I am delighted that you chimed in here; these are pleasingly composed and increase my desire to read the relevant sequences. Your post makes me feel like I meaningfully contributed to the improvement of these sequences by merely asking a potentially dumb question in public, which is the internet at its very best.
Artistically, I think the top (fox face) image for lotteries cropped for its bottom 2/3 would be slightly preferable to the other, and the bottom (monochrome white/blue) for geometric makes a nicer banner in the aspect ratio that they're shown as.
More concrete than your actual question, but there's a couple options you can take:
acknowledge that there's a form of social truth whereby the things people insist upon believing are functionally true. For instance, there may be no absolute moral value to criticism of a particular leader, but in certain countries the social system creates a very unambiguous negative value to it. Stick to the observable -- if he does an experiment, replicate that experiment for yourself and share the results. If you get different results, examine why. IMO, attempting in good faith to replicate whatever experiments have convinced him that the world works differently from how he previously thought would be the best steelman for someone framing religion as rationalism.
There is of course the "which bible?" question. Irrefutable proof of the veracity of the old testament, if someone had it, wouldn't answer the question of which modern religion incorporating it is "most correct".
It's entirely valid and consistent with rationalism to have the personal preference to not accept any document as fully and literally true. If you can gently find out how he handles the internal contradictions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible), you've got a ready-made argument for taking some things figuratively.
And as unsolicited social advice, distinct from the questions of rationalism -- don't strawman him into someone who criticizes your atheism until he as an actual human tells you what if any actual critiques he has. That's not nice. What is nice is to frame it as a harm reduction option, because organized religion can be great for some people with mental health struggles, and tell him the truth about what you see in his current behavior that you like and support. For instance if his church gets him more involved with the community, or encourages him to do more healthy behaviors or less unhealthy ones, maintain common ground by endorsing the outcomes of his beliefs rather than endorsing the beliefs themselves.
Welcome! If you have the emotional capacity to happily tolerate being disagreed with or ignored, you should absolutely participate in discussions. In the best case, you teach others something they didn't know before, or get a misconception of your own corrected. In the worst case, your remarks are downvoted or ignored.
Your question on games would do well fleshed out into at least a quick take, if not a whole post, answering:
If you've tried a lot of things and disliked most, then good clear descriptions of what you dislike about them can actually function as helpful positive recommendations for people with different preferences.
Can random people donate images for the sequence-items that are missing them, or can images only be provided by the authors? I notice that I am surprised that some sequences are missing out on being listed just because images weren't uploaded, considering that I don't recall having experienced other sequences' art as particularly transformative or essential.
Congratulations! I'm in today's lucky 10,000 for learning that Asymptote exists. Perhaps due to my not being much of a mathematician, I didn't understand it very clearly from the README... but the examples comparing code to its output make sense! Comparing your examples to the kind of things Asymptote likes to show off (https://asymptote.sourceforge.io/gallery/), I see why you might have needed to build the additional tooling.
I don't think you necessarily have to compare smoothmanifold to a JavaScript framework to get the point across -- it seems to be an abstraction layer that allows one to describe a drawn image in slightly more general terms than Asymptote supports.
I admire how you're investing so much effort to use your talents to help others.
hey, welcome! Congrats on de-lurking, I think? I fondly remember my own teenage years of lurking online -- one certainly learns a lot about the human condition.
If I was sending my 14-year-old self a time capsule of LW, it'd start with the sequences, and beyond that I'd emphasize the writings of adults examining how their own cognition works. Two reasons -- first, being aware that one is living in a brain as it finishes wiring itself together is super entertaining if you're into that kind of thing, and even more fun when you have better data to guess how it's going to end up. (I got the gist of that from having well-educated and openminded parents, who explained that it's prudent to hold off on recreational drug use until one's brain is entirely done with being a kid, because most recreational substances make one's brain temporarily more childlike in some way and the real thing is better. Now I'm in my 30s and can confirm that's how such things, including alcohol, have worked for me)
Second, my 20s would have been much better if someone had taken kid-me aside and explained some neurodiversity stuff to her: "here's the range of normal, here's the degree of suffering that's not expected nor normal and is worth consulting a professional for even if you're managing through great effort to keep it together", etc.
If you'd like to capitalize on your age for some free internet karma, I would personally enjoy reading your thoughts on what your peers think of technology, how they get their information, and how you're all updating the language at the moment.
I also wish that my 14-year-old self had paid more attention to the musical trends and attempted to guess which music that was popular while I was of highschool age would stand the test of time and remain on the radio over the subsequent decades. In retrospect, I'm pretty sure I could probably have taken some decent guesses, but I didn't so now I'll never know whether I would have guessed right :)
I hear you, describing how weird social norms in the world can be. I hear you describing how you followed those norms to show consideration for readers by dressing up a very terrible situation as a slightly less bad one. In social settings where people both know who you are and are compelled by the circumstances to listen to what you say, that's still the right way to go about it.
The rudeness of taking peoples' time is very real in person, where a listener is socially "forced" to invest time in listening or effort in escaping the conversation. But posts online are different: especially when you lack the social capital of "this post is by someone I know I often like reading, so I should read it to see what they say", readers should feel no obligation to read your whole post, nor to reply, if they don't want to. When you're brand new to a community, readers can easily dismiss your post as a bot or scammer and simply ignore it, so you have done them no harm in the way that consuming someone's time in person harms them. A few trolls may choose to read your post and then pretend you forced them to do so, but anyone who behaves like that is inherently outing themself as someone whose opinions about you don't deserve much regard. (and then you get some randos who like how you write and decide to be micro-penpals... hi there!)
However, there's another option for how to approach this kind of thing online. You can spin up an anonymous throwaway and play the "asking for a friend" game -- take the option of direct help or directly contacting the "actual person" off the table, and you've ruled out being a gofundme scam. Sometimes asking on behalf of a fictional person whose circumstances happen to be more like the specifics of your own than you would disclose in public gets far better answers.
For instance, if the fictional person had a car problem involving a specific model year of vehicle and a specific insurance company, the internet may point out that there's a recall on some part of that particular car and you have the manufacturer as a recourse, or they may offer a specific number that gets you a customer complaint line that's actually responsive at the insurance company. If the fictional person had a highly specific medical condition, there may be a new treatment with studies that you have to know to ask to get into, and the internet may be able to offer that information.
At this point, I don't think it would be wise for someone in your situation to do a throwaway account on lesswrong in particular. However, I would seriously consider using several separate throwaways and asking about various facets of the details on the relevant subreddits. Reddit will get you a lot of chaff in the replies, but if you're sifting the internet for novel ideas, it's also a good way to query the hivemind for kernels of utility as well.
All that is to say, part of your search for insight and ideas should probably involve carving up the aspects of the situation that you cannot justify sharing here into pieces that you can justify sharing elsewhere, and pursue those lines of inquiry. Those topics contain potential insight that cannot be found under the circumstances you've created here, and that's ok -- I just want to make sure not to endorse leaving them un-explored.
Ah, so you have skill and a portfolio in writing. You have the cognitive infrastructure to support using the language as art. That infrastructure itself is what you should be trying to rent to tech companies -- not the art it's capable of producing.
If the art part of writing is out of reach for you right now, that's ok -- it's almost a benefit in this case, because if it's not around it can't feel left out if you turn to more pragmatic ends the skills you used to celebrate it with.
Normally I wouldn't suggest startups, because they're so risky/uncertain... but in a situation as precarious as yours, it's no worse to see who's looking for writers on a startup-flavored site like https://news.ycombinator.com/jobs.
And finally, I'm taking the titular "severe emergency" to be the whole situation, because it sounds pretty dire. If there's a specific sub-emergency that drove you to ask -- a medical bill, a car breakdown -- there may be more-specific resources that folks haven't mentioned yet. (or if you've explained that in someone else's comment thread, i apologize for asking redundantly; i've not read your replies to others)
"Minimize excessive UV exposure" is the steelman to the pro-sunscreen arguments. The evidence against tanning beds demonstrates that excess UV is almost certainly harmful.
I think where the pro-sunscreen arguments go wrong is in assuming that sunscreen is the best or only way to minimize excess UV.
I personally don't have what it takes to use sunscreen "correctly" (apply every day, "reapply every 2 hours", tolerate the sensory experience of smearing anything on my face every day, etc) so I mitigate UV exposure in other ways:
I notice that I am confused: an image of lily pads appears on https://www.lesswrong.com/s/XJBaPPEYAPeDzuAsy when I load it, but when I expand all community sequences on https://www.lesswrong.com/library (a show-all button might be nice....) and search the string "physical" or "necessity" on that page, I do not see the post appearing. This seems odd, because I'd expect that having a non-default image display when the sequence's homepage is loaded and having a good enough image to appear in the list should be the same condition, but it seems they aren't identical for that one.