site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   3335 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 21, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The truly brave people in the Trump assassination attempt weren't really the Secret Service, they are just doing their job. Nope, it's the photojournalists. You have some pretty wild footage from one journalists video-recording glasses here where you get a close-up of the huddle around Trump (which looks extra sloppy from this view) and taking the now-famous photo of trump pumping his fist with the flag in the background. You also have a longer piece here where some of the photographers talk about how they literally started rushing to take pictures the second gunshots started, having recognized the sound right away. I mean, one of them literally captured a bullet whizzing midair, which is crazy. Their instincts to run towards danger because it means a better photo is mental.

Also, the person who snapped the photo of Trump on the ground with blood dripping down his face is literally named Anna Moneymaker, which is hilarious.

The best example of Moneymaker nominative determination remains 2003 World Series of Poker champion Chris Moneymaker, who was the first person to win after qualifying online.

also notable for being an objectively bad player, who got massively lucky, and thus played a big part in creating the online poker boom of the time.

Is she related to Kelly Moneymaker?

Maybe related to Moneypenny.

Why wikipedia articles on fiction are so often look like ads from publisher, avoiding any spoilers? Isn't it also supposed to shortly summarize for those who didn't read, and why exertps are very short or low resolution even if they are very publicized on the web (e.g. rickroll). (in part, shortness of exerpts might be due to concern for users with weak computers)

There have actually been historical Editing Wars over spoilers (including some involving Gerard of the recent TraceWoodgrains expose, who's generally been on the 'just spell it out' side).

But more often, especially for smaller publications, it's that you're either going to have articles from wikipedia to tvtropes written by a) the author or publisher or a related team or b) a particularly neurotic fan. That's not even specific to books! It's not that surprising that Darkship Thieves (estimated readers in the low-thousands) has a really crappy tvtropes page with the vast majority of content coming from one troper. This game has had literally hundreds of thousands of players, and it's got five writers, most of which didn't do jack, and none of whom could reveal the full plot (the game uses a season system, and the second half of the zones won't unlock for another few days).

In a word? Editing. Also don't forget regular randos create Wikipedia pages --I have made pages for more than one novel. These pages were then relentlessly edited by who knows who so that they barely resemble what I first created. I doubt computing power of some underpowered reader is anyone's first (or tenth) concern.

what is your point, that IP owners hire people to purge content from article to look like ad?

No, that isn't my point. What's yours? Is there a question you're not asking?

I don't have a point, I ask question but instead I get a bait from you to broke rules

Could somebody give me a summary of Project 2025?

My very loose understanding is that it's a large, ambitious pile of conservative coded objectives by a Right Wing thinktank with some potential links (albeit not strong ones) to Trump's potential administration, some of which align with Trump's objectives and some of which don't?

You’re basically accurate; Trump has officially disavowed it but there’s a 0% chance of a Republican president not enacting pretty decent chunks of a heritage department agenda, and Trump in particular Is Not A Policy Guy. That being said it’s unlikely that all of it, or even close, gets implemented.

That's essentially what I pictured. Big wishlist of things from a Conservative grouping that'll inherently overlap with Trump, but probably more by 40-50% than on all the culture war issues that are now essentially obliquely being pinned to Trump's campaign.

I don't know if you know all this or not, so my apologies if this is repeating the obvious.

You have the basic concept right. A lot of stuff in Project 2025 is the kind of stuff that's been in every Republican Party Platform at the national convention, on every Republican Presidential Candidate website, in lots of Heritage Foundation white papers, etc. The actual stuff they want to do is neither particularly surprising nor frightening.

What does make it a game changer is the creation of lists of state-level experts willing to serve in a Republican administration and pursue these goals, along with a plan to expand the spoils system such that a huge number of government functionaries will be fired

Republicans/Conservatives have been hamstrung for decades by the dynamics of government work. In many ways from the New Deal onward, but certainly accelerating since Reagan, growing worse under Bush II, and critical under Trump. The people who go into Government aren't Republicans by attitude, and people who are Republicans by attitude don't go into government work. In the same way cops are mostly Republicans because young Democrats don't tend to become cops, EPA staffers are mostly Democrats because young Republicans mostly don't want to work for the EPA. As a result, even when an R admin takes over in the White House, they can appoint a new Republican department head, but that department head can only direct a vast number of Democrats. /u/Tracingwoodgrains has provided a recent overview of how this works in the legal field, where the Federalist society has created what amounts to a list of Republican leaning law students, who are maneuvered into clerking for Republican leaning judges, who then move on to become Republican leaning judges. They've been able to keep the courts relatively split and the conservative bench well stocked, even as it's increasingly hard to find a Republican at HYS tier law schools.

Project 2025 will promise to do the same, but for the EPA and OSHA and HUD.

That is a reasonable thing for Democrats to fear. The destruction of one of their major structural advantages would be a cataclysm. The reclassification of a vast number of jobs as political appointees would also absolutely cripple government for decades, because Democrats would be forced to in turn fire and hire a vast number of people every four to eight years. The resulting chaos would make government slower, even when Democrats win. Rather than having career bureaucrats who have a home field advantage in the bureaucracy, you'll have guys who just heard of this regulation for the very first time. Combined with the recent changes to Chevron, bureaucrats will be on a much more even footing with citizens going up against them. Republicans will say this is making government more responsive to voters and rooting out the administrative state's antidemocratic self-preservation instinct; Democrats will say it is disarming the army and then saying well the army can't protect us so we better surrender. Both, to some degree, have a point.

A side note being, while high-level career bureaucrats have long been political appointees flowing in and out of power with admin changes, there has been an ecosystem on both sides of think-tanks and academia and corporate sinecures to absorb those folks when they are out of power. But what will they do with more low-level staff being swung in and out? What will happen to the entire city of DC when a huge portion of its workforce is being hired and fired constantly?

I recently read the one by David Friedman. Curious to know what more knowledgeable mottizens think.

Here is the conclusion statement from the article

Project 2025 is neither a Trumpist document — it contains arguments against as well as for some of his positions and a good deal of advice that I do not expect him to take — nor a sinister plan to destroy democracy. It contains a good deal of libertarian rhetoric and advocates at least a few libertarian policies but is by no means a libertarian document. It is a battle plan for conservatives, for, as it repeatedly says, a conservative president. It contains a good many things I agree with, a good many I do not. If fully implemented the result would be far from my ideal but perhaps a little closer than we are likely to get from either a Trump or a Biden administration.

Has anyone encountered any information at all about this photo?

edit: That photo may plausibly have been one of the photos being discussed in this clip, as having been taken by a (local law enforcement, rather than Secret Service as asserted in that tweet) sniper inside the AGR building overlooking the roof:

"I believe the sniper that seen these and sent the pictures was right inside this building [...] if you go to that window that's open, and yell for Greg, that's the sniper that sent the original pictures and seen him come from the bike, then set the bookbag down, and lost sight of him. He's the one that sent the pictures out, I don't know if you got the same ones I did."

edit: NYT article

Allegedly taken by some sort of law-enforcement stationed on the second floor of the building adjacent to the roof the shooter used -- I find the publicization of this one (also the closeup of the shooter's bloody face) most interesting, because the only origin point I've been able to come up with for them is 'anonymous posting on /pol', very early on. (of course they are other places now, but that is the earliest I saw them -- and none of the other outlets seem to be crediting any legitimate source directly)

While I'm less certain of the location, the provenance seems to check out -- I believe it to have been taken back when he was just a "suspicious person" with a backpack or a rangefinder or behaving oddly around metal detectors. Being local law enforcement also means the quick leaking makes a lot of sense, as they are well known for texting around photos like this and/or leaking them quickly especially around a big event.

If the local law enforcement were hanging around inside shitposting on /pol anytime around this chain of events, I'd find it quite noteworthy.

People are gay not good about providing sources on /pol, so it's possible someone found it on Twitter instead -- which is still pretty bad.

I think it would be more like sent it to a coworker who sent it to a friend who sent it to a friend who posted it on /pol/.

Who is that and why should anyone care?

That's the Trump shooter afaik; I don't know that particular photo, though, nor do I understand the implications.

What have your personal public conversations about the Trump shooting looked like?

I feel like everyone around me has barely mentioned it outside immediate family and friends. It's like everyone just backed off, left wingers and right wingers are giving fewer zingers. The closest I've gotten to having a real conversation about it was at a gun store, explaining why I wanted something in stock with a reference to "you know, everything going on..." Which he nodded to acknowledge and said something like yeah it's crazy.

The general sentiment among my mostly PMC liberal friends is "you have to admit that photo is fucking sick, right?" Lots of expressing grudging respect for Trump's personal courage.

My coworkers have been absolutely gushing over it. Discussing the coverage, acting astonished at how it happened, etc.

One of them went and bought an AR “before prices go up.” Not that he hadn’t been thinking about it anyway. But we chat about shooting, so we talked over the details here, too.

It’s amazing how many of them have suddenly become security professionals, especially regarding drones.

One of them went and bought an AR “before prices go up.” Not that he hadn’t been thinking about it anyway. But we chat about shooting, so we talked over the details here, too.

Do we work together? I'd been lollygagging on that purchase for years and finally pulled the trigger.

I suppose it's always possible, but if we had the same line of work, I suspect it would have come up by now.

I guess you meant Americans? For me, it was like "Have you heard there was assasination attempt on Trump? - Yes" and that's all

I was with friends when it happened and someone got an alert on the phone when it did. It had a kind of meme vibe to it. It was like “Trump survived and assassination attempt, brief looking at the news followed by — so anyway — and back to previous conversations.” 2024 is already so weird, we all just seem to roll with whatever happens at this point. I used to have bingo cards as a joke, next year I’m making an actual bingo card.

I talked with my boss at work about it. We work at a non profit that does libertarian policy, so it's not strange to talk politics. Both out feelings were "holy shit we just narrowly dodged a civil war".

Among neighborhood dads group which is very politically mixed, it was a somewhat similar and very sober tone. We quickly started using humor to cope. None of us with little kids want a civil war to kick off.

Some combination of people acknowledging "well that almost happened..." in hushed tones while a few disappointed leftists go "how fucking lucky is this guy?!" and wish the shooter had succeeded or cope by claiming it was staged.

A few general condemnations of political violence. One "this is the dems' fault for calling trump a fascist", which mentioning the guy's apparent conservatism and google searches about the time of dem events didn't really help dispel. One "I wish he'd gone for Biden and it landed, then we'd have a better candidate!"

One "I wish he'd gone for Biden and it landed, then we'd have a better candidate!"

We got another candidate!

My favorite reply from a relative: “this is the first time I wish Trump leaned further right”. Comedy knows no political aisle

That's actually pretty funny.

My girlfriend's immediate response was "it was staged" and refusing to elaborate further. Likewise a lefty friend of mine.

My wife as well, which is interesting as she has almost no views on US politics, though she is probably influenced by mainstream media's Never Trump bias (and obviously just hearing words that come out of his mouth sometimes). Other than that a friend back home messaging me that he knew it would happen (though actually he had said "they" will assassinate him if he is elected.) Mostly I've not interacted face to face with any Americans since the shooting for various reasons.

Mostly I've not interacted face to face with any Americans since the shooting for various reasons.

Is there any demand for decorative European garden hermits in your neighborhood? Because right now that job sounds a lot more appealing than being in the US.

A far amount of my colleagues-turned-friends over the past decade are former military. Many joined post 9/11 not out of lofty ideals of "duty" but very visceral feelings of "let's fucking murder terrorists." In a sentence, these are guys who are permanent George W. Bush supporters. To that end, many are a little light on Trump because they see him as a blowhard and kind of jackass. They've voted for him twice but aren't MAGA.

The timber of those conversations changed pretty drastically after the assassination attempt. It's the exact same vein as 9/11 - "they" (whoever that is) came for our guy. Even if we weren't totally in love with him (much like a lot of these dudes have never and will never go to Manhattan) he's still our guy. So, fuck you, unnamed "they"!

I have a lefty Coworker, and the only way I could get him to give up the Teleprompter glass cut hypothesis was showing him multiple pictures of the Teleprompters not being broken on an article on Snopes about same.

Whereupon he fell back to the blood pellet or palmed razor cut theory.

I was confused at what the point of these theories even was. What, if he'd been shot at and the bullet missed by a foot and only managed to wound him with shrapnel, that would suggest that the security was basically fine or the attempt wasn't a big deal? As a point of curiosity, I get it, but I don't understand how the motivated reasoning for the teleprompter theory got to whirring.

If he was hit by glass, then that leaves open the possibility that it was staged. No one would ever stage being shot in the ear at long distance.

As opposed to staging getting hit by a glass projectile in the ear at short distance?

I think they know that “Trump was shot and survived” makes him seem much more badass than the alternative “Trump was hit by flying glass when one of his supporters was shot and killed.” The former puts him in the same league as Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson and has the potential to make him much more popular.

I think you're exactly right about the underlying motivation. But, as Walterdim's post makes clear, reframing "flying glass" to 'shrapnel" is so trivial that a lot of people are going to do it without even thinking. And if "flying glass" sounds less badass than "bullet", "shrapnel" is arguably even more badass.

This theory would require that the shooter was in on it and was directed to just shoot into the crowd rather than aiming at Trump.

Of course, we do have that photo of the bullet in flight before it hit Trump. One could argue the shooter was aiming near Trump, but why risk accidentally killing him? There's definitely no way anyone could have imagined that photo beforehand.

And why would the shooter follow directions on a suicide mission?

It really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

It's a very similar vibe to when a rival sports team gets a great young player.

I suppose Donald Trump is sort of the Joe Burrow of the Republican Party.

A running bit among my friends and I when we go to trivia is joke team names based on dark humor of whatever the week's event was. We tossed a few around for fun, but decided they were all too classless to actually use. That's not terribly uncommon for us, we've previously discussed joke names like, "Merry ChristHamas" with the whole bit being maximally inappropriate naming, but we only put them down if they don't seem like they would cause sincere offense from a reasonable person. This wasn't actually a conversation about the event, but it perhaps provides a little bit of a view on whether it's a topic that's just so completely off limits that no one would make a crack about it. This is a group that's pretty normie left, but knows that I'm... well, not that.

So what are examples of names/events that MADE the cut? So we can place Trump in the hierarchy.

We cleared Houthis Blowing Up Fish after one of their attacks (more fun when said aloud with the same cadence as Hootie and the Blowfish). Biden Debate Prep Team also made its way through, which is probably a little spicier than it sounds in a city where most people were distraught by the outcome. So, more serious than Houthi piracy and Biden appearing senile, roughly on par with 10/7-adjacent joking.

Perfect triangulation points.

Recently got a Financial Times subscription through work. Any authors or sections definitely worth reading?

Their weekend section was consistently excellent.

Janan Ganesh, witty, arrogant, infuriating voice of the PMC. Robert Armstrong is an annoying guy but Unhedged always makes for interesting reading, feels like a column in a place like this or LessWrong. Some of the other opinion columnists are also pretty good.

I dislike discord. Not just because of the discord -> degeneracy meme, but because so much tech specific knowledge is now hidden in a generally unsearchable archive where the only way to find it is BY joining and searching various discords. At least forums have a single post buried in the google archives from 15 years ago. With discord suddenly a huge amount of information is gated, and short of 'joining the community' it's impossible to locate the information now.

A problem that took me two days to iron out could have been done in 15 minutes if I simply remembered that Discord = information. However, my general use of discord means that connection in my mind doesn't take place.

Discord is great for many things but the problem you bring up is real. I've joined groups (programming stuff, D&D stuff, etc.) for the 'archives on their discord' only to find that there are no archives, just a soup of years of history with no real way to find a given item unless you happened to be around when it was posted and also remember how it was phrased.

There are some communities which take major effort to keep information organized. e.g. read-only channels where only moderator unlocks for specific instances and closed after posting.

well honestly discord wasn't intended for this, it's for gaming and short attention spans.

I don't dislike the way Discord works; we really needed a replacement for IRC, as not everyone had the chops to run a bouncer and keeping a record was a big issue. Discord has the nice effect of mixing multiple types of communications people could want to have together in a semi-coherent structure.

I am a disappointed though that the solution we ended up going with was a centralized private company, instead of an open protocol. But Matrix is a mess.

But Matrix is a mess.

It was broken by design.

People think federation is a feature for some reason, but the only people it helps are not people you should ever empower, because it allows them to bully you across instances for the crime of not sharing the same killfile.

"Federation" as far as the client sees it is just managing multiple accounts, which doesn't tilt the playing field in favor of the bullies.

Oh yeah, and the server needing 2GB of RAM to run is absurd. We accept that from clients, but when it's the server it's an entirely different story and makes it even more difficult to run.

You have this exactly backwards. Centralized services force a singular moral sensibility on everyone in the world. The cure is federation, or some equivalent of self-hosting or associating with like-minded people.

Edit: Zuckerberg, Musk, and Pichai are the people I should never empower.

Federation has already failed. A common protocol is important, but we only have that by inertia too.

People think federation is a feature for some reason, but the only people it helps are not people you should ever empower, because it allows them to bully you across instances for the crime of not sharing the same killfile.

"Federation" as far as the client sees it is just managing multiple accounts, which doesn't tilt the playing field in favor of the bullies.

Don’t these two paragraphs conflict?

And Matrix appears to have open federation, but can’t you just create your own insulated private swarm of Matrix servers like IRC networks?

"Federation" as far as the client sees it is just managing multiple accounts

The point of federation is that you use the same one. So, for instance, if Reddit was my homeserver and I wanted to post to TheMotte's Matrix instance, I'd be [redacted]@reddit.com.

The problem, then, is that if you don't like that homeserver I can't use my main identity to talk here, and it's a single point of failure to only have a single account on an instance that doesn't belong to me (in which case it's "banned for coming from an instance that doesn't answer to you").

Messaging about trying to appeal to users that were on the run from overly-censorious website operators that their selling feature boiled down to "more hassle and still just as much censorship" was the opposite of a good plan. This would have been fine in the early '00s where culture war hadn't yet come to the Internet for cultural reasons, but it's not the early '00s any more.

but can’t you just create your own insulated private swarm of Matrix servers like IRC networks?

Of course you can- Pawoo and Gab are the largest such isolated instances, though as I understand it, that's more "most of the network has them blocked".

It's one of these things that turned me into a conspiracy theorist, but it's really quite amazing how all the "decentralization" measures tried everything except for what would actually distribute the control of the information to the end users. It's always either federation or blockchain.

What designs would actually distribute control to end users?

"Literally, just sign your shit with a private key, Jeremy" with some bit-torrentesque routing and/or gossip network on top. You mentioned GnuNet in the other comment, last I looked into it, they were pretty close to what I had in mind, but it didn't seem to have much running on it.

EDIT: I just checked out FreeNet, and it seems to have the same problem.

Wordpress-style blogs instead of Substack. BBS instead of Reddit. IRC instead of Discord. All paired with some form of easy web hosting (lol).

With large companies, you can be kicked off of a friend chat or fan club for your conduct in a news discussion group.

I thought we were talking about I2P, GnuNet, FreeNet, Toxx(?)

Any technology your faction didn't create is a tactical and strategic liability. This is also the root of why people are bothered by AI censorship.

As far as conspiracy, this stuff was in the works far before tech people noticed they needed to stop giving ammunition to people who hated them- that only became apparent after 2015 or so and both ActivityPub and Bitcoin both predate the first mask-off moment.

Any technology your faction didn't create is a tactical and strategic liability. This is also the root of why people are bothered by AI censorship.

Which faction created Matrix, and how are people adopting certain design principles for these networks based on CW tactics and liabilities?

Which faction created Matrix

It's been a while since I looked into Matrix, but aren't like 99% of these projects made by California Techies? As a nation Ze Germans aren't much better, but at least they managed to keep some of the old Cypherpunk ethos alive.

and how are people adopting certain design principles for these networks based on CW tactics and liabilities?

An appalling amount of these projects is centralized either technologically or sociologically. Federation just moves from absolutism to feudalism, while blockchain decentralizes infrastructure (in an insanely inefficient way, BTW) while allowing the core developer team to maintain near-total political control of the project. Yeah, you can move to a different instance or fork the chain, but central information / influence nodes are too convenient for people, and you're not going to convince the overwhelming majority to move to a fork / manually whitelist a node / re-follow a dude you like just because the core team made an unpopular decision. This is the most common attack vector of the recent culture war, and it was entirely possible to mitigate it.

That the SocJus techies did not want to mitigate it is entirely understandable, the biggest source of my frustration is Blockchain Bros. I guess they just want to make money.

Any technology your faction didn't create is a tactical and strategic liability.

I guess I'm autistic enough that a part of me still wants to believe you can create a structurally good system, that does not rely on good people controlling it.

As far as conspiracy, this stuff was in the works far before tech people noticed they needed to stop giving ammunition to people who hated them- that only became apparent after 2015 or so and both ActivityPub and Bitcoin both predate the first mask-off moment.

I'd argue that was still pretty short-sighted in the grand scheme of things. The goal back then was to resist cyberpunk all-controlling evil corporations, it's kind of goofy, then, to bake-in centralized points of failure.

create a structurally good system that does not rely on good people controlling it

Sure, but in that case you have to make it sufficiently difficult to use that the bad/stupid people can't access it. Which is why Urbit is the way that it is and has the adoption that it does.

And while "smart enough to access something" or "conscientious enough to pay for something" usually means "a better class of person", that's still no guarantee that remains true (for instance, modern progressivism comes from SomethingAwful, one of the only paid forums).

I guess I'm autistic enough, that a part of me still wants to believe

I don't like operating in adult mode either, but not knowing when, how, or why to do that has consequences. The difference between a autist/child/classical liberal is that they're not looking for ways to hurt other people with the things that they do, where adults/progressives/traditionalists are at least preoccupied with if not actively seeking ways to hurt other people.

Child-like outlooks on life must be actively defended if they are to survive. (Actually, come to think of it, it's very interesting that in Western canon there's very little mention of how to do this- but people who have lost the ability to have anything but an adult outlook on life almost never create things with staying power like that in the first place, so I guess that makes sense.)

Child-like outlooks on life must be actively defended if they are to survive.

A hard-learned lesson, for sure...

I like Discord. Not because of anything that goes on on the public servers, but because the private servers are much better than group texts for chatting with real life friends. I have several friend groups that have annoying group chats where they go off all day and at some points the topic gets changed to inside stuff among family members that should be private texts but hell, it's easier to respond to a text that's already going on. The main advantage is it's easier to add someone if necessary or for someone to remove themselves instead of having to start an entirely new thread, plus I can use a real computer for longer messages.

Google and Reddit killed forums. Now, all Google search gives you is clickbait slop, quora, Reddit, wikipedia and shopping.

Google favors YouTube explainer videos even when those videos seem to be outright garbage. I hate it.

Yes, you're right, often a garbage showing YT'r face, gestures, room etc with low amount infortmation, but a lot of people like it over texts even when text is more appropriate so you can't blame it only on google

For the time being if you append the word 'forum' to your search it will tend to reliably pull up a bunch of old-tyme phpBB forums with relevant results.

and short of 'joining the community' it's impossible to locate the information now.

It also means that there are more angry gatekeepers to that information where before there were none. I guess forums were kind of like this too, but because Discord is federated and forums were not, you have more attached to using a particular account to seek information and a username that doesn't change. Hence there's more "at stake".

And while sure, you can use Discord in a way where you have a bunch of different accounts, it's still a massive hassle to do that (and the way they currently do implement it is vulnerable to enclosure via Nitro).

you can use Discord in a way where you have a bunch of different accounts

How?

On handling a conflict between political views and one's personal interest given life situations: any ideas what a person who wants to be more politically active should do, when the groups in line with your beliefs, pursuing the goals to which you would like to contribute, simply do not want people like you joining?

(It's a bit like a reverse of Groucho Marx's joke about not wanting to be a part of any club that would have him as a member.)

More context, perhaps?

See my reply to Ponder below. I'm talking about things like exitgroup.us. Basically, reactionary organizations look for successful patriarchs, and don't have use for jobless, dateless, disabled subhumans like me.

It depends on the specifics. One idea would be to start your own group that does something directionally similar but is different enough that it needs to be its own group. Maybe just focus on one specific policy and then become an ally group to the other group.

My intuition is usually to just walk away from these situations and find something more enjoyable to do.

It depends on the specifics.

Well, probably one of the more recent examples is something like exitgroup.us.

One idea would be to start your own group

With what other people, and what resources?

The problem is that reactionary organizations are looking for married men with children and stable employment, ideally their own businesses, not high-iq but disabled autistic losers. I've been told by people with similar political views to mine more than once that there is literally no place for me on the right, as, per Bioleninism, the disabled are inherently leftist, and that my only place, politically, is "voting Dem in exchange for gibs" until the Reaction comes and I'm exterminated with the rest of the subhuman filth.

It is kind of ironic how the most stalwart opponents of Marxism adopt its views on how the circumstances of one's life enforce one's political inclination.

What it looks like is that you have two logically consistent paths. One is to remain convinced of the reactionary right view and accept that the future of might has no place for ones such as yourself, the other is to put your self-interest before the glories of the future and shift your allegiance accordingly.

One is to remain convinced of the reactionary right view and accept that the future of might has no place for ones such as yourself

I have no problem with such a future, the issue is about contributing in the present to the cause of bringing such about. Like the "Operative" in Serenity (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor), it's about building a better world while knowing "there's no place for me there."

You don't need to be part of a group to write letters to politicians. Same with attending town halls, donating to lobby groups, or voting.

write letters to politicians

Which doesn't accomplish much of anything, particularly if you're not in the 99th percentile of persuasive writers, and particularly if your local politicians are on the other side of the issues.

attending town halls

Same as above, just replace to "99th percentile of persuasive public speakers"

donating to lobby groups

Requires you have money. I'm a jobless welfare parasite. What I have to give is time, not money.

or voting

As the old saying goes, if voting could make a difference, it would be illegal.

So, when it comes to ways to meet new people and get experience "talking to strangers," I've more than once been pointed to bars as a place for striking up conversations with people you don't know. And yet, I've been to the local bar a few times (despite my very limited budget and medical reasons for not drinking), and not once in the hours I've spent there have I seen anyone strike up a conversation with anyone else. Just a bunch of older men sitting alone, drinking and watching sports.

The same is true with the "bar" portion of the local restaurants that serve alcohol and have "bar seating." For that matter, I don't think I've seen a conversation start in a restaurant that wasn't among a pre-existing group.

So, is this just me? Just a product of the sort of places I frequent (for certain not-terribly-frequent values of "frequent") given my poverty? A product of Anchorage, Alaska being a particularly antisocial place? Or was the advice not all that great? Are there some better places?

Being the kind of gregarious and personable it takes to walk into a crowded bar by yourself and walk out with ten friends is like 95th+ percentile social skills and 90th+ percentile extraversion. Most people don’t ever do this, even if they’re otherwise normal, sociable, attractive, generally high quality people. Exceptions are the occasional college party or youth hostel bar in a foreign city in one’s youth, or maybe at a festival or a wedding (and even then…).

If you’re not extremely socially skilled I think a better approach would be just to meet one or two people at a time through work or existing friends and then slowly expand a social circle, which is how most people seem to do it.

meet one or two people at a time through work

I'm an unemployed, unemployable, disabled parasite on the working taxpayer.

or existing friends

I have three friends, all from grade school, two of whom I talk to maybe once or twice a year, and a third who I occasionally hang out with every few months. All are married, and the one I see most frequently has five kids. None have much time to spare, and most have pretty small IRL social circles themselves.

There probably are better bars, and it also depends on what time you're going in. Happy hour is usually going to be a bunch of old men (who can be surprisingly cliquish!) and if you're lucky people 35-55 in for a drink or few after work (These can make for decent conversation.). The younger crowd are rarely going to be there before 9-10PM.

With that, I work at a bar (a cocktail bar that's more divey than it wishes it was) in a college town where the night shift mostly caters to grad students (Well, it wishes it could get more grad students in.), millennial hipsters, and the occasional disgruntled faculty members and actual, interesting conversations can be hard to come by. It's not so much that people aren't willing to talk to strangers (This does vary by age; Gen X and up are more receptive to this and Millennials and Gen Z less so.) as the fact that they usually go out with their spouse or in friend groups that take up most/all of their attention (This is especially true of Millennial/Gen Z women, who tend to go out in groups to avoid conversations with unattached men.). The vast majority of the single unaccompanied patrons are single men that are varying degrees of loser. Working at a bar will improve your social/conversational skills and I imagine that being a patron could as well but unless you enjoy drinking first and foremost it's IMO a really inefficient way to meet people and make friends. At least, it is at the place I work at and the other bars in town are either the same or worse (clientele I don't like, too loud to talk, too dead, etc.). Most of the time it's either the same regulars I deal with (and as bad as the alcoholics can be, the weirdos who don't drink are worse) either every shift or at least once a week or, worse, the place gets taken over by over-40s out for the weekend/for some nearby event that I have little to no interest in talking to. When I was working there consistently I'd say that I had a genuinely interesting conversation with someone new or who wasn't a regular once every 4-6 weeks.

but unless you enjoy drinking first and foremost it's IMO a really inefficient way to meet people and make friends.

So what would be a more efficient way, for someone jobless and poor?

It’s hard and easy at the same time.

Most of the time I’ve only mostly met friends of friends in bars. I’ve found 2 exceptions to this:

  1. Traveling abroad. Some kind of ex-pat place, study abroad town, or it’s fairly common for people to eat at certain restaurants on the map to be by themselves. All those have worked for making new friends.

  2. Had an ex-gf I had really good social chemistry with. We always ate at the bar and I knew before going that I would have a new friend by the end of dinner. Perhaps people do want to make new friends and once you have a formula for it, it starts to happen every time.

Church?

Many will have coffee or fellowship following service. People will likely make an effort to engage with someone new.

Also, isn't this kind of instrumentalizing religion. I mean, it seems like if one were to go to church, the primary reason should be religious belief, not the ancillary benefits? (Sure, I remember some folks in this space tend to discount this position — "Well…" back at SSC comes most readily to mind for mocking it while gloating about his own instrumentalization.)

Religious belief may take time. I wouldn't presume everyone is in the same place spiritually. Sharing fellowship with fellow Christians is a great way to strengthen your faith.

Sharing fellowship with fellow Christians is a great way to strengthen your faith.

But what if you aren't a "fellow" Christian? I'm certainly not.

Not yet. Learning about the faith is good way to begin.

Church?

Never been to one. Grew up pretty much totally irreligious. And several of the churches near me have closed down for lack of people (though one was the "no whites allowed" Samoan church, and another the weird Spanish-only South American "primitivist" denomination). It's pretty much the black Baptist church whose flyers advertise speeches by local Democrat politicians; the Eastern Catholic church whose materials for would be newcomers are all about how their services will differ from the Catholic churches you've certainly already attended (because you better already be Catholic before you show up…); or the tiny Thai Buddhist temple that I have no idea how to go about visiting without, like, interrupting the monks at meditation.

Myself I would look for a protestent church that isn't too large without pride, trans or other current thing flag or banner. Many of these congregations are growing as other current-thing congregations self-destruct.

Most Eastern Orthodox would also have traditional views of marriage and family. They likely also have a formal educational program for adults that some may find appealing. I'm sure they'd welcome newcomers, you could talk to the priest before attending a service if you were nervous or had questions. Many of these congregations are picking up former members of the Roman Church.

Myself I would look for a protestent church that isn't too large without pride, trans or other current thing flag or banner.

This helped me rule out the nearest Lutheran church — not so much the church's webpage, as the LinkedIn page of its woman pastor.

Do you have any opinions on the Pentacostals?

Pentacostals wouldn't be my first choice.

Sadly the congregational church in Anchorage seems to be of the 'open and affirming' sort.

The Christian Church of Anchorage, Anchorage Church of Christ and Faith Lutheran Church looking at their websites are where I start looking for a church home.

The Christian Church of Anchorage, Anchorage Church of Christ and Faith Lutheran Church

Why those three?

I'll also note that the first one is way out on the wrong end (the south end) of town for me. The other two are at least busable, though via multiple buses (and then there's the lack of early Sunday buses). And the third one is just down the street from my parents, which means I know the neighborhood… and no, that's not a positive.

And again, I'm not a Christian, so wouldn't it be kind of wrong to be going to church just for some sort of social benefit?

Briefly searching for churches in Anchorage those were the first three that appeared to meet my criteria of a traditional approach to Protestant Christian theology.

Were I look for a new church I'd visit several that offer traditional teachings until I found a good fit.

You're not a Christian yet. Meeting with and talking to Christians, seeing yourself and the world through a Christian lens is a great way to learn about the Christian faith.

Myself I would look for a protestent church that isn't too large without pride, trans or other current thing flag or banner.

Problem is that I'm limited in transportation, and Anchorage is at once small in population (and shrinking — hence limited selection of churches) but large in geographic size. I've looked specifically at the Eastern Orthodox churches, as Alaska has the highest Orthodox population by percentage (5%) — understandable, given the Russian history. There are two Russian Orthodox churches here. Unfortunately, they're both on the outskirts of town. One (which I've actually had contact with someone who attends thanks to a mutual online acquaintance in Romania) is way out on the southern edge of town, over 9 miles away from where I live, and miles from any of the bus routes. The other is on the northeast edge of town (there are only two roads out of Anchorage), and while I could get there via a couple of buses, they don't really run early enough in the morning, particularly Sundays.

Edit: and that's before the massive reduction in bus services that's coming in a few months.

In my own experience meeting people in bars is easy in Japan, which has an active social culture in such places (it helps that I'm not Japanese and therefore not tethered to norms of uchi/soto or insider/outsider.) Back in the US my experience used to be more similar to yours, but that was not the most urban area. I sometimes feel like most non-urban-dwelling Americans just stay home, or meet online.

There are huge variances in what bars are good for talking to strangers. There are bars near me like you describe, but there are also lively bars with high energy. The high energy bars usually have dancing and cater to a younger crowd (21-30s), some even remove most of the chairs when it gets late so there is more space to dance. The higher energy bars near me are in the downtown area. At these bars sometimes strangers will dance with each other. Not all cities have these types of bars.

If you go to bars where people go to celebrate things (e.g. bachelorette parties) then it is usually acceptable to approach them and congratulate them on whatever they are celebrating.

For talking to strangers maybe a community musical festival would be a better choice. You can chat with vendors, and there are often people at the edge of music area that are up for chatting.

Another option is to consider joining an activity that occurs at a bar. Some bars have volleyball leagues, or outdoor yard game tournaments. You could also join a bowling league as that would be a way to drink with strangers and chat about things.

What kind of bar are you going to? There's dive bars, there's honky-tonks, there's proper nightclubs, there's sports bars, etc. All of these have very different expectations around talking to strangers.

I used to go strike up conversations with strangers at waffle house in my time among the underclass. Maybe Fort Worth is more social than Anchorage in general, but I'm guessing there's a place you can go to talk go strangers, even if they're likely not the best strangers.

What kind of bar are you going to? There's dive bars, there's honky-tonks, there's proper nightclubs, there's sports bars, etc.

Small "Irish" sports bar — the only one in my neighborhood. This part of Anchorage is pretty run down, and the homeless have become a lot more frequent. It must be at least five years now since the Denny's (which had been open since before I was born) closed down due to the costs of crime (vandalism, dine-and-dash, B&E, etc).

Homeless, in Anchorage? Do they migrate south for the winter or just thaw out every summer?

Homeless, in Anchorage?

Yes, indeed. About 3100:

Alaska’s biggest city has an estimated 3,150 homeless individuals and enough room in shelters for all but about 775 people, Johnson said. The city recently brought four more housing facilities, which could create space for another 310 people, but is still seeking winter housing for an estimated 400 to 450 people.

By renting hotel rooms, Johnson hopes to limit the capacity of a mass winter homeless shelter to no more than 150 people — one of the Assembly’s stipulations when releasing the emergency funds. The city wants to use a recently vacated administration building as a makeshift low-barrier shelter, Johnson said.

…

Anchorage, population 300,000, has 40% of the state’s population but 65% of Alaska’s homeless population, Bronson said, adding that the city has spent $161 million on the homeless crisis since 2020.

And with a new, left-wing mayor, we can expect a lot more shelter expansion.

Do they migrate south for the winter

Maybe a few, but not many. Our previous mayor made some comments about offering them airfare, but, as the link above describes, that never went anywhere.

or just thaw out every summer?

And yes, some do end up freezing to death over the winter. Per the link:

Anchorage last winter had a record 24 deaths outdoors among the homeless population, with 11 fatalities occurring in the winter months between October 2022 and April 2023, said Alexis Johnson, the city’s homeless director. The city began keeping records in 2017.

And from the New York Times last November:

One woman died when fire consumed her makeshift shelter in the woods. A man was found dead in the doorway of a downtown gift shop. Another was discovered inside his tent. A running tally of homeless deaths kept by the city’s largest newspaper, The Anchorage Daily News, is now up to 49 — more than double last year’s toll.

“It is fairly depressing, just unimaginable, the number of deaths we have been having,” said Felix Rivera, a member of the Anchorage Assembly who leads the Housing and Homelessness Committee.

The harsh winters in Alaska have long brought dangers for those sleeping outside. But this year, those conditions have joined a confluence of other factors contributing to a dire situation: a housing crisis, the spread of fentanyl and a dearth of shelter beds after the city shuttered a large shelter in a city arena six months ago.

Maybe it's generational -- I have also heard that, and have also never talked to someone I hadn't previously been introduced to at a bar, so far as I can recall. This is not because I am personally off-putting; when I walk around outside in a village setting, I do end up talking with strangers. I have been offered drinks by strangers in rug shops and street corners, not in bars.

On that note, if you can get to them, the villages are a great place for talking with strangers! I've been salmon fishing with strangers despite having no equipment. I've been to some quite interesting holidays -- processing around churches, getting spoons and moose stew for Russian Christmas, a priest recounting deciding to believe in God after asking for and receiving a box of raisins, Gideon style, listening to elders talking about their dreams, singing at funeral wakes for people I didn’t know; lots of interesting stuff! Also folk dances and bonfires with strangers at the Saint John Orthodox Cathedral in Eagle River.

In general, going to holiday and religious events is an excellent way to meet strangers, usually free, and people aren't necessarily all that bothered whether visitors believe in their religion or not, as long as they aren't going on and on about how fake the religion is.

Go to an IRL Toastmasters meeting, or better yet, a Toastmasters area contest. You will feel very accepted.

Go to an IRL Toastmasters meeting

Looking into it, but so far most Toastmasters groups here have gone entirely to Zoom. (And my internet doesn't have the bandwidth and quality for doing that.)

I'm not necessarily looking at the moment, but I was underwhelmed the time I did try going to Toastmasters. That was mostly because I had spent some time before that in the Republic of Georgia, home of the best toasting parties and toast masters in the world, and it turned out that American Toastmasters was not going to train me to be one, which was where my interest lay. I went ahead and hosted some toasting feasts with a couple of friends anyway, and although I am a somewhat lame tamada, they were still much more what I wanted to do.

Maybe it's generational

In my experiences working at a bar, it's definitely generational. Gen X and older of both sexes are vastly more receptive to conversations with strangers than millennials and younger. In particular, young women tend to go out in friend groups that aren't all that welcoming to outsiders, meaning that the rare unaccompanied young woman that is receptive to conversations tends to immediately become the subject of competition for the attention of every single man in the place.

Does RFK Jr. become more relevant now that Biden dropped out?

Only if, as the current conspiracies go, Biden already died of COVID (despite multiple boosters) and they’re covering it up.

Is it legal for a community to create something like a social credit score to exclude people who aren’t part of the community?

For instance, say the requirements of the community are you must attend church regularly and not commit certain crimes (like theft). After you attend church for a while and avoid being convicted of any crimes then you are considered a member in good standing within the community.

The community has businesses like a grocery store where the market value of everything is multiplied by 100 (so an item that normally sells for $3 is priced at $300). If you are a member in good standing you get a 99% discount and are only charged $3.

Also, in this community you agree that if you sell property (such as a house) you will use the same pricing scheme so effectively it can only be sold to members in good standing of the community. If you fail to maintain good standing in the community then you agree that you will physically leave the community.

IIRC the mormon church operates kind of like this- member's behavior is tracked and the benefits available to members(which do exist) are contingent on meeting the expectations of the community.

I was thinking of this when I wrote the post, but I wasn't sure how the Mormon community operationally does this. It seems like it is more of a social norm to shun/socially-stigmatize ex-members than it being an explicit code of conduct that is causing this.

I'm wondering if you could explicitly achieve this legally with a financially incentivized code of conduct that all members agree to (as opposed to being an unwritten social norm).

Then I'm wondering if you could legally use a code of conduct like this in a secular community. People just want to agree to shared moral values and exclude people who don't agree with those values, without needing to have any shared religious beliefs.

Our code of conduct is basically:

  1. Keep the law of chastity (sex only within heterosexual marriage, no porn, etc.)
  2. Keep the word of wisdom (no beer, recreational drugs, coffee, tea)
  3. Tithe (10% of income)
  4. Generally don't do big evil things such as murder, abuse, or fraud
  5. Generally, believe in God and keep the commandments, of course.

There are 2 levels of violation. If you do something minor like swear, lie, slack off, insult someone, etc., you're fine. The least bad thing that will lead to consequences is generally a violation of the law of chastity, meaning you looked at porn and then confessed this to the bishop. This may, but usually doesn't, lead to certain consequences for a few weeks, which we call disfellowship. Despite the name, it's a private matter, but while disfellowshipped you're not supposed to take the sacrament (our name for what Catholics call the communion), give talks in church, exercise the priesthood (for example by giving someone a blessing), or go to the temple. Recurring drug or porn use will probably get you disfellowshipped, fornication almost certainly will.

Excommunication is the more serious level, reserved for things like adultery and murder. It's much the same as disfellowshipping except that your membership in the church is formally revoked and you need to get rebaptized to get your privileges back.

I honestly don't think there's much of a norm to shun ex-members. Most of my best friends are not members, and I am probably more devout than the average member.

This code of conduct is not really comparable to a secular version though. There's virtually no secular benefit to keeping the code of conduct, and the only enforcement mechanism for all but the most serious sins is one's own conscience. There's not really any realistic way to force people to be honest about private matters, so any attempt to create a financially incentivized code of conduct will explicitly pit people's honesty against money. I doubt it lasts long against bad actors. There's no shortcut to creating a healthy culture, nor is any method guaranteed to produce one.

The knights of Columbus manage to maintain honesty with (fairly minor) financial benefits, but granted, most of what they would kick you out over is either public record or unhideable.

  1. Check. Hmm, probably mostly.
  2. Annd I'm out
  3. Well I'm already out, so.
  4. Check
  5. Hmm

Is this Mormon? JW? I know only superficially anything about either. You needn't answer, of course.

Mormon

The Mormons totally have an explicit code of conduct enforced by church disciplinary structures, and I believe we have some mormons and ex-mormons who can explain in further detail.

In general lacking the ability to participate in a high demand religion seems like it operationally breaks social bonds with membership of that high demand religion, so the shunning is part and parcel of the whole thing.

For another religious example, the knights of Columbus offer very cheap life insurance for members and require members to live a lifestyle in accordance with all of the rules of the Catholic church. They will totally kick members out for not really going to church anymore, remarriage after divorce, etc. It's not entirely clear that the knights of Columbus couldn't expand their offerings, but for now the only benefits are minor or community based.

As far as a secular example, I know of a country club which is only open to white men or married women, no gays, de-facto income requirement, no drug use. I'm not clear what non-community based benefits they offered. Greek life(fraternity/sorority) also routinely requires things like church attendance and moral character, and does offer benefits to members. I think owning a chic-fil-a franchise requires joining a private club with conditions similar to what you describe, as well.

Technically it's legal to have a private club with whatever requirements you want. Minimum social credit score private clubs offering large benefits to membership seem like a potential growth market if the trust/coordination problems can be resolved.

Redlining with extra steps. Generally a court will see through schemes like this. Unless they don't want to.

Isn't this adjacent to how co-op operate? Co-op buildings or supermarkets.

What if the difference between what a non-member and good standing member pay is much smaller? The non-member is just charged market value +1%. What is the threshold for the court viewing it as an illegal scheme?

Business are allowed to donate goods/services, universities are allowed to offer scholarships. So why can't a business choose to offer lower prices to people they view as moral and higher prices to people who haven't sufficiently demonstrated good moral character?

What is the threshold for the court viewing it as an illegal scheme?

If the charge structure doesn't match the Progressive stack it's illegal.
In its simplest form, it would be illegal to charge women more than men, but not the reverse.

Charging women more than men is legal and common- it’s standard practice for things like haircuts and dry cleaning.

Do women get charged more than men when they bring an entirely male-coded set of clothes to the dry cleaner or ask for a crewcut at the hairdresser where you live?

I don’t know what lesbians pay for their haircuts. I do know that barbershops prominently display prices as ‘men’s’ ‘women’s’ ‘kids’.

I don’t know what lesbians pay for their haircuts. I do know that barbershops prominently display prices as ‘men’s’ ‘women’s’ ‘kids’.

Femmes go to regular women’s hairdressers, butches usually go to quirky, queer-friendly barbers staffed by tattooed men with beards and lumberjack shirts.

it would be illegal to charge women more than men, but not the reverse

This is not clear to me. My sense is that you could construct a scheme where you can do this. For instance, by a) not using corporate structures, b) using your own money supply, which you mint and control. And worse comes to worse, c) using a different jurisdiction.

...but then you could still be charged with something like racketeering or creating some sort of conspiracy? I don't know.

So, what are you reading?

I’m going through This Star of England by the Ogburns, an Oxfordian biography of the man presumed to be the real Shakespeare by the authors. Thoughts below.

Still going through Abundance, Generosity and the State and The Mysterious William Shakespeare.

Just started Last Best Hope by George Packer. I found the opening 75 pages meandering and verbose, but hoping it will improve. I thought his book The Unwinding was a terrific piece of literature, so I have faith.

This Star of England is a biography Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, in light of the theory that he wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare.

Some of its scholarship seems, for lack of a better word, incestuous, as Ward's biography (he was an Oxfordian) is cited often, and Looney’s (also an Oxfordian) attributions of certain poems to Edward de Vere are also taken as a given.

The narrative itself is much more engaging than I expected. Still the truth is that the Lord Oxford does not always come off as being the sensitive, honest and forthright man who they attempt to portray him as. He seems an awful lot like a man who avoided his wife despite her faithfulness and then accused her of infidelity because he had a personality disorder. But then again the record is not complete, so much is, as the authors say, optional to assume.

Yet I’m enjoying myself immensely; the book reads like a mythology which is pregnant with potential meaning, and such books I deem essential to a complete picture of wisdom. These are the kinds of things which make me upset with our society’s tendency to hide certain books from view: one doesn’t even know where to begin to find a canon of such books. One must rediscover in agonizingly slow steps, in utter confusion, and at his own peril. Ogburn Jr.’s preface (pdf) is well worth reading, if nothing else.

My co-founder and I are moving to Chiang Mai from our hometowns and want to move next weekend. I would appreciate any tips. We both realised that staying in our hometowns is not productive and Chiang Mai is the cheapest good place to move to. We calculate that we can be comfortable at a monthly burn of about 1-1.2k USD for two people if we share an apartment and eat at local vendors for every meal. The rent is about 500 USD or so since we want to live around nimman road.

I have never travelled outside of my nation so my first time heading out. Please do not hesitate to write what you feel, I am fairly new to this stuff. Also, I turned 24 on the 18th of July, which feels weird lol.

Congrats! I'm intrigued. Where are you from originally? Whats' your startup about? Do you have funding?

I am from Rajasthan and my startup is automation in electrical/electronics engineering. We are currently talking to some engineers before the final launch.

Yeah, I am a little nervous posting this stuff since I feel like I talk too much and do too little instead of the other way around but I will post updates about my startup life.

Thanks! I mean, there is definitely a problem of talking too much, but talk does allow people to coordinate better as well.

Chiang Mai has a kind of center, but generally it's quite spread out, and because Thailand is very hot this can be inconvenient if you're walking everywhere. You see tourists renting scooters but when I was there in February police were regularly stopping and citing them for various violations (riding tandem, no helmet, no license). The vendors renting are apparently very loosey goosey but the cops have their quotas. Tuk tuk taxis are also common but will add up, and aren't the safest. There's also currently a wave of businesses supported by selling marijuana in various strains and forms (eg gummi) which is a lotus trap for anyone who chooses to live there. I'd say buy a scooter and probably lay off the weed if you're looking to amp productivity.

I ate at tourist places but there are some really good places of that sort, selling the sort of international fare (quesadillas, gumbo, hummus and dolmata, etc.) that are sometimes very hard to source where I live. But again these aren't local shops. Local places for Thai people are cheaper but also spicier and by my own standards less sanitary.

I don't know CM as well as some of my friends but it's an historic area with a good music scene if you're into that. I will insert that Indians do not have the best reputation in Thailand due to the many cheapskate and entitled, presumptuous tourists that throng there, particularly in Bangkok. Some of these guys must be seen to be believed. I am not suggesting this is what you will be like, just giving fair warning.

Thanks, the point of being on Nimman Road is to avoid the need to commute altogether. So if we can work from our apartment, have a gym there in the building itself, and have vendors around us for food. So we only want to move out of our house for food and maybe a co-working space. My only concerns would be

  1. Burn, keeping it below 1-1.2k USD for the two of us. So hidden costs that we have not thought about.
  2. Health hazards (I have never eaten out for every meal in my life). The part about sanitation is what I am concerned about quite honestly.
  3. Climate (potential floods, mosquitoes[though being in a good apartment should cancel that out])

I would appreciate any advice and thoughts on whether the burn and all calculations are correct.

A) I am probably not a good guru as regards to this as I've only been to Chiang Mai once. Have you looked online? This seems to be in your window of expenses, but you need to think about things like health insurance, to say nothing of daily/weekly laundry costs (there will be places that can do this for you relatively cheaply, and fold up your shirts, etc.) I presume you'll need a good internet connection? There are subreddits about Chiang Mai that might prove helpful. This is the kind of thing where Reddit is actually useful, to some degree, though don't expect consensus opinions.

B) I cannot imagine, as you say, eating out for every meal. That seems pointlessly tedious, in addition to probably not cost effective. A rice cooker will take you a long way, as well as a small fridge and a basic knowledge of cooking that you'll need to develop anyway as a functional human being.

Public holidays or days when whatever cafe you frequent are closed will happen. In terms of street food that locals eat (that you buy on-the-fly and either eat sitting on a bench or wherever) the food basically sits out. It might have ice near it. I noticed oddly in Bangkok that the street food stalls smelled really strongly (of spice, etc.) but had no flies anywhere, even in the 80F weather in February. I thought that was weird and I still don't know why there weren't more flies. I did not eat the street food. Some of it looked good, but I didn't want to chance it. A friend of mine got what was probably food poisoning once eating Chiang Mai sausage (though he was in Phuket.) It may not have been the sausage (I like Chiang Mai sausage, actually, though it is spicy.)

C) You make it sound like you will hole up in one apartment semi-permanently, only venturing out to eat with your roomie. That sounds like hell to me, unless you are very close to your roomie, and even then, yeah, Hell. But I'm not you.

I can't offer you much else, other than what I've already said regarding transportation--and I expect even if you don't "commute" to and from any work, at some point you'll want to get out of the neighborhood and explore, particularly if you're staying there longer than a month or two.

I noticed oddly in Bangkok that the street food stalls smelled really strongly (of spice, etc.) but had no flies anywhere, even in the 80F weather in February. I thought that was weird and I still don't know why there weren't more flies.

Many herbs and spices such as lemongrass, cloves, and chili peppers have natural insect repellent and antimicrobial properties, which helps explain their prevalence in tropical cuisines and perhaps the lack of flies.

gumbo

You can make your own gumbo fairly easily if you have access to fat and flour(or canned roux); once you figure out how to obtain roux the main obstacle is time(it takes 3+ hours). All of the ingredients seem like they should be accessible in Japan.

Oh to be sure, and I have made efforts to do so, even once emailing a restaurant in Foley Alabama to ask how the hell they made theirs (they stonewalled me but apparently taped my email to their wall).

My standard for a restaurant I'll happily go to is a place that makes something I either don't know how to make properly or don't often have the time commitment to make. Gumbo falls in that category. You're completely correct, however, my skills are just apparently weak or I don't have some secret ingredient to do it right.

Gumbo is one of the easier things to make in the kitchen. It's barely a step above "dump everything in the pot" chili. Isaac Toups' basic chicken and sausage gumbo walkthrough on youtube is a good start, the dish is very forgiving as long as you get the roux right. It's not complicated food, it's long-simmering food set aside to feed a large group of people. You can get everything done inside of 20min and then spend the day drinking beer or whatever while it bubbles.

Yeah as I say I've done gumbo several times but I don't think it ever turns out right. Maybe it's the roux as you suggest.

The trick I was missing for gumbo is to use all three traditional thickeners - dark roux. file powder, and okra. When I only used one or two I'd always be disappointed.

What are the specific jobs most likely to be eliminated by AI?

To my mind, this seems like the obvious answer, based on its currently demonstrated capabilities, that is creative types who follow orders- eg, graphic artists, ghost writers.

Secondly, I’d put call center workers. It can already carry on a conversation, stick to a script, and presumably loading a flow chart isn’t that hard.

Thirdly, there’s a few low level clerical tasks that seem like LLMs can probably take over, like data entry.

Beyond that, though, a lot of the projections for AI-driven job losses seem like they’re dependent on other technologies(eg, truck driver) or delusional about what LLMs can actually do(eg, lawyer).

I'm close to absolute believer in "AI will never truly eliminate people from the workforce who want to stay in the workforce." This is because AI (LLMs) are just another technology. Technology makes certain specific tasks obsolete, but doesn't obsolesce the people executing those tasks. The classic example is that automobiles drastically reducing the need for ferriers, but any competent or sufficiently motivated person of any walk of life could easily become a mechanic. Consumer automotive mechanics have enjoyed employment for over a century now.

What I think will change in a meaningful way is the relative balance of power (and, following that, compensation) for people who have naturally higher competency in soft skills aka "people skills." Most PMC jobs today are a mixture of technical or semi-technical capability and soft-skills. For example, Lawyerin' is partially pseudo-code review, doctors have to actually be able to make a medically sound diagnoses and design a course of treatment. Consultants and bankers less so, but they have their pseudo-technical-jargon signals that one has to be familiar with. All of these occupations, however, require a healthy does (haha, doctors!) of emotive human interaction.

In many cases, the "top" of these careers are 90% if not more human interaction. The "top" bankers, lawyers, consultants and (yes, probably) doctors are effectively very fancy sales people. They delegate the actual work to their underlings, and collect part of the charged fees for that work.

AI(LLMs) mean that one person with a little bit of technical knowledge can "in-source" a lot of the semi-technical work to the AI (which is still close enough to free compared to an actual employee or subcontractor) while doubling down on their sales abilities. This is actually even true for hard tech careers like software development - I know contract developers who have increased their on paper workloads by 50% or more but are actually working the same to less hours because Claude is handling a lot of code boilerplate and documentation for them.

That being said, not all soft skills are created the same. One PMC soft skills I've seen for my entire career is something you might call "fast following politicking." These are folks who can gauge the relative social standings of various people and groups within a larger org and can quickly align themselves with those on the way up and avoid those on the way down (or out). They cannot, however, actually make their own decisions, set a course for others to follow, or demonstrate anything even close to "leadership." They used to be relegated mostly to HR and marketing positions, but have metastasized into "Product Management" (aka the Sociology of the corporate world) in recent years.

I am optimistic these people will find themselves without jobs sooner rather than later. While their shenanigans are usually readily apparent to anyone that matters, they pay their rent to the company by being process automatons. These are the folks who have incredibly well formatted spreadsheets and power points (with almost no content within that formatting). Yet, up until now, some of that basic information processing had to be done by someone ... and they were there. I believe AI will fix that.

So far bigger models have not fixed the serious flaws that all LLMs have: they have no common sense and make boneheaded errors. Importantly, they don't learn from these errors without more training. So when your production LLM is messing up, there's often no way to give it feedback.

Maybe the next model will solve this problem. The progress has been fast enough that I wouldn't doubt anything. But assuming this isn't fixed right away...

Not replaceable: Truck drivers, call center workers, data entry

Replaceable: Lawyers and paralegals

What are LLMs good at? Searching for information and creating boiler plate. Instead of lawyers reading hundreds of pages of legal documents, just load it into an LLM and then ask it questions. Want to create 10 pages of fancy legalese? Just write it in plain English and have the LLM make it sound like a lawyer wrote it.

LLMs are probably already capable of doing 90% of what lawyers do.

On the other side, there's a good chance lawyers will use this new efficiency to create longer and longer legal documents that require an LLM to parse.

In criminal law the state pays the bills and a hugely disproportionate percentage of senior government officials and politicians are (former) lawyers, so I doubt that their sinecures end any time soon. In commercial/corporate law the profession as a whole is already hugely over staffed and overpaid, the issue is it’s an endless defection game where you have to pay a ton of money to get ‘the best’ lawyers so you don’t get fucked by various sneaky techniques employed by the other side who have ‘the best’ lawyers and so on (both of these lawyers went to the same institutions and are friends and indeed even coworkers on other cases). It’s essentially a tax on commercial activity facilitated via the legal profession.

In many ways a lot of finance is similar, so I sympathize, but the incentives lean against automation as long as the people making the decisions can hand out money to their friends, and that describes an extremely high percentage of PMC jobs in professional services (law, finance, consulting, accounting).

Lawyers using LLMs has mostly not gone well for them thus far.

Are we sure about that? There's surely some good examples of mistakes, but what we don't see is the millions of legal documents that are already searched or created with LLMs.

What I am proposing is not a LLM-lawyer, but that an LLM can be a force amplifier for existing lawyers.

If crime is ultimately a mental disorder, can it be treated by medicating criminals with antipsychotics?

There are a lot of crimes that are unrelated to mental disorders, such as:

  • Violating laws because they are against your moral principles/religious beliefs (such as polygamy or smoking marijuana).
  • White collar crimes that are roughly: Opportunity (e.g. control failures) + financial pressure + rationalization.
  • Violating laws because it is economically advantageous (such as selling drugs, or not reporting cash income on your taxes).

Uh.

How many mental disorders are treated with antipsychotics?

I’ve read of the greatest predictors of criminality is having a sustained abnormally low heart rate during a stress-inducing task. If this is the case you may be able to ameliorate a chunk of criminality with anxiogenic substances (caffeine)

I found that study. Key correlations were in agreement with literature relating lower HR to greater physical aggression (r=−.17) and hostility (r=−.17)

Negligible results published for a headline. Not one of the greatest predictors of criminality.

So where this gets interesting is that all of that remains true for ...... Special Operations personnel in the military. Lower heart rate during stressful events, higher baseline physical aggression and hostility.

There's a common saying in that community that "the Army/Navy/Marines kept me out of prison." It's true. A lot of those folks have the same temperament as Appalachian outlaw types ... they just got the right kind of camo on.

There are many studies on it, not one. I’ll have to dig up the one I am referring to.

Probably much of it can if you can ensure the criminals keep taking their dose. Of course a lot of the effect would be from the general lethargy inducing side effects, so good luck separating that from the ”direct” action.

What are the great Duels in Russian Literature?

I'm working my way through The Brothers Karamazov for the second time, and I got to the life of the Elder Zosima, and his pivotal duel. And it got me thinking of reread of War and Peace earlier and how the duel there was a clear parallel to Evgeny Onegin, subverting the outcomes.

So you have Onegin sort of accidentally tragically killing his best friend. (Pushkin of course died in a duel). You have Pierre grievously wounding Dolohov for a perfectly valid reason, then instantly regretting it. You have Zosima letting his opponent shoot then, then throwing away his own gun and begging forgiveness. All playing with each other's themes.

Then by Anna Karenina Vronsky and Karenin never duel although Karenin considers it, to what extent was that a matter of technology? Firearms were better by that setting, death more likely and more related to skill. And in Notes from Underground the Underground Man fantasizes about Duels that never occur because he's not cool enough to be noticed, a kind of school shooter psychology. The stakes of these literary teases are created by the predecessors.

Then of course somewhere in there is Lermontov originating Russian Roulette in A Hero of our Times, betting on whether a pistol will go off.

So literati and Russophiles of the motte, which other examples are there?

Ada or Ador a family chronicle by Nabokov has one duel; also I think two attempts or near misses to duel . In the duel that does take place there is more discussion of seconds.

There's a duel in Turgenev's Fathers and Sons. And there's a novella called Bretteur by him as well.

There's one more duel penned by Pushkin, in The Captain's Daughter.

And Chekhov's The Duel. And Kuprin's The Duel, of course.

I'll go with Pushkin's The Shot. It's a remarkably tightly plotted duel story despite taking place over many years (in more than one sense).

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats