YoungAchamian
No bio...
User ID: 680
YoungAchamian
5hr ago
Judy Faulker in the healthcare space, Epic
Epic low balls SWEs, back in the golden years of the SWE field, when entry levels were commanding 6-figs, EPIC would try to pressure hire you on a 60k starting. Many ex-EPIC folks are like ex-amazon folks. People did not stay there long. Idk if they stack ranked but it wouldn't surprise me.
Pretty much any large company with employees is going to run into the framing of: "If you got rich owning the company did your employees who were doing the major work get rich too? Did you fire anyone who was there too long so they didn't get equity? Did you give any equity?"
YoungAchamian
5hr ago
I agree that I think we are pretty much restricted to software which is interesting considering how much hate I've been hearing about SWEs on the left. It's probably impossible to be considered an ethical billionaire under the framework if you manufacture something or have a company that employs lots of people because the rejoinder is "if you got rich why didn't your employees". Software bypasses that. Sports or celebrity is interesting because there's a part on how they got rich, if it was from merch sales then you pretty much got rich by exploiting third world sweat shops. Not very "ethical" I think they said TSwift was unethical but didn't enquire about the reasoning because I am not a swiftie.
YoungAchamian
5hr ago
I would broadly agree that they would view it as a circle, but it actually makes for an interesting follow on. Are billionaires unethical because of how they got their money or because what they do with it? If it's the former, JK Rowling would probably be a good example of an ethical one. If it's the latter than being a billionaire isn't really the core component because there are plenty of people who behave poorly that aren't billionaires. (in this case by being a TERF) The billionaire part is irrelevant.
YoungAchamian
14hr ago
I was talking to a Progressive friend on Friday and the left's favorite topic came up: Billionaires. Or more specifically how it is impossible to be an ethical billionaire. Obviously there are loads of moral axioms loaded into that statement and several different framings that can be used to identify that. I'm curious if you take the idea outside the obvious marxist definitional stance, and look at how the billionaires got their money. Can you have a billionaire who ethically got their money? If we grant things like selling merch made in third world sweatshops a la TSwift or not paying employees the fair "value" of there labor as unethical. Anyone have some ideas. I said Gabe Newell, owner of Steam and did not get a convincing counter-argument for that, even in a marxist theory frame. I wonder if there are others?
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Thank you for the correction, I have only heard of this through heresay/
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Yes, your job is essentially to get hot women into the club so men come in and buy drinks. Clubs work a bit on a network effect. Nobody wants to go to a club that is empty, everyone wants a “popping” club
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Yeah falklands is another good example of post WWII Britain with balls. Whats that guy the said(incorrectly) history ended in the 2000s, maybe its that sort of vibe.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
That part wasn't really for you. I think you and I have substantive disagreements but your disagreements are at least enjoyably thought provoking. I enjoy seeing your responses, though I am often not on my A-game enough to give you a good-enough response back. One day, once this place has corrupted me further...
It was more for @stoatherd, and others like him, who have clearly expressed that they think my opinions are so beyond pale, so outside the norm of what they think should be thought, that they couldn't possible be sincere and therefore I must be a troll/shit-stirrer. It's going to save us all a lot of headache if they just ignore me then.
This forum runs on a reputation economy. People can remember the things you say, and use sequences of statements to build a working model of your behavior and goals, and steer their interactions with you thereby.
Yes Agreed. I think that is as it should be. If you(EDIT: royal) think my history and sequences of statements is that of a troll/shit-stirrer then I recommend for your own sanity and mine that you block or just ignore me. I'm here to express my opinion, develop ideas, and maybe one day make posts testing them.
I do think my posting these days is tilted towards topics that get my goat rather than topics I think deeply about. And that mistakenly gives people the wrong impression of my belief system. But that's my fault and the only remedy is to post more. But I doubt people care about the internal thought process/belief system of one more Autistic Classical Liberal.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
Put money where ones mouth is. Sponsor a refugee. Let him into your house. Fucking do it.
Reminds me of this oldie but a goodie: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JYtbLCa65eA
YoungAchamian
2d ago
Several of the faces have very clear distinct features that were hard to miss for me. The pudgy face was easy to remember, but slightly double chin face? Much harder depending on the angle. The 1st face looks like a co-worker's side profile. Cheekbones guy was very distinct by how sharp his face was. It was the guy with the fat(?)Fuzz(?) right besides his nose that I kept fucking up.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
I thought he got hacked, and his hacker was trolling us. Though publicist is a good theory too but boring. However I think that people forget that Biden senior was a pretty charismatic person, definitely high on the list of politicians I'd get an Ice Cream cone with.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
Based on... literally nothing? That's not what "apparently" means.
Considering both people in this thread were given mod warnings, I was right. They both deserved and did get modded. You thinking that was wrong is provably incorrect.
I know that it's poor behaviour to call an innocent murdered man a "retard"
It's not poor behavior here. This place has different rules. I can civility express an opinion to matter how distasteful you feel it is, and that constitutes normal behavior here. Go back to reddit where shaming of opinions based on content is the norm or grow up.
But imagining that I'm following you around
"Following around" on a forum means dragging the content of one thread into another. This thread has nothing to do with my opinion on the Digwa vs Nowak Murder. This thread is about the interpersonal drama between FttG and MKC, and the slap fight they are having. You bringing up my opinion from another thread constitutes "following around". Not really sure why I need to explain internet forum etiquette to you, it should be known and understood by this point.
Am I following you around now
No... because I am responding to you on this topic... Honestly you even saying it makes me think you don't understand forum norms.
I'm in that class of people?
You are definitely acting like it. You've directly stated that you think I am deliberately shit-stirring. That is definitional troll behavior.
using the exact words their opponent was using
Something something commonly used and colloquial language for a response on why someone spend too much time online. It's almost like colloquial phrases in language get applied to the same situation by different people because they are colloquial phrases. It's not nefarious or malevolent, its just common language.
Yeah, no. You're in the wrong here.
Apparently not. Maybe you should update your priors about what constitutes good behavior in this place and what is not. They were clearly both rage posting at each other personally, which is frowned upon.
I think its far clear you are pissed that I have a disagreeable opinion, that dares to disagree with you in another thread. As such you feel the need to follow me around and make low effort snipes.
I don't feel the need to shit-stir online, I can do it in person to a far more enjoyable degree. I express my honest 100% opinion. It is always weird to me that there exists a class of people who essentially assume any opinion not agreeing with their own is a troll. And then comes to a debate forum filled with heterodox thinkers.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
I got 83%, but yeah the spike in difficulty for that last part was unreal. I swear some of those where just pixelated 3D shapes on some gradient where it was all the same face in increasing levels of gaussian noise. Reminds me of looking at diffusion model outputs.
My father has been claiming he's face blind for a year now, time to put this in the family chat and find out how much.
Well I do, being from the UK. And taking what we know about Nowak's outgoing and friendly character, what he was snapchatting before, and the fact that at no point during the trial did anyone suggest that what Nowak had said was aggressive, I can conclude that he was being friendly, not aggressive.
He was in a leafy, middle class surburb talking to an individual.
Touche, I can admit my cultural radar is less attuned than a local. If that is the case it, it would be extremely jarring.
This is more like seeing a Japanese guy on the streets of San Francisco dressed like a Samurai, making a jokey comment about his katana, and then the Japanese guy actually drawing his sword and attacking.
That said if I am walking down the dark streets of SF and some Japanese guy with a katana is scowling, and I am just barely tipsy, I'm not going to stop and try to banter with him. Banter IS NOT always well received. Banter requires an existing relationship or existing knowledge of how the other person will take it. Some people just take it as insulting. It's horrible that this is how that lesson needed to be learned.
To me it looks like you trying to assign as much of the blame as you can on the murder victim, with the necessary commensurate reduction of blame on the murderer.
This is what I am doing, trying to determine how much Nowak participated in a situation that escalated to an disastrous outcome. If you wish to think of that as blaming the murder victim, you can, but I do not. I'm not really shame-able along those lines because the feminists beat that out of me with "blaming the rape victim" when I asked questions. It feels like this line implies you are trying the same tactic.
do what you are doing now.
I'm not sure I would put myself in this category. I think I disagree with the overall idea about how we should organize society around quokka-like behavior. My ideas on this topic are still a bit protean. But they are influenced by FromSCC's stance on rule-based systems being very vulnerable to exploitation. But I'll give it a go.
It seems to me that this rule: "Personal Violence is verboten" is very vulnerable to exploitation by smug assholes who's verbal intelligence allows them to insult, provoke, coordinate violence and other behaviors. They seem to take for granted that this rule exists, and it allows them to succeed at the expense of everyone else. That smacks as unfairness to me. The problem is that rule, is not natural. It only exists due to a strong centralized authority that will "Swing it's dick around". Now the motte/Chesterton's fence for this rule, is that in tries to prevent the interpersonal violence. The anti-violence norm is one of the pillars of mass society. But it is not a natural equilibrium because it's missing the other side of interpersonal violence.
A society needs more than a “no hitting” rule. It also needs a serious norm against provocation without accountability. Otherwise, the society privileges people whose aggression is deniable, verbal, procedural, or reputational. The thug says, “I’ll beat you.” The civilized predator says, “I’ll make everyone hate you, destroy your reputation, get you fired, humiliate you in public, bait you into a reaction, then appeal to the rules when you snap."
This is the cancel culture people claim to hate. It comes across as masculine vs feminine norms in society. We seemed to be in a phase of punishing the masculine and supporting the feminine. I don't think a society can survive without balancing these norms.
And while a lot of this idea is prescriptive, I think a large thrust is actually also descriptive. I think many lay people just intuitively grasp this idea. They grasp that if you verbally start shit out at a bar in the sticks, it is expected that you are going to get beat unless you can back it up with physical might. It's only in more urban, high-class, environments that people seem to not grasp this natural reality.
YoungAchamian
3d ago
I'm not defending Digwa, and he and his family should absolutely be convicted. My position/question as it always is in these situations is to determine how much the victim contributed to the situation going sidewise.
The trick a lot of victim supporters always want is that they want to frame the victim as this complete innocent bystander who was just set upon by the perp, no culpability. When the reality is that a lot of these victims put themselves in risky positions and then don't want to deal with the logical consequences of their set of actions. The former terrifies people in the way that random acts of violence, rape, fraud, etc. always do. The latter is more realistic, in the sense that if you have some common sense and a bit of risk avoidance you can genuinely avoid being put in these sort of situations. But activists/culture warriors always want it to appear to be the former because that helps the cause more. Which I think obscures the truth.
YoungAchamian
3d ago
Looking through some court documents it looks like there is a lot of confusion if the McMichaels actually every told Arbery they were detaining him until the police arrived. But it looks like under cross they admitted they had not, they just chased and cornered him.
YoungAchamian
3d ago
But Canada's MAiD agents are too busy targeting soldiers with bodies ruined by war, not exactly prime blood boy donor targets. Maybe they are building Frankensteinian super soldiers from the bodies?
YoungAchamian
3d ago
Lmao if you keep agreeing with me and I with you, someone might call me your sockpuppet. Brb gotta go touch grass with my real life obligations.
But yes, very intuitive to what behavior is happening here.
YoungAchamian
3d ago
Great now all George Soros needs to do is frame a healthy white guy, or jew depending on the current Schrodinger's minority status, in order to get his heart transplant. Way to invent the rich harvesting the organs of the poor.
YoungAchamian
3d ago
YoungAchamian
3d ago
I did read the Millennial Woes summary, that's the thread we are in...
Nowak didn't 'start shit'. He was bantering in a friendly way. Nowak didn't touch Digwa or say anything rude or threatening to him. He was extremely unlucky that the guy he was trying to banter with happened to have violent fantasies.
We are going to disagree pretty egregiously on this one. I don't speak British slang well, but it seems to me, it looks like he said "Wow what a bad ass you are, such a tough guy, I bet you think you are so cool you fucking coward" That's not "friendly" banter. Nowak was definitely provocative and taunting him. We can agree he didn't touch him or threaten him. But that sort of taunting, at the right person carries a very large risk that they will inflict violence on you. Come to Chicago and say that to a bunch of hood rats, I'd bet money that they would A) Beat you badly, B) Stab you, C) Shoot you, or D) All of the above. It is putting yourself in risky position no matter how you slice it.
Nowak had no reason to know that Digwa was spoiling for a fight based on his behaviour. Read the Millennial Woes summary of what happened. By the time Nowak realised that Digwa was looking for violence, Digwa had already decided to stab him.
So dude just called him out as a "bad man" for no reason? Novak stopped walking for what reason?
Nowak had no reason to think Digwa was violent based on the fact he was carrying a ceremonial blade. Sikhs are known to be particularly well-behaved, with low crime rates, high education rates and high salaries. Scotsmen wearing kilts wear daggers and sometimes larger dirks (a similar size to the knife used in the murder) and nobody assumes danger because it doesn't mean danger.
I'm sorry, but normies, which Nowak was, do not look at crime states, education rates, and salaries. They are not judging people on their socio-economic group status like some autistic HBD person.
Honestly this whole discussion, is an example on how people don't want any personal responsibility for their own actions. Nowak was not some bystander who got stabbed, he engaged with a dangerous person, which was a dumb fucking move, and then taunted that dangerous person, which lead to him getting stabbed, to death. Everyone defending him wants to ignore his personal responsibility in the matter. I need to go through my past responses and see how many of you were making pro-personal responsibilities and risk-based arguments on the topic of abortion, because any who were are blatantly hypocritical.
Probably going to be hard, because I think I really oppose their idea on this, but its interesting from a devil's advocate perspective, if its just impossible to be an ethical billionaire, in that they have created an unprovable tautology, or if even within this framework, one could find an "ethical" billionaire, and essentially prove their statement wrong.
More options
Context Copy link