I’d say more “select from” than “churn out”. It’s not about generating a hypothesis, it’s about having a collection of hypotheses and deciding which should be your default until additional evidence is provided.

Hanlon’s razor says “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”, and “adequately” is pulling at least as much weight as “never”. If stupidity becomes a less adequate explanation, nothing stops you from considering malice as an alternative.

People use things wrong all the time, sometimes the vast majority of the time (e.g. “literally”). Just because people use a concept pseudologically doesn’t make it intrinsically pseudological.

But razors aren’t supposed to be logic in the first place. They’re not objective analytical tools to arrive at a conclusion, because they weren’t designed to be. They’re framing tools to help establish an initial hypothesis.

Occam’s razor doesn’t claim that the simplest explanation is true, it merely says it’s the most practical assumption, all else being equal. If additional data provides more support for a more complicated explanation, Occam’s really doesn’t require you to cling to the simpler one.

Similarly Hanlon’s razor doesn’t claim that stupidity is universally a better explanation than malice, only that is the most practical assumption, all else being equal. It does not require you to ignore patterns of behavior that shift the likelihood toward malice.

I watch basically everything that isn’t music or advanced mathematics at 2x speed. YouTubers talk so slowly.

I think you may have missed the joke, look at the bottom right corner of the sign

Is this a meme? Or an anti-meme?

So what? Why did you think this was some kind of accomplishment?

It’s So Easy!

EDIT: Damn, I figured the capitalization would’ve made the joke more obvious

I dunno, that sounds like a fast track to being the subject of a murder mystery. I think I’m good.

You’ve never heard of the Trans Siberian Railroad Orchestra?

Google “ferengi rule 34”

The theory I’ve read is that lots of people are into a bit of the taboo/forbidden partner aspect of an attraction they have toward a real person in their life: their neighbor, platonic friend, co-worker, etc. But most of these connections don’t really feel all that taboo when it’s someone else, so the “step-” angle is just a generic stand in that carries the forbidden aspect without going too far.

The low 000s are all generally pretty meta subjects, how we interact with and organize knowledge in general. Journalism and library science deal with reporting and classifying information, computers and programming deal with processing generic data, unexplained phenomena deals with things that can’t be assigned to a specific subject by their very nature.

Witchcraft, Feng Shui, and Tarot are all generally found in 133 (Parapsychology and Occultism), although I could imagine particularly high-level books to be sorted into 003 (Systems), since they are supposed to be comprehensive systems.

Books about computer hardware would be next to electronics. Computer science is where it is because it’s a more abstract topic about general information processing. If anything, I’d argue that fundamental mathematics belongs in the 000s with it.

Maybe not everything, there were a few less-than-greats in his catalogue. It’s been a while, but I can’t imagine The Pebble and the Penguin or A Troll in Central Park being particularly good as an adult.

Be seeing you

You expect me to believe a can shaped this glass?

Some people are wealthy because they provide a valuable, well-paid skill (neurosurgeons, for example). Some people are in positions of power because they sincerely want to make their communities a better place.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s probably more likely to get there through sociopathic greed. But that doesn’t mean they are all horrible people.

Are you talking about specific wealthy, powerful people?

Isn’t the whole point in the game that Oak just invented it and needs you to fill it up?

If this is for personal interest, go into it with relatively concrete questions, and then try to answer them.

Right, what I’m saying is where do you draw the line at where “in the sun” ends?

What? You didn’t verify anything, you just said you remember being told once. It’s not an obvious fact because it isn’t true, you made it up. It’s not foolish to believe a word means what it means, you can just look up the definition. Are you high or something?

Whoever told you that was incorrect. Literally means the plain textbook definition of the words written, as opposed to euphemism or metaphor. If I say “I would literally die on this hill”, it means that there is an actual large mound of dirt that I am willing to lose my life on.

Any other interpretation is literally incorrect.