Not even that egregious. I often see remasters on top of remasters in 4k HDR for very old films. If these are really a better experience does that mean the original audience had a lesser experience?
The original audiences saw them projected on film and the resolution was fantastic. I believe the contrast was not as good as an OLED TV or Dolby Cinema though.
Thats interesting, are you saying there are serious people who claim that the wrongness of theft depends on the emotional frame (and havent been paid by russia over the last decades with the intention to subvert western society?)
Yes. If you use e. g. numerical libraries, and wonder what really does this algo do often you look at C. If you dig too deep then you look at fortran though...
Spivak calculus was the book for me that made math finally click. It was a golden period of my life due to that book, unfortunately adult life is rarely if ever sees these moments. Now I write datapipelines all and feed the family :/.
Isnt the stereotype 'deutsche Gruendlichkeit' which is not efficiancy but thoroughness, which just mean that a few thousand pages need to be filled out, signed and countersigned for the 400 mill order.
Living in both Germany and Austria, I've learned that the excessive paper based bureaucracy is mostly there so that people in charge have their butts always covered. "It's not my fault, I did everything by the book, here look, I've got the paperwork to prove it".
Tip for anyone living or wanting to move there: keep digital copies of all important letters, bills, documents, contracts and paperwork you get. It's not unheard of for a company or government institution to make mistakes and you ending up on the hook with huge fines or bills to pay, so having copies of all possible paperwork from the beginning of time could save your ass one day.
Are you ever proven wrong as the questioner. The original method consist of extending the argument so far that at some point some contradiction will show up. Instead of blaming it on the extension then one claims victory and that the original statement was wrong.
The biggest mistake made by humans is to think that they are always right. Very often, questioners don't realize that their line of reasoning has flaws. Their stubbornness in pursuing a contradiction only succeeds if there is a contradiction they were already aware of. Otherwise, it just makes the questioner appear as an asshole
What is the questioners line of reasoning if they haven't made any claims? If they have made a mixture of claims and questions then they can have flaws but its misleading to call them "questioners" at that point, since they've done more than just ask questions.
> Their stubbornness in pursuing a contradiction only succeeds if there is a contradiction they were already aware of
I don't think this is true at all. You can recognize a statement of the form "X is not X" without having come across it before. As for the stubbornness, this can apply to both parties: the contradiction only appears when the answering party can't bring themselves to say "I don't know", "I assume", or "I don't have time for this"
The Socratic method claims to find inconsistencies by asking questions. Thus, these questions are not questions of curiosity, but questions with an underlying line of reasoning. This in itself leads the answerer to feel that the questioner is disingenuous in the conversation. They could walk away from the conversation, rendering the questioners entire effort futile.
That's a great question, which I'll eventually address.
I wrote a bit about it in another comment[1], but I'll expand here.
Asking questions often forces the recipient to stop what they're doing and think up an answer - it can be disruptive to their flow. People are generally busy, and if this happens in a work setting, they definitely are busy. So they'll want to know why they're expending the effort to answer these questions.
Many of them have been taught that answering the question with "Why do you want to know?" is considered impolite.[2] Unfortunately, they've not been taught a polite way to phrase the question, so they don't ask. This adds to their frustration and annoyance at the questioner. If you've ever seen someone say with clear frustration "Why do you want to know?" it's because they've been trying to restrain themselves from asking this question and they finally cracked.
Most people, if they don't have an answer, will conjure one up. Since they cannot get the answer to "Why do you want to know?" they will make assumptions. A common assumption is that you are asking these questions to prove a point (i.e. these are leading questions). People do not like leading questions. And they'll make a guess at the point you're trying to make when you ask all these questions.
So when you ask "Can a questioner ever be proven to be wrong?" - for most people the assumption will be that you have an argument you are trying to make, and the questions you are asking are to support that argument. That is where the notion of a questioner being wrong comes from. My personal experience is that even when I'm genuinely curious and do not have a stance, people will attribute a stance to me when I ask them questions.
There's also another dynamic at play here. Anyone can, with almost no cognitive burden, come up with questions to ask. Answering them often has a significant cognitive burden. When someone is having a conversation with you and all you're doing is asking questions, that person can clearly see the imbalance in cognitive load. They'll feel (perhaps correctly), that they're doing most of the work in the conversation. They're the ones contributing to it, and the questioner is not really contributing anything to the conversation. So why should he bother answering all these questions?
Give, and ye shall receive. The one asking the questions is not giving. Hence the resentment.
People are busy. If you want them to answer your questions, make it worth their effort. If you don't, their frustration will be legitimate. That's why when I don't have the energy to be polite, I respond with "I'm busy, and this is not worth my time."
BTW, asking questions to waste people's time, and to get them frustrated, is definitely a tactic people use against others. This alone is reason enough for people to be wary when someone comes asking a lot of questions.
One thing I've learned from communications books: If you have a concern, then express the concern openly before asking your question. This will make it clear to the recipient what your intent is, and they will not have to guess.
[2] A polite way I've learned, based on having it done to me several times, is the person I posed a question to responding with "It sounds like you're asking these questions because you have certain concerns on your mind. I'd like to hear them."
I dont think that is true, society can create value from trade and good organization providing more resources to everyone for collectively the same amount of work.
No, the European system allows you to use that for studying for little money, learning a new job etc as well. It’s not perfect but (western) Europe hasn’t seen this huge inequality growth in the last decades AFAIK
