Option 3: A reserve, just in case of an emergency. (I think there’s a country that has this, and it includes coffee. Or coffee beans. Or it did, maybe they’ve run out?)
if we do not actively hold ourselves to a certain kind of stodgy actuarial insistence-on-clarity-and-coherence—we’ll more than likely latch onto a nearby pleasant fiction without ever noticing that it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
“If only they would just [calm down/listen/take a deep breath/forgive me/let it go/have a little perspective/not be so jealous/not be so irrational/think things through more carefully/realize how much I love them/hang on just a little bit longer], everything would be fine.”
Pleasant fictions always outnumber pleasant truths, after all.
This sounds like it’s trying hard to say that ‘better lawmakers is a pleasant idea, and thus a pleasant fiction’.
But that’s the thing. Most of the time, neither option is great. In difficult situations, it’s wise to be at least a little suspicious of straightforward, easy Options A that are just so clearly better than those uncomfortably costly tradeoff-y Options B.
Some situations are more like:
Two people have done things they shouldn’t have done. And they don’t want to apologize.
That being said: beware the failure mode of new jargon
That this just as easily could have been named something like ‘The truth no one wants to face’.
which is thinking that you now recognize [the thing], rather than that you are now equipped to hypothesize [maybe the thing?].
And when you solve the problem, the way you think about it may be different and that may prompt new jargon.
(Alas, that’s a fabricated option, and the real choice is between “invent good terms but see them misused a bunch” and “refuse to invent good terms.”
Have the conversation in a different language, or encrypt them. Now you can invent terms and they won’t be misused. But that’s very similar to ‘refuse to invent good terms’ - it doesn’t enter into general use.
In the meantime, I would deeply appreciate it if any comments sharing [redacted] of the class contained the string [redacted], and if any comments containing [redacted] or stories about how-you-responded contained the string [redacted]. This will make it easier for the comment section to stand as an enduring and useful appendix to this introduction.
I took this partially as a brainstorming exercise.
It’s because H-O-H is symmetrical. The simplest chiral molecule would be something like a tetrahedral structure with four different elements as the “points” (one of which could be an lone pair).
Reverse water. The chiral twin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_drugs, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry)
I’ve never heard of it.
Example 1:
Option 3: A reserve, just in case of an emergency. (I think there’s a country that has this, and it includes coffee. Or coffee beans. Or it did, maybe they’ve run out?)
This sounds like it’s trying hard to say that ‘better lawmakers is a pleasant idea, and thus a pleasant fiction’.
Some situations are more like:
Two people have done things they shouldn’t have done. And they don’t want to apologize.
That this just as easily could have been named something like ‘The truth no one wants to face’.
And when you solve the problem, the way you think about it may be different and that may prompt new jargon.
Have the conversation in a different language, or encrypt them. Now you can invent terms and they won’t be misused. But that’s very similar to ‘refuse to invent good terms’ - it doesn’t enter into general use.
I took this partially as a brainstorming exercise.
(Edited to fix a typo.)
Water isn’t a chiral molecule though.
Which is why I wrote:
I’ve never heard of it.
(Is chirality determined by atoms of the substance bonding with themselves, or is HOH enough that ‘that’s symmetrical’ so ‘no chirality for water’?)
It’s because H-O-H is symmetrical. The simplest chiral molecule would be something like a tetrahedral structure with four different elements as the “points” (one of which could be an lone pair).
More like “better lawmakers require actual unusual effort; they won’t just happen by default.”