lagrangian
14hr ago
Brutal, sorry man. I'd be tempted to use the dark net at that point, or have a friend with good insurance in a country with shorter waits ship it...
lagrangian
14hr ago
I agree completely.
LLMs are a junior engineer who cannot learn.
I see you've met my coworker.
I did not in fact ask that this poster not post. I asked their thoughts about posting outside of CWR.
This is...very much not the same as my intentionally ban-worthy douchebaggery from a bit ago.
Edit: hm, my "I'd personally appreciate" is closer to asking they not, but still better than than the consensus building antagonism I rightfully ate a ban for.
I think this is also essentially (or entirely? I don't care enough to read too much of their user history) single issue posting, which is against the rules. Iirc copy pasting in a whole substack is also frowned upon, and it's adjacent to that. So, I'll report - but I think discussing with someone about their posting is more direct and productive than just clicking report.
And, OP has -12.
On the one hand, wow, that's very, very impressive.
On the other hand, skepticism and my prior of "nothing ever happens and especially not with LLMs" makes me ask: was that literally the question? Do you have a source? I am very much not a biologist, but that is surprisingly/impressively broad.
lagrangian
1d ago
To me, this is impressive, but not that impressive: sure it answered the question, but it didn't pose the question. In the same way, LLMs are decent at writing code, but have ~no ability to decide what to write. You can't just point them at your codebase and a bunch of email threads from PMs and hope it writes the right thing.
I don't know how many plausible hypotheses there are for the question it solved, or how hard it is to generate them, but it's surely much easier than looking at the state of the field as a whole and coming up with a new idea for which to generate hypothesis.
AI is a junior engineer.
lagrangian
1d ago
I'd personally appreciate it if you removed them from CWR one way or another (but feel free to put them elsewhere, like I said). To me, they're too long and single purpose for the amount of visibility in the CWR thread. But, you get engagement, so it's not at all obvious to me that others would agree.
lagrangian
1d ago
What would you think of posting these in their own mega submission, instead of the CWR? Or separate individual submissions even.
lagrangian
1d ago
Not hard to learn, just don't wanna. (And, I've, uh, learned a number of recipes over the years, just because I move etc.)
To continue overextending the metaphor, I actually have the same preference with food: I'm good at cooking a range of recipes, but mostly eat Soylent and put a small number of things in the air fryer.
lagrangian
1d ago
Weren't harems typically exclusive to a man?
Yeah. As mentioned in another thread, I got my whorecabulary a bit mixed up.
If I could do it over, I'd s/harem/bunch 'o fuckbuddies/
lagrangian
1d ago
Interesting. Do you think it helps his legal case to post the video, or that he's just so clearly legally safe that it's worth optimizing for his job?
Or that the lawyer was just doing damage control by telling him how to do the video? Lawyers will (although not always) advise you on how to do the stupid thing you want to do the least stupidly if you tell them to.
lagrangian
1d ago
Uh, do you know what a concubine was?
Well, now I do. I suppose if I'd thought about it harder, I could have defined harem/concubine/brothel correctly, but mea culpa.
I still don't want one.
Most cultures, unless they suppress this tendency, will develop some form of this over time
Well said, and a decent metaphor for fighting reality on a number of fronts I suspect.
lagrangian
2d ago
Perhaps the fundamental difference then in our viewpoints is I think the mental effort that goes into fucking someone is actually a lot of the fun. Knowing how to press each other's buttons in bed, the comfort of familiar company. So by the time you've removed that from the hypothetical, I no longer consider the activity really all that worth doing. Don't get me wrong, if it were the only thing on offer, I would take it with a big old smile on my face. But it's hot dogs when I'd rather slow cook ribs.
lagrangian
2d ago
I see, any chance that you from 10 years ago would say something drastically different?
Hm, maybe a little different, but not drastically. Even in college, when I was sleeping with a few people, I always had a favorite/tended to break things off with all but one/want something serious. It's not that I was low libido, and while it's probably lower now I wouldn't at all say low/below average (for mid 30s). I think I'm just wired more monogamously than you.
lagrangian
2d ago
In general, sure, but that wasn't my impression of how the word was being used, which was more like "brothel." I suppose in the hypothetical where it's my exclusive use harem, but I still don't have to interact with them, there's no STD concern. And while we're at it, let's stipulate that they each have a dozen IUDs.
I would still not want them, given the alternative of something monogamous. They sound exhausting. I like the feeling of winning on my own merits that comes with sleeping with someone I "earned" rather than bought.
Given all of the stipulations here, we've moved so far from "men want to cheat/have lots of casual partners" that I think it's pretty irrelevant. And, so implausible as to be even more irrelevant, in the same way as "if science could perfectly grow new bodies and move over minds, and adjust for the lack of growing up as that gender, and retcon others' memories, then surely you'd agree trans women are women."
lagrangian
2d ago
Yes. Mid 30s.
lagrangian
2d ago
I'd rather not even talk to the cashier. I definitely don't want to fuck the hypothetical harem (given the alternative option of a ~zero-effort monogamous casual arrangement, or, even better, a high-effort monogamous serious one).
freely fuck but not otherwise have to interact with in any meaningful way
But "fuck" is a whole lot of interacting with a stranger. (don't) Fuck that.
lagrangian
2d ago
it wasn't just legal trouble it was to protect his image which had been tarnished
Legal trouble is way more important than your image! I'd rather lose my job than end up in jail because I said the wrong thing on youtube.
lagrangian
2d ago
Right. Hard to beat a recurring calendar event.
Men really aren't built for monogamy, huh? [...] 3. The few who actually just disagree.
I'm certainly in 3. I think most men are, too. I barely have the time or interest to put up with/keep track of one woman at a time. I'll also take monogamy (and an IUD) over condoms and a harem. If I ever blow anything up for the cause, spare me the 72 virgins - I'll take one moderately slutty broad who know what the fuck she's doing and hates texting.
Cases like Greene's seem to vindicate me.
Do they? He's so far from a typical guy. I have an enormous amount of trouble understanding how anyone's response to any of this is "ah yes, let's post about my legal troubles on Youtube." I may be old.
lagrangian
8d ago
The FairTax is
Could you say more about what the FairTax actually is? I'm at best dimly aware of it. Something like "a flat sales tax on all goods, with no other taxes (income, property)"?
lagrangian
11d ago
I believe the default course of action would be to buy index or mutual funds. I've been eyeing the S&P500.
Yup. It really is that simple. I hold VFFSX, although there are a number of similar low-to-zero fee large-cap US stock indices that are all "S&P500".
Even if you think you could beat the market, you have to decide if it's worth the stress/effort. I think it's very much not. Surely, if optimizing for dollars, your effort is better put into advancing your medical career. Similarly, if you find yourself cleaning toilets at home, either a) capitalism is fundamentally broken or b) you should hire a housekeeper.
Some mix of VFFSX + safer or anti/un correlated asset classes makes sense if you are either particularly risk averse or particularly concerned with timescales shorter than 10-15 years. But, this leaves expected value gains on the table, and requires more thinking, so I'd advise mildly against. See e.g. Butterfly Portfolio.
Beyond that, two notes:
- Obviously pay off debts that are higher than expected returns (~8% in nominal dollars) before investing
- Rent vs buy is nontrivial. Do not assume buy is the better answer, even if you are certain you will never move. Owning is a headache and a risk. The reasons it has historically been better to own are: a) laws that have driven up house values, but could change; b) people are too stupid to invest the cashflow saved by renting, whereas owning forces you to invest (in a single asset class!), making owning correlate with net worth (amongst many reasons)
lagrangian
11d ago
Interesting, I like even plain cruise control. Gets tiresome on my ankle otherwise. But adaptive is a whole nother level. Now you don't have to speed up and slow down as people in front of you do things - you are really just setting a max speed. Super great in stop and go traffic.
lagrangian
11d ago
Are you saying you consider moldy bread edible? I throw away the whole loaf, and would look at anyone doing otherwise strangely. I'm wondering if this is a geographic/cultural norm - I'm from the US, for context.
For some reason, growing up, for cheese we would cut off the moldy part plus a couple inches, but I've mostly chalked that up to "grew up less well off than I am now" + "Jewish cheapness".
lagrangian
11d ago
CFPB:
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) helps consumers by providing educational materials and accepting complaints. It supervises banks, lenders, and large non-bank entities, such as credit reporting agencies and debt collection companies.
(Not a response, just adding context)
Consider something comma.ai compatible - $1000 for open source self driving. What could possibly go wrong.
Adaptive cruise control is the best. Strongly recommend you get it one way or another if you spend much time on the interstate/etc.
More options
Context Copy link