• PugJesus@piefed.socialOPMEnglish
    39·
    25 days ago

    Explanation: One of the reasons why the USA could supply the UK during WW2 was because, even with the full force of Nazi ‘wolf packs’ of submarines hunting supply ships, the US could produce supply ships at such a ridiculous rate that the Nazis literally couldn’t sink them fast enough to dent the numbers - even if Allied naval forces weren’t whittling Nazi submarine numbers down at the same time.

  • facelessbs@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7·
    24 days ago

    This is honestly what I fixate on about ww2. Logistics was such a key factor. And it is overlooked by most. It is amazing how we(the allies) supplied food, ammo, fuel, medical supplies and so much more to another continent. We (the allies) build a deep water port out of nowhere. Floating roads to off load. Pipelines for fuel. Being an ikea for jeeps, trucks, and what ever else was needed because we could fit more in the cargo space. That is what is so amazing.

    This is not to take away from the front line forces one bit because that is another story all on its own. But never overlook supply in war.

  • NigelFrobisher@aussie.zoneEnglish
    3·
    24 days ago

    My mum legit remembers having powdered eggs, and that would have been after the war. Being Airstrip One is not always easy.

  • GaMEChld@lemmy.worldEnglish
    34·
    24 days ago

    🧩Oh sweet Jesus, I just realized we’ve self polarized our society into a severe Type A / Type B divide.

    So polarized that both sides have deluded themselves into thinking they are talking pure sense to pure intransigence.

    Zero communication is actually taking place, people are talking orthogonally to each other.

    Type A’s have gaslit themselves into thinking they have perfect vision but they are near sighted. They can only see a tree, while you talk of ecosystems. Ontological mismatch.

    Type B’s have gaslit themselves into thinking they have perfect vision but they are farsighted. They see the causality of the large system but are so detached the human component (Dr Manhattan) that they THINK they are communicating dispassionately and accurately and with empathy, but they actually use words that Type A’s are incapable of understanding, attack their very sense of identity, then remain dumbstruck that A’s behaved irrationally when they got cornered into fight/flight (no shit). So smart that they are not realizing they are talking to the blind about color and animation. Ontological mismatch.

    I’ve always thought if you’re as smart as you think you are about something, you should be able to convince someone that you are in a position of authority on the subject they are talking about without you yourself becoming irrational and unregulated.

    Our generation does have a shared language that bridges the divide. Unironically… Memes. Memetics will likely be an emerging field of communication theory.

    So when you want to talk to someone that sounds delusional. Stop getting mad and try and communicate via memes, you’d be surprised at how information dense they can be. A picture really is worth a thousand words. Multiplied by whatever caption you add.

    Edit:

    Ok, I see I’m coming across as greek. If anyone wants to learn/dive some interesting metaphysics today… I would start with this fun video. If you like it, comeback and re-read my post and see if it seems more clear. I’m happy to talk at length about this topic.

    If you are here on your second pass and its starting to be a little clearer, then the next step is read this reply further down.

    If you are here on your third pass I would watch the movie “Watchmen (2009)” - Director’s Cut ideally, but theatrical is fine. Try and watch it through the lens of “Perspective.” What does the world look like to each of the characters? (If the movie seems over your head, this may help.)

    If you are here on your fourth pass, Hi! I love you! Might want to watch “Ender’s Game (2013)” trying to “Understand Your Enemy.”

    This is what I call recursive problem solving. To learn more, study “recursion” from a programming language perspective. My mind kinda subconsciously does that; any question that my mind detects as:

    • [DEFINED PROBLEM] <-> [SOLUTION]
    • Anytime [Solution] = ? -> [Toss on the recursive problem solving pile.]
    • When I have enough information, solve the problem. Proceed with life until then.

    This has caused me no end of problems in my life as I speak heavily in metaphor in a world where I am unsure of when people are speaking literally or figuratively. I often miss jokes and sarcasm, cuz my mind is often just so very very far away. Thinkin about things like… but surely if I was falling feet first into a black hold spacetime must… etc etc etc.

    But at least in conversations like this I am slowly starting to loop back around. Always learning. Someday I’ll learn that elusive skill of saying exactly what I mean to say and be understood by the person hearing it.

    It’s gotten to the point where ppl say I sound like AI and AI says I sound like AI. Now I can be misunderstood by both Man and Machine. 😮‍💨

      • GaMEChld@lemmy.worldEnglish
        31·
        25 days ago

        Ok, please bear with me, try to paste it into an AI prompt and ask it to simplify it. That’s one of the few good things LLM’s are actually reasonably equipped to handle.

        Paste at beginning:

        
Author profile:
- AuDHD, severe combined type
- Strong Type E cognitive/emotional profile
- Language is likely metaphor-dense, systems-oriented, layered, and emotionally compressed
- Do not interpret literally first; interpret structurally first

Rules for translation:
1. Assume the author is describing differences in cognition, perception, communication scale, and abstraction level, not formal clinical categories unless explicitly stated.
2. Treat “Type A” and “Type B” as shorthand archetypes, not scientific diagnoses.
3. Translate metaphors into plain functional meaning.
4. Preserve the core distinction between:
   - concrete / local / immediate / identity-level perception
   - abstract / systemic / big-picture / detached perception
5. Assume conflict described here is primarily a failure of translation between frames of reference, not simple stupidity or bad faith.
6. When the author sounds grandiose, reduce tone but preserve structure.
7. When the author sounds hostile, interpret it as frustration at persistent communication failure unless explicit malice is stated.
8. Terms like “ontological mismatch” should be translated as “they are operating from different models of reality or different levels of perspective.”
9. “Gaslit themselves” in this context means “became overconfident in the completeness of their own viewpoint.”
10. Preserve the claim that both sides are partially right and partially blind.
11. Preserve the claim that intelligence includes translation ability, not just correctness.
12. Treat references to memes as serious communication theory: compressed, image-based, high-context meaning transfer.
13. Preserve nuance: the author is not saying memes are trivial; they are saying memes may bridge incompatible cognitive styles efficiently.
14. External media references should be interpreted as perspective-training tools, not random pop culture distractions.
15. Translate toward layman clarity, not clinical jargon.
16. Output should explain:
   - what each side sees
   - what each side misses
   - why communication fails
   - what the proposed bridge is
17. Prefer wording like:
   - “zoomed in” vs “zoomed out”
   - “different frames of reference”
   - “talking past each other”
   - “translation failure”
18. Do not flatten the author into “both sides are equal.” Preserve that the point is asymmetry of perception plus mutual incomprehension.
19. Do not over-pathologize the author. Treat the writing style as high-abstraction cognition, not incoherence.
20. Final output should sound like plain English written for an intelligent layperson.

Desired output format:
- 1 short paragraph summary
- 4 bullets:
  - what Type A means
  - what Type B means
  - why they clash
  - what the author thinks could help
- optional final sentence noting that the categories are personal/theoretical, not formal psychology```
          • GaMEChld@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            24 days ago

            Truth be told I never tried Wizard, always went for sorcerer. I don’t like structured learning I like to wander the topic at my discretion.

            But yeah, AuDHD Sever Combined Type E/S

            (Engineering / Systemizing)

            Basically it’s like matrix vision.

            Figuratively speaking. I don’t literally see flying code.

            It’s just that I see everything as things operating inside a governing system nested in another system nested in another system nested in another system nested in another system nested in another system nested in another system nested in another system nested in another system nested in another system nested in another system nested in another system …

            So my mind zooms around to the level of granularity needed for a given topic.

            If we talk about government, my mind zooms in to the nation level.

            If we talk space I might be at the solar system level or the galactic scale. Etc.

      • GaMEChld@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        23 days ago

        Have you considered that he already is?

        "Judge not lest ye be judged. " -Matthew 7:1-5

        Faith and science are not opposites or enemies. They are each 1/2 the puzzle. As someone who clearly feels spiritual, you already have 1/2 the picture.

        So if you want the other half, you have a choice to make.

        A) Take Leap of Faith and accept the truth as per scientific consensus weighted accordingly by the quality of the data upon which that consensus is based

        B) Do the necessary hard work to actually learn about the topics you claim to know about.

        I hold as a self evident truth that if you truly know a lot about a subject, you should be able to explain it without crashing out or getting upset.

        Edit: typical, identity under threat, must down vote because the alternative is thinking.