Readit News logoReadit News
curiousObject commented on Ask HN: Why are Italian cities riddled with graffiti?    · Posted by u/robomartin
curiousObject · 18 hours ago
It’s been a problem for a while

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_graffiti

curiousObject commented on Ask HN: Can we (technically) extract salt from our sweat?    · Posted by u/eyalhadad
curiousObject · 4 days ago
Extracting is easy, just wait and evaporating, but collecting would be an inefficient process because of scale and topology of surfaces

Why?

curiousObject commented on People with personality disorders often use language differently   theconversation.com/peopl... · Posted by u/zeristor
curiousObject · 4 days ago
Some of these language patterns sound like the person is aware they have a personality disorder or some sort of behavior problem. That’s probably good.

Though, they do say “these patterns aren’t usually deliberate”.

But even being aware may not mean you really deeply understand why you have a problem.

curiousObject commented on A Cozy Mk IV light aircraft crashed after 3D-printed part was weakened by heat   bbc.com/news/articles/c1w... · Posted by u/toss1
curiousObject · 18 days ago
It sounds like simply running the engine on the ground for a few hours would have been a much cheaper way to debug this issue. Safer, also.

Deleted Comment

curiousObject commented on Tom Stoppard has died   bbc.com/news/articles/c74... · Posted by u/mstep
windowshopping · 21 days ago
See now while I love this play I don't find that exchange notable. It's very plain, no? The implication is that one thought the other was going to say something but he wasn't. This exact dialogue takes place in real life regularly.

The alternative reading, where an entire exchange cleverly takes place without any substance, seems almost mistaken to me? In context it seems very clear it's "I thought you...[were going to say something.]" "No." "Ah."

curiousObject · 21 days ago
This exact dialogue takes place in real life regularly.

One reason that it is funny is that it plays against that.

We the audience maybe forget for a moment that we are not watching real life. We are watching a drama or entertainment. So we expect something relevant to happen. That’s the convention.

The exchange plays with that expectation. It deliberately forces us out of our pleasant illusion and makes think us about our real experience - we are sitting in a seat and watching a performance, which is happening at that moment.

And nothing happens, just the same as real life

curiousObject commented on How to Cheat at Conversation   theatlantic.com/family/20... · Posted by u/curiousObject
curiousObject · a month ago
https://archive.is/QjkKQ

This story has used other titles, like - What We Lose by Letting AI Speak for Us

u/curiousObject

KarmaCake day857February 23, 2023View Original