MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
No bio...
User ID: 896
Animal Farm and 1984 are not novels; they are documentaries.
Animal Farm was a documentary. Nineteen eighty-four was not - it was a warning, and one that has so far been effective in preventing the thing warned about. The USSR never managed to achieve the level of social control you see in Oceania, and not for want of trying.
I was taught that "Master + firstname" originated as a way for middle-class teachers (and private tutors) to address upper-class schoolboys that respected both of the opposed social class and authority gradients. But I think this is BS - actual practice at English public schools was to use surnames with no honorific regardless of Daddy's title*. (Brothers were distinguished with suffixes like "Major" and "Minor" though the exact details varied by school).
Interestingly, "Mister" is this trope - it is a corruption of "Master" used (at least as early as the Tudor period) as a respectful form of address by peasants speaking to minor gentry who didn't have a higher title like "Esquire".
* Though children of Dukes and royalty use Daddy's title as a surname instead of the family name. So Prince William was "Wales" at Eton rather than "Mountbatten-Windsor".
My wife and I live on a single salary and our 4 children sleep in the same room together. We are a respectable middle class family.
In a first-world country, even one with a housing shortage like the UK, 4 children sharing a bedroom is not compatible with the normie version of middle class respectability. In the UK, anything more than 2 same-sex children sharing would attract the attention of curtain-twitchers and social workers.
That said, I agree with your underlying argument.
I actually don't believe this proves much as the number would imply. Yes, TFR was 2.1, but the country was also far more rural at the time and mechanization hadn't quite replaced the child as unit of labor on farms yet.
Also infant mortality was higher then, so TFR 2.1 was sub-replacement. I can't find the source now, but someone published estimates of infant-mortality-adjusted TFR for the US going back as long as the data existed and, assuming their numbers were correct, adjusted TFR was higher during the post-WW2 baby boom that at any other time in history.
"What caused the Baby Boom?" seems to be an under-asked question among people who care about fertility.
But they have kulak privilege!
Seriously - the liquidation of the kulaks was a classic example of the elite dividing the plebs into "oppressed" and "privileged" groups for the purpose of robbing the "privileged" while appearing to be on the side of the "oppressed" - what Yarvin would call a high-low alliance against the middle.
Agreed. That is why I don't think them enjoying the material standard of living of an eques should be scandalous.
The idea that successful politicians should live a lower-middle class lifestyle is pernicious - both because it creates a political economy of junketing, and because it means only people who love political power enough to take a large paycut will go into politics.
Both Tesla and SpaceX bulls are entirely upfront about the fact that you cannot make a bull case for the core businesses of Tesla and SpaceX justify the market cap. The bull case is explicitly that Musk will pivot to a business that doesn't exist yet and make the pivot work because he's Musk.
Stories that have run for Tesla in the past include:
- Tesla are so far ahead in the learning curve for large Li-ion batteries that they can pivot to being an energy company (while maintaining the profit margins of a tech company)
- Tesla are so far ahead in self-driving tech that they will be a near-monopoly supplier of self-driving software to the rest of the automotive sector
- Tesla will pivot to robotics.
- Tesla will merge with xAI and pivot to AI.
The current story for SpaceX is orbital datacentres, which at least has something to do with the existing assets, but is a lot further from actually existing than Autopilot or Tesla Robotics.
I agree. If a group of transactivists were going up against a group of Republican politicians on a knowledge test of female anatomy and physiology, I would bet on the transactivists. They know exactly what a woman (in the ordinary English sense of the word) is - they just don't know what the word "woman" means.
Yes - everyone knows it's the Catholic. This was conventional wisdom in Protestant countries from the Reformation through to the 1960's. I don't think the reversed version is more accurate.
Perhaps we should exclude the Catholic and the pink-haired SJW and hire only normie-Americans from good families like Edward Snowden and Reality Winner.
There is a reason why the Normans adopted "Earl" (a corruption of the Norse "Jarl") in place of a direct translation of the Norman-French "Comte" when conquering a country with a substantial Anglo-Saxon population familiar with vulgar Anglo-Saxon vocabulary. I would hate for @BurdemsomeCount to end up as an example of why they did this, but I think that post qualifies.
Donald Trump was (probably - it is hard to be sure given how much he lies about his financial status) a billionaire when he announced he was going to fight against elites on behalf of the common man. I find his claim about as plausible as Warren's, but the target audience eat it up in both cases.
FWIW, the anti-super-rich lefties I see have stopped talking about "the 1%" and now talk about "the billionaires" which is a much smaller group. Too many upper-middle-class lefties are worried about the leopards eating their faces, I suppose.
British usage assumes a pyramidal society, so there are more working class people than middle-class people and more lower middle than upper middle. To be considered upper class you traditionally needed to have a social network that includes hereditary peers, so upper-middle class stretches a long way up the income scale. A big 4/MBB/Magic Circle partner would definitely be considered upper-middle class, not upper (unless they were upper for family reasons).
In America, everyone except the underclass and the super-rich considers themselves middle-class. Americans don't generally use the term upper-middle class, but the term middle-class is used by both the people themselves and politicians appealing them to cover everyone from a plumber to a HENRY, and upper-middle class refers to the top echelon of that huge group. Paul Fussell's Class (published 1982 so somewhat out of date, but I am not aware of any book since which attempted to define upper-middle class in the US context) gives doctors, lawyers, small town real estate developers and middle-to-VP level managers at large companies as paradigmatically upper-middle class. Warren's $12 million accumulated over a successful career would be well within the achievable range for those professions, though probably above average.
The only time I have seen the words upper-middle class used seriously in an American political context was to describe the people on incomes of $250k-400k who might or might not benefit from Obama's partial extension of the Bush tax cuts, which is also close to but not in the top 1% and given the rising stock market since the Obama era seems consistent with a net worth reaching $3-12 million today.
The algorithm I use that works in any rich country:
- If you consider doctors the help, you are upper class
- If you consider doctors peers, you are upper-middle class
- If you consider doctors to be social superiors, you are middle-middle or below.
That makes a lot of sense.
I thought the late unlamented Iranian air defences were more Russian than Chinese.
"Close to, but not in, the top 1%" is precisely what upper middle class means.
Also, wealth tends to accumulate over time. So "upper middle class wealth" for a 76-year-old like Warren is a higher dollar amount than it would be for us.
Nukes effectively deter a US invasion, which is a real risk if the neocons return to power, and Iran can see that the US would beat them in a conventional war if the US was willing to accept the cost of victory (i.e. a choice between a prolonged occupation and likely Iraq-style quagmire or a Houthi-on-Hormuz failed state).
The product of two small probabilities (the neocons returning to power, and them being dumb enough to launch a real regime change was against Iran) is even smaller, but I think it is high enough to be worth worrying about, and so did MAGA in 2024 given that "vote Trump so you don't have to fight in neocon Kamala's Iran war" was a winning message with military-age men, so it wouldn't surprise me if the mullahs do.
The founding-era Senate mostly met in secret, with the need to ratify treaties being one of the reasons given.
The Ukrainian drone industry is producing roughly the same amount of usable military power as the c. 80 billion dollars a year Russian defence budget. That is worth a trillion dollars or so on standard DCF assumptions.
HELOCs are a bullet I am willing to swallow. Tax-free consumption out of unrealised capital gains on primary residences is the same mischief as tax-free consumption out of unrealised capital gains on founders' stock, and causes the same social problems in a more distributed way. Protect the middle class with a $100,000 lifetime exemption.
Which is upper-middle-class wealth in a country as rich as America. I don't think there is anything surprising about, or wrong with a successful politician being upper-middle-class.
Given the known political views of the average Silicon Valley techie, it seems completely plausible that a majority of the senior management and top technical talent at Anthropic think "The Trump admin uses AGI to win the future for MAGA chuddery" is one of the bad outcomes we want to avoid, and possibly even worse than "The Red Chinese use AGI to win the future for whatever it is they believe in nowadays". (FWIW, I personally would rather live in the Eternal Chinese Empire of the Hundred Acre Wood than in an American hegemony where either side of the culture war had won a total victory).
If that is an accurate reflection of the political views of the key people at Anthropic, then their behaviour would require no additional explanation.
There are, roughly speaking, three routes to AI doom:
- Yudkowskian paperclipping. AI eats us all, human value is extinguished
- AGI falls into the hands of lawful evil actors like the Red Chinese or the wrong side of the US culture war, and establishes an evil singleton which extinguishes most human value
- AGI is so much more effective in the hands of chaotic evil actors than in the hands of the people defending against them that disgruntled basement-dwellers are able to maliciously destroy most human value out of boredom or misanthropy
Going faster under the supervision of a misaligned US government makes paperclipping and lawful evil dystopia more likely, so the main reason for a safety-conscious AI firm to move fast (to get out ahead of less-safety-conscious firms) is lost if the price of permission to go fast is accepting Trump admin supervision.
Yeah - there was a famous Facebook post by Yudkowsky where he said that he thought 20% of the biological males in his social circle were actually trans, although not all of them had realised yet. Yud isn't an idiot, so I assume that there is indeed a certain level of spergery where 20% of the biological males would troon out with sufficient encouragement.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not support providing this encouragement. At the time, Yudkowsky appeared to.
Then why is only Anthropic targeted and why only foreign nationals?
Even a midwit can tell that the restriction on foreign nationals was a hard ban in practice. I assume that Trump fully intended to ban the models and making it nominally about foreign nationals was a misdirection to fool Trump's own sub-midwit supporters.
A fat, orange, brain damaged clown with leukemia just tore through the military tech they've sold multiple other countries like wet tissue paper.
Right now, the most valuable piece of Chinese military tech is the supply chain for the Russian/Iranian combat drones which fucked up America's shit. The percentage of Chinese (as opposed to Russian) content in the bits of the Iranian military that succeeded seems to me to be higher than in the parts that failed (notably the air defences). Sanctions mean that Iran have been assembling most of their own weapons out of easy-to-smuggle components, so this isn't a simple test of Chinese or Russian tech against the American equivalent.
If the future of warfare is putting weapons on Temu drones, the Chinese are in a very good place. And the Iran war is evidence in favour of the this thesis.

The nail house phenomenon suggests that relocating the elderly is the one thing that, somewhat bizarrely, Red China won't manage to do.
More options
Context Copy link