viralJ

Question to lawyers: if you impeach a federal judge - who runs the trial? And if found guilty - who sentences them?

I still think your promoting the view of "this is obvious to me so it should be obvious to everyone". Even your explanation would be confusing for someone who's not an IT guy - what does it mean "end my user session?" People rarely go to the start menu to deal with their computers' "on-ness", they just press the hardware button that has an incomplete circle with a line on top or often no marking or label at all. Or they close the lid and that makes them think of their laptop as "off".

Honestly, even though I use computers for work all the time, I don't think I ever talk about logging in or out or switching it off or restarting, other than when I'm getting some help from IT.

Chances are you were clothes with aglets a lot, and aglets keep the integrity of your clothes, but there is also a good chance that you don't know what aglets are because the average person doesn't talk about them until they lodge somewhere in their washing machine.

I can't really sympathise with you here. You're clearly an IT guy, so the difference between log out, restart and shut down is as natural to you as breathing. For the average person is not that intuitive. For many people the computer is "on" when they press the power button and enter their username and password. And the blurring of the distinction is increased by most people having a smartphone where just lifting it up to your face wakes it up and logs you in (technically) at the same time.

I know you're explaining it to them, but if that's not something that they live and breathe, they're just going to forget the explanation. I'm a molecular biologist, so to me the differences between genome, transcriptome and proteome are bleeding obvious, but I have a colleague who's not a scientist but needs to become familiar with these terms. I explained them to her last week in an meeting that lasted an hour, but this week I had to do that again. She's not stupid, it's just all very abstract to her.

Whenever my colleague at the neighbouring desk left her laptop unlocked, I would go in, and create a new Word document saying ALWAYS LOCK YOUR LAPTOP in huge red font. She vowed she would eventually get back at me.

I once took a screenshot of some random text in a Word document with "CONFIDENTIAL" as the background watermark and then I used that screenshot as my lock screen wallpaper. When I locked my laptop and left my desk, she clocked the content of my screen and thought it was finally her moment to get back at me, but... it wasn't.

If you Google Steven Pinker, it should show you links to his websites, articles, and books.

I see you never got a reply to your question. I am obviously biased in favour of Pinker, but my perception is that "liberal hack" (and other epithets) is a mindless insult that people throw at him when they don't like to uplifting message that he's communicating, but can't find anything logically or factually wrong with his arguments or his presentation of data.

The closest I saw someone trying to have a legitimate case of showing Pinker misrepresenting reality, was the criticism of this passage (also from "Enlightenment Now"):

What proportion of pairs of ethnic neighbors coexist without violence? The answer is, most of them: 95 percent of the neighbors in the former Soviet Union, 99 percent of those in Africa.

(i.e. only 1% is at war)

Critics pointed out that, at the time of Pinker's writing, the number of countries in Africa at war was X, and X divided by the number of all countries in Africa is much greater than the 1%, so clearly Pinker is lying. But firstly, the passage talks about ethnic neighbours, not countries, of which there is much more in Africa and the former Soviet Union, and secondly, there is almost always more neighbours than there is countries in any region. For example in Australia, there are 5 states, but 6 borders (pairs of neighbouring states), so if Queensland went to war with New South Wales, 60% of the states would be at peace, but 83% of pairs of neighbours would be at peace.

Edit: grammar

I wonder if Biden's stepping down was partly influenced by the assassination attempt. If he hadn't, the most prominent symbol of this election would still be that image of Trump screaming "fight" while pumping his fist against the background of the American flag. But if someone from a deserted island opened a news website today for the first time, they wouldn't even know there was an assassination attempt.

Remember that there are biases at play here. There's the negativity bias (we worry more about bad things happening, than we are uplifted about good things happening), and the media bias to report the worst. As Pinker wrote:

News is about things that happen, not things that don't happen. We never see a journalist saying to the camera, "I'm reporting live from a country where a war has not broken out". (...) As long as bad things have not vanished from the face of the earth, there will always be enough incidents to fill the news, especially when billion of smartphones turn most of the world's population into crime reporters and war correspondents.

Combine the two, and you will naturally have all media preferentially report (and often blow out of proportion for the views and clicks) bad news over good news.

Edit: typo and grammar

What is your 6 year old laptop's make?

Should that be really called "smooth jet ski ride" or "amazing image stabilisation"?