Yikes, Cobalt. Let the woman lolcat in peace. It’s not hurting anyone.

I checked you becacue I knew I was wrong somewhere in the you/Vaimes/Gemma meta clears and picked up on some stuff I’d convinced myself was bad.

Also, like. Thought I’d be dead and check wouldn’t super matter.

I mean, I had the check on Gemma for most of the Night, would you have preferred that? Like, the tinfoil gets pretty crazy at endgame. Just be glad you’re not having to triple thunderdome with Asmo/Vaimes right now.

 

Don't worry Newcomb, he's my scumpartner, so it's fine.

Eido is a bastard mod.

I'm sorry that it's lost you the game.
--- Post automerged ---
I thought this was interesting, Cobalt. You might like it too.

The octopus is an asocial genius that survives by its wits. The common octopus (Octopus vulgaris) lives from 12 to 18 months. A mature female mates, lays tens of thousands of eggs, tends them until they hatch, and dies soon thereafter. The tiny octopus hatchlings disperse quickly and seldom encounter others of their species until they eventually mate. The hatchlings spend 45 to 60 days floating in ocean currents and feeding in the plankton layer where most of them perish, becoming food for other predators. The small proportion that survive this stage grow rapidly, “parachute” to the sea floor, and begin a bottom dwelling life in an environment that is quite different from the plankton environment. When they land on the bottom, typically far away from where they hatched, octopuses must learn very quickly and be very lucky to survive.

The typical adult octopus has a relatively large brain, estimated at 300 million neurons. The ratio of octopus brain to body mass is much higher than that of most fish and amphibians, a ratio more similar to that of birds and mammals. The complex lobes of the octopus brain support an acute and sensitive vision system, good spatial memory, decision-making, and camouflage behavior. “Sensory and motor function is neatly separated into a series of well-defined lobes... There are two parallel learning systems, one for touch and one for vision, and a clear hierarchy of motor control.” Each arm has smaller, mostly independent neural systems (about 50 million neurons each) that deal with chemical sensors, delicate touch sensors, force sensors, and control of the muscles in that arm. All this processing power supports general intelligence, but at a cost. Neurons use more energy than other cells. Just the photoreceptors in the eyes of a fly consume 8% of the fly’s resting energy. The metabolic costs of an octopus’ large brain must be justified by its contribution to rapid learning of more effective foraging and more effective defenses against predators.

Adult octopuses are quite clever, adaptable, and rapid learners. Experts speculate that most octopus behaviors are learned independently rather than being based on instinct. At least one researcher posits that cephalopods may even have a primitive form of consciousness.
--- Post automerged ---
Unlike the octopus, humans can rely upon a large legacy of knowledge learned from, and actively taught by, parents, peers, and the culture at large. Social animals also make use of legacies of information that they are able to effectively transfer from one individual to the next and one generation to the next. More effective knowledge legacies go hand-in-hand with more intelligent reasoning although the correlation is far from perfect, as the octopus demonstrates.
--- Post automerged ---
@Cobalt

 

So either Newcomb was souped last, they avoided souping him, or they were saving him to try and get a game-ending soup.

There are 6 people alive.

Two witches.

4/2.

We lynch Gemma, because we have to or we lose, 4/1.

Scenario 1: Vaimes world

Yolosoup kills Newcomb and Asmo. Sits at a F3 of me, Tom, and Vaimes, which Vaimes always loses. So he guesses one of our roles for a super possible, uncomfortable to think about witch victory. If he guesses wrong we win.

Scenario 2: Asmo world

Newcomb dies or is solo souped. We go to F4, where Tom and I have to choose between Vaimes and Asmo. I think this is unlikely, but if Asmo is not souped then this scenario is possible, also if witch!Vaimes doesn’t soup him on purpose because he thinks a possible mislynch is better odds than a yolosoup.

We know that there are definitely two witches left because in an Asmo world there are two witches left and so he’s telling the truth, and if he’s town he’s telling the truth. Mechanical certainty on 2 witches so these worlds possible.

The Oracle claim does not remove him from PoE as we have Jarizok and Fonti that witches potentially knew both roles of making a truth-telling Oracle a safe claim for Asmo with a faked soup.

But idk why they would fake a soup to out Gemma just to try and clear Asmo when he was next on the chopping block. So it’s probably just Vaimes. Shrugs.

Scenario 3: Newcomb world

In this world, the weird Stanari EoD 1 was an acolyte knowing her priest was about to be lynched and everything we know is a lie.

But Newcomb had no reason to out a red on his lumped partner if they knew the priest was dead, and they could’ve had a confirmed townie partner all the way through the game.

Also he had no reason to feed us correct checks when he could’ve built worlds around fake reds, and we know his checks are correct because of outed Oracle (Asmo and Newcomb can’t both be witches).

Tom and I are both definitely town because Newcomb greened us, if he’s lying he’s a witch but we can’t also be witches because there’s only 3 and Gemma is mechanically one so even as a witch the greens are legit.

Anyway this world is 99.9% not the one we’re looking at. And if it is, Jarizok is fired for not claiming and never allowed to play again.

So basically the only person I can trust with mechanical 100% certainty is Tom.

How did this happen.

@tom hold me. ;-;
--- Post automerged ---
LMFAO GEMMA OK THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE PLS CONTINUE
--- Post automerged ---
Fascinating.

 

@Cobalt

The ladder metaphor highlights the accumulation of knowledge from generation to generation and the communication of that knowledge to others of the species. Each rung of the ladder places unique requirements on knowledge representation and the ontologies required for reasoning at that level.

The term ontology is used differently, albeit in related ways, in philosophy, anthropology, computer science, and in the “Semantic Web”. One definition of ontology commonly used in computer science is: “a formal representation of a set of concepts within a domain and the relationships between those concepts.” In philosophical metaphysics, ontology is concerned with what entities exist or can be said to exist, how such entities can be grouped or placed in some hierarchy, or grouped according to similarities and differences.
Within recent anthropological debates, it has been argued that ontology is just another word for culture. None of the above definitions quite do the trick in our context. For the purposes of the following discussion, the term ontology is used to describe the organization of the internal artifacts of mental existence in an intelligent system or subsystem, including an AGI system.

It is not our goal here to define a specific ontology for an AGI. In fact we argue that goal is pointless, if not impossible, because an ontology appropriate for a solitary asocial octopus has little in common with one appropriate for a herd herbivore such as a bison, a very long lived highly social animal such as an elephant, or a linguistically competent human. Instead, we seek to explore the implications of the different design choices faced by researchers seeking to develop AGI systems. Since we are concerned here with human-level AGI, we will discuss the ontological issues related to the human version of the rungs of the ladder: asocial, social, animal cultural, linguistic, literate, and civilization-level. Let us examine each in turn.

 

@Cobalt

Asocial ontologies
– Humans share with many asocial animals the ability to process and act upon visual 2D data and other spatial maps. Octopuses, insects, crabs and even some jellyfish use visual information for spatial navigation and object identification. The octopus is exceptionally inte
lligent, with comple x behavior befitting its large brain and visual system. Its ontology has no need for social interaction and may encompass no more than a few hundred categories or concepts representing the various predators and prey it deals with, perhaps landmarks in their territories, maps of recent foraging trips and tricks of camouflage. It presumably does not distinguish one instance of a class from another, for example, one particular damselfish from another. Octopus ontology also presumably supports the temporal sequences that underlie the ability of the octopus to make and execute multi-step plans such as shooting out the lights, opening shrimp jars, or building coconut shell shelters, although one can posit other mechanisms. Humans also have equivalents of other asocial processing abilities such as the ability to sense and process information about temporal ordering, proprioception, audition, and the chemical environment (smell, taste). What can AGI researchers learn from such parallels?

In humans, the rungs are not as separable as AGI researchers might wish. Human infants are hardwired to orient to faces, yet th
at hardwired behavior soon grows into a social behavior. Infants cry asocially at first, without consideration of impact or implications on
others, but they soon learn to use crying socially. The same can be said for smiling and eating, first applied asocially, and then adapted to social purposes. In summary, many of our asocial behaviors and their supporting ontology develop over infancy into social behaviors. The social versions of asocial behaviors seem to be elaborations, or layers, that obscure but do not completely extinguish the initial asocial behavior, e.g., unceremoniously wolfing down food when very hungry, or crying uncontrollably when tragedy strikes.

Many behaviors apparent in infants are as ocial simply because they are grounded in bodies and brains. Yet we learn to become consciously aware of many of our asocial behaviors, which then become associated with so cial concepts and become social aspects of
our ontology. Because humans learn them over many years in the midst of other simultaneously operating rungs, the ontological categories inevitably become intertwined in ways difficult to disentangle. Learning to understand the issues characteristic of the asocial rung by building an asocial octopus-level AGI would therefore be a good strategy for separation of concerns.

 

I mean I guess I am super glad for that and Tom and I always survive unless goat yolosoup
--- Post automerged ---
Anyway

Given Gemma’s positioning I think the level of what the fuck that fakesouping Asmo would be given that they could just have Asmo yolosoup if he was next to die kind of mitigates the Asmo world

So like it’s 90% just Vaimes.

Hey @Newcomb remember when I had all those relevant posts about Vaimes and you basically said “lol Cobalt, but meta”

Lick me.
--- Post automerged ---
The funny part is Gemma, I’m the actual clown and all those posts of me asking who to pie wasn’t me trying to direct the clown, they were just softs in case I needed to claim today.

But your partner won’t take the chance on the above statement being truthful and soup me when it could win you the game. Lol get rekt.

 

Don't worry, my partner is souping you tonight. We already know what your role is.

GI researchers will need to be exceedingly careful to properly develop an oral-language human-level AGI because academics are so thoroughly steeped in literate intelligence that they may find it difficult to put that experience aside. For example, literate people find it very difficult to grasp that the notion of a “word” is not necessarily well defined and hence it is not necessarily the atomic base of language nor the fundamentalontological concept for a primary oral language (or sign language).

 

I haven't read everything yet but holy fuck nobody claim
--- Post automerged ---
I understand that this looks p bad for people who want to scumread me (hi Cobalt)

but I think that as long as there wasn't some BS massclaim, you can afford to lynch both me and Asmo here

even though uh

Lynch Asmo

I'll be both super pissed and impressed if this gambit works out for you
--- Post automerged ---
honestly, if anyone else claimed, we might as well call concede to the scumteam, because I don't see how I can salvage this stupid situation

from what I can tell, it looks like since both Gemma/Asmo looked fucked, they tried using Soup to "clear" the other (or at least condemn me by making me look like Gemma's partner) so that we'd massclaim to solve the game, since they only need one more Night

I'm not Leeroy, no point in hiding that since even if I bluff I won't be able to go off

hold on let me think about what roles witches might know in case my claim just makes us lose
--- Post automerged ---
it actually happened, I am in hell and I must scream

Stanari
(Jarizok)
tom
Vaimes
(Waco)

I think

these are all the roles Witches don't know? they can make educated guesses on the ones in parentheses

uh

I kinda wanna claim and run Asmo over with fire, but I also don't in case I get paranoia-lynched and feed him info he might need
--- Post automerged ---
goddammit Newcomb why couldn't you have checked me or Asmo

the fuck is a Cobalt check
--- Post automerged ---
this is almost as bad as being fake-redchecked by Newcomb/font

I wish I had been Leeroy in THAT game, too

:I
--- Post automerged ---
imagine the glory of this beautiful scumplan coming close to fruition, pinning the final mislynch on me, and I get to turn around and go "nope, bitches" and end it all for the win

this is depressing me
--- Post automerged ---
(also if Newcomb is somehow ??? a witch, free win, I honestly don't care about the Soup wine and don't have the wim to fight it)
--- Post automerged ---
man

this sucks

I'm gonna go watch a cute movie or something

 

Oh, hey, Cobalt.

I have a little experiment for you.

Have anyone who was pied on any Night this game claim that they were pied. They don't have to specify which Night.

I guarantee you every single person will say no.

Including shadow, in the Angel QT.

How's that for WIFOM, bitch?
--- Post automerged ---
If we had to name the one cultural current that most characterizes America in the twentieth century, it might be the work of Freud and the disciplines that grew out of it. There is no one who remains unexposed to his vision of human life, whether through courses in it (‘psych’); through personal therapy, a common cultural experience for children of the middle class; or generally, through its pervasion of popular culture. The new vocabulary has crept into our everyday speech, so that the ordinary man thinks in terms of being ‘sick’, ‘neurotic’, or ‘psycho’; he checks his ‘id’ periodically for a ‘death wish’, and his ‘ego’ for ‘weakness’; people who reject him are ‘egocentric’; he takes for granted that he has a ‘castration complex’, that he has ‘repressed’ a desire to sleep with his mother, that he was and maybe still is engaged in ‘sibling rivalry’, that women ‘envy’ his penis; he is likely to see every banana or hotdog as a ‘phallic symbol’. His marital arguments and divorce-court proceedings are conducted in this psychoanalese. Most of the time he is unclear about what these terms mean, but if he doesn’t know, at least he is certain that his ‘shrink’ does. The spectacled and goateed little Viennese dozing in his armchair is a cliché of (nervous) modern humour. It would take some time to tabulate the number of cartoons that refer to psychoanalysis. We have built a whole new symbology around the couch alone.

Freudianism has become, with its confessionals and penance, its proselytes and converts, with the millions spent on its upkeep, our modern Church. We attack it only uneasily, for you never know, on the day of final judgement, whether they might be right. Who can be sure that he is as healthy as he can get? Who is functioning at his highest capacity? And who not scared out of his wits? Who doesn’t hate his mother and father? Who doesn’t compete with his brother? What girl at some time did not wish she were a boy? And for those hardy souls who persist in their scepticism, there is always that dreadful word resistance. They are the ones who are sickest: it’s obvious, they fight it so much.

There has been a backlash. Books have been written, careers have bloomed, on the contradictions within Freud’s work alone: some have made a name for themselves simply on one small section of his work (e.g., by disproving the death wish, or penis envy), and others, braver, or more ambitious, have attacked the absurdities of the whole. Critical theories abound at every cocktail party: some intellectuals go so far as to relate the demise of the intellectual community in America to the importation of psychoanalysis. In opposition to the religiosity of Freudianism, a whole empirical school of behaviourism has been founded (though experimental psychology suffers from its own kind of bias). And gradually, with all this, Freudian thought has been unwound, its most essential tenets sloughed off one by one until there is nothing left to attack.

And yet it does not die. Though psychoanalytic therapy has been proven ineffective, and Freud’s ideas about women’s sexuality literally proven wrong (e.g., Masters and Johnson on the myth of the double orgasm), the old conceptions still circulate. The doctors go on practising. And at the end of each new critique we find a guilty paean to the Great Father who started it all. They can’t quite do him in.

But I don’t think it is solely a lack of courage to admit after all these years that the emperor had no clothes on. I don’t think it is entirely because they might work themselves out of a job. I think that in most cases it is the same integrity that made them question it all that keeps them from destroying it all. ‘Intuitively’ their ‘conscience’ tells them they dare not drop that final axe.

For while it is true that Freud’s theories are not verifiable empirically, that Freudianism in clinical practice has led to real absurdities, that in fact as early as 1913 it was noted that psychoanalysis itself is the disease it purports to cure, creating a new neurosis in place of the old (we have all observed that those undergoing therapy seem more preoccupied with themselves than ever before, having advanced to a state of ‘perceptive’ neurosis now, replete with ‘regressions’, lovesick ‘transferences’, and agonized soliloquies), still we sense there is something to it. Though those undergoing therapy are overcome with confusion when asked pointblank ‘Does it help?’ or ‘Is it worth it?’ it can’t be dismissed entirely.

Freud captured the imagination of a whole continent and civilization for a good reason. Though on the surface inconsistent, illogical, or ‘way out’, his followers, with their cautious logic, their experiments and revisions have nothing comparable to say. Freudianism is so charged, so impossible to repudiate because Freud grasped the crucial problem of modern life: sexuality.
--- Post automerged ---
The end of the compartmentalization of personality through reintegration of the sexual with the whole could have important cultural side-effects. At the present time the Oedipus Complex, originating in the now almost universal incest taboo, demands that the child soon distinguish between the ‘emotional’ and the ‘sexual’: one is considered by the father to be an appropriate response to the mother, the other is not. If the child is to gain his mother’s love he must separate out the sexual from his other feelings (Freud’s ‘aim-inhibited’ relationships). One cultural development that proceeds directly from such an unnatural psychological dichotomy is the good/bad women syndrome, with which whole cultures are diseased. That is, the personality split is projected outwards on to the class ‘women’: those who resemble the mother are ‘good’, and consequently one must not have sexual feelings towards them; those unlike the mother, who don’t call forth a total response, are sexual, and therefore ‘bad’. Whole classes of people, e.g., prostitutes, pay with their lives for this dichotomy; others suffer to different degrees. A good portion of our language degrades women to the level where it is permissible to have sexual feelings for them. (‘Cunt. Your brain is between your legs.’) This sexual schizophrenia is rarely overcome totally in the individual. And in the larger culture, whole historical developments, the history of art and literature itself, have been directly moulded by it. Thus the courtly honour of the Middle Ages, exalting women only at the expense of their flesh-and-blood humanity – making sex a lowly act, divorced from true love – developed into Marcianism, the cult of the virgin in art and poetry.

A song from the period illustrates the division:

I care not for these ladies

Who must be wooed and prayed,

Give me kind Amaryllis,

The wanton country maid,

Nature Art disdaineth,

Her beauty is her own,

For when we hug and kiss she cries

‘Forsooth, let us go’

But when we come where comfort is

She never will say no.

The separation of sex from emotion is at the very foundations of Western culture and civilization. If early sexual repression is the basic mechanism by which character structures supporting political, ideological, and economic serfdom are produced, then an end to the incest taboo, through abolition of the family, would have profound effects: sexuality would be released from its straitjacket to eroticize our whole culture, changing its very definition.
--- Post automerged ---
@Cobalt
--- Post automerged ---
A book on radical feminism that did not deal with love would be a political failure. For love, perhaps even more than child-bearing, is the pivot of women’s oppression today. I realize this has frightening implications: do we want to get rid of love?

The panic felt at any threat to love is a good clue to its political significance. Another sign that love is central to any analysis of women or sex psychology is its omission from culture itself, its relegation to ‘personal life’. (And whoever heard of logic in the bedroom?) Yes, it is portrayed in novels, even metaphysics, but in them it is described, or better, re-created, not analysed. Love has never been understood, though it may have been fully experienced, and that experience communicated.

There is reason for this absence of analysis: women and love are underpinnings. Examine them and you threaten the very structure of culture.

The tired question ‘What were women doing while men created masterpieces?’ deserves more than the obvious reply: women were barred from culture, exploited in their role of mother. Or its reverse: women had no need for paintings since they created children. Love is tied to culture in much deeper ways than that. Men were thinking, writing, and creating, because women were pouring their energy into those men; women are not creating culture because they are preoccupied with love.

That women live for love and men for work is a truism. Freud was the first to attempt to ground this dichotomy in the individual psyche: the male child, sexually rejected by the first person in his attention, his mother, ‘sublimates’ his ‘libido’ – his reservoir of sexual (life) energies – into long-term projects, in the hope of gaining love in a more generalized form; thus he displaces his need for love into a need for recognition. This process does not occur as much in the female: most women never stop seeking direct warmth and approval.

There is also much truth in the clichés that ‘behind every man there is a woman’, and that ‘women are the power behind [read: voltage in] the throne’. (Male) Culture was built on the love of women, and at their expense. Women provided the substance of those male masterpieces; and for millennia they have done the work, and suffered the costs, of one-way emotional relationships the benefits of which went to men and to the work of men. So if women are a parasitical class living off, and at the margins of, the male economy, the reverse too is true: (male) culture is parasitical, feeding on the emotional strength of women without reciprocity.

Moreover, we tend to forget that this culture is not universal, but rather sectarian, presenting only half the spectrum of experience. The very structure of culture itself, as we shall see, is saturated with the sexual polarity, as well as being in every degree run by, for, and in the interests of male society. But while the male half is termed all of culture, men have not forgotten there is a female ‘emotional’ half: they live it on the sly. As the result of their battle to reject the female in themselves (the Oedipus Complex as we have explained it) they are unable to take love seriously as a cultural matter; but they can’t do without it altogether. Love is the underbelly of (male) culture just as love is the weak spot of every man, bent on proving his virility in that large male world of ‘travel and adventure’. Women have always known how men need love, and how they deny this need. Perhaps this explains the peculiar contempt women so universally feel for men (‘men are so dumb’), for they can see their men are posturing in the outside world.

 

Hi vaimes.
You're not giving me a world to consider.

 

???

the world is shadow/Gemma/Asmo

did you read my flailing

 

A Story of Stolen Salamis

My son’s Italian landlord in Brooklyn kept a shed out back in which he cured and smoked salamis. One night, in the midst of a wave of petty vandalism and theft, the shed was broken into and the salamis were taken. My son talked to his landlord about it the next day, commiserating over the vanished sausages. The landlord was resigned and philosophical, but corrected him: “They were not sausages. They were salamis.” Then the incident was written up in one of the city’s more prominent magazines as an amusing and colorful urban incident. In the article, the reporter called the stolen goods “sausages.” My son showed the article to his landlord, who hadn’t known about it. The landlord was interested and pleased that the magazine had seen fit to report the incident, but he added: “They weren’t sausages. They were salamis.”
--- Post automerged ---
The dog is gone. We miss him. When the doorbell rings, no one barks. When we come home late, there is no one waiting for us. We still find his white hairs here and there around the house and on our clothes. We pick them up. We should throw them away. But they are all we have left of him. We don’t throw them away. We have a wild hope—if only we collect enough of them, we will be able to put the dog back together again.
--- Post automerged ---
On Wednesday mornings early there is always a racket out there on the road. It wakes me up and I always wonder what it is. It is always the trash collection truck picking up the trash. The truck comes every Wednesday morning early. It always wakes me up. I always wonder what it is.

 

No, I mean, why not put you first?

Like, in the world where the coven is Vaimes/Gemma/shadow, they had a soup list last night that started with dC as the Judge, and had you as the Clown second. That was a legitimate attempt to soup you.

They were guessing on your role; I'm sure they caught your soft or whatever, but it was a guess. Whereas dC and I were claimed. So if they wanted to take a /guess/, why weren't you first?

If the first match on soup misses, the witch isn't outed, we would have just gotten "a witch tried to soup Asmo as the Clown, but failed!" as the message last night.

It's 6 alive right now, which means with an extra two deaths, you and me, we'd be at 4 alive and parity, gemma Vaimes vs. Cobalt tom, witches win.

So... you being second kinda makes no sense, in that world?

Either you should have been first, since you were the guess, and if they were wrong they didn't out, or you should have been third+, after me and dC, to get the max number of kills if they were going to risk being outed.

 

--- Post automerged ---
Now that I have been here for a little while, I can say with confidence that I have never been here before.

 

How does souping witch!Asmo and outing Gemma make you look like Gemma's partner?
--- Post automerged ---

I don't think this super matters?

Like, 6 alive right now. In the you!town world, if we lynch you and you haven't claimed, it's 5 alive going into the night, I can get souped by Asmo, 4 alive in the morning, 2-2 parity game over.

Best I can tell, the game comes down to you vs. Asmo today, we either hit the witch in you two or we lose.

 

Brief Incident in Short a, Long a, and Schwa

Cat, gray tabby, calm, watches large black ant. Man, rapt, stands staring at cat and ant. Ant advances along path. Ant halts, baffled. Ant backtracks fast—straight at cat. Cat, alarmed, backs away. Man, standing, staring, laughs. Ant changes path again. Cat, calm again, watches again.

 

If Asmo is a witch, assuming Angels didn't fuck up and protect 2 non-me people in a row without getting a save to out a role, then witches knew fonti's role, could make an educated guess about Jarizok, but didn't know Waco or Stanari. They also shouldn't know Cobalt, tom, and Vaimes's roles.

So in that context, the play Asmo/Gemma are making here relies on both Oracle being 100% dead (if it happened to be on someone I greenchecked, game over), and the Leeroy not being the person he was going to have to thunderdome (i.e. whoever I didn't check toNight). and me not just checking Asmo himself and Gemma and him being outed in one fell swoop.

I mean, lolwitches and everything, but that seems pretty far-fetched.

 

Contingency (vs. Necessity)

He could be our dog.
But he is not our dog.
So he barks at us.

On Vacation.

He could be my husband.
But he is not my husband.
He is her husband.
And so he takes her picture (not mine) as she stands in her flowered beach outfit in front of the old fortress.

 

Think having slept on it I'm leaning towards it being Vaimes here.

In which case, that was you free one.

Also what the /fuck/ with those night actions man?
--- Post automerged ---
*your
--- Post automerged ---
Can someone throw up a Vaimes postcount D1-D2-D3?
--- Post automerged ---
God damn this forum needs multi-ISO. I want to throw up Vaimes-shadow-Gemma-Asmo posts in isolation with each other and the fact that it's not as easy as clicking a dropdown menu is honestly just the worst.