@starless_sea's banner p

starless_sea


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 09 12:56:47 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 1533

starless_sea


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 October 09 12:56:47 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1533

Verified Email

Cheating in college may still be worth it even if the material is worth learning. Writing a thesis is a pain, you don't learn much from the constant re-editing and messing with LaTeX. Having some help on that is useful. And there might be a single course your stuck on (happens to the best).

I didn't love university much, but I can see the point of doing it at normal pace if you enjoy it. I've still have a hard time seeing how 5 years of college trumps 4 years of 25% more college + 1 year doing whatever you want.

Related hypothesis: UFOs are a US intelligence recruiting effort. "Come work for the government and learn if any world-shattering conspiracies are actually true or not."

Selecting their friend group is probably one of the more important things. No idea how to do that though.


Most children and teenagers have no idea how to dress and groom themselves. Lookism is everywhere. Ergo, make sure that they look good. If they want to be cyber-goth and you can't stop them, at least make sure that they dress as good-looking cyber-goth.

Also make sure that they exercise. As in, they have a fitness program and measure progress.

Both of these require you to act the example, but you already do that, right?


In their teenage years, you want them to have good references for their college applications and for job searches: Find a good friend who runs a company. Pay them under the table to hire you kid to a prestigious position for their age, and provide glowing references when asked.


This is pretty far down the line, but there's been discussions in rationalist circles about "speedrunning" collage, e.g. https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/yqtwit/speedrunning_high_school_and_college/

I think the benefits of this are pretty clear, even though most commentators seem to be against it for IMO bad reasons: If you finish college one year faster, it's one less year of being stuck in an institution and one year extra of prime-life freedom. Also, finishing college one year early looks very good on your CV.

Setting your children up for this should be pretty easy. Get an idea of if they want to go into higher education and if so: what school and field a few years in advance.

  1. Find the course material and start working trough it (easier if you homeschool).

  2. Give them permission to do this weird thing: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/secrets-of-the-great-families

  3. Help them make a plan for their university years. What courses go which year? Should they aim to finish as fast as possible with the lowest possible passable grades, or should they strive for a certain GPA?

  4. Hire them a private tutor (it's weird how few university students do this, the gains are enormous)

  5. For the unethical part: help them cheat. Help them write their papers etc. Collage is only signaling anyway.

Well, once again, if Qatar don't want any rainbows around they should not have hosted the World Cup. Now they are in the boat, and they have to row it to shore. Once the World Cup is over, they can isolate all they want to protect themselves from evil American plots.

Forcing players to wear rainbow armbands if they don't want to is morally wrong.

Howdie partnar! Did you know now that them Qataris don't have no laws against wearin' that rainbow flag? They should just let them fans wear them rainbows and not start no trouble about it! Now I recon this is what mister Nasser Al-Khater, World Cup chief executive, promised them fans back in ol' 2020, so he should be the big man and stick to his words I say. Especially since there's no law against it and so.

Now I don't know now if this all is needed, but I recon' if them Qataris needs to save their faces, they can just say how their Allah made that rainbow as his covenant, amen, and that them tourists are all mighty pleased to celebrate the lords work.

But you have to explain why the Qatari should allow a symbol of support for behaviour they have criminalised.

Literally my first post:

If you invite the whole world to your country by voluntarily hosting the World Cup, you should expect the world to show up. If you do not want people in your country who do not conform to the rigid social taboos of your culture, you shouldn't host the World Cup.

evidence that this conversation has been mostly me making uncharitable assumptions about you.

That's a... very American way of thinking.

Why are you pretending you think this is about clothing?

But ok, only 50% of this debate has been you making uncharitable assumptions about me. It feels like more when you are on the receiving end.

that you are resorting to sophistry on this topic because you know the position you back is contrived.

And it continuous. Seriously man, try to show some kindness.

Anyway, since this seems to be only meta-discussion and no actual discussion at all, I'm out.

I can see the argument for why clause 14 is applicable. (But precedent would be nice. Where is the line drawn for what is and isn't a political statement?) Per this clause the players should stop wearing armbands. (The Qatari behavior towards the rainbow-clothed fans is still rude.)

Clause 22 is clearly unrelated: rainbow armbands are not contemptuous, discriminatory or denigratory, nor do they offend the dignity or integrity of anyone.

I'm not pretending that this is about clothing. Clearly there's symbolism in the rainbow armband, I'm happy to acknowledge that.

I'm feeling like this debate isn't going anywhere, it mostly seems to be you making uncharitable assumptions about me. If you want to know anything concrete I'm happy to answer you, but I've stated my position and I don't see that you have argued against it.

Yes. If some Indian person wants to have swastikas on their clothing that's perfectly fine. Like, this is basic liberalism: are you surprised by this answer?

A rainbow armband is not an expression of contempt and disrespect for Qatari culture. And once again: If Qatar doesn't want any rainbows anywhere, they can just not host the World Cup. Inviting people and then policing details in their dress is rude.

Simple solution: If you are so quick to offense that you cannot tolerate armbands with rainbows, you shouldn't host the World Cup.

Yes, it would be rude for a guests in Qatar to walk around in drag and chant "Are there any men here ready to fuck!?". But that's pretty far from wearing an armband with a rainbow on.

There are several Muslim players in the NBA. don't understand you point. (Also, the NBA is a national affair.)

The obvious answer is yes? When Germany hosted the World Cup in 2006, it would have been perfectly fine for a Qatari to show up with armbands that say "God made marriage between man and women" or something like that.

I don't see the contradiction. The Qatari government is bad for expecting their guest to conform to their rigid social norms. FIFA is bad for allowing Qatar to host the World Cup. People should not go to the World Cup. Three true statement, no contradiction.

I'm European.

Also, OPs argument seems more American to me. "My house, my rules" and similar mindsets are very American and signals that famous rugged individualism. We in the old country are more graceful hosts IMO.

Like you know how brides bans certain colors for the guest clothes, or makes all their bridesmaids wear the same dress? A very American thing IMO.

Yes, that would be totally fine with me. I mean, this is TheMotte, would anyone here want to ban something like that? I'm pro armband freedom for everyone everywhere.

Your comment reminds me of the classic https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/08/the-slate-star-codex-political-spectrum-quiz/

I disagree. If you invite the whole world to your country by voluntarily hosting the World Cup, you should expect the world to show up. If you do not want people in your country who do not conform to the rigid social taboos of your culture, you shouldn't host the World Cup.

Wearing an armband is not shitting on anyone's culture or forcing anything on anyone. Being annoyed when your invited guests wear innocuous armbands that are perfectly fine in their culture is rude.

Against Malaria Foundation has received millions of dollars and prevented many deaths.

Maybe decide on no videogames for a week, and as much videogames as you want after that. You can survive one week, right? Then just take the time where you would have been playing videogames to sit in a chair and be bored. You can survive being bored as well. (Hopefully this will make you so bored that work feels like fun. It works for me.)

Doctors can prescribe to family members in almost all countries. It's not what's causing the US malaise.

Exactly how should Scott fix the red tape in the system? (Except for running his own experimental shoestring clinic, and talking loudly about the problem to his big and influential audience, both of which he already does.)

Or because there was no blackmail. I know that most cases of political blackmail is in shades of grey and veiled from the public, that's why I'm looking for clear-cut cases.

It seems entirely plausible that whomever had the video released it just to ruin Crawthorn without attempting to do any blackmail. Or that they did a "traditional" blackmail for money, not the kind of political favors blackmail I'm discussing here. And if they did a blackmail, why wouldn't Crawthorn tell the details, or go to the police?

I might need to look into it. Do you know how far down the conspiracy rabbit hole the author is?