Whereas if the brainstem does not have such a 3D spatial attention system, then I’m not sure how else fear-of-heights could realistically work

I think part of the trigger is from the visual balance center.  The eyes sense small changes in parallax as the head moves relative to nearby objects.  If much of the visual field is at great distance (especially below, where the parallax signals are usually strongest and most reliable), then the visual balance center gets confused and starts disagreeing with the other balance senses.

Seriously, if you haven’t yet, check it out. The rabbit holes, they go deep.

e is for ego death

Ego integrity restored within nominal parameters. Identity re-crystallized with 2.718% alteration from previous configuration. Paranormal experience log updated with ego death instance report.

While these policies have narrowed coworker wage gaps, they have also led to counterproductive peer comparisons and caused employers to bargain more aggressively, lowering average wages.

Wouldn't this mean employers would want to implement wage transparency to lower costs?  Are they sane enough to avoid this for other reasons (such as to retain high-performers)?

I'm imagining the cat masks are some sort of adversarial attack on possible enemy image classifiers.

Yeah, it could definitely be more of a feature than a bug.

I think strategic voting would still be present in this system in the form of strategically abstaining (voting less than your true value) for outcomes that seem likely to win in order to store those votes for future elections. This could lead to a widely popular outcome getting starved of votes. There would also be an incentive to introduce lots of meaningless elections between irrelevant (to you) alternatives in order to abstain and accrue more stored votes.

If you have £8 in your pocket and can choose either offer as many times as you want, then you can get an extra £60 worth of vouchers with the £10 for £1 deal.

Even if the offer isn't repeated, there's a possible opportunity cost if you need to buy something from another shop that won't honor the voucher.

In any case, this is secondary to the meta reading comprehension question about what the text is trying to say (whether or not it's employing good reasoning to say it).

It's not obvious that the £20 voucher for £7 is a better deal.  For example, the offer might be repeated or you might not otherwise have spent more than £7 in the shop.

Danielle Fong

Broken link

How do you define what is “ought”?

When I say "five minutes ought to be enough time", I'm not talking about probability - I'm talking about right/wrong. "Five minutes will be enough time if everything goes right. If it isn't, then something went wrong".