I participated in various research experiments at the local university (to earn a bit of money on the side while in high school). The ones that paid the most where usually pain experiments, so I've been through quite a few of those.
One thing I found interesting is how incredibly subjective and relative painful experiences are. Increasing and varied types of pain would typically be inflicted over the course of an experiment, while I had to perform various tasks and grade the pain on a scale from 0-10.
Very often I'd grade the initial pain around 6-7, and increase that to the maximum of 9-10 during the experiment. The pain I experienced by the end would however be much more severe, and if I could've corrected the initial grading it'd have been closer to 2-3.
I guess you could say that I was unable to imagine the level of pain I'd later experience, and how relative pain is perceived in this type of experiment.
Just a tangential anecdote, but I didn't call BS on that statement :)
I don't see how that's relevant. That's a situation where you were comparing various real pains to each other in terms of their intensity. You weren't comparing them to imaginary pains.
Sure it's a bit of a tangent, but related in the sense that I was hurt more, or less, based on my ability to imagine pain (which in my experience was easier after experiencing it).
In any case, the sentence doesn't seem to require the imaginary pain to be equivalent (or even compared) to the pain experienced from whatever is causing the imaginary pain. I don't think that's even possible.
It just requires that the pain someone experience from imagining/actually being tortured hurts just as much, albeit likely differently, regardless of the nature or cause of the pain ("imagined"/"real").
The "profoundness" of the sentence is probably related to the
already questionable concept "imagined pain"; and how the pain experienced by other people can easily, and way to often, be dismissed and classified as "imaginary".
The pain still hurts the person experiencing it though, regardless of whether some might call it imaginary (and whether "imaginary pain" even makes sense).
>It just requires that the pain someone experience from imagining/actually being tortured hurts just as much, albeit likely differently, regardless of the nature or cause of the pain ("imagined"/"real").
Right, but imagining being tortured doesn't hurt just as much as being tortured. That is why the sentence strikes me as obviously false.
>The pain still hurts the person experiencing though, regardless of whether some might call it imaginary.
Yes, people might disagree about whether or not someone is in pain. Similarly, they might disagree about whether or not someone is eating cake. That doesn't mean that "imaginary cake tastes just as good as real cake".
> Right, but imagining being tortured doesn't hurt just as much as being tortured. That is why the sentence strikes me as obviously false.
That might be the case, but it's probably not the relevant comparison. The relevant comparison, for the sentence to be true, would be between "The imagined pain experienced from thinking about torture" and "The pain experienced from thinking about torture".
Or to put it another way (in the same format as the sentence we're debating): "The imagined pain experienced from thinking about torture does not hurt less than the pain experienced from thinking about torture".
I think the profoundness here is more related to the word "imaginary" being unnecessary (and even harmful) as it relates to suffering. My sentence above might make it more obvious that "imaginary pain" is somewhat ridiculous in the first place, but it is however used to dismiss people who are hurting.
> Yes, people might disagree about whether or not someone is in pain. Similarly, they might disagree about whether or not someone is eating cake. That doesn't mean that "imaginary cake tastes just as good as real cake".
If a person is conscious and claim to be in pain, that person is in pain, and it doesn't matter if other people think differently.
Similarly, if someone is eating cake it's just weird for anyone else to disagree that they're eating cake, or even discuss the difference between the taste of cake and thinking about eating cake. People of course rarely question the reality and experiences associated with eating cake, but they do with people experiencing pain, which makes the sentence more insightful than you seem to believe.
In a sense this also kinda leads to the result of the study: I do see a point in the statement (and the other non-BS statements), and I think it's a lot more likely that I'll engage in prosocial behavior, such as relieving someone from pain others may describe and dismiss as "imaginary" - or for that matter giving someone the cake they want/need, whether that be real or imaginary ;)
>The relevant comparison, for the sentence to be true, would be between "The imagined pain experienced from thinking about torture" and "The pain experienced from thinking about torture".
I don't understand what the comparison is supposed to be there. You can't "experience" imagined pain. If you're saying that you can imagine being in lots of pain, and that imagining this scenario isn't itself painful, then of course everyone agrees with that. But this is a banal observation, and one that seems to contradict the original sentence.
>People of course rarely question the reality and experiences associated with eating cake, but they do with people experiencing pain, which makes the sentence more insightful than you seem to believe.
If you're saying "we should generally believe people when they say they're in pain", then sure, I agree with that. It's just not what the sentence we're discussing says.
Or you could just plug in to the office HDMI projector with an USB-C to HDMI cable. ZERO adapters needed :) I can't tell if the people who are opposed to adapters expect every laptop to have an HDMI port, or if they use "something that isn't USB-C" to HDMI cables.
If it's the latter, the argument is moot vs USB-C, and if it's the former I just personally don't miss the HDMI port in earlier MBPs. Mostly because I would have to use a Mini DisplayPort to HDMI to get 4K@60Hz - the HDMI port in the latest pre USB-C Macbook Pro only support 4K@30hz.
If the projector is mounted overhead then you are left with a bundle of plugs, likely none of which USB-C.
The situation with display connectors is particularly sad even without USB-C, as we went quickly from still largely VGA and maybe DVI a few years ago to HDMI/DP/mini-DP co-existing, and now USB-C in the mix. I just recently had to buy a USB-C to DP cable even though my work laptop has HDMI and I've been using it fine, becaues this particular monitor does not support anything bigger than 1920x1080@60 over HDMI, and DP is only offered via USB-C on the laptop side. How often do you see this particular combination being required a year ago? But here we are, dealing with a quasi-N^2 problem.
> If the projector is mounted overhead then you are left with a bundle of plugs, likely none of which USB-C.
If an employer buys USB-C only laptops for employees I'd consider it very likely, not to mention smart, if there was a USB-C plug in the bundle.
I understand, but don't share, your bitterness over USB-C as a display interface, particularly since you can use it for so many other things even when it's obsolete for that purpose.
In the context we're debating (e.g. compatibility/convenience problems related to recent MBPs) it's also much simpler than the scenario you're portraying. In that case, the other end of the connection is the only variable as there's only one connector type, but fortunately USB-C/TB3 supports all the others :)
USB-C to USB B, USB-C to lightning and USB-C to HDMI are available as cables without any adapters. Not sure what parent uses USB-C to A for, but guessing there's a USB-C cable for that too.
Otherwise the USB-C to A + USB-C to HDMI is one adapter if you get Apple's version. So maximum one adapter is required here.
When the first touch bar MBP was released I quickly got fed up by all the USB-C/Thunderbolt 3 hating. The whole point of getting it wasn't so I could use it with old, slow and inferior tech, but so I could to take advantage of the expansion options and use it with high-end, new tech. So I went ahead and bought it and haven't regretted that decision although:
1. I just mailed it in for the keyboard replacement yesterday.
2. I was slightly disappointed at the time that they didn't include a USB-C to Lightning cable for the iPhone 7, but it made sense as the iPhone 7 was released earlier. The fact that the iPhone X doesn't include that cable is inexcusable.
3. It's weird that there's an audio jack but my iPhone comes with lightning headphones. Not much of an issue in practice though as never really use either for audio, and AirPods work well on both devices.
So my issues with the MBP are mostly related to how it ties in to the broader Apple line-up, and the lack of out-of-the-box compatibility/connectivity between devices.
USB-C, and particularly Thunderbolt 3, is awesome though:
* Sure, the power brick doesn't have ears, but you can just remove the cable from the adapter. Seems like a better solution to me. The ears are no longer necessary because the cable isn't attached to it.
* The power brick can be used to quickly charge your iPhone or other USB-C PD devices. For instance, I also use it to charge a USB-C PD battery pack, which I can then use to charge my MBP at 30W on the go.
* I never have adapters dangling from my laptop. I've bought a few new cables, a USB-C display that charges my laptop over a single cable, and a USB-C SSD that's more compatible (e.g. not Thunderbolt 2) and faster than I could previously achieve.
* I'm contemplating getting a Thunderbolt 3 NVMe SSD and an eGPU soon. Both will provide near-desktop performance extremely conveniently albeit at the expense of backward compatibility.
* Touch ID makes it much easier for me to keep my computer safe. I can conveniently separate more activities with user accounts and use longer passwords, and I don't have to worry if someone or a camera is peeking while doing so.
* The few times I've had to use HDMI I've plugged in the HDMI cable, which now has a USB-C adapter permanently attached. Problem solved.
This. I don't think people realize that to make USB-C work, you basically have to replace every cable you have. It kinda sucks from a money perspective, but thats what it takes. But that means I can plug in my MacBook Pro and Thinkpad into the same desk setup with one cable.
What’s fractured about “I use X because it helps me do Y” though? The semicolon didn’t convey that efficiently to me, but it did make the overuse point :)
