I suppose "shower man" here, by saying selective agency, is indeed referring to your problem, for which you accepted your husband's alternate solution of embarking on a reciprocal stalking campaign.
Was confronting me directly and trying to find out what exactly each of us is forgetting a solution that never occurred to you?
“The Poincaré conjecture itself doesn't directly involve curvature. It's a statement about the topology of 3-dimensional manifolds, specifically that a simply connected, closed 3-manifold is topologically equivalent to a 3-sphere.
However, Hamilton's work on Ricci flow, which was later built upon by Perelman, introduced curvature as a crucial tool for proving the conjecture. Ricci flow deforms the manifold's metric, smoothing out its geometry and allowing for the analysis of its topological properties.
In essence, curvature became a key player in the proof, but it's not a fundamental aspect of the Poincaré conjecture itself. Instead, it's a powerful technique used to demonstrate the conjecture's validity [1].”
The AI said this in a FB Messenger group chat that I added you to. If you want to see the whole conversation including all my prompts, all you have to do is check your Chat Requests on FB, find my Group, and peek inside.
Anyway, the pros — one of them dead, the other one living (with his Mom, and no longer a pro?) — used a lame technique to prove the Poincaré conjecture.
And the question is still "Is there a better way to do this?”
I think "arbitrary" is too strong a word to describe the value of π, (I don't subscribe to the "fine tuned universe" type of ideas), but the value of π in our universe has to be a choice that our universe has sort of made from among many available in the OEIS. Is there a better way to understand the relationship between curvature and topology? What do you think, ma'am?
I'll tell you this: the difference between the experiments and evaluation methods proposed by John Stewart Bell to test correlations between fundamental particle(-interaction)s spread across time and space and how such experimental tests of physical reality should actually be evaluated is the same difference between surveys of people done by the shameless whorelord Aella and similar surveys done with a polygraph by an actual expert.
Failure to take into account the results of calibration measurements.
Really appreciated this—especially the framing around curiosity vs. passive acceptance. That said, I wanted to offer a third category that often goes unmentioned in pop psych takes: those of us who operate from embodied intelligence. For some, problem-solving isn’t a cognitive process of simulation or creative reframing—it’s reflexive, instinctive, and immediate. I don’t need to “think” to turn the showerhead away; my body just does it. It’s not about being clever or curious in the moment—it’s about a deeply wired intolerance for unnecessary discomfort, paired with an ingrained sense of control. I’d love to see this dimension acknowledged, or maybe we could discuss and collaborate on going deeper beyond the binary of passive vs. curious by introducing a form of zero-effort agency that doesn’t stem from deliberate thought, but from how someone is fundamentally attuned to the world (and exploring why they are).
This is great! I have made "Is there a better way to do this?" my personal question mantra over the last few years and it has served me very well
I suppose "shower man" here, by saying selective agency, is indeed referring to your problem, for which you accepted your husband's alternate solution of embarking on a reciprocal stalking campaign.
Was confronting me directly and trying to find out what exactly each of us is forgetting a solution that never occurred to you?
Let me quote Meta AI:
“The Poincaré conjecture itself doesn't directly involve curvature. It's a statement about the topology of 3-dimensional manifolds, specifically that a simply connected, closed 3-manifold is topologically equivalent to a 3-sphere.
However, Hamilton's work on Ricci flow, which was later built upon by Perelman, introduced curvature as a crucial tool for proving the conjecture. Ricci flow deforms the manifold's metric, smoothing out its geometry and allowing for the analysis of its topological properties.
In essence, curvature became a key player in the proof, but it's not a fundamental aspect of the Poincaré conjecture itself. Instead, it's a powerful technique used to demonstrate the conjecture's validity [1].”
The AI said this in a FB Messenger group chat that I added you to. If you want to see the whole conversation including all my prompts, all you have to do is check your Chat Requests on FB, find my Group, and peek inside.
Anyway, the pros — one of them dead, the other one living (with his Mom, and no longer a pro?) — used a lame technique to prove the Poincaré conjecture.
And the question is still "Is there a better way to do this?”
You know, if Perelman doesn't want the money, maybe I should just disprove the Poincaré conjecture so that that $1M becomes available again as well
I think "arbitrary" is too strong a word to describe the value of π, (I don't subscribe to the "fine tuned universe" type of ideas), but the value of π in our universe has to be a choice that our universe has sort of made from among many available in the OEIS. Is there a better way to understand the relationship between curvature and topology? What do you think, ma'am?
I'll tell you this: the difference between the experiments and evaluation methods proposed by John Stewart Bell to test correlations between fundamental particle(-interaction)s spread across time and space and how such experimental tests of physical reality should actually be evaluated is the same difference between surveys of people done by the shameless whorelord Aella and similar surveys done with a polygraph by an actual expert.
Failure to take into account the results of calibration measurements.
Really appreciated this—especially the framing around curiosity vs. passive acceptance. That said, I wanted to offer a third category that often goes unmentioned in pop psych takes: those of us who operate from embodied intelligence. For some, problem-solving isn’t a cognitive process of simulation or creative reframing—it’s reflexive, instinctive, and immediate. I don’t need to “think” to turn the showerhead away; my body just does it. It’s not about being clever or curious in the moment—it’s about a deeply wired intolerance for unnecessary discomfort, paired with an ingrained sense of control. I’d love to see this dimension acknowledged, or maybe we could discuss and collaborate on going deeper beyond the binary of passive vs. curious by introducing a form of zero-effort agency that doesn’t stem from deliberate thought, but from how someone is fundamentally attuned to the world (and exploring why they are).
Much to learn, you still have, Padawan.
Love it