They don’t really get into the “how” of it all with the protomolecule, far as I can remember.

Duarte has them going full out with their experiments on him, and it’s frankly never really clear that it’s mind controlling him at all.

It “shows him” how great it will be if all of civilization is one big hive mind, during his big “sleep” in Tiamats wrath, and when he wakes up in Leviathan Falls, he’s like “oh yeah, I just wasn’t thinking big enough!”

Frankly it fits his narcissistic tendencies pretty well, especially since he gets to be the one to make it happen.

Moreover, Democrats seem to have done little self-reflection over whether their aggressive push to implement their progressive values alienated more conservative Americans and contributed to their own defeat in 2024.

Fucking yiiiikes.

generally don’t chitchat with strangers.

Except on the internet.

It doesn’t cost anything in that situation not to talk, there’s no negative to it.

There is opportunity cost.

But just to be clear, your position is “don’t be the first one talking if talking to strangers, unless absolutely necessary, it’s too risky.”?

If this is not your position, please state it again, because this is how I read the comment I’m replying to.

In either case, please state what you think “the negative” that you are risking, or risking for a person on their behalf.

Your position seems to be that there is no risk so small that it wouldn’t override a potential win.

I am trying to point out the absurdity of this position.

If you can’t see the absurdity of this position, even with the silly parameters on it, then I’ll just ask this direct question:

How do you justify ever talking to a stranger? Surely the risk of a negative outcome is just too great, because there will always be some risk.

If this is not your position; state your position in similar terms.

Ok then how about it’s no money, but they have to hear about how they didn’t get the money, and so they feel kinda bummed out, if they don’t win.

I would feel shit about losing their money just because I wanted to gamble so I don’t do it.

You would feel like shit if you lost somebody a dollar? How about one cent? Even if there was a 1/1000 chance? Even if they stood to win life changing money on the other 999/1000? Do you think they would be upset?

Is no amount of loss worth any amount of win? If that’s your position, then how do you even get up in the morning? Why is this situation so different at the bar? Likelihood of things going badly in a bar are far far higher in my estimation.

you’re describing gambling

I’m describing basically every choice you ever have to make in terms of gambling, yes.

So you won’t even engage with my silly hypothetical?

If you don’t think that any amount of “gambling” is worth even the smallest amount of risk, regardless of the possible reward, then I think you are arguing from an indefensible position.

if you don’t do anything it won’t cause anything negative and they’re still free eo talk to you

Are they? They’re not bound be the same constraints as I should be? It’s a risk they should be willing to take?

I just wouldn’t want to risk causing someones day to be shittier because I wanted to gamble.

You’re mischaracterizing things again. I never said I was doing this “because I wanted to gamble.” I’m doing this because I believe that the chances are quite good at having a positive outcome for both me, and the person I’m interacting with. I additionally believe that the chances of a negative outcome are exceptionally low.

You seem to think that both the odds and the severity of a bad outcome are so serious, that the positive outcomes shouldn’t even be considered. Despite a solid day of this conversation, you have only vaguely pointed in the direction of what these bad outcomes look like, or how likely you think they are.

I can infer that you believe it to be extremely likely and extremely serious. I can point back at some of the data which interestingly seems to have failed to capture such a scenario, but it’s still not clear to me that you’ve bothered to read any of the links with studies I’ve provided.

That’s because you ignore the possibility of a good thing happening, and/ or dramatically overstate the risks of it making somebody’s day worse.

Let’s start with a silly example. Let’s say you had $1000 in your favorite currency. It was given to you with the purpose of you giving it to somebody else. If you do not give it to them, the money disappears.

Would you give this money away? What if I told you there was a 1% chance that it would make a persons day worse?

If you’re not giving the money away, then at least you’re consistent, I’ll give you that.

If you are, what about $100? What about 10$?

I suppose so.

And you have no notion about gambling theory or risk reward whatsoever? Am I inferring that correctly?

That’s because you haven’t read them.

They have to do with the positive outcomes, which you continue to ignore, or treat as inconsequential.

A small chance of a negative outcome does not generally outweigh a good chance of a positive outcome.

youre almost insisting on talking

You insist on mischaracterizing my position. Asking somebody a question ir two is hardly as insisant as you keep making it out to be.

and that just seems odd

To you

Would you care to address any of the articles with research and numbers that I claim back me up?

I see you don’t understand the mindset. I don’t believe you are trying to.

I feel like you’re just reiterating your last comment as though you didn’t read mine.

So if you value the fellow passengers, best move is not to risk it

There’s a lot of big assumptions built into how you think about risk if the only possible outcomes you can conceive of are negative.

at least not on the plane

Oh yes the plane. Because of the implication, right?

I just feel bad that your outlook is so sad for all of this.

There may be a selfish component to it. Doesn’t make it a selfish act.

I get that it’s your thing

It’s my thing after I read a few of these papers (you can find the links, and read them if you like, they’re in my other comments) and started giving it a shot.

it would be bettee to just chill for the duration of it.

Yes, you have made it very clear that for you, you believe that this is the case.

The data show that a lot of people feel this way before they try it, but are pleasantly surprised after.

After all nothing negative about that, they might try to connect with you if they’re up for it

Nothing negative about what? “Being chill?” I think you’ll find that I’m pretty chill.

You seem to think I’m nagging them for the duration, but as I’ve explained, it’s really more of creating an opening.

why risk it?

Because there’s almost no risk involved.

So why risk it, if you’re going to potentially be making the situation suck for the other person, I’m wondering

Answers to this question, and more, are provided in some of the links provided.

The chances of making “the situation suck” are exceedingly small. The chances it “goes well” are quite high. A couple friendly words between strangers. A story to tell later.

Of particular note

His curiosity led to a series of experimentsrevealing that train and bus commuters who interacted with other passengers experienced a more pleasant ride — even when they believed they would prefer the solitude of, say, reading a book.

It is fear that the person sitting next to us won’t enjoy talking to us that makes us keep to ourselves, Epley found. But when we do talk to each other, those social interactions with strangers tend to be both less awkward and more enjoyable than most people predict.

You seem to completely discount this possibility, while simultaneously overblowing the risk.

Literally, most people don’t want unsolicited interactions where I’m from

You’ve talked a lot about this with others I take it? Got good data to work with?

If someone’s approaching you to start a conversation out of the blue, they’re going to be asking you for booze or cigarettes. Or money. Or they already got their booze and now they’re making small talk. And for 50% of the population, the other 50% of the population can be seen as threatening based on gender alone.

These percentages do make your vibes and intuition much more convincing.

So it’s polite to just shut up and let other people be.

It’s not impolite, sure.

You gotta have a reason for talking to people who aren’t expecting to be talked to.

I do have a reason. You just don’t personally like it, except for the other times when you choose it. You’ve convinced yourself that I must want something, so stranger danger bad.

Not bothering anyone is part of our culture.

Which culture is this? How is “bothering” defined? You seem to be acting like eye contact and a smile means I’m after your money

You assume I’m bothering people. I assert that I don’t believe it to be true. My point of view had some evidence, which I have linked throughout these comments. Yours are stated as fact despite clearly just being your vibes.

And I will respectfully point out that you seem to be arguing entirely from vibes and anecdotes.

👍

I like to think of it as giving people an opening.

Make a comment or two that invites discussion. If it takes, great. Maybe chat for a minute, maybe for a while.

If not, oh well, better luck next time.

Wo is interested and who is not is extremely easy to discern, in my opinion. The fact that you clearly think otherwise is not surprising, but I do think it’s easier than you give it credit for.

push ahead

These two words completely mischaracterize the situation.

Guessing you haven’t bothered with the links I posted, since you haven’t spoken to them and continue to just try to find ways to pick at some point that I’m not trying to make, but I encourage you to take a few minutes to read them with an open mind.