EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
I know what you're here for. What's his bias? Politically I at least like to think of myself as a true moderate, maybe (in US context) slightly naturally right-leaning but currently politically left-leaning if I had to be more specific.
User ID: 1043
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
2d ago
I think my reading of a biography left me with the vague impression of: great conceptual thinker, somewhat bad at math but definitely not dreadful, mostly lives up to the hype in terms of the ideas but definitely not a super-renaissance man of science.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
2d ago
I liked Isaacson's all right. But personally I found far more interesting, despite its occasional dry bits, The Making of the Atomic Bomb which actually explained all the physics and stuff along the way alongside the physical challenge plus a side of the political as well. It basically gave mini-biographies of a ton of the players along the way.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
2d ago
The law of averages doesn't dictate how extreme these clusters are, though, and only loosely bounds how big they can be. Theoretically, all skills could be heavily right-tailed and so extremely large groups could lie within close range of the median person (in all areas, which is definitely what most people mean when they say "average", they don't mean a literal arithmetic average).
Of course, there's a utility aspect to it too. Even if we were to grant that your thesis were true, there's the weird human psychology thing where telling people it's true can have certain self-fulfilling prophesy effects, although their extremity is debated. Motivation is weird.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
2d ago
I was real excited about an education post, but I'm finding this a bit incoherent.
Kids lack any internal or external motivation to learn, discipline is basically forbidden, and any mark under 85 is cause for meetings and interventions and BS special ed plans. Many teachers don't think this is a problem
Are you an educational determinist? Can a somewhat-stupid student earn good grades? Should they? If so, how? Say nothing about the ridiculous assertion that many teachers somehow don't care about their students learning. I'd say rather than them not caring, teachers have been taught tools that don't work very well and gaslit into believing that they do. See: "inquiry-based learning" and its plague on math. Most observers around here claim that the real problem is disconnected parents, so it's strange to see that you seem to be claiming that the real problem is that the parents are too connected to modern educational trends.
So either the upper class families are fortunate enough to have the means to ensure their kids get the help they need while less affluent students are struggling unassisted, or they're gaming the system to inflate their marks when the most common grade is already A. You know in your heart which one it is.
Obviously both are true...? You know better than to use this strawman/false dichotomy.
The "best work" that this system produces is never good- work expands to fill the time allotted, so if you were going to write a C+ essay in an hour, and now you have two hours, it now takes you twice as long to be just as mediocre.
So is extra time unfair? Or merely a poor use of time-resources? I'm willing to buy the latter, but you aren't doing anything to justify the former. Under this stated opinion, extra time "should" be useless, long-term. I think that's your point, that head-burying is more trendy and desirable than black-and-white analysis and accurate grades, and it's certainly true that grade inflation has accompanies lowering state test scores relative to some previous cadres (although IIRC the data isn't super compelling so far that this recent mini-generation is, say, worse off educationally than those of the 80's, but I haven't dug that deep) but claiming that extra time doesn't produce better work is a little misguided. It objectively does. Better scores at least, for certain, in many if not most cases.
Modern neuroscience seems to be suggesting that kids actually all learn in similarly optimal ways but at different rates, and sometimes this is true on a per-subject basis too. If true, this actually, ironically even, suggests that "extra time" in fact be the better solution. A solution best paired with differentiated instruction of the truest type: leveling and creating tiered classes that move at different speeds.
To say nothing about intrinsic or external learning motivation. As far as I can tell, this is mostly a mystery still to everyone including the neuroscientists. All we really know for sure is that there's a lot of wisdom to the general idea that people rise or fall to the level of the expectations put on them. And that includes self-expectations. As a matter of fact, identity is a major driver of human behavior. I think you're insisting that this is a fragile foundation, but I don't think that's a widely supported view. Rather, most experts seem to think that rather than kick against the pricks, it's better simply to focus on which aspects of self-identity are most useful and least problematic.
At any rate, I require some clarification:
-
Are tests useless or accurate measures of student learning? How entangled are these scores with raw talent?
-
How involved and/or harmful are parents' efforts at the moment? Are most too engaged in the wrong ways, or unengaged entirely, or what?
-
Do teachers (and/or administrators) care about learning, or just about the day-care aspects of stuff? Do they even care about that?
-
Are wealthy, non-stupid recipients of accommodations actually hurting themselves, or is such hurt limited to vague psychological hypotheses of yours? Why should we care if so? Or is everyone being hurt, via some unspecified coddling (presumably 'good unearned grades')?
-
What do you actually want to see from schooling? Better inculcated mindsets? Civic mindedness? Raw educational attainment? Good test scores? College preparedness? Career aptitude? Plenty of options, or fewer but more-reliable options?
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3d ago
It’s totally possible and I’d posit even likely that the Economist, rather than “not knowing economics”, subscribes to a particular school of economics, and at the same time doesn’t care to explain economics. After all, the vibe the magazine cultivates is that everyone reading it is a metropolitan genius. Those are both good explanations of why the article is light on root-cause explanations (and Fannie and Freddie are indeed mentioned very specifically!)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
4d ago
What you fail to understand, though forgivably, is that the Economist is not an economics paper for a regular person’s idea of the economy. It’s for a certain brand of finance person with international and political awareness interests.
To you and I, normally, mortgages are mostly about houses. It’s about the chance of default, about rates, and about the first degree effects. The Economist occasionally talks about this stuff. But usually, this is not actually the most interesting part about mortgages. The interesting bit about them in our modern financial system is that they are pools of presumably predictable risk, and since large scale finance is all about allocation and dynamics of risk, mortgages play a key role as a counterbalance, hedge, collateral, stress test statistic for banks, etc all rolled into one. That is, second order effects to be a little lazy about it. As just one example, all big banks have strict liquidity ratios that they are mandated to carry to pass the “stress tests”, and mortgages are a big part of that. I think you’re missing this context entirely. Mortgages backstop much of the risk pool of the lending activity of big banks.
The entire point of the article is that there is a such thing as too-safe mortgages, when taken in aggregate, in terms of their role as a risk sink in the broader financially engineered world of banks. This is a legitimate concern, systemically speaking. It’s also pointing out that traditional turnover rates on housing are way undershot due to a combination of hitherto unusual levels of inflation, excess bank loan skepticism, and this has acted as a subtle brake on home building. That last point is an arguable thesis, but it’s a commonly made one.
Homes aren’t purely about supply and demand even if that’s a huge part of it. There are hidden background regulatory pressures that have a stochastic effect on mortgage offers. The financial market historically “expects” a certain ratio of subprime applicants, and hasn’t been getting it, so it’s been throwing a few wrenches into the cogs.
One side effect of this state of affairs by the way is that the big banks instead of doing the riskier lending themselves now lend money to private equity which then does the riskier lending. Some people think this is bad. One solution is to undo Dodd-Frank, and indeed some people want to, but many others feel like that’s worse (the liquidity rules are there for a reason and a collapse of private equity funds is potentially less bad than a collapse of the main banks themselves).
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
4d ago
If you drug the President against his will, that’s obviously a crime. And I’m quite skeptical you could get away with it as a premeditated act. It’s really no different than people who worry about the President getting personally blackmailed - yes, it’s technically a risk, maybe even a real one, but it’s a crime that stands on its own, not one we need to try and catch in the second degree
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
7d ago
It's about the FOV ratio if we're being pedantic. Some napkin math suggests that a typical smartphone matches a 55"-ish TV in its angular size, so a small TV is going to be objectively worse unless you're seated very close.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
7d ago
The problem is that (long-term) historically speaking the big human prosperity question of "can you reliably feed your family now and in the medium future" was the benchmark, occasionally missed entirely, and that has ceased to be relevant for quite a while now. So any other measure is in some sense 'unnatural' and artificial.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
7d ago
If we're talking historical precedent, presidents and their close circles have played fast and loose with the 'rules' (which aren't actually codified really) for literal decades, which to me again says that if something is done against their will, it's on them personally to reverse it. For example, FDR somewhat infamously had tons of stuff done by his wife in his name, as just a baseline example.
In that light, Biden and Autopen modern criticism is a pairing that looks a lot like the famous isolated demand for rigor.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
7d ago
What would that prove? Paperwork is paperwork.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
7d ago
The complicating issue is that many presidents do the "what? what? I don't know what you're talking about" all the time - Trump himself (low hanging X tweet video in question) literally within the last few days pulled it himself, and also has a history of this kind of thing as a tactical pseudo-deniability measure (I have lost track of the number of people who are wonderful friends one day, and the next year once they do something bad are suddenly suck-up hanger-ons that he 'barely knows'). It's taking advantage of and leveraging any wiggle room/benefit of the doubt in your political favor.
So there's personal judgement which is one thing - we can judge ourselves which are 'legit' and which are deliberate all we'd like in the political arena - but legal judgements are a totally different thing with totally different standards.
Presumably, in my opinion, if a president doesn't agree with the use of the pen by his office, it's incumbent on the president himself to correct it. And if he doesn't, then it's presumed legit. I'm not a fan of successive presidents attempting to reverse engineer intent and state of mind, and on a practical level of course we seem to all agree it's a bad precedent and hard to administer fairly.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
21d ago
Another Friday game rec:
StarVaders is a great, well-paced, slick, and interesting follow-up in the 'rougelike deckbuilder' genre. I'd put it in the "A" tier with Astrea: Six-Sided Oracle and Monster Train (S tier being: Slay the Spire, Inscryption, Balatro half-qualifies genre-wise). The fun twist here being that instead of 1-3 enemies with bigger health bars, here you get a lot of smaller enemies slowly making their way down a grid towards you, Space Invaders style. You "pilot" a mech and the cards move you and shoot stuff along with the classic hand and energy management. It works really well, bosses are fun and interesting, and the game has different pilots and mechs with very interesting new mechanics (e.g. one you "puppet" self-destructible mini-mechs instead) with a good progression curve that is challenging but not quite as brutal achievement-hunting as some other games like it. Of note is how this game actively encourages you to set up disgusting near-infinite combos, and you can get them going a little earlier than usual, which is plenty of fun. Notably, you can get "hit" by enemy attacks, but instead of damage directly causing you to lose, it only adds a garbage temp card to your deck, which is a good balance. Rather, enemies who make their way down to the bottom three rows "channel" a doom point, which you are only allowed 5. Also, single-turn rewind is a nice spin on the concept: you only have three, but they also shuffle your deck, just not the field position, and you can equally use them to re-roll almost anything: any rewards, which route options are available to you, etc. The UI is excellent (often a pain point in games like this, so much appreciated), the music is great without overstaying, just a solid rec if you like the genre. If you haven't tried this kind of game, Slay the Spire is still the entry point IMO.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
25d ago
Not guaranteed, but I think the manner in which the Dem response bill comes together is going to be highly informative about how the Dem dynamics are going to look for the next year or so.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
25d ago
I think a ban was/would be perfectly appropriate
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
26d ago
Because Dems don’t truly believe the bill will pass, they won’t feel as much a need to write a perfect bill, because its purpose is not to become law, but to be a PR cudgel. It’s a paradigm shift that matters. At least in theory. Some Dems still feel burned by the “Green New Deal” bill, so precedent exists, I’ll grant you that (that was a House effort though, and those congressmen are much less realists than senators). There’s also the weird but technically-possible scenario that the bill actually passes with the centrist Dems in the driver’s seat, but I don’t think Schumer has the leverage to pull it off.
So we’re left with the most likely scenario that I outlined above. Again, it’s a canny move and you can’t take current denunciations about it at face value. It won’t cause true infighting. Just a bit of jockeying.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
26d ago
Tell me how you really feel, Dan /s
No one has to die for it to be a crisis. You’re projecting. Lawmakers are unusually sensitive to grumpy people around Christmas. That’s all that’s required. People usually have semi-short memories when it comes to politics, but if Christmas and Thanksgiving are “ruined”? That sticks. Next year people will remember, and the vibe shift is potent. SNAP affects almost 1 in 8 people - you’re completely correct that blindly accepting that number is an overestimate, but stack it with the 1 in 14 people who fly during Christmas break, a shutdown past December 1st would cause another 1 in 7 adults to go without paychecks… these things stack up, and hit different segments of the population, not purely the poor. Many Americans if they miss a paycheck are OK, but discretionary spending IS sensitive to that stuff. Smaller Christmas gifts potentially (sudden back pay might even more than counterbalance this of course).
And that’s not even going into the vibes. People tend to view shutdowns as Congress not doing its job. That creates bitterness, since they can go “well I am working 50 hour weeks, and they are twiddling their thumbs playing blame games”, and that’s a bit of betrayal - a potent emotion that you have to be sensitive to. (Democrats aren’t immune from this either, of course, it’s possible constituents blame them, even if I think it’s not super likely to be a durable feeling)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
26d ago
Well crap, I could have sworn I saved some links but apparently not. I do have these from a blog that has a whole section on replication more generally as well as a "file-drawer" section too. Some good reads there.
I would strongly recommend reading the original Ioannidis paper at a minimum to get an idea for not just what started it all, but some of the most prominent arguments from the beginning. Also, there are a plethora of response articles and counter-responses that can also be read.
It's important to also realize that "replication crisis" has a few different meanings. One the one hand, historically and sociologically, "science" reached a broad point where people "realized" that they had to take replication failures seriously. Ever since that "crisis", we've seen a much higher awareness of the issues, as well as a bit of institutional action.
But then statistically and more precisely, the crisis can refer to a few interrelated but still distinct phenomena. You've got the "file drawer problem" and "publication bias", you've got outright fraud and faking data, you've got "p-hacking" and fishing expeditions, you've also got lackluster published methodological info that makes faithful replications impossible, you've got generalization across culture issues along with sample problems (more men than women, too many college students), lack of money for properly-powered large-sample tests, etc.
There's also a distinction between exact replication, and conceptual replication. Famously in the psychological sciences, they got an extra-big black eye because an astonishing number of famous psych studies, where the author would go on to write books and achieve wide fame and give speeches, showed to conceptually be completely bunk in real life. Power poses, shopping while hungry, finite willpower, marshmellow test, certain types of priming, Standford Prison, Mozart, implicit racial bias tests, type A and type B people, all of these have reached cult pop status and nearly all of them were misrepresented or failed to actually have the real-world implications people were told to expect.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
26d ago
I've seen it called "triangulation" before, when you bring a third party into an unrelated matter more generally.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
26d ago
Here's my take, feel free to disregard though.
-
For spending the rest of your lives together, living closer seems to me like an absolute mandatory requirement. Talk about the emotional costs of the current arrangement. Hopefully you can both get on the same page about this. I think the instinct to wait a bit for the conversation is a good one. When you do have it, though, I think there should be at least a little sense of urgency. Ask good questions.
-
Frame the conversation. Moving closer, or ideally in together, will require sacrifices and compromises. Just say it like that: we're going to have to make some sacrifices and tradeoffs to make this thing happen and invest in our future, so what, concretely, would you be willing to sacrifice to make it happen? Ask her for if not specifics, then at least the sketch of it. Give her time to ponder if needed. And volunteer some things that you yourself would sacrifice.
-
On a practical note, if you do move, exposure. Consider slowly easing in to the new living arrangement if possible, rather than make it a giant and abrupt move. Assuming you find a place, practice going shopping nearby, visiting restaurants, taking busses. Go together and alone. Figure out or try to preview some of the social changes that might happen. At least as far as I'm aware, the idea is usually to convince your brain and subconscious that the change is safe. Don't just argue with it, show it the safety. I don't want to oversell this armchair psycho though, because it seems you already have a therapist. Although, it may be worth trying a different one? Sometimes a slightly different personality or therapeutic approach can be helpful.
-
No one is actually a mind-reader, even in long-term stable and fulfilling relationships. Explore this and see if you can find where this might be the case, because everyone acts like they are anyways. Is her perception of what your are feeling accurate? Is your perception of what she is feeling accurate? Obviously, at least in some major ways, the second is not true. I'm sure the first also might not be super true. Make things a little more explicit, which circles back to my "ask good questions". This is where therapy-like resources can be helpful. I hesitate to frame it that way, but there are plenty of good resources that can really help to make those big conversations go better. There are various "lists of questions" that can be good: stuff like "what does a win-win look like", "what's your ideal outcome and what values of yours drive that", "how can we best support each other in the decision process", etc. Feelings > facts, honestly. The nitty-gritty can come later once you're closer to the same page. A staggering number of relationship issues stem from communication challenges.
-
Try to both make an effort to be honest about how strongly you feel about stuff. Hell, even put a number to it if you must. The temptation is to sugar-coat the feelings, but long-term that's not very effective. The feelings come out eventually.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
26d ago
Believing the Dems are a monolith is a huge error in thinking, and one you should be ashamed of making truth be told. Comment is just pure boo outgroup. There is no universal DNC messaging anyways, even in an ideal world, because that org is currently led by an idiot who thinks internal democracy survival of the fittest will lead automatically to strong electorally-viable ideas. Which is obviously wrong/insufficient.
None of the 8 aisle crossers are up for reelection. As I point out in my comment above, punting to another shutdown in 3 months is also going to be a Republican-blamed shutdown. Polls and history have consistently shown that the party in power always receives more blame, regardless of messaging, so that’s where the inertia lies. And will continue to lie, most likely.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
26d ago
It’s worth noting that a full Christmas SNAP crisis would be a major escalation. I realize some think the Dems should abandon “traditional politics”, but others think that the alienation and loss of trust that big of a move would cause could created some terrible effects. Like another Trump could rise, just as easily as the Dems could get a Trump of their own. A lot aren’t willing to risk that brave new world.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
26d ago
So, the critical part here is that the GOP promised a vote on a healthcare bill of the Democrats’ choosing. That’s actually a big, big deal. Usually, the minority party is victim to “gotcha votes”, where bills are written so voting no looks bad and generates material for campaign mailers. This lets the Dems pull a rare Uno Reverse and get one of their own. It means that the Democrats are banking heavily on a blue wave midterm, where the shutdown will be old news and not as impactful, but putting the GOP in a vise could pay lasting dividends - they can point to a more recent, perfectly set up vote where the GOP allows healthcare premiums to spike massively with a no vote, not just inaction. (Yes, this vote is only promised in the Senate, but that’s the biggest juice the Dems want, and the House margins are thin enough that it could theoretically still pass there)
Don't read too much into big potential-candidate name panning the deal. They have to do that. It’s free for them. It allows face saving. And if a shutdown created even more holiday travel chaos, all incumbents would have suffered.
Also health care costs going up is still ultimately going to be attributed to the party in charge. We are already seeing this in action - Trump is out there claiming that costs are down for average Americans, and people aren’t buying it. He’s sounding more and more like a traditional politician and that will hurt him.
Also, the Dems got promises for back pay and rehiring of fired workers. That wasn’t at all a given! Even more, certain specific agencies will shut down again potentially in January - well, most honestly. All but the FDA, Ag, VA, part military, that’s not many. So most will shut down again and that will happen closer to midterm primaries.
This is definitely a tactical win for Democrats.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1mo ago
First of all, I get you on at least some level. The personal side of me notices that there have been times even within the last few years where quite literally I am only alive because I didn't want to inflict suffering on my family and friends. And honestly I think that's a totally fine and complete reason to keep existing. I'm not sure your exact situation, but hopefully something similar applies.
The religious/more generalized-spiritual side of me says that you should spend some time helping others if you have nothing to be thankful for. Literally and physically volunteer. Despite its spiritual roots, I'm pretty sure this is a quite practical suggestion as well. Pessimistically, say we agree with your claim that you enjoy quite literally nothing and are quite literally miserable 24/7... you can still find a degree of purpose by helping others, which is real.
(On that note, I'd suggest - though I haven't personally read yet - Man's Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl, which might jive with your situation a bit.)
The heartless statistics side of me says that regular exercise is quite literally just as if not more effective than meds or therapy, so... do that. Stupid, annoying, but clearly works. It's almost literally the most durable scientific finding in all of depression research, despite being one of the hardest to do for obvious reasons (it may be useful to recruit someone to bully you into it, or do it with you - be vulnerable and ask). The statistics of these kinds of states are weird - for example, I intellectually know, it's an established fact, that if I don't get enough sleep, I get extremely depressed at night before bed. That knowledge doesn't quite help in that actual moment, not a ton, but that does slightly help me frame what's "real" properly.
The more neuroscience/quirky side of me suggests that you break out of mental ruts in a deliberate way. For example, I was also recently recommended, of all things, a book called Impro, a set of essays about improv, but as a life-outlook kind of book. One exercise therein is silly but I do believe it "works": Simply spend a few minutes walking around the room and shouting out loud the wrong names for things. Allegedly, this can help you experience the world more vividly for a few moments. I'm not sure that particular exercise is of value to you, but the general concept of "do something deliberately weird or crazy" might be. Frame things differently, and be a little extreme about it. How this might manifest for you? Do something extremely quirky or way outside the norm as a birthday activity. Show up at a local coffee shop and start complimenting strangers. Go to the bank, withdraw a ton of single dollar bills, and give them away to people. Dress up for some banal errands. That kind of thing.
I think what you're missing is that leftists genuinely do put Jews and Israelis in different mental buckets. And, leftists are also very comfortable with the general idea that regular otherwise-good people can be guilty of very-bad apologia. Thus, Zionists and those gullible enough to defend Zionists, even Zionist public opinion manipulators, can be real and bad people without there ever being a whiff of "and also BTW they control the world". Or at least, the Jews specifically controlling the world. "Billionaires" writ broadly and never defined well are assumed to have large de facto control already, so that idea isn't even too weird. And remember, since good people can be manipulated into apologia, it's very easy to motte and bailey most misspoken utterances - ironically, sometimes quite easy to claim.
As such, you usually need to say something pretty explicitly like "Jews control the world" and not merely two adjacent sentences of "Zionists control a lot of the media" and "Billionaires control the world" or even "A lot of Zionists have a lot of money". It's only "Jews control the world" where they go, wait, that's antisemitic. Even Jews have a lot of money jokes are somewhat diluted in effect because too many (often rich, left-wing) Jews made the jokes about themselves.
Thus: Zionists and Jews and Israelis are indeed different mental buckets. No, it doesn't make a ton of sense, but yes, it's a real and widespread perception.
More options
Context Copy link