Ioper
2mo ago
There are other art styles I would prefer but that looks tolerable to me. It could probably be improved a good bit just by improving the lighting.
Ioper
2mo ago
I agree with much of your post but the initial part isn't very convincing imo. There is a massive difference between being worried about the occasional famine and sitting in a trench that is pounded by artillery. The life of a substinence farmer isn't high stress, it's almost constant low mulling worry.
Is PTSD, especially c-pstd very overdiagnosed today? Absolutely! But it's also a real condition mostly associated with post Napoleonic frontline warfare, that isn't at all comparable to historic environmental or social stressors.
Maybe also explains why PTSD is a relatively modern phenomenon in warfare, or at least a hell of a lot more common than it used to be. If you'd had a sibling or two die in childhood and friends die in everyday violent altercations, then maybe a battle is less likely to traumatise you.
As I've understood it, PTSD isn't caused by single traumatic events as much as by prolonged periods of constant high stress, fear of death and feelings of helplessness. Those things really only started to happen during relatively modern warfare.
Pre-modern humans didn't get much "PTSD" because humans are well equipped to handle individual high stress and traumatic events, such as a melee, as long as there it's time limited and there is a feeling of control.
Ioper
2mo ago
"He just had a fever when he was young and was never the same when the fever went away". This is almost certainly from a preventable childhood disease that no longer exists in the modern world
Or it was something like encephalitis which only certain causes of which have vaccines. People regularly get TBE in the first world despite the existence of a vaccine.
Ioper
2mo ago
You're right. I got the right answer by accident and then started convincing myself my explanation was the right one.
Ioper
2mo ago
You're right, I got lost in my own example and convinced myself of my wrong intuition which was correct for the original amount of coins.
Ioper
2mo ago
You almost certainly did if there actually was a genuine round one, but there wasn't. It was defined that the coin drawn was gold.
Imagine it like this: you have three boxes but the game starts with the gameshow host walking up to a box, looking into it and picking out a gold coin. Does it matter how many silver coins there are?
No, it tells us nothing. The question is conditioned on a gold coin having been picked.
We didn't pick a box at random, the gameshow host did and revealed a gold coin.
We'll see but I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption that the pollsters would try to improve and trump voters would become less shy as support for him is normalised.
This is literally what happened in Sweden.
They dont matter because the question is conditioned on that we already picked a box with a gold coin.
The question is what the odds are that we picked the box with both gold and silver, given that we have a box with at least a gold coin in it. There is 1/3 with gold and silver, hence the probabilty of the second coin being gold is 2/3. You could increase the amount of silver coins by infinity and it wouldn't matter. You're picking boxes, not coins.
Ioper
2mo ago
But wouldn't that make you even less interested?
Bioware has not released a passable game in over 10 years, all the original or even senior writers have either left or been fired, the game has been rebooted twice with the leads fired, with EA taking more or less full control as well as cleaning house of experienced people after the lastest reboot and the trailers look atrocious.
This game being decent seems like it would be one of the greatest upsets and comebacks in gaming history.
Ioper
2mo ago
Because you know that you picked gold initially. The odds of the second coin being gold is the odds that you didn't pick 1/3 boxes with with both gold and silver coins, meaning 2/3. The only way the second coin isn't gold is that the initial choice was the box with both silver and gold coins in it, the number of silver coins in that box do not matter because of the precondition of having picked a gold coin.
Another factor is how much the "Shy Tory" effect still matters.
Polling institutes in Sweden have had pretty severe issues with the "shy Tory" effect the past few elections concerning SD, the anti-immigration populist mildly reactionary party, not the traditional right wing.
In the elections in 2010 and 2014 (first time they made it into the Parliament) they were pretty severely underestimated, by as much as 20-30% (easier when their total vote share is relatively small). The pollsters were heavily criticised and even accused of partisanship for this with many people asked how they could possibly have made such big errors and if their methods really lead to representative results.
Then in 2018 they ended up actually overestimating SD by about 10%. Everyone were equally as surprised by this polling result as they were the previous two, but none more than the some of the representatives from SD in TV panels, who strongly believed in getting as much of an overperformance as previously.
Then in the latest election in 2022 SD were as accurately polled as anyone else.
My point is that I don't think its wise to rely on or expect a shy Tory effect because polling institutes can adjust and so can the population.
So, will Trump be underestimated or overestimated in this election? Are people outside of blue strongholds actually still "shy"? I have no idea, but I do think it's questionable to continually rely on this polling pattern over time when making predictions. Polarisation surrounding a candidate should probably be treated more like a thing that increases the margin of error of polling, especially when the worst of the hysteria seems to have died down.
It takes me a while to come upon the problem. Its a problem of margins. Each family with kids is slightly smaller than they used to be. And there are slightly more people not having kids. And it's fully possible that most of these changes are happening with people outside of my large social bubble.
I think it's probably happening everywhere, people just don't realise it. The fertility rates outside of east Asia generally aren't catastrophic, just mildly below replacement. I'd imagine that a large factor is that people are aiming for two kids, which in itself isn't sustainable but when you combine that with some people not being able to have kids and delayed adulthood/parenthood (due to various reasons) and some just get to it too late and end up with just one kid, then you end up with a fertility rate drifting slowly downward while at the same time everyone feels like they're having kids, and having a "normal" amount, but on aggregate they aren't. The goal for the average family needs to be 3+ not 2, otherwise there are less than no margins.
Couldn't it be slightly more senior oil/gas workers that for some reason have their families there?
Furthermore, if you structure things right, having your kids go to various activities isn't much of a bother and can often even be a break for you as a parent. Key here is that the activities need to actually fit kids, are group activities, and are close to home/school.
Ioper
2mo ago
Regarding your first point and the blog post, this runs very counter to my lived experience so I'm inclined to believe this is either strongly socially mediated so that it isn't an underlying unchangeable reality or that it's a fringe opinion mostly held by internet wierdos.
In my experience many women fear the pain of childbirth but this doesn't hinder them from seeking natural born children. Furthermore, it's practically always the women that push for having children earlier or having more children. Its the men that want to get back to doing activities like you want to with your brother, or fear losing that by having children, not women.
My impression is that its the demands and costs of modern life that prevents women from having more children, and that the "revealed preference" mostly reveals what society strongly selects for, not what women want. The fact that Korean children study 16 hours a day doesn't "reveal" that is what they really want, it reveals that they're trapped in a destructive zero-sum game that hurts everyone.
Ioper
2mo ago
In general the consensus view is that you can't meaningfully do that, outside of chemical intervention.
The primary advice is not to try to improve executive function itself but reduce your reliance on it.
Engineer an environment where you depend on outside execute function, turn monotonous and boring activities into more fun one by using things like audio entertainment and rewards, create solid routines that you can maintain without using executive function for every individual task, etc.
Is this when I note that the one "polish" player in the NBA was born in America, is half black and is not a star?
Balts aren't Slavic.
The two groups that reliably produce an outsized portion of basketball players are balts (specifically Latvians and Lithuanians) and Dinaric Slavs, which both are among the tallest European subgroups, with the latter being literally the tallest group on earth.
You say we see current NBA stars from Poland, there is literally one player. There are more players from Montenegro (a country of some 600k) than Poland.
I stumbled across joji and have been listening to him a great deal, but I had this nagging feeling that I recognised him from somewhere... Only to Google and realise that this is not only what filthyfrank pivoted to after stopping YouTube but that he's been majorly successful as well.
Ioper
2mo ago
No, the link isn't clear at all because the people who should be having children aren't consuming welfare.
You have to hit/reward people where it's immediately noticeable for them, not where it might hurt them at some uncertain point far off in the future.
Helplessness can make an event traumatic and it's a part of what is believed to cause PTSD.
I actually thought of bringing up particularly severe plagues as a possible comparison, with a major difference being things like things like very high levels of noise from explosions, artillery, gunfire, grenades etc, that probably would make severe trauma manifest in different ways.
Surely people were traumatised by the black death and things like plagues resulting from the arrival of Europeans in the Americas, but they might not have gotten PTSD specifically because the circumstances surrounding the trauma and stress was very different, even if death levels were the same or worse than frontline combat roles.
Finally, the first major recorded outbreaks of PTSD did not coincide with people having gone soft in a cosy environment unused to adversity, violence and war. It was pre-penicillin, most people were still agrarian or working in industry under terrible conditions, in societies that were violent and regularly at war. What it did coincide with was the advent of modern industrialised warfare.
More options
Context Copy link