iprayiam3
1mo ago
Aren’t you the poster who spent two years denying inflation was happening?
iprayiam3
1mo ago
I've found (more broadly than just this), that small amounts of self-direction can help over time. Literally tell yourself "I'm happy for him/her" and reject your emotional reactive as not your true opinion. This may not work if you have a very overwhelming emotional reaction, but in most scenarios where you're emotions co-exist with even a seed of a detached cogntive rejection of the emotions, just feed that seed and mentally reenforce it as the true perspective.
iprayiam3
1mo ago
Knee-jerk I disagreed. But to test this, I opened up the Lex Fridman interview, which I haven't listened to, and copied a random clip from the transcript without looking at the context:
(00:10:39) So I’ve done a lot of debating, only as a politician. I never debated. My first debate was the Rosie O’Donnell debate, the famous Rosie O’Donnell debate, the answer. But I’ve done well with debates. I became president. Then the second time, I got millions more votes than I got the first time. I was told if I got 63 million, which is what I got the first time, you would win, you can’t not when. And I got millions of more votes on that and lost by a whisker. And look what happened to the world with all of the wars and all of the problems. And look what happened with inflation because inflation is just eating up our country, eating it up. So it’s too bad. But there are a lot of things that could happen. We have to get those wars settled. I’ll tell you, you have to get Ukraine done. That could end up in a third world war. So could the Middle East. So could the Middle East.
So, yeah, without seeing what Lex said to prompt this, I have no fucking clue what the main point or thesis of this rambling is, or what it might be responding to. This bit as bad as anything Kamala says, tbh. Looks like total free assoication. (not word salad).
here's another one just to be fair:
(00:24:09) Nothing. I know nothing about it. And they know that too. Democrats know that. And I purposely haven’t read it, because I want to say to you, I have no idea what it’s all about. It’s easier, than saying I read it and all of the things. No, I purposely haven’t read it and I’ve heard about it. I’ve heard about things that are in there that I don’t like, and there’s some things in there that everybody would like, but there are things that I don’t like at all. And I think it’s unfortunate that they put it out, but it doesn’t mean anything, because it has nothing to do with me. Project 25 has absolutely nothing to do with me.
This one is quite a bit easier, and pretty coherent.
iprayiam3
1mo ago
My wife watched it as a kid and tried to get me to watch it with here not long ago. We stopped after the first 2 episodes because it felt pretty kiddy and her pov was that it must have been more childish than she remembered.
The toilet stall is the last place where I will care about sensory manners.
I think there's a misunderstanding. I'm not worried about manners or complaining. This isn't a judgement thing, it was a curiosity. I'm expressing casual surprise that from the sound of it people regularly make loud vocalizations while crapping, because it sounds like a lot of 'straining', which I don't understand.
iprayiam3
1mo ago
Ok but like, at home alone are people letting out load grunts while shitting? My surprise isn’t the public aspect, it’s the urge to make noises to begin with
iprayiam3
1mo ago
So, uh, kind of gross but… having recently returned from some air travel, and going through a few airport bathrooms, is it really the norm for men (and women I guess) to loudly grunt and groan while dropping a deuce?
The amount of loud such noises coming out of the stalls across multiple airport bathrooms quite surprised me, as I’ve never felt the need to make vocalizations while getting my business done.
Is this the common technique, that I somehow failed to acquire? Or is there some kind of correlation I’m missing between people who crap in airports and people who make loud crapping groans?
iprayiam3
1mo ago
No I mean effective as in it filters out the very worst of your Reddit low value poster. That doesn’t mean I think it’s good. Just that it is effective in at least that.
iprayiam3
1mo ago
I agree but brute length is an effective low pass filter. But once you’ve applied that filter, it’s not good.
Scott’s length issues are worse than just superfluous. He’s clearly reached a point of epistemic growth where instead of exploring ideas in his long posts, he’s laundering conclusions
iprayiam3
1mo ago
I'm quite confused. What is the 'make pretend fantasy'? The one nearly irrelevant reference to Christianity in my post, only referenced as a side disagreement with Musk's lifestyle choices? That's the only 'belief' I mentioned in my post and pretty an unrelated aside. Does any passing reference to Christianity force you to blindly zero in on it?
The rest of the post is basically just a restatement of what others have said downthread: Altman is childless, and possibly detached from the future of bio-humanity, and certainly not as publically 'attached' to it as Musk.
iprayiam3
1mo ago
I posted this comment well over a year ago, and I think it holds up:
I am not a Musk fanboy, but I'll say this, Elon Musk very transparently cares about the survival of humanity as humanity, and it is deeply present down to a biological drive to reproduce his own genes. Musk openly worries about things like dropping birth rates, while also personally spotlighting his own rabbit-like reproductive efforts. Musk clearly is a guy who wants and expects his own genes to spread, last and thrive in future generations. This is a rising tides approach for humans Musk has also signaled clearly against unnatural life extensions.
“I certainly would like to maintain health for a longer period of time,” Musk told Insider. “But I am not afraid of dying. I think it would come as a relief.”
and
"Increasing quality of life for the aged is important, but increased lifespan, especially if cognitive impairment is not addressed, is not good for civilization."
Now, there is plenty, that I as a conservative, Christian, and Luddish would readily fault in Musk (e.g. his affairs and divorces). But from this perspective Musk certainly has large overlap with a traditionally "ordered" view of civilization and human flourishing.
Altman, on the other hand has no children, and as a gay man, never will have children inside of a traditional framework (yes I am aware many (all?) of Musks own children were IVF. I am no Musk fanboy).
I certainly hope this is just my bias showing, but I have greater fear for Altman types running the show than Musks because they are a few extra steps removed from stake in future civilization. We know that Musk wants to preserve humanity for his children and his grandchildren. Can we be sure that's anymore than an abstract good for Altman?
I'd rather put my faith in Musks own "selfish" genes at the cost of knowing most of my descendants will eventually be his too than in a bachelor, not driven by fecund sexual biology, doing cool tech.
Every child Musk pops out is more the tightly intermingled his genetic future is with the rest of humanity's.
...
In either case, I don't know about AI x-risk. I am much more worried about 2cimerafa's economic collapse risk. But in both scenarios I am increasingly of a perspective that I'll cheekily describe as "You shouldn't get to have a decision on AI development unless you have young children". You don't have enough stake.
I have growing distrust of those of you without bio-children eager or indifferent to building a successor race or exhaulting yourself through immortal transhumanist fancies.
Her: Ooo which church I would love to go if that’s okay?
Me: Sure, I was looking at [nearby church] — it's a bit nontraditional (rather, they say they follow a non-mainstream tradition, Theosophy) of course, as I said, I haven't actually been there yet so don't judge me if they turn out to be 100% crazy 🙈
Saturday morning
Her: I’ll look into! It might be interesting
To be specific, this is probably where you lost her. It went from her inviting herself to, looking into it as a soft exit. You tricked her with the church thing.
Looking up Theosophy, is that it looks odd, and makes you look out there. Likely - She's a Christian and thought you were going to Christian church, then pointed her to an odd pagan church with Nazi-esque logos, and she got spooked out by that. Culturally Christian people don't mind going to a nondenomination christian church to meet a stranger. It would code as a safe place. Rightly or wrongly, going to a non-christian esoteric religious meeting would code as dangerous and weird.
The wikipedia page has a logo at the top with a snake and a swastika thing.
"any of a number of philosophies maintaining that a knowledge of God may be achieved through spiritual ecstasy, direct intuition, or special individual relations, especially the movement founded in 1875 as the Theosophical Society by Helena Blavatsky and Henry Steel Olcott (1832–1907)."
iprayiam3
2mo ago
Other times, I am frustrated by her lack of brutal drive to self improvement. ... Shes objectively achieved enough that her intelligence is not up for question, but other times Im dissastisfied with the lack of sharp off the cuff retorts that ive come to expect from my male friends.
Gross. This isn't real. You don't want a wife who's like one your your guy friends. You don't want your wife to be a sarcastic, grindsetting bro.
As i read this, I know I sound like a manic pixie dream boy. But, the brain wants what it wants.
I wanted a manic pixie dream girl, the girl I married isn't anything like that, I had real axiety briefly while dating her about that, I made the best decision in the world.
Logistically, we're very long distance and will last another year, which is the biggest issue.
This is the only objection you've raised that is legit. Also, could a source of you lack of investment be related to a lack of real chemical interaction?
iprayiam3
2mo ago
To his side: I don't buy that duty === illegal not to. I think that's a weak counter from you.
I also don't think his perspective necessarily means everyone should have to vote. I think it can just as easily be used to say: "The people who ought not be voting, ought not be complaining".
I think you can make a strong argument that a healthy community involves conscientious involvement and any political movement requires coordinated civic action; thus not voting is defecting.
I don't necessarily buy this argument, but I don't think it's remotely as vapid or axiomatic as you are claiming.
iprayiam3
2mo ago
It’s interesting that everyone in this thread who’s changed their mind on this direction has also become a regular user.
It kind of undermines the strength of the point
iprayiam3
2mo ago
Maybe, but I think this only works for intentionally superficial interactions.
iprayiam3
2mo ago
This is such a stupid objection. First of all it takes a very small percentage to make a big difference when the total number is big. 20k is big. 20k is astronomical when you're starting pop is 60k.
If 2 Billion Martians landed on earth, and killed 20 million people, I'm not taking solice in the fact that that's only about a 1% murder rate.
Second, again the insane rapid influx of complete cultural and national foreigners is itself massive damage to a local human ecosystem. If I lived in a town of 60k and 20k people almost exactly like me, moved here from across the country without my town's consent in a matter of years, I would still consider it extremely destructive to my town's character.
iprayiam3
2mo ago
Demoralization is saying the community has been destroyed and the place is conquered. That is only so if you believe it is so.
This is silly and relies on the firm beleif that nothing is real. If you live ANYWHERE and your population increase by 33% in a couple of years, from ANY sort of transplant, than any local culture, landscape, services, infrastructure has been irrevocably changed. Maybe one wants to argue that this is a good change and in many cases it is.
But if the dramatic change comes from outside and against the will of the people, wihtout their explicit consultation and approval, they've been 'invaded' so to speak. At least, when it's gentrification, the people who stick around get a better, safer city out of it, and it's generally from their fellow Americans. When it's by true foreigners, it's ridiculous to pretend anything else but invasion.
You can't just absorb a 1/3 population surplus from a completely different country.
iprayiam3
2mo ago
Putting 20k foreigners into your town of 60k is a literal invasion. That community to the extent it exists has been conquered.
I am shocked it hasn’t come to violence.
How do the leaders and police officers sleep at night knowing they’ve cooperated with a complete surrender and probably gotten paid for it too
iprayiam3
2mo ago
Nevertheless, we see him more rarely, and get less quality time with him, than we would if he didn’t have children.
my relationship with them has cratered, partially because the stress of the experience and the extreme impact on their lives made them so stressed-out and insular. It also rendered them somewhat unrelatable to me; what could I possibly talk about with them nowadays?
You under-estimate how lopsided this is from the other side. Sure your brother loves you and would like to spend more time with you, but the tragic loss of extended adolescence, and 'hanging out' with friends and family is a drop in the ocean of purpose and life direction for parents.
The problem I have with these kinds of observations, and those made by childless women is that parents have experienced both worlds, but the childless haven't seen the other side yet. This used to be solved with social obligation, because the other side is scary. But its a transformative way of being that's not fully modellable on the front side.
I have very good friends who do not have kids, who I very much enjoy seeing when I can. Of course the time I spend with them and the overall depth of our friendship had diminished. In a world without time scarcity, sure I'd love to see them more. But in this world, I'm sorry, it's a rounding error. The time I do go out of the way to see them is mostly for them. It's not for me.
iprayiam3
2mo ago
0-1. You need to severely weaken some of the gender-egalitarianism in context and law. We have to be willing to cultural and legally treat motherhood as something unique. 0-2. You have to be ok with the solutoin not being universally fair or an over focus on liberal-egalitarianism. Some people will be losers in a sheme that actually works. Some groups will feel 'marginalized'. (not racial groups, but groups based on sex, gender-identity, and marital status)
- Give extreme tax breaks / financial incentive to married families with children in their 20s. This has to diminish on a curve, so that people are incentivized to start appropriately early. A couple welcoming a child in their 30s should receive less than a couple in thier 20s, all other things equal.
- Married mothers over 21 with children under 5, should receive free college & graduate school tuition.
- Force legal work schemes via incentives for 'mom-time' jobs, that work as an onramp into full time work. An example would be a 20 hour work week with benefits.
- Give married men with stay-at-home wifes financial incentives; Make it not just legal, but encouraged or subsidized to pay family man bread winners more than their childless.
Together, it should be an extremely common and stable path for a woman. Consider this example life path:
A woman meets a husband in undergrad, get married and start having kids in her early 20s while her husband works. The wife takes part time graduate courses for free, and has a secure internship in her desired field. As her second or third child gets out of infanthood, she starts working 'mom-time' in her late 20s. say, 15 hours a week, in her chosen field.
By 32 or so, her third child is in kindergarten and she is working 30 hrs a week with flexibility around picking up her kids etc. By 35 she's working full time and has an entire 29 more years of full time career ahead of her before she starts collecting social security.
iprayiam3
2mo ago
To take this a step back, my wife and I are constantly confused by the married couples who got married without being on the same page beforehand. I understand that things can change (especially from a no to a maybe to a yes).
But watching people start their lives together with a 'we'll see what happens' or even worse (which we've seen) - agree to disagree, is maddeningly self-inflicted strife.
Regardless of the rest of your point, this is a really bad analogy, because it completely misses the salient point that hostile government actors and agencies were putting pressure on this kind of censorship.
More options
Context Copy link