UnbornTao

Oh, right. I thought it was some sort of riddle or something. "Everything is free, comrade."

Everything? Thunderbird is a good email client, too. Da Vinci Resolve has a free version. On Linux you have to remove some libraries from its directory if it won't open. It's likely better than Kdenlive.

Switched to Zed. Rust-based. WinRar (though I prefer and use 7zip).

Reread what I said. To me, what you're talking about has very little use if it can't be actualized. It's just having concepts about some subject - which go mostly unchallenged, by the way. It's easy for one to think a subject is understood when it really isn't. You just have to believe that you do. If that something is an ability you can't carry out reasonably well, then there's very little value in what you think you understand about it. "Oh, I understand bike riding. But I can't even get on one without falling." Whoop-de-doo.

Not really. Doing it reasonably well isn't the same as mastering it. It just means being able to make it real - whether that is done excellently or not is a different matter.

Audacity's getting an overhaul that seems promising. I'd add GIMP and LibreOffice, but I don't think they're that mature or pretty in terms of UI and certain functionality.

Not at all. We're using 'understanding' differently. I'm talking about experiential understanding. If you can't "do" it (experience it, actualize it, make it real and not merely conceptual), you don't really 'understand' it. Your inability to actualize it is proof of this disparity, and this feedback points to the existence of this domain of "knowledge" that isn't just "thinking" that you understand something. The latter requires proving it, in a sense, and not just spinning your mental wheels.

It's a pretty grounded story. I think this down-to-earth quality is an important element of why the show resonates with people. Who hasn't had a drug-kingpin chemist teacher at some point? Not me!

This seems to be the case. You have an extra "is" in your signature, by the way.

Actually, in many contexts, if you can't 'do' it, you don't really understand it. This applies to countless abilities and domains of knowledge. Driving is another example. We're making a distinction between two domains of understanding, if you will.

The quote from Psychology Today is quite interesting. I'm too lazy to fact-check it now but I'll take Leo's word for it.

In many ways this is true. To use an example liberally, we may think we know what an emotion is, but in our experience, do we really? How far does our understanding of it go? By 'doing,' in this context, I mean to actually see or understand it. Another example would be cooking: you may 'know' a lot, but actual understanding implies or demands being able to 'do' it - to apply the knowledge effectively so that you cook a high-quality dish. Something like that.

Calibre comes to mind. Inkscape, Krita. Obsidian is free and closed-source (as a sidenote). OpenMW. The Affinity suite is free now, I reckon. Not sure how long that's going to last. They might release a Linux version at some point but there's no word on that yet. The biggest one in this sense is probably Wine.

You discover, move towards, and live whatever's true at any level. Who wants to do that? (And of course, it's not about using the abstract notion of truth here as some view or otherwise that's already known - this would simply be a sneaky form of confirmation bias.) We have to grant that it is currently truly unknown, and so the pursuit has to be open.

This is the kind of poetry I signed up for!

Amen!

Yep. And Microsoft is supposedly "removing" some of its AI from Windows.

Not shit - invented, complementary, ultimately disconnected from the actuality of things. Extraneous. Like eating a picture of food when hungry. You can of course get angry at that. The main point is that the circumstances are not the deciding factor. The mere objective obstruction does nothing more than physically prevent you from moving forward. Why would this event by itself have to generate anger - or any other reaction, for that matter? What else occurs *within you* such that this reactivity can show up in the first place? You do see and interpret the situation a certain way relative to your concerns and wants. You likely had a desire or expectation that was thwarted - to which your response is reacting in an angry way. Yeah, I mostly agree. We ourselves are the main anger-inducing factor, though. If we see it as an obstruction, it may well be relative to some concern, expectation, or goal of ours that we're failing (being unable to) to fulfill. This is related to our agenda and desires. A circumstance or an object themselves don't care, warrant, or demand a fixed reaction from us. Let's propose that we don't authentically know or realize what either anger or pain are, intrinsically (or anything else, for that matter). We may well think (believe) we do understand them due to their familiarity, and our natural arrogance. This kind of mental "knowing" can actually take the form of ignorance, preventing us from observing what's taking place as the emotion. Explaining it is one thing; being aware of its nature is another. What would it take for us to apprehend their nature? Consider that to the degree we realize its nature is the degree of freedom we're allowed to generate it or not. (Not as a pretension but as a real ability to willfully experience it or not.) Not saying this is necessarily easy or commonplace, but it's possible. We could see the emotion as having certain components that occur regardless of the possible causes ascribed to it. For example, anger is always related to a past event. It's about something that's already passed, even if just a millisecond ago. The first paragraph sounds reasonable. What underlies the emotion, though? Obstruction of movement is again a simple physical act that by itself doesn't have to induce anger. Something additional has to occur. What do we do when we get angry? Regarding your second paragraph, the difference is that anger is based on a past imagination, while anxiety is a form of fear - both of these are based on a future. A bit all over the place.

Let me shoehorn this now:

Goone, but not forgotten.

Got it. Neither was I.

Thanks for the recommendation. Just so you know, I was quite clear on my view of these worlds: there might be a real principle underlying the expression, but it is woo-woo - the show and presentation, and how it is pictured. There's a reason why the positive thinking movement is so popular, easy to consume, and entertaining. It makes people feel that wishing for something is more significant than what it really is. Go for what's real, not for what merely sounds good or is just self-affirming. We might sometimes have a hard time discerning which is which but it is worthwhile to recognize this.

Sure. Just saying that this kind of entertainment tends to end up becoming a form of pretension. But if you can make it work, it works. If it's useful, then that's that. It's more about assessing the purpose of the so-called communication.

But this kind of 'spiritual' resources is what I mean by wishful thinking. It sounds good and profound but what is the video doing? There could be a principle behind it. That could be useful. Educating people on how to access that would take a different form than giving a set of claims that are implicitly made to be believed. In the end what it does is filling people's heads with good-sounding ideas. It's entertainment.

This does nothing other than providing you with a fun time for as long as the video lasts. Also, it gives the vibes of AI voice over. Stinks of BS mostly. We all love a good fortune cookie once in a while.