Grandiloquent/sesquipedalian. It’s what you get when you use everything in this thread ₍^ >ヮ<^₎ .ᐟ.ᐟ

_/s

Specifically, it refers to a deep understanding.

[A critic] notes that [the coiner’s] first intensional definition is simply “to drink”, but that this is only a metaphor “much as English ‘I see’ often means the same as ‘I understand’”. (from Wikipedia)

When you claim to “grok” some knowledge or technique, you are asserting that you have not merely learned it in a detached instrumental way but that it has become part of you, part of your identity. For example, to say that you “know” Lisp is simply to assert that you can code in it if necessary – but to say you “grok” Lisp is to claim that you have deeply entered the world-view and spirit of the language, with the implication that it has transformed your view of programming. Contrast zen, which is a similar supernatural understanding experienced as a single brief flash. (The Jargon File; also quoted on Wikipedia)

In 2003, Bill Burr wrote “NIST Special Publication 800-63. Appendix A” – a security document that recommended passwords be changed every 90 days, and have irregular caps and special characters. When asked about it, and the resultant trends in people adding !@#$%^&*() to the end of their passwords, Burr said something enlightening:

“Much of what I did I now regret.”

Lmao

so yeah I hit the Bitwarden generate button and forget

I definitely agree. Back then, the bad stuff was often more… innocent, grassroots-ish? (With exceptions.) Like, if you stumbled on a cartel beheading then no one was trying to sell anything to you.

Nowadays it’s markedly more corporate – there is ad revenue in constructing an extremist pipeline, and anyone can see how content has sprung up to assume that vacuum. (Try opening a private browser tab and watching only Ben Shapiro videos. The algorithm will eventually point you to Trump conspiracy videos with AI voiceovers. Last time I did this was before Cambridge Analytica changed their name to Emerdata though so I’m not sure if it’s the same.)

One thing: you mentioned that there was a pipeline in “‘fun’ kids content”. I’ve only seen stuff like that directed at early, questioning teens (the Discord offensive-jokester type) – does this “‘fun’ kids content” thing target even younger ages now? Because I’ve yet to hear of that.

You prevent them from waking up earlier, huh? Youngsters definitely have infinite energy at the odder times. I sure did my fair share of waking up early to increase the fraction of the day I gamed for.

This is a pretty convincing stance in favor of timers, actually. The idea of transferring video-watching from the iPad to the television is a friendly way to prevent an unchecked iPad-kid situation. My opinion shifted a little. :P

Do you have timers on the iPad for any mobile games, or just YouTube?

Your stance on the age-inappropriate reminds me of what @southsamurai commented! I’ve definitely seen a lot of “Don’t protect your child too hard by concealing the inappropriate from them” lately. I wonder how many modern parents are shifting to that ideal.

“Kids respond well to being treated seriously.” (from Vox, “Why safe playgrounds aren’t great for kids”, 3:17)

You mention that there are some cases where parental controls would help, but you also mentioned that, (1) regarding inapproriacy, you shouldn’t baby children and (2) regarding screen time, BananaKing’s take is the best route. Doesn’t that cover both aspects of where parental controls would be used? What cases would you say parental controls would help with?

Someone downvoted but I want to hear your differing stance so I upvoted. (Come on fellow lemmings ` . ` let’s melting-pot a little!)

Anyway – your belief is interesting, though I feel like I might disagree! Seems similar to @Contramuffin’s upbringing, but more extreme.

How would you train them beforehand? Or would you just drop them into the archetypal sink-or-swim? Don’t you think the kid would feel lonely, say, if they stumbled on a jumpscare video and got the heebie-jeebies but you didn’t help? Everyone makes mistakes. And outside of scarring – what if your kid turns into one of those YouTube Kids jockeys?

Is your hypothetical “Tough shit, deal with it and get stronger” approach similar to how you were raised?

That makes a lot of sense! Definitely much less friction in that approach – clearly delineated boundaries, decently low pressure, and secure trust without the ethical quandary.

…don’t attempt technical solutions to administrative problems.

Good advice.

Thanks for the in-depth response!

My parents “let health class do the job” and kept their eyes closed – regarding porn – so your punishmentless one-on-ones are new and interesting to me. Trust is definitely the most vital here.

Someone downvoted you but I’d like to hear differing opinions, so I upvoted.

By teaching the child how to circumvent these measures, what do you mean by that? Do you teach them to break your router rules? And when would you do that – when they appear mature enough to you? Of course, there’s the chance that they don’t like tech.

Imaginarily, my kid and I could have some arms-race fun, but I don’t know how realistic that is.

Hah! Faraday Cage, nice. Location spoofs too!

Interestingly, the route my mother took was, when I went off to college, she asked me if she could track me. We discussed privacy (who has my location?) and security (Is the protection endeavor proportionate to the threat chance?), and I demonstrated a basic location spoof (I am in control of my data).

In the end, we agreed to allow some monitoring.

That’s different of course – it’s a rare (I think) circumstance and consent, and isn’t quite parental control, as both parties had equal grounds to form said consent.

I wonder if such a conversation could happen among younger children. 12 to 13 y/os maybe? Depends of course.

That’s fair. Subscribing to a singular doctrine doesn’t make sense, and there are lots of culture gaps to acknowledge.

What about for you specifically? To what extent would you/do you digitally monitor your kids (if you have any or not)?

Hahaha, I’m overjoyed that you’re joyful! Net positive.

You aren’t alone on the absolutivity thing, autism or not. Absolute blanket statements have always made me uncomfortable. With stuff like

Leftists are all self-righteous.

American Republicans are all backwards.

Christians are cultists.

and the obvious accompanying internet convoy of

Clicks -> discussion -> algorithm promotion -> pipeline -> opinions upgrade from “bad cases of” to “lots of them” to “all of them”

not only sacrifice nuance and make it easy to Just Stay Agreeable, but discourage any questioning of the status quo.

Of course, one can argue that this is an online thing, an archetype of Reddit and Tumblr and Twitter spaces, but now I don’t even question these things aloud in real life. I don’t want to be seen as

The “see-from-all-sides” guy is obviously a closeted bigot lmao.

in a place where reputation actually matters, but it’d be easy to lump me in like that. Nuancelessness is simple, kneejerk, catchy…

Now, my point. I don’t think I’m making this up, and maybe I’ll get downvoted for this diatribe but I feel like disagreeing in real life has become much riskier. Am I sounding cynical again? As a solution (solutions aren’t cynical right?), optimally I’d want a way to discuss across views in an educated, “I’ll hear you out” way, but the real-life risk outweighs reward, and online spaces bubble-up really easily. Counterpoint: r/changemyview has put up promising resistance.

The other day I saw this business school complaint discussion. It’s on a kind of out-of-touch subreddit, but what do you think of its survivalistic smile-and-wave message?

Sorry for being so negative =.=

Wow, really interesting take! Made me realize…

Wow. I’m the baddie.

I’ve done my fair share of admit “AI bad, Twitter bad” and felt that shift towards cynicism, I admit – but 'til now I couldn’t see my own hand in the subject. I’d worked hard over the years to avoid the more overt frustrator communities like r/facepalm, but as much as I’d like to presume… I’m clearly not doing so much better after all.

That ambient cynicism… I still perpetuated it, I still wrote those kneejerk comments, I still went on the preordained in-group spiel of valuelessnesses.

It’s so easy to insult the things you mentioned, to partake in the “I Want to be Agreeable and Get Points” mindset and dunk. But it’s precluding our ability to experience the things you mentioned in para #4. I want more of para #4 in my life… I’ll need to think things differently.

Idk. Thanks for the meaningful substance. :p

How do I unimagine that?

I think I disagree with a lot of the comments here. The “trying to sound smart” feeling only really occurs when there’s a mismatch in decorum – someone is trying to appear Higher and More Logical – but that can happen with any word, especially adverbs.

Technically, your argument is fallacious.

“Technically” is a useless crutch word (techy!), and “fallacious” is hella overused outside of formal logic stuff, so here it’s a mismatch in decorum. (What’s the fallacy? Does the other just… disagree with you, or are you using a converse error like A implies B, therefore B implies A?)

Well, you don’t always have to do that, per se, but you can irregardless.

A lot of crutch words are just innocent habits, too. [email protected] mentioned something like that… though there are always people who up their jargon levels for no reason other than To Be More L33t. _{and_screw_irregardless}

On the other hand, some words commented here are needed. For example, if a reviewer calls Grossman’s The Magicians “erudite”, it fits perfectly – the book

Continuing on that feeling of summed-up-in-one-word-ness – what alternatives do we really have for “whataboutism” or the “algorithm” or “milquetoast”? Those words hit hard, they sum things up.

The algorithm is an alt-right pipeline, of course he’ll have that phase.

Great, another video on the most milquetoast youtuber drama I’ve ever heard.

Those words are concise, they roll off the tongue and evoke feeling! Don’t shorten words just to sound more colloquial when you have a choice that really fits! And likewise, equally – don’t be grandiloquent just for the sake of it.

Or else you’ll face floccinaucinihilipilification :3

The “we have more than 5 senses” insistence, while interesting, misconstrues what is typically understood as a “sense” by the average person.

When children are taught what the 5 senses are, i.e. seeing, hearing, touch, taste and smell, these are more literary senses than scientific ones. (In another vein, it’s like disagreeing whether a tomato is a vegetable, fruit, or both – scientists and cooks have different definitions!)

Proprioception, the unconscious spatial perception of your body parts, falls under “feel.” Hunger and thirst do, too. I feel hungry, I feel that my leg is below me, I feel off-balance. These scientifically-defined senses fall under one literary sense or another.

Since this is just a mangling of definitions, it’s almost irresponsible to call the five-senses thing a misconception. That being said, it did interest me; did you know that endolymph fluid in our ears uses its inertia to tell us what’s going on when we turn our heads? ツ