@pigeonburger's banner p

pigeonburger


				

				

				
2 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2023 March 03 15:09:03 UTC

				

User ID: 2233

pigeonburger


				
				
				

				
2 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2023 March 03 15:09:03 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2233

Independently of whether women hypergamy should be celebrated or socially repressed and shamed, a lot of the obsession you see in the crowd that say they want nothing but a virgin tradwife has very clear parallels with other sexual fixations. If it was really just about worrying about how it affects their chance at a good relationship, they could just, you know, get to know a woman' personality before committing, for sure a better indicator of compatibility and relationship potential than any reading the tea leaves in her sexual past. But the point is that a lot of the "trad or bust" crowd really have a purity fetish, with exactly all the same implications that the word 'fetish' has in porn.

On one hand, it seems trivially fine that private spaces where only a subset of people are allowed should exist, and while I'm sympathetic to the privacy argument, it could have been resolved with a (somewhat purposedly) cumbersome and opaque process that would be able to split between genuine interest in maintaining privacy and mere curiosity.

But the west as a whole has decided that men-only clubs are not ok, so I don't see a principled argument that would make

The first ever girls-only space

okay.

The difference is that after getting his opinions from (relevant) people on the left, someone went and did shoot all (relevant) Charlie Kirks. And the reaction was mostly (with notable and appreciated exceptions) not a sobering realization of the impact of their words. To compare, no one (relevant) installed, attempted to install or even proposed installing a modern version of Hitler.

That should inform as to which was only banter and which was not.

/* (using relevant here to exclude non-central, lizardman constant people on both sides)

It's funny because Politico would have a stronger article if they did not fixate on this obvious joke mentioning Hitler, some of the edgelord racist stuff would have the potential to shock prudish normies or at least create enough of a problem for the right that it would have to address as if the public and the private are not different spheres of communication, but the Hitler quote Politico (and magicalkittycat) highlight as if it was the worst of it is so obviously said in jest that it's easier to dismiss the rest.

"I love Hitler" seems about as literal Nazi as possible. If that is not "proof of Bad Nazi" to you, what is?

Did you read the context?

AD: He did say “My delegates I bring will vote for the most right wing person”

PG: Great. I love Hitler

Do you think that last line, if this was written with acting cues as in script, would be:

PG *with stars in his eyes at the thought of a Fourth Reich* : Great. I love Hitler!

or

PG *deadpan* : Great. I love Hitler.

or

PG *sarcastically* : Great. I love Hitler

is neonazism, support of slavery, and unabashed bigotry such as this actually common among young conservatives as Hanania and the group chat themselves seem to believe?

See, this is the problem with the question. Someone asked recently about what the building consensus rule here meant, and I think this is a stellar example: it presumes that what you're referring to is clearly "neonazism, support of slavery and unabashed bigotry", where someone not highly motivated to see it as more will just see joking and edgelording. Tasteless, yes, and ill-advised in a context that had the possibility of being leaked, but looking at the quotes in the articles I see nothing that reads to me like neonazism or support of slavery, just laconic jokes. As for the bigotry, there's a better case there (though nowhere near a slam dunk) but at this point the right has run out of shits to give about following the left's rules for what they're allowed to notice and think about groups of people. Or at least joke about.

He probably wouldn't like it because his era was obsessed with industrialization, yeah, but that doesn't mean that the people doing it are not transplanting his ideas from the factory to the movie studio.

People can point to a consensus that already exists, and no one is going to object, but building a consensus is smuggling your controversial opinions in the shared, uncontroversial context of a post hoping they will evade scrutiny. Well executed it's a great propaganda tool, but in a forum where people are expected to lay out their opinions clearly for debate, it's dishonest and counterproductive, as if someone spots the smuggled opinion and cares to debate it honestly, they will need to have you unwind that argument back to that assumption, which wastes everyone's time. It also, as Primaprimaprima mentions, feels very hostile and unwelcoming when you have it done to you.

But profits go up, share holders are happy, so every year it continues. At least on paper. It's almost impossible for me to reckon that this can continue forever. That they aren't eating their seed corn in some fundamental way. That at some point the tech debt they continually accumulate won't cause the Microsoft ecosystem to be such a risk to run, that there is an institutional push to abandon it.

The hard part, though, is that if that is true, if you know for certain that they are eating their seed corn, then my friend you have tremendous alpha and should put all your money betting on Microsoft going belly up.

These risks are not separate from the valuation, they are priced in. And while I also really, really dislike the direction Microsoft has taken, they are making a killing on cloud licenses, especially Office 365. Pretty much every company I work with and for has to pay a monthly per employee tax to Microsoft.

I kind of feel like you're someone entering a cult, eyes wide open, saying "Sure, I see their game, but it won't work on me," even as the bait is perfectly obvious. But there are worse cults to fall in with, I guess.

Is it that, or "Sure, I see their game, and honestly? I wanna be taken in. It's mostly upside compared the status quo."

Yeah, but if you were to have to explain to someone why CEOs compete for 7-8 digit salaries while "normal people" compete for 5-6 digit salaries, even if you accounted for time spent in education and risk taken, it would be hard to make it seem fair. And if you told them that in the end, everyone ends up with more if they just shut up about fairness and let the market do its thing, it'll be hard to convince them it's not self-interested rich capitalist propaganda (or bootlicking), because, again, of how unfair it seems.

This happens because labor theory of value is rather instinctive, as it appeals to our innate sense of fairness, even if it's wrong and inefficient. In which, of course, there is no realistic way a CEO could be doing thousands of times the amount of labor that his subordinates do, so there is no fair way in which they should be taking home thousands of times the pay as these subordinates.

Once people realize that there is no fair objective way of pricing goods and services, including labor, then they can understand why they should accept the inequalities created by a market.

*EDIT : Of course, that matters for mistake theorists. Conflict theorists that do know better than to believe in labor theory of value will still gladly invoke it to agitate against their opponents.

It's very rare that I would ever say that, but the meth user seems to have been more than reasonable there.

I'd worry they can't meme well since "Gotta catch 'em all" doesn't really work for them.

That's my recollection as well, that everyone was playing along including myself. It never felt like my parents were betraying my trust, but more like this was one thing that was an exception and it was okay to playfully lie about. And I can see how that can be a prosocial thing to teach kids. Of course, there might also be parents that go too far, insist too much on the reality of it all without enough winking, and actually cross the line into betraying their children' trust.

if this alleged mistreatment of the dog is what gets him cancelled, it's pretty revealing what certain people's priorities actually are

I don't think it's so much a question of priorities. The people that Hassan mistreats, he would argue (and his audience would agree) are evil people that deserve it. And for that matter, he could be right; I don't know enough about it to say for those people, but I do believe some people are evil and do deserve bad treatment.

Dogs though, I'm not convinced at all are capable of evil. They either act according to their natural instincts, or they act how they've been trained. Thus I find mistreating a dog is a worse act of villainy against an innocent than mistreating a person that you believe is evil.

I don't know personally what he did, but I know that I've never seen a dog yelp in response to anything except pain or the expectation of incoming pain if it has been conditioned into them, neither is a good look for Hasan.

It doesn't look good man.

Would it not look good if it were not in the context of the media breathlessly describing them as stormtroopers for months? We're talking about counter-factual world we can't really observe here, but purely on its own, for me, masked guys blowing up doors to the Pokemon soundtrack doesn't really raise an eyebrow. It's not like they're committing atrocities, or even just filming themselves doing a bit of the ol' unnecessary police brutality and laughing about it, that'd be different.

but it does, almost tautologically, mean that they are giving off a scary hatable vibe.

I would surmise that the majority of americans have not seen an ICE officer performing their duty in real life, only through videos that are cherry-picked, contextualized and characterized by a hostile media. In that context, the vibe around them is definitely not something that they are tautologically giving off, but something that could be constructed around them.

English is #2, and my gut feeling us #3 is Arabic, though the dated info I find puts Italian slightly ahead of it.

It's like the game wants the player to think this is irrelevant, yet even 2 seconds of thought shows it cannot possibly be irrelevant: whether the item is good or not is entirely determined by how big that damn number is!

I think it's a credit to the games' balance that ultimately I almost always find the answer is "just big enough to make a noticeable differencr without unbalancing the game". An item that adds fire resistance will add enough resistance that if you were struggling with an enemy that does fire damage it will be noticeably easier, but usually not enough to trivialize anything.

Fears of disaster as Russian nuclear submarine reports major malfunction in Mediterranean | The Standard

This triggers my submarine autism. To be fair, I'm not blaming you, I'm blaming The Standard (or rather, its headline writer, the article correctly points out the subtleties).

When someone says "nuclear submarine" without any qualifier, it means "nuclear-powered submarine". Though I would usually cut some slack if someone meant "ballistic missile submarine with nuclear weapons".

The Kilo is neither, it's a fast attack diesel-electric submarine. If it had one, which I wouldn't think likely, the Kilo could, in theory, fire a Kalibr cruise missile holding a smallish tactical nuclear warhead. By that token, every single platform that is capable of firing a Tomahawk is nuclear, seeing how they could technically fire a TLAM-N (I think they were officially retired, but I mean, the technical capability is still there, and if any still exist covertly...)

Ultimately, I think it comes down to not allowing social media to have their cake and eat it too. It's perfectly valid of them to only allow what they want to allow on their platform. But then you cannot claim that you are unable to block content you can be liable for.

if your algo is making opinionated editorial decisions, you are fully responsible for what it shows as a publisher. If it's only making technical editorial decisions or no editorial decisions, then you can enjoy the protections that currently exist. I think it's the only way to thread the needle between freedom of association and freedom of speech.

Ok, but then all you need is smart plugs with remote activation.

Set the space heater's thermostat to 20C, turn the smart plug off when you leave, turn it on when you head there. You don't need to know the temperature; if it's already hotter than 20C turning on the smart plug won't do anything, if it's colder it will run until it reaches 20C.

This means I need a way to remotely see the temperature and switch the heaters on until the temperature reaches 20C

Do you? I imagine the space heaters have a thermostat that can already do this task with no input from you, don't they?

I get the instinct to want to DIY it to get a feeling that I actually own my shit, I tend to do the same. But if you're not planning to expand this into a bigger system, in the end, if your smart plugs are really just smart "on-off" switches, you're probably overthinking the data leak aspect.

It's not like you're putting cameras there. Yet. Which you probably will eventually.