@The_Nybbler's banner p

The_Nybbler

If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.

8 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

				

User ID: 174

The_Nybbler

If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.

8 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 174

FIT takes up a block between 7th and 8th avenue in Midtown Manhattan. It's not some sort of enclave, the only "security" is 27th street is closed to through traffic.

(incidentally, MOST college campuses in the US are open. You can stroll right through Harvard, for instance)

Come to think of it, I've consumed a lot of media about this topic, and for some reason I think this is the first time I've seen John Henry brought up. Even though it's kind of the obvious parable...?

Perhaps because those of us who have thought of it prefer not to bring it up.

During the Cold War there was something of a rules-based world order. But the rules were always more like guidelines, and the purpose of the rules was pretty much to prevent nuclear war. All sorts of pissing around that didn't risk that was fine.

Nope, they invaded Afghanistan under Carter, they were embargoed, but Reagan lifted the grain embargo and sold them subsidized wheat before they left Afghanistan.

It's time for a divorce: the university should not sanction or sponsor or bless the fraternity, but neither should they regulate how their students live or act in their free time off campus.

The center cannot hold. The Harvard "finals clubs" have long since been divorced from the University; Harvard made it an offense punishable by exclusion form all student organizations to be a member of one. The opposing philosophy is totalizing; it cannot be compromised with and any attempt to do so is merely yielding ground.

The US was literally feeding the Soviet Union during the Cold War. That we buy oil from Russia at the same time they're helping one of their enemies is no stranger than business as usual. Russia is not really an ally of Iran; their relationship to Iran is more like our relationship to Ukraine. The US is trying to lower the high diesel prices caused by the Russia/Ukraine war, that's all.

And the bear said to the man, "You're not here to hunt, are you?"

Most real-life perennial problems are not merely constrained but overconstrained: no solution exists which meets all the constraints. "Rationalists" are terrible at those.

They're losing access to US imports (through their own actions). The US is losing access to Canadian imports (through our own actions). Both are shooting themselves in the foot, but the Canadian economy has more dependence on US imports than the US does on Canadian imports.

LSTMs were in use before transformers, so if there's a way to scale them big, it's not obvious.

Engineering degrees are better IQ tests than most degrees (probably no better than hard sciences though, or computer science at better schools), and MUCH better conscientscious tests than most degrees. It's REALLY hard to phone in an engineering degree no matter how bright you are.

There are several types of art schools. Some are non-degree programs (AI tells me the traditional name for such schools is "Atelier"). Some are Masters of Fine Art (MFA) programs intended for people who already have undergraduate degrees (not necessarily in art). But many are college programs granting a bachelors' degree (BFA).

A degree tests both IQ and conscientiousness. An IQ test is much cheaper but not a full substitute. An IQ test plus far easier hiring and firing would be, but we don't have that either in most professions. This may be why high-turnover professions can get away with just the Wonderlic (which, ironically, was the test banned by Griggs) and no degree.

Surely the point is that the joke remains funny, not that it remains relevant?

It's only funny if the feminists haven't taken over completely. But yes, it's funny (a least to the bitter-chuckle level) to any remaining non-feminists, and that's important too.

The only feminist comedy that is funny involves non-gender-conforming women mocking their own inability to gender-conform.

There used to be a lot of reasonably funny female comedy about the foibles of men. Problem is it's pretty much all stale in the sense that we've heard it all before, much of it is simply false so it doesn't resonate, and that which would otherwise still be funny is delivered as a serious complaint instead of a joke.

then a corollary of applying it to the would-be televised execution is that Trump also sees his relationship with the American electorate as an adversarial negotiation.

This one's a little different because it came through Hegseth first. I think Trump was more uncertain of it than the ones he crowed about himself, more an ordinary trial balloon than a TACO.

The term "TACO" started when he greatly reduced the liberation day tariffs. It's an insult, but it's a long-standing Trump strategy -- threaten the moon, back of to something only mildly unreasonable, and get most of what he wants while letting the counterparty feel they got off easily. It hasn't worked with Iran, so it seems he's stopped doing it there for the moment. It also doesn't seem to be working with Canada, but since Canada is mostly shooting itself in the foot so Trump can just let them.

I think the idea was

  1. Run up the idea as a trial balloon

  2. If it doesn't float, Trump gets to look like he's reining in Mad Dog Hegseth.

A number of the women offended at his joke have invoked their credentials to explain why Shane Gillis is obviously not a good comedian. A uniquely qualified student of comedy invokes her prestigious internship with a smirk to inform you that she knows about comedy. A graduate of comedy writing believes that her classes permit her to speak with haughty authority on comedy.

As with ludology (the study of games), the study of comedy should be considered an experimental discipline. It's reasonable for an expert in these fields to not be able to make a fun game or a funny monologue, but they should be able to predict which games are fun and which monologues are funny, and to explain why they are with principles that reliably generalize to other games or monologues. If they cannot, they are not demonstrating that the hiliarious comedy is actually Not Funny or the bomb is Funny, (nor equivalently for games); they are instead demonstrating they are bad in their field or their field is without basis. In other words, being an expert in the study of comedy absolutely does not qualify you to contradict the success of practical comedians, and more than being an expert in the study of aerodynamics allows you to contradict the flight of bumblebees.

In the Beginning, there was the Feminist Light Bulb Joke. It was thus

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!

One of the few constants through all waves and subwaves of feminism is that this joke is relevant throughout all of them.

Right. You can pick a position in isolation and "steelman" it into some coherent principle, but once you start trying to apply that principle you find that the people you are steelmanning do not accept the applications of that principle. At which point you should just discard your "steelman".

Liberal red lines taken together always result in de-facto open borders under any interpretation. They do not advocate for de-jure open borders

Except when they do, i.e. "No human is illegal". They tend to leave that in the mouths of "activists" but not always.

I expect most amusement park ride control systems are so ancient there's no networking to exploit.

The right, on the other hand, has not figured this out. They often think in terms of solutions. They get elected as a protest vote when the left break things. Then they fix the broken things.

Or they don't. Either way, the voters go back to voting for the left -- in one case because the problem was solved and they no longer need to vote for the Party of Evil, and in the other case because the Party of Evil was unable to solve the problem so they might as well go back to the Party of Good.

North Korean nukes have been successfully tested more recently than French ones.

The pause is weird, because it betrays a lack of confidence in the war. If you think you can win, why wait?

Trump correctly believes a ground invasion is both unpopular and risky. He probably believes continued bombing will be unpopular if it doesn't win the war right away (which it won't). After the elections, he doesn't have to care.