cuwurious_strag_CA
No bio...
User ID: 190
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
I'm pretty sure if you went to a random coffee shop or something that's not particularly politically-biased-sample and asked people this, most people would not support the king using political power in a dramatic or disruptive way.
There are 24,000 "morticians, undertakers, and funeral directors" in the US, and probably as many in europe. Assuming half of those are morticians, that's more than enough room for one or a few of them to notice an uptick in blood clots that should be surprising, while just being noise overall. If one in every two or even five morticians is noticing this, that'd be worth looking into in some sense, but things like this constantly happen everywhere. A billion people x ten thousand possible strange combinations of things that can happen = a lot of one in a billion events. Covid itself was reported to cause blood clots or something a bunch early in the pandemic.
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
A combination of bad UX decisions in the browser, OS, and website ate the comment I was drafting, so 5x more briefly - what do the climate change protest stunts actually accomplish? Governments, unrelated companies, and all sorts of startups are working on climate change. It's been a very important topic in the 'mainstream' for decades. Obviously - the climate protestors believe hundreds of millions will die if things continue as they are, and the capitalists are just pretending to solve it, doing too little too late to pacify and get money while not threatening their core business of destroying nature, etc. But more attention on climate change itself, as a topic, isn't gonna help much - everyone's heard of it, most people think it's bad. The obvious point against that is the george floyd protests or generally anti-racism protests recently - clearly everyone knows about racism, maybe they didn't "accomplish much" in a 'material conditions for black people' sense, but they succeeded on their own terms and were massive. But is there some societal opportunity like that for these climate protestors to latch onto today, and effect change or grow more? I'm not seeing it. What large government initiative or private enterprise will happen but wouldn't if 50 roads weren't blocked and 10 paintings weren't glued? Protests certainly can and sometimes do cause large changes, but here?
It'd be interesting to read a piece about what the inside of one of these groups looks like in the current_year, or even better a close look at their members' social media. I did a really basic search for 3min, there seem to be a bunch of different groups, one had a subreddit that isn't super active, something like r/collapse is only vaguely related but more active.
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
A simple divider - if the 'culture war' stuff is important, then being ""addicted"" to it is fine. And if it's not important, then it's worth figuring out how it's not important - and then just not doing it. It's not heroin, it's just a bunch of claims.
The truth is a combination of both tbh - stuff like 'the kids are trans' or 'the environment is being destroyed by the corporations we need to FIGHT BACK' are adjacent to true things, and use those to derive energy. But they're also deeply wrong in some ways, and thus the simple way of fighting for them (vote for school boards! stop buying from exxon!) do not work at all.
But then people get confused and get shamed for 'caring too much about something stupid', and start thinking that caring or putting energy into large-scale problems at all is bad. Which is also wrong! Both trans and environment are issues that many/all people will personally deal with, and your attitude towards it can deeply shape your personal life. (e.g. I have very close friends who have transitioned, and very close friends who haven't but were tempted.)
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
IIRC most are fine with east asian IQ and just deny jewish IQ, but they are still very interested in low black and asian IQ.
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
I think it's possible and useful to understand peoples' motivations, tbh? A number of examples: many historical famous far-left-wingers are protestors/revolutionaries, people who sacrifice themselves for 'the people' or 'the fight against slavery', etc. Many of the most rich people in America are centrists (i.e. progressives-of-history like everyone else!), and like most everyone else genuinely care / want to help poor people, the oppressed, africans - and so donate a lot of money to assisting them - gates foundation, EA, etc.
It would be nice to have a proper study on detransitioners where this is all taken into account, and the only group asking for it is detransitioners and their supporters.
There are a bunch of detransitioner studies on e.g. google scholar, although their results are kind of all over the place
False. The selection effect, to the extent it exists, is a result of the
I concede I made the point poorly, but - here's another example of right-wing anti-trans content, /r/neovaginadisasters. It's more or less what it sounded like, and was pretty NSFW. It got passed around a lot on right-wing reddit discord a few years ago. It had its own selection effect - less-careful people who browed it often came away with a belief that like 50% of SRS cases were disasters that the patient regretted severely. But that kind of content doesn't show up on @realchrisrufo's twitter feed, for a number of reasons (nsfw, not respectable, etc). There's also the kind of anti-trans content that criticizes being trans in a direct material sense - this is what being trans is, this is why it's bad - and you don't see much of that from @realchrisrufo either. One example of the latter is just screenshots from /r/egg_irl, /r/tranmsgender, etc. Even if you're restricting yourself to anti-trans content, the current approach from the center-right is a very highly selected set of content aimed specifically at 'sympathy for poor oppressed under 18 transitioners', combined with 'groomer teachers and doctors and schools', which IMO paints a very biased and confused picture of trans as a whole.
Yeah, but the median twitter user, even the median twitter user with 50k followers, aren't gonna spend $8/month for the checkmark (although if they did, twitter would get a new massive revenue stream), so it won't have that effect
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
they usually grow out if it if they can be kept safe for a few years
grouping tiktok tourettes, which is more like 'an emo phase', and being trans together in the 'they usually grow out group' is justified how? Your twitter feed evidence is selected for detransitioners, because they're the best way to make being anti-trans seem like a progressive 'saving the vulnerable girls' narrative as opposed to right-wing.
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
That really does not make sense. I use twitter a lot, and most of the people I follow do not have checkmarks, and none of them are going to buy it because they are just people who use twitter for fun or on breaks from work or w/e. Random repliers in comments sections still aren't gonna buy the checkmark. And there are already parts of twitter where most people are verified and have a lot of followers ... and they still get piled with scams replying to their comments.
I believe the theory is that once bluechecks are common, anyone without them will be more suspicious
Can you draw out a specific scenario here - what part of twitter, in reply to what accounts, where the scammers are currently using unverified accounts successfully but won't be able to anymore because most users will have bluechecks, as they are more common, so the scammers will stand out? I can't think of a single section of twitter where that will happen. Either all the big people already have checkmarks and their followers do not (and that will either not change or nobody will have checkmarks because people won't pay 100/year for it), or none of the posters or repliers have checkmarks, and that will not change.
Like, "8/mo bluecheck prevents spam" doesn't make sense, at all. Do people just believe it because musk says it will? Do they assume he figured it out?
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
Currently, if you check replies under tweets of some prominent figures, in the first few mins after the tweet all replies are bots
... right ... because they are bots, and can post a reply 2 seconds after the tweet is posted. Nobody else has replied in the first few minutes. And then the bot replies get overtaken by interesting replies that get likes. How would boosting verified accounts change this? The verified accounts still won't reply immediately because they aren't bots.
A lot of spam is just bots using the search api (probably) for crypto terms and replying to people with scams. This won't help with that either.
Also, significantly boosting verified accounts over nonverified accounts to stop the kind of spam that gets lots of likes on highly replied tweets (non-highly replied tweets don't have enough replies for it to matter) would degrade the user experience, right, because instead of seeing the best tweets you just see tweets from people who pay money?
The point I was trying to make is - LVT or not - having a significant part of peoples' wealth be "in their homes" just seems strange? Like if you're designing an economy from scratch, nihilist governance or w/e, why would you have that? Whatever part of that isn't construction costs averaged across ownership duration just seems like misdirected economic attention, kinda? Econ 101 will explain how 'markets give efficient outcomes, which is good for all parties, so markets are good and we should have them everywhere'. How are high home prices and 'having value invested in your home' efficient, as a way of organizing the economy, vs having less expensive homes and investing in stocks or savings or smth?
The only thing I can think of is as a sorting mechanism where people use money to prove they're worth being around to other people with that much money, but surely that could be done more efficinetly.
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
But isn't it rather distorting and unfortunate that people are "spending their whole lives investing in their homes" in the first place?
Agree LVT as you describe it would be very bad (although wouldn't it still be in a world w/o income tax and with 'investing in homes'?)
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
Ever since I started posting two reddit accounts ago, my score is often pretty positive and often 2 (+10/-8). It's pretty funny how most of the controversial posts are where I disagree with some center-right-wing claim, and the positive ones are either on non-political topics or where I agree with some center-right-wing claim. Score generally isn't that related to the quality of a comment though, poster is as correlated as score is
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
Elaborate? Am I not in such a position because [i am a right winger and don't understand left wingers] / [i am a left winger and am therefore biased] / [other]?
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
If he was a gay escort it would explain how he got into the house.
another explanation, much simpler and more likely, is that they have security (secret service) but they're more focused on nancy than husband, or that they had security and messed up this one.
You have to ask the question of what a 'mental state' or equinamity really is, what is happening, what is worth doing. Let's say you made a human enlightened by, uh, hacking all their neurons out, and replacing them with the neurons of a squirrel that was enlightened. Maybe something was lost. Now let's say that the person became enlightened, in a sense, but a very minimal sense - they're precisely as enlightened as the enlightened squirrel is, and then carry on with their netflix-watching the next day. There's something confused here, surely? What if the 100iq-joe-the-janitor really does become as enlightened as the Buddha was - but still retains their desire for netflix, and continues to watch it and eat burgers and work as a janitor? I'm saying outside the context of that enlightenment relating to other parts of their life, it's basically meaningless. So - what is being enlightened, what does that mean, what more is being understood, and is anything being understood if said understanding is never used? And then - if these people are just cavorting in simulacra VR garden land for eternity, is enlightenment as valuable or meaningful there as it is in a complex world with significant demands and willed action? Compare to the enlightened rabbit vs human (or a pet rabbit vs wild rabbit!)
Eh, I'm not a harsh utilitarian so I'm gonna say no. Human flourishing will always be important to me even if AGI is a bajillion times better at 'flourishing' than we are.
Right, but the 'non-self' and 'emptiness' and 'dependent origination' bits should indicate - there isn't anything to being human, aside from all the specific aspects and experiences and dependencies. What is there to humans, at all, that the AGI doesn't have? What's the difference? Not that there aren't any, but it's probably worth checking, and just saying the word 'human' doesn't necessarily mean anything. (and in the sense of "important to me" - i mean, it could just as well be true that 'watching netflix and playing overwatch' would be more important to you than 'universal basic equinamity'. But acting on that would be bad, because then nobody would be enlightened. Similarly, if your desires - at least as you describe them - are wrong, then you should simply act differently. And then those actions are, in retrospect, your desires. Desires in this sense do not exist, then, in a proper sense, they're just descriptions of specific ways one understands and acts)
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
Nothing worse than walking a trail and seeing trash all along the sides. Some people drive along roads through forests and throw trash out their windows...
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
Why would someone who is smart enough to evade LEO detection for years on end bother with a criminal enterprise at all unless it was extremely lucrative and, perhaps, didn't carry a massive jail sentence on the other end
Some people are smart but dumb in some specific ways, some people just like committing crime, idk, it clearly happens. The smartest violent-crime-adjacent criminals are probably doing things like international drug trade logistics as opposed to smashing windows, and there's tens of thousands of smart people who are 'criminals' in that they're running scams or doing white collar crime, which often pays better for less risk.
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
So do you think enlightenment or equanimity is not worth pursuing at all
They are, but only because of what they mean for one's understanding and action generally. They aren't worth pursuing on their own, in the same way that 'orgasm' isn't worth pursuing on its own, outside the context of anything else. (as said in op "Not that said 'states', in particular ones buddhism describes, aren't interesting")
when monks self-immolate they light themselves on fire then sit there in a lotus position as they slowly burn to death.
Ah, that is difficult - but that power should be used in more complex ways than 'a billion normies being neuralinked into simulated self-immolating without actually dying'.
"And it is a very personal endeavor, knowing that superhuman AGI has explored the 500 dimensional qualia space of baseline human minds isn't much good if you can't do it yourself!"
Well, it's good for the AGI. And if the AGI is morally important and is innately capable of better states than the human, isn't it better to focus on AGI welfare/AGI overmen (dep. on christian or nietzchean) than the equivalent for humans?
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
You didn't answer the question. How does making blue checkmarks cost money raise the cost of scams? You can still run scams with nonverified accounts exactly like you do now. Some people, but a small fraction, run scams with stolen verified accounts - those people will just switch to fresh paid verified accounts. But most scams weren't run with verified accounts before this change, and still won't be run with verified accounts after this change. If there's some separate change that makes scamming-without-checkmark much harder, that's fine, but you can do that without $8/mo verification, and $8/mo verification doesn't make that any easier or harder
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
The article links the feed. There's about 8 posts per minute, and it's mostly not loli, but isn't that active either. It took a few min of scrolling to get down to the first loli post 30min ago, "DM me on here or session if you wanna chat and goon to some tiny s--ts together #ped #pedoooo" with roughly the image you'd expect captioned "tight child p---y". Also someone spamming their AI generated web novel
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
Briefly and poorly stated, a union is negotiating with firms that need to hire, and both parties are part of a larger market and are economically incentivized to achieve efficient outcomes. But for a public sector union, a body with incentives only to help workers is negotiating with something that doesn't have those incentives - so if the union pushes for fewer work hours for employees than is industry standard or reasonable, or to not fire poor performers, nobody "loses money" if they succeed other than the public diffusely. The public sector union can also influence public policy to benefit them at the expense of the public. Public choice theory etc
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
If a statement is true, but is boo outgroupy, you can make it not boo outgroup by just fleshing it out more and explaining why it's true. If you make novel or compelling, or even just interesting, points that are 'boo outgroup', the mods will probably allow it (see: kulak's regular genocidposts), but the OP was meh
Left-wing of course is an organizational structure where low performers pledge their loyalty to managers in exchange for loot
Did jesus give anyone loot? What about philanthropy? Left-wingers really do care about the poor minorities (not that they should), and really do want to free them from pain, complexity, oppression. This isn't just 'pledging loyalty for loot' exactly
I intended the "in the 'they usually grow out group'" to be the focus there - i.e. how do you know that both are "things they usually grow out of"? 'sociogenic' is not a useful category either, IMO - 'epidemeologically', iron forging, belief in general relativity, self-identification of homosexuality, and "eating potatoes" are all epidemiologically sociogenic, in the sense that they're all behaviors that spread from person to person. It doesn't tell us anything useful about the behavior, almost all good human behaviors are partially learned, as are almost all bad ones.
I agree entirely. My only disagreement is that - even if the surveys weren't ideologically captured, they'd still be very unreliable.
More options
Context Copy link