non_radical_centrist
No bio...
User ID: 1327
non_radical_centrist
4mo ago
Give an inch, they take a mile. If you just let China take Taiwan with no fight because the war would be so costly, why would China stop there? Would you let them conquer every island in the Pacific until they have everything except Hawaii too?
non_radical_centrist
4mo ago
He didn't, and I don't know much about Ireland, but my casual awareness is that they have extremely low corporate tax and have become an international tax haven. So I guess Milei wants to make Argentina a tax haven too.
non_radical_centrist
4mo ago
https://youtube.com/watch?v=8NLzc9kobDk
Milei on a podcast with Lex Fridman. Fridman is a bit of an empty head but Milei is great. Previously I read this summary of Milei by Scott Alexander, as well as several Economist articles on him, and all that information seems accurate from Milei describing himself. But the podcast also gives some new stuff I hadn't heard before.
a) He considers Ireland's market reforms a model and wants to go even farther, so that Argentina's the freeest country in the world. But he also spent a long time criticizing libertarians who criticized him, emphasizing that he had to live in reality and not put Argentinians through too much short term pain or Peronists would sweep him.
b) The economic statistics pre-Milei, as terrible as they were, were still cooked a bit because there were lots of price controls. But it doesn't matter if bread is cheap if there isn't actually any bread to buy. So removing price controls made inflation shoot up but also let people actually buy shit.
c) He's a big fan of the Austrian school and Mises, Hayek, Rothbard. Not a surprise, but I guess it confirms he prefers it over Chicago school. Personally I don't really understand the difference anyway.
d) He eliminated a system where there were middle managers handing out welfare payments, which was both a gross source of inefficiency, and allowed those middle managers to turn out the people they give payments to for large protests. This both freed up a bunch of money and got rid of a lot of stupid protests. According to Milei, shortly after he did that there was a protest organized against him that was expected to get 50 000 - 100 000 people, but only turned out 3 000.
e) He really, really hates socialism and loves freedom. He also doesn't like wokism and modern feminism, but his primary hate is socialism/communism. He also really does like Jews, he dropped in a few references to Egypt enslaving Jews and how he supports Israel today. He also really loves his dogs.
f) He recommends Trump/Musk move fast and get to cutting regulations as his #1 tip for DOGE.
g) He mentioned that Trump was "unfairly accused of protectionism" which is kinda funny to me. You can like or hate protectionism, but you can't really deny that Trump is a protectionist. Unless you're Milei I guess.
non_radical_centrist
4mo ago
There's not nearly that much fat to be trimmed
The fat to be trimmed all comes from stuff like unions and other special interests, and you'd have to break those before you can actually cut the fat. When unions have rules like "Only janitor union members can clean floors, and only food sector union members can peel fruit", at small locations you can easily end up with multiple employees where you only need one. But you can't actually fire either employee until you get rid of the union rules, because those jobs do actually need doing.
non_radical_centrist
4mo ago
My prediction is that early on Musk will run into the incredibly thick red tape that normally prevents massive cuts in government, try to cut through it anyway because that's what he's used to in the private sector, and it results in some sort of lawsuit or other scandal.
non_radical_centrist
4mo ago
not withdrawing from Afghanistan
He did begin the process, it just only finished under the Biden administration. I agree with everything else.
non_radical_centrist
5mo ago
Does he want to write about probability and statistics? Does he want to build models to predict events? Does he want to play professional poker?
He wants to do all three. He's built a very succesful substack that earns plenty of money and I think he has a moderately succesful pro poker career too, I don't think he's missing out by not hyper specializing.
And if anyone thinks they have better estimates of who'll win elections than Nate's models, feel free to bet against him. Either through prediction markets, or if you're willing to bet a large sum he'll probably be down to do a direct bet against you through an escrow service.
I'm pretty sure the French gambler could've just bet directly against Nate Silver too and probably could've gotten better odds/smaller fees than going through Polymarkert, for at least a portion of his bet.
non_radical_centrist
5mo ago
Issue is, your formulation I think describes Israeli Gaza operation pretty well, but they are a 'legitimate military force'.
Israel does not kill civilians for the sake of killing civilians. They take out military targets that unfortunately have civilians nearby, because civilians are nearby everything in Gaza.
There's a debate to be had about how many civilians it's justifiable to kill when taking out an enemy leader or military installation. What Hamas does is different, they kill civilians that are nowhere near any military personnel or installations.
I really wish this sort of labeling would be backed up by videos of something resembling a Roman triumph. But I'm guessing you are referring to the non-naked corpse of a woman on the back of the truck clip? I don't think female Israeli corpses are special, and the amount of attention that is being demanded for them and other Israeli victims (in broad Israeli astroturfing) is disproportional, at times downright deranged.
That's a disgusting video. Even more disgusting is that that sort of thing isn't clearly and unconditionally condemned by Palestinian leadership. All people have some members who are disgusting. But good groups will have their leaders disavow disgusting members.
non_radical_centrist
5mo ago
transparent pro-Israel astroturfing
Do you really think any sort of organized group is interested in astroturfing themotte? No organization is paying people to type up comments to be read by ~200 people max.
I would think 'terrorism' a discredited label, counterproductive in most cases, especially in the context of distant desert squabbles.
It's not. Terrorism is pretty consistently using violence targetted specifically at civilians in order to enact political change. Hamas sometimes acts like a legitimate military force, but they also do things like cafe bombings and parading kidnapped naked women through the streets. And notably the leadership doesn't disavow those actions and put any fighters who commit acts like that on trial.
non_radical_centrist
5mo ago
I believe something like a green cloth armband fits the standard, for pseudo-militaries that can't do better
non_radical_centrist
5mo ago
How many supporters would Trump really lose from a gaffe? Doesn't Trump do pretty much nothing but gaffes and his supporters love him for it?
non_radical_centrist
5mo ago
I think it was just really funny of him. It wasn't some brilliant move, it wasn't a mistake, it was just a small +EV event that's really entertaining to the internet
non_radical_centrist
5mo ago
surely learning an extremely valuable skill must take a lot more time and effort – otherwise everyone would do it, right?)
Absolutely not. People procrastine and are lazy as hell. There are many skills that are relatively easy to learn but the learning is unpleasant enough most people just don't do it
non_radical_centrist
5mo ago
Nancy Pelosi's stock market gains are not anything crazy. She just gambled on the tech market going up, and it did. The average congressperson's portfolio doesn't particularly outperform the market.
non_radical_centrist
5mo ago
I think a large amount of the viewership will be women, a lot will be solid liberals or leftists, and a lot of the viewership will never have actually heard Trump speak for more than five minutes, and I'll talk with that in mind. I think a large amount of Trump's supporters are very die hard too and he doesn't have to worry about people abandoning him because he says different stuff on the podcast than during rallies.
I think I'd take it as an opportunity to make it clear that a lot of things liberals attack me over are just false. Say you support abortion rights and make it clear you didn't implement any new abortion restrictions, you just gave the choice back to the states, and that states are free to be like New York and implement limits far looser than what European countries have if that's what they want. Double down on European countries having stricter abortion limits than a lot of US states, and that that could be what the whole US ended up with if congress ever overruled the Supreme Court about abortion instead of each state being left to its own devices.
I wouldn't dodge questions about tariffs and illegal immigrants, but I'd try to dwell on them minimally, and only bring up the strongest points about them. Talk about illegal immigrants committing rape or something.
Talk about pacifism and keeping America out of foreign conflicts, and not wasting American tax dollars.
Really play up my humour and make lots of jokes and small talk. Ideally most of the podcast would be talking about non-political stuff, like asking Alex questions and joking with her instead of her asking me questions. Trump's a very funny guy.
Personally I think there would be a lot of flaws in Trump's arguments, I'm more liberal/libertarian myself and think there are solid counter-arguments that a knowledgeable hostile interviewer could point out, but that Alex Cooper (I assume, I don't actually know her) won't be particularly knowledgeable about the details of the issues.
non_radical_centrist
6mo ago
I don't know any country I'd point to as an examplar to follow for defense procurement. I still think there are some very obvious improvements we can take as a country.
non_radical_centrist
6mo ago
Yeah, that scenario or any other sort of black swan scenario we can't place numbers on like societal collapse post-super volcano or the invention of like a Chinese super weapon that leads to a WW3 would also benefit from a better military
non_radical_centrist
6mo ago
Canada was in the Afghanistan war, we had soldiers peacekeeping during the breakup of Yugoslavia. We've had soldiers die because their equipment was inadequate. It's entirely plausible one day there'll be another 9/11-esque attack, but on Canadian soil, and we'll need to carry our fair share of the response. We need a navy that can patrol the arctic to assert our sovereignty on it over Russia.
Yes, Canada doesn't need to be as militarized as say Israel or South Korea. But at the very least I think it's totally reasonable for Canada to try to avoid some needless waste due to stuff like politicians pandering or avoiding responsibility.
non_radical_centrist
6mo ago
I've been reading a couple books about the sad state of Canadian military procurement. I think procurement for the sort of country Canada is is a legitimately difficult problem, but one that's eminently solvable with better informed voters and if party leadership had some more integrity.
There are three or four principle problems with Canadian defense procurement, that date back to debacles like the Ross rifle which constantly jammed in WW1 and the Avro Arrow which was an overengineered interceptor, and are still issues with more modern boondoggles like the F-35 and the Seahawk replacement acquisitions.
The first is just that Canada is an expensive country to properly defend. We've got an enormous, sparsely populated country, so ships and planes need to be able to travel far distances and need to be able to do it with infrequent refueling. Plus they need to be able to withstand the extreme cold and the ice in the arctic. This is part of what killed the Avro Arrow; no other country wanted to buy it and help Canada recoup the costs because no other country needed the (expensive) capabilities it offered. This is just something Canada needs to accept, that sometimes it will have to pay more to get the job done in Canadian conditions.
The second is a desire to build in Canada, to provide jobs to Canadians and build up a Canadian defense manufacturing industry. I'm sympathetic to this idea- it seems like a great deal to pay just a bit more and keep all the jobs and capital within your own country right? But in practice it's not just a bit more, it's multiple times more. There was an Iltis Jeep procurement order that, if bought from Volkswagen, would've cost $26 000 per jeep. Because the government wanted it to be built in Canada, it cost $84 000 per jeep. At that point you're paying more to build in Canada than you are paying for the actual thing you want. It'd make sense if the alternative was buying military equipment from China or even a neutral country like South Africa, but not from a NATO ally. And if Canada does want to build up its industry, I'm of the opinion it should be done in the style of South Korea- only subsidize Canadian manufacturers if they can actually export internationally and produce stuff other countries want. That's the only test that can't be faked to confirm Canadian manufacturers are really producing good stuff worthy of subsidy. In general I think among allies, there should be more cooperation and specialization for military production. Let the USA build the planes, South Korea and Netherlands build the ships, Germany build the jeeps, and so on. Not to assign official responsibilities to countries, but to let them compete in a freer market, so whoever's actually best at making the goods can get the contracts. And if your country isn't actually competent enough to build anything anyone wants, you should just suck it up instead of spending tons of taxpayer money propping up an incompetent industry.
The third problem is that procurements become very political. In the Avro Arrow case, the liberal government stalled cancelling it even after they knew it was doomed to avoid the bad press for it; then the conservatives taking over after the next election also stalled cancelling it to avoid the bad press. Then with the Seahawks replacement, Chretien attacked the conservative government over the EH101 replacement for being too expensive. Then when he took over as Prime Minister, he wasted 500 million and years of delays trying to find a different replacement after realizing the EH101 was just the right choice for a replacement by any fair measure. Then Justin Trudeau did basically the exact same thing when he called the F-35s too expensive only to realize they were the only plane that offered what Canada needed, but only after he delayed their procurement for years and wasted tons of money in the process.
The fourth problem I honestly think is basically unavoidable, and that's that procurement has to go through a ton of bureaucracy. The Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of Defense, the ministry of industry, and Public Service and Procurement Canada are all involved in any big ticket procurement order. And if you try to bypass one, once it finds out it'll stall things up for a couple years insisting on doing its own analysis. One of the books I read recommended making a dedicated new ministry just for military procurement, like what the UK and Australia apparently have, to streamline things. Personally I doubt that'd make things significantly better. It sounds like the Yes, Minister sketch that goes "We've completed the study of which bureaucrats we can cut." "What'd you find?" "That we're short of 8000 bureaucrats". I think large bureaucracy in modern governments is basically inevitable, and trying to cut it down or reform it is basically a waste of energy until you've first fixed some larger scale problems like public sector unions.
non_radical_centrist
6mo ago
A lot of corruption is by dumb people too. If you're smart, usually just being honest produces better outcomes than trying to game the system.
non_radical_centrist
6mo ago
Yes, I don't think any of that is that difficult.
non_radical_centrist
6mo ago
It's voluntary, but when it comes to the Delta Gamma of this email (assuming that the email is real),
The fact that that's newsworthy at all, and is from ten years ago, suggests to me that that sort of extreme pressure is an exception not the rule
non_radical_centrist
6mo ago
For scene girls (what does Gen Z call them?)
Alt girls is the term for goth-lite girls these days, scene is basically never used by gen-z
Why isn't there one for girl nerds? For scene girls (what does Gen Z call them?)? For purple-hairs? For radfems? For Blacks? For academically obsessed Asians?
I think part of the reason why those fail is that the cool kids are cool for a reason. Many of the people in all of those sub-cultures really would have more fun being in a traditional sorority with all the really charismatic and hot people than being around their own kind.
non_radical_centrist
6mo ago
I think it just comes down to reading a lot of stuff from different points of view. If you read two books that advocate for opposite beliefs, you can't come out too badly.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-theory-that-men-evolved-to-hunt-and-women-evolved-to-gather-is-wrong1/
It's hard to trust Scientific American when they mix communicating real, good science with blatant contradictory nonsense. Their article on Man the Hunter being inaccurate makes great points about how women can be excellent endurance runners, outpacing men over long distances. But then it also has a this paragraph about gender vs sex.
How many pre-historic humans would actually have any seperation between the concept of a "female" and a "woman"? Not to mention they way they actually bring up "women in social roles" doesn't acknowledge their own distinction- you're never going to get a pregnant trans women, but you could get a pregnant trans men. We don't know anything about "gender" as progressives view it in pre-historic societies- we only know about sex, what we observe through things like skeletal remains and inferences from behaviour of human-like animals. The article would've done better to solely use female and male the whole way through and not try to seperate sex and gender.
Later, there's a paragraph about how athletic studies don't do enough research on females that wasn't relevant to anything else in the article. A non-sequitor that wasn't relevant to the article since we do know enough about female biology to determine their relative advantages and weaknesses at physical activities compared to men.
The article does have some good informative material in it.
But then later it had this infamous paragraph:
I had never seen that paragraph in context before. Knowing the context, that they just explained the inherent biological differences, then denied them right after, makes it worse! Right after they broke down in detail how females have hormones and muscles built for stamina over power! The reason why male pacesetters aren't allowed for women's endurance running is because the male pacesetter would be setting the pace too fast for the women, who are built for going a longer distance at a slower pace than men, as they had literally just explained earlier in the article.
They also downplay the evidence that "Man the Hunter" was accurate, but at least they include it.
In conclusion, their own conclusion perfectly demonstrates their own double think:
They claim at the same time that females are biologically optimized to perform certain activities better than males, but also that females and males performed the exact same activities in an egalitarian society.
A lot of old anthropology like the original "Man the Hunter" article this article is a response to, is flawed. But at the same time, modern anthropology is just as if not more biased than the anthropology of the 60s. Their intro has a line saying,
The reason why bystanders are so confused is because that's exactly what organizations like Scientific American are trying to do. If they really were just trying to correct a mistaken historical record, bystanders who don't do deep dives into human pre-history could safely trust pop sci and wouldn't be so skeptical. But when Scientific American blatantly tries to push an agenda, bystanders rightly grow skeptical.
More options
Context Copy link