Energy cest la vie

I mean, applies to me as well ☺️ That's on you. You either choose to accept or not.

It's not about me, though. I am sorry if what I said caused offense. But you need to do better.

Dude. Stop making nasty character judgements.

@Monster Energy you sound paradigm locked. Enjoy

Hard agree. I would argue it's almost necessary prior to discovering the environmentally safe stuff. Usually the healthy fuel discovery is a serendipitous thing while engaging in toxic fuel consumption - tangential discussion though 🤐

@Joshe you sound like you aren't afflicted with the "should" syndrome in general, though. Most people love that toxic fuel ⛽

This is changing the category of the claim. Not what I was saying.

I think @Xonas Pitfall nailed it. Did you truly not know what a falsifiable model was? Or did you want someone's personal definition?