This took me longer than I’d have liked to understand. I used to be an electronics tech

Technically invaluable means “cannot be valued” but colloquially it is used as “value too high to put a number on”

You don’t have [it] beaten out.

I agree and disagree. Pattern recognition is a trained skill, for you have learn to recognize each pattern. Pattern recognition is not, however, a trained skill in the way that you have to learn to recognize patterns at all.

However, during school most people have their ability to recognize patterns at all severely diminished due to “gotcha” questions on tests, questions that specifically are designed to catch you out using pattern recognition. This trains the person to not trust their pattern recognition, and in some cases people will actually learn to go against their pattern recognition because they assume things are trying to catch that

I think the actual worst part about this is that pattern recognition isn’t supposed to be a neurodivergent thing. Pattern recognition is like a built in feature in humans, but most people have it beat out of them in school

“Give everything you can, but never anything you need.”

I try to live by this. I give away every extra dollar, and help people every chance I get

Tooth decay???

I guess I’m a student at demon school now

To be perfectly honest, the odds of me buying a game are significantly higher if I see reviews about “toxic femininity” or “woke politics”

I think it might be a visual indicator of an echo

I’m with ya. Especially with the blatant kiss assery from these two companies to the government, this headlines reads to me as “Google and Meta have agreed to give Trump even more money so that they can add even more surveillance to their products”

Not in Illinois, so thankfully not my kitty escaping. Would be strange too if they did, my cats were born stray and are now deathly afraid of going outside haha.

Best of luck in finding your visitors caretaker

A couple of passed with dd takes way longer than bolt cutters and it’s much less satisfying

No they didn’t. In fact, the more or less said the opposite. They corrected American to usian, and said not to lump them in with them.

This implies that they are American (from one of the continents North or South America) but not from the United States (usian).

This is just what having ADHD is like

The texture is weird to me. I don’t always take the tomato off, but I will take it off if it’s not cut correctly. Too thick and you get chewy/crunchy bits, too thin and your burger becomes slightly. It has to be perfect or I don’t want it.

The flavor, however is great. I love tomato flavor. It’s not my favorite, but it’s great.

Gotta wiggle more aggressively. If you wiggle right for like 10 seconds it’ll be the size of your whole monitor. Hard to miss at that point

It’s okay to not want to put yourself directly in the line of fire. Just make sure not to stop others from standing up for us all

You didn’t refute how I explained your interpretation of their sentence, even said it would have made more sense if structured like that. I pointed out that this interpretation requires them to contradict themself. You said it’s right there in their reply. If “it” isn’t the contradiction, then what is “it? What is your interpretation of what they said? Did they contradict themself?

Basically my point is: you are arguing that their message has a contradiction in it. You are arguing that they both stated that they believe or otherwise “can say with a straight face” that a housing only solution does not solve the homelessness problem, and that they believe it can solve the housing solution but not as well as adding assistance. That is a contradiction.

You are ignoring their use of the words ‘combination’ and ‘and’, interpreting their statement as an ‘or’ logically where ‘housing only’ OR ‘housing only with assistance works’. They literally said assistance and housing, with emphasis on and. You turned that and into an or by conflating their reasoning for their position as a clarification of what they meant.

Their logical argument has the predicate(reasoning): Some people without the extra assistance will not fully benefit.

And their hypothesis, argument, or logical statement is: Housing AND assistance is what will solve homelessness.

At no point did they say that housing without assistance could in anyway sufficiently solve homelessness, not in any way that would follow in a logical argument.

In any case, everyone is making assumptions here. It’s literally the basis of communication and it’s not a negative thing. You must assume certain things about what a person says in order to communicate. You must assume that they are saying things they believe unless there is a reason not to. You must assume that they are using words in the way that you understand, or otherwise you must come to a conclusion about the meaning of those words in order for communication to be effective. Assumptions aren’t a bad thing, just don’t assume bad things.

There is no assumption on my part…

Well, we’re both assuming the intent behind the words used. I’m assuming they did not contradict themselves, because their meaning was “my solution is different”. You are assuming that they contradicted themselves because their meaning was “my solution is better”

Your argument ignores something significant:

I can

What can they do? The question they are answering is:

How can anyone seriously say with a straight face that the solution to homelessness is anything other than providing free housing?

(As a logical statement: The solution to homelessness is to provide free housing)

I read the first reply as

“I can [seriously say with a straight face that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing free housing]…” where I can is a shortening of rephrasing the question. If the predicate is that their argument is that the solution is not providing housing, it is something other than free housing, then it wouldn’t make any sense for them to say that they can make this claim. If they believed that providing free housing would solve the problem, but not adequately, then they cannot in fact say that free housing would not solve the problem. Therefore,

“The solution to homelessness, in place of the suggested solution, is to provide a combination of [forms of assistance] and free housing” emphasis mine.

Your suggestion reads as follows:

“I can [seriously say with a straight face that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing free housing]. Providing free housing solves the problem, but a more comprehensive solution is to provide free housing and assistance.”

In what way does it make sense to assume that someone would immediately contradict themself? How can one “say something with a straight face” a la “The solution is something other than providing free housing” and immediately say “Providing free housing solves the problem…” unless “saying something with a straight face” means “to say something I do not believe”

I appreciate your emotional disconnectedness from this debate, by the way. While my initial comment was meant to be tongue in cheek, this has been a good exercise in reading between the lines of written words. However silly and benign this has become lol