some of you may know i’ve been feeding crows for a few months now, as represented in my operation: crow army tag
i’ve been doing it as part of spellwork and as an attempt to gain a cohort of familiars. ultimately i would like to train them to attack cops or something but i haven’t quite figured that out
it’s gotten to the point where i can pretty much walk out onto my porch during any daylight hour and crinkle a packet of ramen noodles and they’ll come perch in the trees. today a few of them were willing to land on the far edge of my lawn while i was still on the porch, which is a new development.
they’re still wary of me. every time i move, even from the other side of the window, they jump. i think it’s reflexive
an unexpected side effect is that i am learning which of my neighbors the crows like. lots of people walk by my house but only for a select few will the crows only stay on the ground level while they walk past.
at first i summoned raccoons, and they got into the crawlspace directly under my bedroom. actual monsters under my bed, screaming and gnawing on the floorboards. just kidding, they’re probably cute, but i interpreted this as a metaphor for the structural underpinnings of my thoughts and beliefs: there’s something dangerous going on in the recesses of my mind, and i need to get rid of it before it gets trapped and rots down there.
well, i think the raccoons are gone but apparently it’s because there has been a coyote sighting exactly in front of my house, and i have no idea if i summoned that or what it means
I’d never purchase boutique DLC myself, but I’m just tickled by the idea of it.
I mean, one the one hand, it’s utterly ridiculous to be charging $250 a pop for a DLC package that adds a single obscure model of engine to a train operator simulator.
On the other hand, the economics behind it are perfectly sensible - somebody probably poured a couple hundred hours of their life into that model, and it has a global audience of maybe a dozen people, so you pretty much have to charge that just to break even.
I can think of no truer sign that video games have come into their own as an art form than the fact that DLC can successfully cater to rich weirdos with strange hobbies.
I finally got myself in the situation where the ship I ship is so rare theres almost no content so if I want it I’m gonna have to make it myself im gonna have my god damn naehiro even if I’m the one who makes all of it IM GONNA LEARN HOW TO DRAW CHEESY COUPLES FOR THE SAKE OF THESE BOYS DO YOU HEAR ME
So after reblogging the post earlier discussing negative punishment vs. negative reinforcement, I got 4 or 5 messages asking me to elaborate on the different quadrants and if x tool falls in which quadrant.
These are the four quadrants:
Positive doesn’t mean good or bad in this context. Positive in the context of operant conditioning means “to add”. You are adding something. That is all it means. Negative in this context means the exact opposite: you are removing something. Again, these terms cannot be understood in terms of every-day semantics.
Punishment means you are attempting to stop or discourage a behavior. Reinforcement means you are trying to create or encourage a behavior.
So here is the breakdown:
Positive Punishment means you are adding something to stop or discourage a behavior.
Negative Punishment means you are taking something away to stop or discourage a behavior.
Positive Reinforcement means you are adding something to encourage or create a behavior.
Negative Reinforcement means you are taking away something to encourage or create a behavior.
So when people ask questions like “so is this tool positive punishment or negative reinforcement?” it depends on the context of your use.
The quadrants in and of itself are mere arbitrary nomenclature that you are supposed to cover in dog training 101 and then move on from there. The tools you use cannot be neatly labeled and put into a corresponding quadrant box. I’m continually surprised at the number of people who don’t think that a head collar can be an aversive tool, or that a reward isn’t always food.
Even a flat collar can be used as a tool for positive punishment. The tool itself is neutral, just like the quadrants. It is how you apply them that determines whether it is positive punishment or something else.
So what do these quadrants look like in practice?
Positive Punishment: Remember, you are adding something to stop a behavior. If my dog is pulling on her leash and I apply a strong force and jerk her backward, I am using positive punishment. If my dog barks at birds and I zap her with an e-collar, or spray her with a garden hose, I am using positive punishment. If I have a prong collar around my dog’s neck and it applies pressure to her when she pulls, I am using positive punishment.
Negative Reinforcement: Remember, you are taking away something to encourage or create a behavior. If I have prong collar around my dog’s neck and it is applying pressure to her, because she is pulling, and she stops pulling and the pressure is removed, I am using negative reinforcement. Yes, that means that in one single training moment, the prong collar is being used by two quadrants. If I want my dog to sit, and I zap her with an e-collar until she sits, I am using negative reinforcement.
Positive Reinforcement: Now here is the example, where most R+ trainers lose their minds. I have personally witnessed one person fail their dog trainer exam over this very question, because she could not wrap her head around it. If I tell my dog to sit, and she does not move fast enough, and I zap her with the e-collar once to spurn her on, I am using positive reinforcement.Why? I am adding something (the shock) to create or encourage a behavior (the sit). Here is something I want to stress and I cannot stress it enough: positive reinforcement does not equal force free. You should have seen my face when my teacher told me this. My world view was shattered. The most common and popular example of positive reinforcement is to reward a dog for doing a desired behavior by giving them a treat, but it is not the only example. Use of an aversive can be positive punishment or positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement all at the same time, depending on how you are using it. Aversives are a whole different terminological league.
Negative Punishment: We are removing something, to stop or discourage a behavior, so an example of this is if I am playing with my dog and she is being too rough, so I leave the room or stop playing with her until she plays nice. Every time she plays too rough, I stop, until she eventually stops being so rough. Another example is if I am teaching her to not pull. She wants to keep walking because she wants to sniff that very cool looking butterfly, but I stop walking because she is pulling and I want her to knock it off. In this moment, she wants nothing more than to keep walking, and I am punishing her by not allowing the walk to continue. Once she stops pulling, we keep walking, which is her reward (positive reinforcement).
The quadrants were never meant to describe a training style, but to explain the four basic ways we can influence canine behavior during training.R+ training has become an accepted term to describe non-aversive trainers, and many popular and famous dog trainers use it in that way, but it’s technically inaccurate. Positive does not mean “good” in the colloquial sense. It simply means “to add”. And even a “positive” tool can be an aversive, depending on the dog.
On a final note, no training is ever “purely positive” in a (admittedly extremely) technical sense. We all use negative punishment at some point or another, and that is okay. In terms of dog training terminology, negative is a completely arbitrary word used to describe a course of action.
It is important to understand the quadrants in their entirety, but don’t spend so much time worrying about whether you’re being a positive enough trainer that you neglect perfectly valid training methods to help your dog, or even condemn a method entirely simply because it has the word “negative” or “punishment” in it.
As Rock is a Hunter, or hunter in training, Roll is an operator/Operator in training, usually seen under the guide of Alia or Layer, whom she looks up to. But sometimes, her housekeeping tendencies sometimes comes out, especially when she sees Rock and/or Axl’s messy room.
Tried to base her Reploid-esque clothing off her normal clothing and thin yellow veil was inspired by her .EXE counterpart. Sorry if her design vanilla basic.
Also, do you want me guys to have Forte(Bass) and Blues(Protoman) in this AU?
Short Answer: No, mostly because I don’t think it is conscious on his part.
The issue with the West Wing (especially the Sorkin era) is that it’s mainly written by Sorkin himself. While that leads to amazing speeches and a wonderfully written show. It also leads to there being a very singular view of issues. Which is also the reason why that part of the show is more like a political fairy tale than anything else. It is what Sorkin wants politics to look like.
One main issue that was out of his control, is that you need someone for exposition. People who work in the White House know what they are doing (at least until recently). They are highly trained operatives and are experts in policy. In other words, they know way more than the average viewer. So these concepts need to be boiled down to for the viewers. Which is were Donna comes in. She is the conduit for the viewer. Through her questions Josh gets to explain to the audience what’s going on. This makes her look dumb because real White House assistants know at least the basics about the policy their bosses are working on. It also doesn’t help that there isn’t a single male assistant in the show, and that there is only one female senior staffer (CJ). Who almost always needs schooling on the finer policy points, even after years of working in politics. Again some of this changes when she becomes Chief of Staff and Donna moves out, but it’s always there.
Another thing is that the show ended more than a decade ago (I know crazy). Things were a lot different then, character like Ross Geller (the nice guy) were at the height of their power. As I have said before people learn and change. I for one think that The Newsroom is a step up for Sorkin. While the whole Jim mansplaining to Maggie thing is annoying, but is also a conduit for the audience. Sloan and MacKenzie is constantly putting men through their paces (see Sloan’s interview with website asshole).
When I watched this episode the first time through, I wondered why Tom would drop that information so freely. He doesn’t really know this man. He has no idea if he’s connected to the Hargraves or anyone else. All he knows is that he was the lead detective on the case and he busts out there with information that could, potentially, put him into a tight spot before he’s ready to take that step. It seemed off to me. He’s a trained operative. He knows how important information is and that keeping things like this to yourself is the smarter play until you have more information.
Then by the time we got to that final scene with him watching the video and that haunted expression Liz finds him with… Tom’s starting to freak out a little. It’s starting to become real to him, and he doesn’t know how to handle that. I believe it was @blacklister214 that called him an emotional novice in another thread, and that’s a perfect description. He’s a quick study and he’s come a long, long way in a short time for a man that was never really loved growing up, but this is a whole new arena for him, and he’s spiraling just a bit.
Santa Fe’s southbound #15, the “Texas Chief”, departs behind F-units in “A-B-A-B” formation with 339 leading. The art deco depot for OKC is behind the overpass in the background, which carries Interstate 40 over the tracks. By now the I-40 has been moved to just about where I’m standing, which is just on the south side of the Rock Island tracks where they cross under that bridge in the foreground. In about ten weeks this train will be operated by Amtrak; although it will initially remain the same in appearance, the changes will begin soon after.