@WhateverHappenedToNorman's banner p

WhateverHappenedToNorman


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2024 November 02 16:54:58 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 3324

WhateverHappenedToNorman


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2024 November 02 16:54:58 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 3324

Verified Email

I don't think that's true. The truscum/tucute divide exists, and it wouldn't surprise me if the former regained power in this new environment.

That happened before the Floydenning, though.

Well, this obviously depends on what "desirable" real estate means to you, but I see a few possible drivers:

  • Unbundling of economic opportunity from specific places rearranges the leves of desirability, kind of like remote work on steroids. Some claim this would lead to even more agglomeration, but I'm not sure about that, people are often varied enough in their interests and wants that I believe you'd experience a big surge in lesser cities.

  • Pushing skilled workers down the value chain would improve the services in a lot of places, making them more livable.

  • On the higher end of outcomes, there's a lot of places that are very similar to very desirable ones, but are hampered by poor governance and infrastructure, a fully machine operated world would bring those places up to standard, increasing the supply of desirable space.

This is silly. Yes, more resources mean more capacity to misallocate them, but it's better than not having them.

If we get paperclips or fully automated luxury gay space communism, all the money in the world will do you no good, but there are a lot of other possible scenarios.

I am not an AI hype man, but if it gets to the point of genuinely disrupting white collar work on a large scale, the amount of available desirable real estate could increase a lot.

Should I develop a nicotine addiction?

For a while now, I've been curious about nicotine. Smoking, of any kind, is something I've always despised: It smells bad, blackens the teeth, has a terrible risk profile, and almost all my experiences with it have been unpleasant (I had a cigar recently, and it cleared the bar of "I'm not hating it"). Nonetheless, I've always been interested in the "good parts" of nicotine, and with its resurgent popularity, it's more available than ever, in several forms: gum, tablet or whatever that thing swedish people use is.

I am, however, slightly worried about giving it a try: I know myself to be quite a compulsive consumer with a few things (most notably food and candy, but also internet forum discussions), and I fear I might develop dependency. Have any of you guys tried it? Did it make you feel noticably different? Was it easy to quit? Any suggestions regarding dosage?

People are emotionally primed to associate particular styles with particular positive or negative things. If you see something in a tudor style you probably think of a wealthy old neighborhood or a european tourist trap-- both of which would be pleasant places to exist in regardless of what architectural style they were built in. If we built all our prisons, hospitals, and corporate offices in the same style it would take a bit of the shine off of it.

I don't know about that, one of the building considered most beautiful in my city was built for the purpose of holding water tanks.

I agree that the novelty might wear off a bit, but Paris is chock full of beautiful buildings, and people all over the world seem to like it all the same.

Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness. Basically when your muscles hurt the following day after working out.

In my experience, mouth tape won't do you much good if your nose is congested, you'll just remove the tape in your sleep

With respect, did you actually vote for Trump? I've noticed a lot of this type of critique lately from people who voted for Harris.

Be kind: as a Brit, their voting choices are somehow even worse.

Aside from what has already been suggested, I listen to Derek Thompson's podcast, which while not always political, when it is, it's solidly center-left blue.

I'd implore anyone reading this to avoid plunging into normie-feminist rage responses.

wheredoyouthinkweare.jpg

A world without women? The closest approximation we have to that is roughly prison.

Not so much recently, but maybe the army?

I'm just waiting for it to pass, it's currently hot in the news cycle, but we will soon be able to get at each other's throats for something else

I don't want to be glib, but this isn't new. It's a significant plot point of a recent Oscar winning movie.

Does this paper provide a useful taxonomy? A relevant analysis? An unexplored perspective?

I am unavoidably reminded of Twitter Smell Lady, who was held up as an example of silly research only to be repeatedly vindicated

Was she? How?

I was hoping it was for the Nazi joke, but thank you nonetheless, guys!

That maps roughly to the same thing, though, it just changes who the burden of "feeling comfortable" falls on.

I hate to be that guy, but you're using motte and bailey backwards.

No meat is a good one!

Ash Wednesday is next week, what are you planning on giving up for Lent?

Last year I did sweets, I could try again, but the timing is very unfortunate.

Alcohol doesn't even count as a sacrifice for me, so I'm not sure what else I could try.

Congratulations, the world needs more dramanauts!

The only advice I have, from my parents' and grandparents' lifelong marriages, is to accept that your husband is the person he is, even when you really wish he wasn't.

It has to be from the municipality of Nuziders, Austria. Otherwise it's just a sparkling Roman Salute.

I think this scenario is a lower tech version of the paperclip maximizer: the AI haves simply don't value the well being of the have nots, and take up all the resources, desirable land, etc with their superior technology. In the extreme case think something like: these N acres could produce wheat for 100000 people, or they can be used to pasture grass-fed, free-range, spa lifestyle cows to produce one weekly meal of 10 aristocrats.

This seems very very unlikely, but not impossible, looking forward 30 years feels like a crapshoot right now!

You're forever and always The Cruise Guy.

This is like taking the immigration bill that democrats tried to pass by the end of Biden's term. It's an acknowledgement that a corrupt democratic mayor that is willing to let immigration law be enforced is the best you can do.

Notably, back then they didn't do this, immigration was a strong point for republicans, and they didn't want to give it away for some half-hearted compromise bill. As to why the change of strategy, two (of many possible) reasons come immediately to mind:

  • They might think the NYC electorate is too captured, and won't elect a Republican mayor again, even as the situation keeps getting worse.
  • With republicans back in charge, the problem with illegal immigrants in NYC will relent on its own (after all, they're not getting there by boat), allowing the democrats to sweep it under the rug for the next election.