Independent thinker valuing discussions grounded in reason, not emotions.

Open to reconsider my views in light of good-faith counter-arguments but also willing to defend what’s right, even when it’s unpopular. My goal is to engage in dialogue that seeks truth rather than scoring points.

  • 4 Posts
  • 28 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 25th, 2024

help-circle
















  • I appreciate your thoughtful response, but I think you may have slightly missed what I meant by that. My point was about the inherent limitations of language as a medium for conveying abstract ideas, not necessarily about how humans interact with one another on a more deeper level.

    Language, while powerful, is inherently concrete. Words and phrases are symbols that stand in for the ideas, emotions, and experiences we want to share. But just like a photograph of a beautiful view, language can’t fully capture the essence of what we’re trying to communicate. When we translate an abstract idea into words, some nuance or richness is inevitably lost, much like how a 2D image can’t convey the full depth, sound, and emotion of the original scene.

    You’re absolutely right that human interaction involves much more than just words, like body language, tone, and physical presence all play roles in communication. And that’s exactly why being in the same room as someone can create a richer, more immersive exchange. But even in those situations, we’re still mostly using language to translate our thoughts into something the other person can understand. The point I was making is about the gap between the abstract idea and its expression through language and how something can get lost in translation, regardless of how well we try to convey it.

    Showing an idea, rather than explaining it, would therefor be equivalent to letting the person experience that beautiful view first-hand rather than via a photograph. It may still not have the same effect on them than it had on you, but atleast now you’re both thinking about the same thing.




  • No it doesn’t. It’s made of 300-series stainless steel which is highly resistant to rusting. Left out for the elements long enough it would be among the last vehicles in the world with something still left of the body. It’ll probably even outlive Chevrolet Corvette which is made of fibreglass.

    The rust you hear about is not the body that is rusting. It’s iron particles in the air, mostly from brake rotors, called “fallout” that lands on the bare steel causing a chemical reaction which causes it to rust. That iron particle that is, not the stainless steel. It’s surface contamination that can be cleaned off. There’s no damage to the body itself.