I empathize. I want to be clear that I think your anger is justified and normal. The machinery of capitalism dehumanizes by default and its operator's casual cruelty amplifies the impact.

That said: I'm going to skip over the rest of the context and cut down to your questions directly. I can't provide "do this" type answers because I'm not you. I can tell you how I think about it, what I do, and why. The first answer is lengthy. The other two are a bit shorter. I hope you find them helpful.

1. How do I handle my anger?

Step 1: Sit with it. Be angry. If I'm questioning the justification for my anger then I give myself permission to be angry anyway. This isn't the same as acting on it. I'm not giving in to my emotions. I'm not bargaining with them. I'm letting them really fully exist in me. Recognizing there is nothing wrong with feeling how I feel.

Once I've settled into this and accepted my emotions (and sometimes this takes a while) I can then decide if any action would be safe and helpful.

Step 2: I often find physicalizing intense emotion helps make it "real". This has to be a considered choice though. It's not reactive or destructive. I can beat up my mattress, take a hike into the woods and scream, make an effigy or a sign and burn it, go to a Rage Room and pay for the privilege of breaking stuff, etc.

It can feel invalidating to have emotion for which there is no acceptable expression. Finding a healthy way of expressing that emotion helps break down that false wall. Polite society is a very unnatural state (thankfully! Nature is terrifying) and we are ultimately natural creatures. This friction can be harnessed to create art and meaning but, sometimes, you just need to break some shit and be mad. That's ok. We still ought to be responsible about it.

Sometimes that responsibility extends to taking actions in the pursuit of fairness and justice. These are noble pursuits that should not be sullied by rash or vengeful acts. Organizing these efforts nets significantly more success than individual acts.

Step 3:

Start unpacking.

Am I enraged? Incensed? Disappointed? Betrayed? Anger is a rug pulled over the top of many other emotions. That's not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. I do find it unhelpful when I'm trying to accept and understand myself better though.

Uncovering what the anger is built from makes our emotional scaffolding easier to see. Sometimes I use a thesaurus to find synonyms for the name of the emotion I'm already familiar with.

Identifying the component emotions helps me understand what my emotional state is trying to tell me. We feel what we feel for a reason. Understanding our why help us understand the impact of other's actions without requiring we understand their intentions.

Ultimately the answer for any unknown part of ourselves is self-investigation, acceptance, and curation. It is good and right to ask for help with every part of that process. When I run into something I can't accept and/or change then I know it's time to talk to a professional and build some new tools.

2. How do I avoid making my partner feel guilty?

Talk to them. :)

If I'm worried that I'm going to say something poorly or if I feel accuracy is key I will write out what I want to say ahead of time. I'm not so much writing them a letter as I'm writing myself one. Sometimes I write them a letter though.

Disconnecting initiating factors from their cascade effects after my partner and I have made a decision together is a very useful frame. Say we decide to go camping because my partner wants to and say I get injured during the trip. I can feel what I feel without regretting agreeing to the trip. I'm certainly not going to blame my partner for suggesting the trip. Bad stuff happens. That's life. Sharing the pain of the bad stuff is something I want my partner to do with me. Neglecting the reciprocity of that belittles our relationship.

3. How do I stop hating someone who has wronged me?

The opposite of love is not hate but indifference. Hate is empassioned. It burns and writhes and lashes. It urges us to demonize and conquer. I'm not sure what the opposite of hate is, exactly. I think it's something close to disappointment.

I'm reminded of Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed. One of my most memorable takeaways, in my own words, was that if we're to escape the self-sustaining cycle of human abuse we must realize that in dehumanizing us our oppressors dehumanize themselves as well. To Freire's mind the only successful revolution is one in which the oppressor is re-humanized as well as the oppressed.

I have trouble imagining myself feeling sympathy for those doing evil things. When that gets in the way of me letting go of (arguably justified) hatred I think of my younger self. Would I hate that person for being small-minded or callous? Maybe! A least for a moment. Then I would remember they have so many things they don't know yet and so much growing to do. It doesn't excuse the harm done. It nets me a better perspective on how much potential people can live up to. That helps me avoid hatred. When hatred fizzles out I find I'm left with disappointment and sometimes disgust. Those don't lead me to dehumanize someone. I think that's a good start if nothing else.

It's an xda-dev article. Of course the title is over-dramatized clickbait.

Alternatively: bring them to the doctor or schedule a sleep study to figure out what's going on.

I don't understand how parents can fail their children so consistently. It takes so little empathy and reason to see someone struggling and ask "how can I help them achieve the best outcome" instead of "how can I immediately force the outcome I want". Especially for a loved one!

I can only imagine such parents are so self-absorbed that their empathy and reason were sucked up into their own assholes at some point along with the rest of their humanity and then shit out their mouths during an inevitably bloviated, assinine, masturbatory tirade.

A CV is just a list of things you've done during your life so far. Unless someplace is asking for your résumé AND CV then they're probably only looking for your résumé. People conflate the two all the time.

Even then those who ask for both typically leave the CV as optional.

For those without much experience I usually recommend a skills résumé. Searching "skills resume example" or similar will net some useful results.

I recommend keeping the résumé to a single page. Provide your name and contact info at the top. Under each Skill you include provide a list of how you've used the skill or how you learned it.

Example:

derek        derek@infosec.pub
                  phone number
                  other info if needed

Skills
   Skill 1
      One or two sentences about how I learned skill 1.
      One or two sentences about how I've used skill 1 to solve a problem.
      One or two sentences about how I've used skill 1 to help someone else solve their problem.

   Skill 2
      One or two sentences about how I learned skill 2.
      One or two sentences about how I've used skill 2 to solve a problem.
      One or two sentences about how I've used skill 2 to help someone else solve their problem.

Relevant Experience (include this section if you can think of any relevant experience at all)
   Experience 1
      Some blurb about experience 1.

   Experience 2
      Some blurb about experience 2.

Training (same rules as with Relevant Experience section)

References (if anyone at all can vouch for you then including them here can be helpful)
   Available upon request.

The most important aspect of submitting an application for anything is actually submitting it. It doesn't have to be perfect or polished to get you an interview. It just has to be real and in front of a hiring manager's eyes.

I've reviewed applications, conducted interviews, and hired people before. I can tell you, for any entry level role, that an earnest person who is willing to listen and learn, admit ignorance readily, and ask for help openly, is going to get the job over someone with fancy paperwork who lacks those traits in-person.

Common sense doesn't necessarily include "troubleshooting". It's a tiered skill as well. A fresh network admin with a passing familiarity of the OSI model and an IT systems architect are going to have very different depths of understanding and expertise.

If there's a unifying thread it's likely systems thinking (within which there are different methods and disciplines). Some are naturally better at it than others but it is a set of skills and models anyone can learn and use. The best of us are able to maintain composure under pressure, think clearly, and act wisely, because they've built the necessary psychological tooling to do so (and trained skills which deploy that tooling).

All of that said: absolutely, yes. A resume is a list of things you want to talk about in an interview. If your resume is sparse but you're able to list any skill pertainent to the role you're applying for then it's reasonable to include that skill.

Fish don't exist.

My first guess was that the reflective surface would act as a thermal barrier against ambient temperature. If that's just the outer layer it may have some actual insulation built-in too. Considering the use-case it'd be reasonable to engineer for an increased tolerance to some hazard whose benefit compounds alongside other precaution and prep.

i.e. the protective material's melt point only has to be a bit higher than the shielded material's flash point for the product to be effective as-advertised. It won't save the cabin if ambient temp hits ignition or combustion temp but the cost:benefit may still make sense.

Searching for "aluminized structure wrap" provides some results which seem to confirm this.

What was the context of your discussion during firefighting training? Accurate to the marketing copy? Less situationally useful than advertised but still better than nothing? Completely worthless?

Correct and correct. Only commenting to add a wiki link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

When it feels like someone is spouting impenetrable bullshit look for this connection.

The dog found a nest of 'em in the backyard once. She started digging at the hole then stuck her nose in it. Got rewarded with a snoutful of bees for the effort.

Pooch looked like a happy hamster for a few days but recovered ok. She stopped rooting around after that though!

Can you be sentient without first being concious? If not, and I'd argue not, then in speaking of sentience we are also necessarily speaking of conciousness.

Your assertion that sentience is perception of environment is a category error. You've mistaken casually identifying sentience in others with sentience itself.

I've fetched the definitions for all three terms and quoted them below.

Merriam-Webster

consciousness noun 1 a: the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b: the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c: awareness especially: concern for some social or political cause

The organization aims to raise the political consciousness of teenagers. 2: the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind 3: the totality of conscious states of an individual 4 : the normal state of conscious life regained consciousness 5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

sentience noun 1: a sentient quality or state 2: feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought

by extension...

sentient adjective 1: capable of sensing or feeling : conscious of or responsive to the sensations of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, or smelling 2: aware 3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

sapient adjective : possessing or expressing great sagacity

Sentience is the capacity of sensing or feeling. That's an important distinction.

how is sense and reaction an indicator such a system carries within it a theory of mind?

I don't know and I'm not saying it is.

Then I fail to see the point or intention of your first comment. How are your semantics meant to further the discussion or clarify the reader's thinking?

we do not know what it is we are talking about.

Do we not? That's precisely why it's important to make that difference. Sentience is relatively easy to define and can be assigned with a lot of confidence whereas sapience isn't and can't.

If sentience here is taken literally to mean "physical sense ability" in the broadest sense then, yeah, sure. That's not helpful though. It's too reductive to be relevant to the topic at hand. Within philosophy of mind sentience is often referring to the ability or capacity for feeling (as in experience (joy, grief, etc)). It's a complex quality of some thinking minds and may well be a spectrum of ability whose boundaries are difficult to define.

[…] can sentience exist apart from perception of environment? I'd say it must.

Wait, really? Can you give several examples of this, then?

A person suffering from pseudocoma or "locked-in syndrome" is as close a real-world approximation I can think of. With that as a starting point we can arrive at my conclusion via thought experiment and create as many examples as you'd like.

Think of a brain in a vat. Maybe it's your brain. You're awake but you have no sensory input and, to your knowledge, no way of asserting your existence to the outside world.

It's a hellish thought. It demonstrates the importance of recognizing that one self's connection to the external is not equivelant with the self though.

Now digitize that mind. We now have an artificial intelligence. Disembodied. No sense organs to speak of. A thinking mind alone in a void.

Some variations on the Chinese Room demonstrate how thick a quagmire this discussion can be

For example, the chance for something to become sentient is never increased by a lack of stimuli, right?

Agreed! 😄

My point is not that an organism might find an evolutionary niche which requires no sense organs and yet develop sentience (though the universe is so vast that improbable is not impossible).

My point is that our measures and models cannot be the thing itself. Reponse to stimuli as you describe are mere measures we use to categorize minds based on our current models. Even if we believe our means are valid and useful and provide access to some level of truth: we cannot reasonably claim they allow total surety.

I've separated them purposefully because I think there's an important semantic distinction. The boredom you describe is driven by disinterest due to neurochemical dysfunction.

That's distinct from boredom as a state of mind which assumes or asserts that curiosity, entertainment, etc, are presented and consumed. There is not necessarily a chemical imbalance imposing this state on the mind.

If you like, you could reword the sentiment as; only boring people are bored (and those with depression are not necessarily boring).

I've considered that phrasing previously but found it diminishes the concept.