Have uncountably many marketable skills

This isn't about skill at all. It's not even that I have any notion of what it means to understand things, I'm just going off of what other people have said. If I'm to believe others about their skill levels and I'm to trust their ability to judge my skills, then I have a ridiculous ability to "understand" things. Except for confusion I *seem* to understand everything to every arbitrary degree of specificity. I can't argue that I'll never encounter something I can never understand, nor that I've studied enough to know if such a thing exists as a subset of all knowledge, but that this far in my life it hasn't happened to me yet.

>uncountably many marketable skills

That seems like quite a lot.

Then why can't you understand that you're a delusional idiot?

Op, can you rephrase the post, it makes no sense.

Understand it how? At face value? Sure, I can see that being the case. Most times I consider it more probable than all the other explanations.

But when I admit it's possible, people go silent. I can't get any further data. It tends to stump people when I exhibit a willingness to consider that claim.

So: On what level am I supposed to understand it? Am I supposed to meditate on it and try to integrate a deep understanding of it? Am I supposed to search up and down my memories for weeks at a time, trying to find where I went wrong? Is this something I'm supposed to be able to magically fix once I become aware of it? Exactly what value is there in my processing the claim? If it's just to tell me to get help that I don't need then why even bother saying it? You obviously can't do a proper diagnosis from a dozen or so posts, so if you think there's some magical disability that I'm just not aware of, you have a hell of a burden of proof to deal with.

Probably, but it'd be easier if you explained which parts you didn't get and what you didn't get about them. This saves lots of time by giving other anons a chance to explain it so I don't have to. Crowdsource it; let someone aside from me help you understand what I said. I guarantee I'm not the only sample on Earth that comprehends the story.

m8 pull your head out your arse. You're not profound you're sad and annoying. People are very poor judges of who is smart and who isn't so going by them is idiotic.

Let's have a little test of how clever you actually are: how did you do in your last set of exams?

woah i hadn't seen tsumugi for a while

I've aced every exam, text, quiz, and skill measure that I've ever taken. I'm not ignoring criticisms and only telling you about what the dumbest people in that population thought of me, I'm telling you about an entirely unanimous result from all samples. You aren't part of the sample set because you have no knowledge of my whatsoever. I can easily measure the difference between your perception of the mind behind these quotes and your IRL perception of me by meeting you in person without telling you it was me that made this thread. Which result would you have me trust? Internet shitposter analysis or IRL face-to-face meeting? Which version of you do I trust?
Tsumugi was the only thing that felt like a real character.

>Internet shitposter analysis or IRL face-to-face meeting? Which version of you do I trust?
neither of them, retard.

and if you're so smart and aced every exam why are you shitposting on Veeky Forums rather than studying at MIT? not telling porky pies are ya?

also why don't you know shit about anything worth knowing? pathetic levels of understanding of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and economics make you out to be even more of a moron.

>rather than studying at MIT?
Did you not read the OP? It's kind of implied that participating in any component of the existing market would have catastrophic outcomes.

That's kind of the joke, you know?

>have marketable skill
>see the outcomes
>motivation lost

I dunno maybe it was too subtle. I avoided putting
>be me
at the top of the greentext because it wasn't relevant to the joke.

Thread is shit

You didn't need to bump to tell us that.

>uncountably many marketable skills
I assure you, they are not only finite but countable.

Unless you go full sperg and count "reading the alphabet" and "reading the alphabet slightly slower" as two different skills. Then they are infinite, but still countable.

>not only finite
!
>a challenger appears

On what basis do you quantify skills? Is there a reason to consider reading the alphabet a distinct skill from generalized symbol order recognition? Is it different from learning words? Notably so? Does it correlate to exact neural pathways that we can identify as separate? Fully generalized, wouldn't that just be "memory access"?

Anyway, reading the alphabet isn't a marketable skill. This was an economic argument from the very beginning. We quantify based on potential uses that might emerge in the modern world. You'll have a hell of a time quantifying enough values to say anything authoritative on that.

Its not a lot, its just dense.

You can label skills using a countable label, such as 'code in C++' and 'know linear algebra', thus its countably many skills, but in reality its forms a continuum of skills, some skills between the 2 mentioned would be 'can program method to solve linear equations in C++', by the diagonal argument you can show that there are uncountable many skills.

see
IDodd VILLAGE

The only people who have countable many skills, are the ones who have only 1 or 0 skills.

>The art of being yourself - Caroline McHugh
TEDx
dropped

This is false though. "Denseness" has nothing to do with it. The number of skills describable by the English language are countable, similar to how there are countably many rationals. You need way more than that to be uncountable.