erwgv3g34
My Quality Contributions:
User ID: 240
It is, of course, hobbled by severe retrograde amnesia, and being stuck to text behind a screen, but those are solvable problems.
Anterograde, not retrograde. It didn't forget something it knew from its life before; it's unable to permanently remember new things. LLMs are like Clive Wearing or Hermione Granger.
Agreed. Governments hate cash for the same reason they hate crypto; it enables people to escape their control. The state can't get of the cash yet, but they are sure as fuck not going to make it more convenient to use by printing bigger bills. Instead, it will watch as inflation slowly makes the $100 bill as irrelevant as the penny.
From "In Praise of Cash" by Brett Scott:
The frontlines, though, are now creeping to poorer countries. India’s recent so-called ‘demonetisation’ was a brutal overnight retraction of rupee notes by the prime minister Narendra Modi to bring discipline to the ‘black economy’. It was an exercise that necessitated choking the poorest Indians, who depend on cash and who often lack access to bank accounts. Originally cast in popular terms as an attempt to stem corruption, the message was later ironically altered to cast cashlessness as a way to create economic progress for India’s poor.
From "Marriage Makes You Rich and Stupid" by Megan "Jane Galt" McArdle:
Marriage allows you to pool nonrival goods, such as Netflix accounts, but also what economist Bryan Caplan calls “semi-rival goods,” such as kitchens and cars:
Two childless singles, each earning $50,000 a year, marry. Both keep working, living by the old-school principle of "share and share alike." What happens to their material standard of living? If all depends on how rivalrous their consumption bundle is.
If all their goods are rival (like food), the answer is "Their standard of living stays the same." $50,000 times two divided by two equals $50,000.
If all their goods are non-rival (like Internet access), the answer is "Their standard of living doubles." They pool their money and buy a $100,000 lifestyle for both of them.
In the real world, of course, couples are rarely at either pole. Most goods are in fact semi-rival. Consider housing. If you share your home with a spouse, you don't have as much space for yourself as a solitary occupant of the same property. But both of you probably enjoy the benefits of more than half a house. If a couple owns one car, similarly, both have more than half a car. Even food is semi-rival, as the classic "You gonna eat that?" question proves.
But this is not the only benefit of marriage. Marriage also enables specialization. Which can be illustrated by a piece of wisdom I have developed in my brief three and a half years of marital bliss and now pass onto my friends who are getting married: “Marriage makes you stupid.”
I mean, I used to know where I kept my batteries and old documents. But when we got married, my husband, who is much tidier than I am, took over organizing the house. Now, unless it’s a piece of my clothing or kitchen equipment, I have no idea where we keep anything. And while I’m pretty sure I used to be able to put up shelves, now all I know how to do is ask my husband to do it.
On the other hand, he has no idea how much money we have, or in what accounts. And he can’t do the grocery shopping, because he doesn’t know what we consume. Individually, we are less competent to survive on our own. But collectively, we eat better, and we have a tidier house and better-managed finances. And our shelves don’t fall down so often.
Obviously, child-rearing is a major area of specialization. One interesting thing I’ve heard from gay parents is that they find themselves falling into roles that you might describe as “Mom” and “Dad,” even though this is obviously not some pre-programmed gender destiny. It just doesn’t make sense to try to jointly manage a kid 50-50; one parent keeps the social calendar and decides what kids Junior can play with, because two parents trying to do it actually makes the task take a lot more time, as both people have to learn about all the friends and the birthdays and the parents, and then negotiate what Junior does with her time. I’m not saying this happens with every gay parent. I’m just saying that gay parents I know report considerable benefits to specialization.
Specialization also allows for external income gains -- perhaps one reason that married men make a lot more than single ones do and married households are richer than single ones. Some of that is selection effect, of course -- stable, responsible men are probably more likely to get married, especially in this day and age.
So while pooling nonrival and semi-rival goods is an excellent benefit of marriage, it is far from the only one. And it doesn’t stop with economics: There’s also better health, less depression, and happier and healthier children to consider. At the end of his piece, Caplan calls being single a “luxury” good. But it’s not exactly an aspirational one.
From "The Simpsons and Cultural Decline" by Free Northerner:
The Simpsons family is intact and stable, if slightly dysfunctional, and hold to functional, almost traditional, family values. They all love each other, however much they might bicker. Homer is a flawed man, often selfish or stupid, but still loving and caring towards his family. Marge is shown to love and respect Homer, despite her occasional anger at his flaws. Bart disrespects Homer occasionally, but it is shown as a clear deviancy for laughs; it also clearly shown that he does look up to and admire Homer. The kids fight, but at heart care for each other.
Compare those family values that to the three highest-rated sitcoms of 2013: Big Bang Theory, Two and a Half Men, and Modern Family. The first is about a bunch of (fornicating) nerds and their slut friend who spend the entire show snarking at each other. The second is about a cad, his divorced brother, and his nephew who regularly snark at each other; the cad is shown as cool, while the ‘family man’ is shown as a loser. According to Wiki, the third is about a blended family, a somewhat normal family, and a gay couple; the ‘modern family’ is so screwed up wiki needs a chart to keep family relations in order.
The Simpsons has a subtext of Homer as patriarch. A few times in the first couple of seasons Homer makes a family decision, whether it is selling the TV to attend counseling, buying a new TV, or choosing a camping spot, to name a few examples. The rest of the family complains or looks unhappy, yet it is not even questioned that, however flawed he or his decision may be, it is Homer’s place to decide these things. The show just assumes the father makes the major family decisions. Other than Duck Dynasty, would any modern show simply assume the father’s position as head of the home?
The show assumes that normal people go to church on Sundays and say grace at mealtime. Prayer is a casually accepted part of the show, as is religion. Does any major show today, other than Duck Dynasty, so casually accept religion as a normal, unremarkable, everyday part of life?
Other, less remarkable, moral lessons are also included. The pro-family/loyalty message of Life on the Fast Lane. How Marge’s sisters constant denigration of Homer is shown as negative, destructive behaviour. In one episode, Marge is casually referred to as Mrs. Homer Simpson.
All this is not to say the Simpsons is a font of traditional values, it is a liberal show, it does have some fem-centrism, and is rather subversive, but it is a good example of just how fast our culture is collapsing. Just a couple decades ago, the Simpsons was a controversial show that was held up by the president as an example of family dysfunction. Yet compared to today’s cultural wasteland, where broken families are common, disrespect and degeneracy are the norm, and the husband as the head of the family is, at best, a joke, it is very tame, almost traditional.
25 years is all it took. In 20 years, will Two and a Half Men and Modern Family be relatively tame and traditional?
If I was looking for healthy and natural family values in modern television, I would turn to anime, where girls still dream of getting married and having a child is still a blessing. The spirit of Shinzo Abe lives on.
Tipping the dealer or croupier a hundred on a million dollar win is cheap af. In the other scenario, I'd consider "I got rich, here's a hundred dollar bill" to be insulting.
Duly noted. If I'm ever in either scenario, I simply won't give them anything.
"What do you call a millionaire who tips a hundred dollars?"
"Cheap."
"And what do you call a millionaire who doesn't tip?"
"Cheap."
"Well then..."
If I were personally made a muti-billionaire in this scenario, and the real alternative was in fact me becoming destitute, I would probably give the cord lender a million bucks as a show of gratitude. Someone who gave the cord lender less than, oh, $10,000 in this scenario I would regard as tastelessly cheap.
Really? My intuition is that I would give the lender $100 and go on my way. Largest bill there is, big enough tip to make someone's day, small enough to be trivial to me. I would do the same if I won a million bucks at the casino; give the croupier a hundred to satisfy the social obligation to tip after a big win and think no more of it.
I was actually in a similar situation once, albeit on a much smaller scale. I dressed up nicely and drove to my alma matter to do a video interview (because my house was a mess), but when I got there it turned out that my laptop was too old to run the video software (it was still running on Windows Vista!). I asked one of the students I saw there to let me borrow her laptop for the interview, and she agreed. I used it for about 15 minutes in a chair next to her. When I finished, I gave her back the computer, and asked her if she would like something for her trouble. If she said yes, I would have pulled out a twenty and given it to her. She said no, so I just thanked her and went home.
Now, I found out later that I didn't get the job, but if I had, it would have been worth tens of thousands of dollars a year to me, since I was unemployed at the time. Was it cheap of me to have only offered her a twenty, or to have not insisted after she turned me down once?
erwgv3g34
5d ago
The trans youth issue bothers me. Girls sports, underage irreversible surgeries, and marketing to kids all get under my skin. Adults don’t really bother me
erwgv3g34
8d ago
It's hilarious how some websites light up his picture as much as possible in an attempt to make him seem white.
erwgv3g34
8d ago
That luxury has been reserved for the rich ever since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See "When Did Healthy Communities Become Illegal?" by Charles Tuttle.
erwgv3g34
9d ago
Sulla's tutorial got me started with Civ IV; I recommend it in the strongest possible terms.
erwgv3g34
9d ago
Charitably, he's asking where they stand on Jewish controversies that are dividing the current left, such as Israel-Palestine or whether Jews count as Whites for the purposes of affirmative action.
erwgv3g34
14d ago
You pay $6 dollars to enter the bet, so you start at -$6. 50% chance of $10 is $5. -$6+$5=-$1. The bet is negative EV.
erwgv3g34
15d ago
Since I'm registered to vote, my county provides a sample ballot in my e-mail. I do my research online, then write down my selections on a text file. In previous years I would put the text file in my Kindle and open it at the voting booth. This year I went with the lower-tech solution of simply copying my choices into a notebook. Never had any trouble with either.
erwgv3g34
16d ago
The way I've heard it is that an election is a simulated civil war. Both teams show up, you count up the members, assume the larger side would win, then everybody accepts the results and goes home because actually fighting the war would involve lots of unnecessary death and destruction.
Problem #1: Because of median voter theorem, both sides converge to political positions that are almost equally appealing to the center, meaning each side is only winning elections by a few percentage points of the population. This makes it much more likely that the losing side could win the war than e.g. a 30%-70% split, and makes the incentive for the loser to flip the table much larger.
Problem #2: When democracy was first implemented, the franchise was limited to white landowning men. Each expansion of the franchise to people who make for worse soldiers and workers (women, blacks, etc.) has represented a decoupling between the number of voters on each side and that side's actual military and productive capacity, meaning it is no longer at all obvious that the smaller side would lose a civil war. As the sides specialize to appeal to different demographics, the incentive for the party of white men to realize that they are getting screwed for no good reason and start shooting is, again, greatly increased.
(The elites know this, which is why they spend so much time and effort preventing white men from developing class consciousness.)
Yeah, I agree. Especially watching shows from the 50s and 60s, where a lot of the creators were WWII vets (Rod Serling, Gene Roddenberry, etc.), is a huge contrast to today where most of the PMC wouldn't be caught dead in uniform.
I don't know how to do this locally, but I definitely know how to do this online.
What you want is a LoRA. And since you want it for non-photorealistic porn, you specifically want a Pony LoRA. Here's how it is done:
Get a Civitai account, then acquire buzz (the site currency). Either farm buzz daily for a couple of weeks (follow 3 randos everyday for 10 buzz each and claim a free 25 buzz each day from the image generator for a total of 55 daily buzz in less than a minute's work) or drop $5 to get 5000 buzz. You'll need 500 buzz to train a LoRA.
Go to the "Create" button and expand the drop-down menu, then select "Train a LoRA". Pick "Style" and give it a name (usually the name of the artist). Agree to the terms and upload a zipped folder with all your images. They need to be tagged, but Civitai can automatically tag them for you. Click the "Auto-Label" button and use the default settings. But before you hit "Submit", you need to add a trigger word to the "Prepend Tags" field. These are the Words of Power you use to summon your LoRA. I recommend "[ARTIST NAME]_STYLE", for example "PICASSO_STYLE" or "MICHELANGO_STYLE". In the "Base Model" page, select "Pony" under "SDXL", then hit "Submit" and wait.
In a few hours, your LoRA will be ready. You can publish it to Civitai and use it with their online generator or you can download it to your computer and generate locally with a program like Fooocus.
Before doing this, you may want to clean up your dataset. Get rid of low quality, small, or redundant images. If any of the pictures contains an artist signature, crop it, or else your LoRA will learn to generate faux signatures.
erwgv3g34
22d ago
Other than Israel no country has figured out how to maintain both A) a national TFR above replacement and B) clean drinking water.
The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.
erwgv3g34
22d ago
For a man, the financial risk of divorce utterly swamps any possible gains from tax incentives.
To get investment in capital, you need secure property rights, because nobody is going to invest time and effort in a business he cannot expect to profit from, in much the same way no one washes a rented car. Likewise, to get investment in marriage, you need secure ownership of women by men.
As long as Marriage 2.0 is the only game in town, men are going to continue following their incentives rather than accepting a debased marriage.
erwgv3g34
1mo ago
Today, every age group under 25 is now less than 50% non-Hispanic white. There’s no reversing that.
Not with that attitude!
declare that I only care about the suffering of myself, those close to me, and my descendants, which might be more manageable
This is what I did. when Effective Altruism made it clear that spending a thousand dollars on myself was the equivalent of letting a random African child die of malaria, I had a choice of either becoming an EA and donating 10% of my income towards mosquito nets or admitting that I did not actually care about Africans; I shrugged and chose the latter. I have enough on my plate just trying to care about the suffering of me and mine, anyway.
The problem with affirmative action is that most jobs aren't just sinecures meant to provide someone with a socially approved level of status and monetary support; they are shit that actually needs to get done, and shoving an 85-IQ black guy into the civil engineering position in the name of equality is going to fuck up your building. Generalize, and the more affirmative action you have, the more you fuck up your economy and your government.
Welfare/UBI doesn't that have problem, but it has the alternate problem that unearned wages destroy people. Freed from the responsibility to work for a living, they revert back to pathological r-selection, like Spiegelman's monster. The males compete for women based on who can be the biggest thug rather than who can be the best provider; the women compete for males based on who can be the most sexually available rather than who can be the best mother. You get generation after generation of single mothers and criminals who think of welfare not as charity for which they should be grateful, but as a their entitled birthright.
The best solution is to just admit the truth about HBD, do nothing to promote equality, and let blacks carve out the best lives they can on the idea that everyone can contribute to society thanks to comparative advantage. But in order do that, you need to get rid of things like the minimum wage and zoning that forbid people from making a living if their productivity is not high enough.
And if black envy stoked by race hustlers is never going to accept that they are going to end up on the lower end of society through no fault of white's own, then the only alternative is physical separation. Let the blacks have their own country (carved out of Southern states, most likely) and let the whites have their own country, and never the twain shall meet.
Yes, I've always found it disingenuous the way some people act like their only problem with immigrants is that they are coming in illegally and jumping the queue instead of waiting their turn. The implication is that there is some kind of functional immigration process everyone can apply for and that the only reason not to do so is because you are too impatient to wait a few years or too dismissive of law and authority to bother going through the proper channels.
This is totally false. There is no path to immigration for the vast majority of people. If you support enforcing current immigration law, you support denying millions the chance to live and work in the U.S. for no other reason than they were born outside of it, condemning them to a much worse quality of life in countries full of poverty and violence, and you need to own that.
I support it, because allowing unlimited immigration combined with a welfare state and single-family zoning is unsustainable, but I'm not missing the proper mood; I feel bad about it, but it has to be done.
(Caplan would chime in with the keyhole solution of denying the immigrants welfare, but he's delusional)
More options
Context Copy link