site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   2183 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 13, 2025

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.

Has anyone used Temu, the online marketplace that makes Amazon seem like a reputable establishment?
I'm in the middle of writing a post about it, but would be interested to hear other people's impressions, especially anyone who's familiar with China and Chinese business practices.

I think it's time to pay attention to it because every Chinese importer has started to copy their sales tactics: fake lotteries in popups to hand out coupons, fake rewards deals where you are "only 1% away from earning free item saar!", etc.

I've bought quite a bit of bike shit off AliExpress. Decent deals to be had if you lurk enthusiast forums.

Yeah, I've gotten some stuff off Temu. The app is hilariously gamified and scammy but the stuff I ordered did arrive and was as described. The quality is about what you would expect, which is to say "adequate for single-use items".

I got some 2.5kwh DC House batteries at half off vs amazon, which are actually a reputable brand. There's a small amount of "quality" stuff floating in the chineseium garbage patch, but a lot of it ranges from "mislabed" to "dangerous" to "literally just a printed picture of the item"

This morning I stumbled on a lost phone while on my way to the wage cage, and decided to do my good deed for the year and return it to its rightful owner. This took some head scratching since the phone was password-locked, no contacts were saved to the SIM, and he hasn't responded to Telegram DMs (suppose the phone which he lost was his only gateway) so the only thread I had was his employer eventually calling the phone at some point and agreeing to pass on the message when the phoneless man eventually clocks in.

This story is unremarkable and secondary to my actual point, which is that I am a nosy curious person by nature and a mysterious password-locked phone is burning a fucking hole in my pocket as it waits for its owner; while I solemnly swear that I am up to some good for a change I admit I'm deathly curious if there's anything I could actually do with it if I wanted to without wiping the entire thing. USB file access is obviously disabled, ADB doesn't see it, and the stock Android screen lock seems to be fairly robust and doesn't let me so much as pull down the notification bar... except not robust enough apparently since I could tap Medical Info and pull it down from that menu just fine (which yielded me the employer's number from the missed call notification).

Eventually I retraced my chain of thought and realized that it also seems prudent to protect my own phone from people like me just in case, I never lost a phone in all the years I had one (in fact I'm pretty paranoid about keeping it around at all times) but it only takes one lapse in vigilance, and I'm not sure if a stock screenlock/password would be enough. In hindsight I feel horrified at how careless I was in never setting at least a basic screenlock in all these years, god knows I have some, ahem, sensitive things saved on my phone. I'm usually not this sloppy with opsec.

TL;DR:

1) Any known neat tricks I can make locked Android phones do to spill some parts of their contents, however miniscule? The above medical info trick really made me feel like a proper fucking h4x0r despite how meager it really was, surely there must be more funny loopholes. Alright I suppose this does kind of glow so this part omitted, I was curious about more mundane tricks, not hardcore blackbagging shit. In any case the phone was happily reunited with its owner, and my burning curiosity has passed.

2) Uno reverse - what is the easiest way to carve out a private space on the phone to store shit in? Optimally it also shouldn't be indexed by the file explorer or show up in various photo/document/file viewers unless accessed through a specific app/feature, although I'm not sure that's possible. Second Space seems like what I'm looking for but I'm not sure how robust it is and how exactly the "split" works technically, if it's simply a separate group of folders I'm not seeing the point. (I consider myself a fairly tech-savvy person but phones aren't my area of expertise)

Oh, and another way of reuniting a phone with its owner: if there is carrier branding on it, or on the SIM card, bring it to that carrier. They should be able to find more information from the SIM card, from the phone's serial number, etc...

1 - Honestly the basic device lock of a reputable brand of phone (Apple, or one of the big non-chinese Android) is beyond the capabilities of the common of mortals; it usually takes intelligence agency level ressources to even consider it. And it's likelier that those agencies simply have a backdoor in place anyway or trust in their ability to lean on the device manufacturer to help them in. Or they'll use the 5$ wrench bypass.

Now outside of the basic lock, there's a few things to consider. Some manufacturers have online accounts that have features that, if enabled, could potentially be used to reset a device's lock. I think Apple forces you to wipe your phone, and I think Samsung does too now. But at least it used to be an option, and probably still is for some manufacturers.

The main way people get their phone hacked is not through the lock screen, but by installing things they should not, the same as on the computer. But instead of Roblox hacks, they see an ad telling them they can get free premium currency in their favorite gacha waifu skinner box by installing this one off store APK and give it permissions to everything.

2 - I don't know Second Space, but as I use Samsung I do know the Secure Folder; it's not just a separate set of folders, it's more separate than that; apps in the standard context cannot see or interact with the data and apps in the Secure Folder context. I'm not sure exactly how they do it, but theoretically that part is not a difficult thing to do.

What is more difficult, is making sure the operating system itself doesn't leak the data; as it necessarily have access to both sides of the fence. For instance, that happened very recently with Samsung: https://www.sammobile.com/news/we-found-a-security-flaw-in-one-ui-7-secure-folder/ (to be fair, it's not necessarily a security bug as the settings probably work as Samsung thought it should, but it's a UX oversight that can likely lead to unintended disclosure for the user).

Ultimately though, that is the root problem of all computer security: computers are fancy calculators, they are not conceptually inclined to protect information. They have to be tricked into protecting information, and it's easier to trick them into disclosing it.

The unfortunate man's data is none of your business to snoop in. Don't be a dick.

I'm deathly curious if there's anything I could actually do with it if I wanted to

As I said this particular guy's data holds zero interest to me, ~90% odds this is some random local alcoholic who dropped the phone during some scuffle (a torn jacket hanging off a nearby bush did not fill me with confidence), I'm curious about the methods/tricks in general. Besides, if I didn't "snoop" the missed call notification I would've had literally zero clues towards the actual owner short of putting up posters or something, which definitely sounds like too much effort.

As far as I know, yes, there are forensic tools that could do some of what you want. You likely can't get them legally unless you're a LEO or something like that, but probably if you have access to the right darknet places you can get at least some of those (it's just code after all so anybody could use it). I have no personal experience though with this, just stuff that I read about in various places on the internet (which as we all know only contains true and verified information and can be always trusted). Most of the tools would rely on some bugs or logic holes so success of applying them to a particular phone would highly depend on the model, OS version, settings, etc.

There was a famous case where the FBI had trouble accessing San Bernadino shooter's iPhone (Apple can be better than random Android in this due to the fact that they can have unified model covering everything) but they were able to successfully break the protection anyway. The people who specialize in it likely have a lot more tricks in their bags, but those are not going to be revealed to a random dude, they a worth quite a lot of money and they won't do it for everybody. If you were an FBI officer, you probably would be able to get them to help you.

Is there a way to get email (or other) notifications for replies on here?

Lifters in this thread, do you track your calories or try to hit protein targets? I didn't really advance my lifts very much when I was doing barbell training last year, and I'm seeing on reddit that apparently properly bulking is a big component of lifting nowadays. But I don't know how much I want to do dieting stuff.

You don’t want to “bulk.” You want to eat like 200 calories more per day than you need to, otherwise you’ll get fatter way faster than you get stronger. They say 0.82 grams of protein per lb of body weight is optimal; after that, returns diminish.

To be sure about both of those, you need to track calories and macros. Track what you normally eat for like 2 weeks and see how your weight changes, then adjust up or down accordingly. I was stalled for years because “I eat a lot of meat,” but when I started actually tracking it I was shocked at how little protein I was actually getting. I use MyFitnessPal, but there are lots of apps.

You want to eat like 200 calories more per day than you need to, otherwise you’ll get fatter way faster than you get stronger.

Seconding this. I was told ‘you’re not getting better because you’re not eating enough’ and put on 10kg, most of which was fat. I only ever got half of it off again.

If you want to it really depends on your goals.

I will say that tracking calories is so much easier than it ever used to be. I use cronometer, most food you can just scan a barcode and you're done. Otherwise just rough estimates of a food and what it weights.

A few weeks of that and I upped my protein intake. A few weeks after that I decided to play around with the macos. After that I decided to cut some unhealthy food.

Use AI to help with diet, meals, protein intake ideas.

Tldr: tracking is mellow. Don't make it hard and tie it to a hardcore diet. Just track your food as your eating now, review if you're getting enough protein (in the discover tab) and then adjust accordingly a little bit every couple weeks if you wish. Is chill.

I think it's valuable to formally count for a while to get the hang of it, but mostly I just try to mostly eat large amounts of food with a better protein/kcal than whole milk. Simple rule of thumb, does the job.

Personally I try to hit 1g/kg but I mostly focus on getting it throughout the day not just a ton during lunch and dinner. I'm pretty amateur tho and not focusing on putting up big numbers.

1 gram per kilogram is pretty hard to get, though, isn't it? You'd have to eat like, a pound of chicken thighs to get that far. That's a lot of meat... I try to get some protein in every meal, but that's kind of a lot.

You'd have to eat like, a pound of chicken thighs to get that far. That's a lot of meat...

It is hard to not get 100g of protein in 2500 calories if you stay away from junk.

And for pound of meat being a lot - I expect you will have a culture shock if you go to the Balkans, Caucasus or Latin America.

Hmm, I may have a skewed idea of how much a pound of meat looks like. Maybe I really ought to start tracking like some other people say in this thread. My kitchen scale kind of sucks. Maybe I'll buy a neat digital one.

Two things go into making the 1g/kg achievable for me personally:

  1. I'm not super tall so I just weigh less than other people
  2. My university offers an unlimited swipes meal plan and they always have grilled chicken breast. I'm usually hovering around 3 meals a day along with a protein shake.

But lots of other things could interfere with this, I'm just lucky right now and 1g/kg has been working (to the extent that they meet my amateur goals).

If you are getting a decent bolus of protein at each meal 1g/kg is not hard to get to and not 'a lot', especially while bulking. Especially if you at not vegetarian/vegan. One pound of chicken thighs is ~110g of protein. If you are lifting adult male and weigh 110 kg (243 lbs), eating a quarter pound of meat at four sittings shouldn't be that hard to do. With 3-4 feedings a day having some evidence for being more effective than one giant meal. It's tough to imagine a muscular 243 lb male that would have a hard time eating a quarter pounder honestly.

It's not even that expensive, about $2 a day against a real median personal income of about $115 per day in the US.

If prepping meat is too annoying, protein powders are supper cheap. Whey being the most common, mixing well, and with all sorts of flavors. Plenty of slower digesting and vegan options too, if that's what you're into.

Lists of "worst video games ever" are quite a bit different from equivalent lists of books, movies etc., because before you can even begin to analyse whether a game is good or bad from an aesthetic perspective, it has to meet a certain floor of being functional from a technical, mechanical perspective. Hence, these lists often tend to boil down to a list of games which are hideously broken from a technical perspective (Big Rigs, E.T. for the Atari 2600), as opposed to games which are "so bad it's good/horrible" in the sense of aesthetics, tone, quality of acting, poor writing etc.. Of course a game which is so badly designed as to be functionally unplayable is very embarrassing for the studio that designed it, but it doesn't induce the same sensation of discomfort and cringe that a so-bad-it's-good film does. Broken video games, to my mind, are only interesting if you're a game designer or software developer who wants to learn what not to do; to everyone else it's just "they tried to make a game which was mechanically sound, and they failed". These games aren't interesting to discuss the way bad films can be. Probably the closest analogue is in film, in which bad films are often criticised in part for being technically incompetent. But The Room didn't become a classic of the so-bad-it's-good genre because of its primitive green screen, amateurish post-production dubbing and slapdash continuity: those elements were just the icing on the cake of its nonsensical plot, illogical characters, bizarre dialogue and its creator's misogynistic, narcissistic worldview. Even a version of The Room directed by a halfway competent production team (but using the same screenplay and actors) would probably still have been an embarrassment. (And conversely, a film with a passable screenplay and decent actors, but with clumsy post-production dubbing, would never become a classic of so-bad-it's-good cinema on the level of The Room.)

With all of that preamble out of the way, I'm curious what you consider the worst video games ever from an aesthetic perspective. In particular, I'm interested in video games which are technically functional and not completely broken, but which make so many bad aesthetic choices that playing them induces a feeling of vicarious embarrassment comparable to what one might experience watching an Ed Wood or Neil Breen film.

(I'm sure someone's going to mention Deadly Premonition but I'm not sure if it really counts: looking at the cutscenes I get the distinct impression that the developers were in on the joke and deliberately aiming for a cheesy kind of B-movie humour.)

With all of that preamble out of the way, I'm curious what you consider the worst video games ever from an aesthetic perspective. In particular, I'm interested in video games which are technically functional and not completely broken, but which make so many bad aesthetic choices that playing them induces a feeling of vicarious embarrassment comparable to what one might experience watching an Ed Wood or Neil Breen film.

The first game that came to my mind from reading this was DmC: Devil May Cry, the attempted reboot of the Devil May Cry franchise after 4 which shifted the aesthetics from something akin to medieval/gothic fantasy with shades of Lovecraftian horror to modern punk with grotesque fantasy.

Thing is, I'd never consider it to be one of the worst games ever made; it's actually a good game in terms of combat, such that if you just reskinned it and gave the characters different names while keeping literally everything else the same, I'd think it was a solid action game that was a viable alternative for people who were into the DMC, Ninja Gaiden, Bayonetta, Metal Gear Rising style of games. But the absolutely terrible visual art and cringey tone severely harmed the game, and the fact that it was an attempted reboot that pretty overtly shit on the original franchise was the kill shot.

Funnily enough, if just considering gameplay, DMC2 probably fits, where the combat was so incredibly bad, not just by DMC standards but by any sort of game standard, that I'd probably consider it one of the worst games ever made, at least among games that are functional and released by a professional studio. Definitely creates second-hand embarrassment that such a game was released by Capcom, and it seems that the actual devs feel similarly, because the name of the original director (who was replaced by Hideaki Itsuno late into development - Itsuno would go on to direct DMC3 which is, to this day, considered one of the greatest games in the genre) has never been revealed publicly, for his own protection.

the name of the original director... has never been revealed publicly, for his own protection.

What, for real? That's insane.

those elements were just the icing on the cake of its nonsensical plot, illogical characters, bizarre dialogue and its creator's misogynistic, narcissistic worldview

I see this crop up every now and then in discussions about the film, and this evaluation of The Room isn't particularly coherent unless you consider virtually all movies that depict women behaving badly and doing things like "lying to hurt people" as misogynistic. Yes, Lisa is obviously the antagonist and is portrayed in a bad light, having an irredeemable female villain isn't enough to declare a film as advocating hatred of women. Is Gone Girl misogynistic? In addition, many films involve a female protagonist taking revenge on the man/men who victimised her (The Invisible Man, I Spit On Your Grave, etc, to name a few); people seem to have zero problems with those despite these films having far more negative portrayals of men than any kind of "problematic" female portrayal.

It's a terrible film, but its "misogyny" is not one of the reasons why.

I don't think any film which portrays women behaving badly is necessarily misogynistic (e.g. Tár's protagonist is a monster, and I don't think that film is misogynistic - in fact it's the best film I've seen so far this decade).

With regards to The Room itself: Lisa is such a uniquely selfish, manipulative and conniving character with no redeeming traits to speak of, who is pointlessly cruel and vicious to everyone around her just for her own amusement. Coupled with Tommy Wiseau's self-insert character laughing uproariously when his friend tells him a story about an unfaithful woman he knew who got beaten up by her boyfriend so badly that she was hospitalised, and banger quotes like:

I just can't figure women out. Sometimes they're just too smart. Sometimes they're flat-out stupid. Other times they're just evil.

which I get the impression the audience is meant to enthusiastically agree with - yeah, I do actually think Tommy Wiseau hates women as a group, or did at the time of writing/filming.

With regards to The Room itself: Lisa is such a uniquely selfish, manipulative and conniving character with no redeeming traits to speak of, who is pointlessly cruel and vicious to everyone around her just for her own amusement.

In general this is true of the majority of badly written films with badly written antagonists. I'm less convinced Lisa in specific is meant to be a stand-in for women and more an aggressive subtweet of an ex-girlfriend. "According to Sestero, the character of Lisa is based on a former lover of Wiseau's to whom he intended to propose marriage with a US$1,500 diamond engagement ring, but because she "betray[ed] him multiple times", their relationship ended in a break-up."

Coupled with Tommy Wiseau's self-insert character laughing uproariously when his friend tells him a story about an unfaithful woman he knew who got beaten up by her boyfriend so badly that she was hospitalised

See above; this is not surprising given the context of who Lisa is meant to represent. Yes, the movie is self-pitying and half-autobiographical, but I'm not so sure it's supposed to be an expression of hatred for all women.

The other quote you linked seems to be a... not abnormal thing to think after being screwed over during dating and relationships, so I'm not surprised one would put it in a script. In a similar vein many films have "I'm done with men, they're rapacious bastards"-style quotes by female characters who you are supposed to sympathise with, so I suppose I can say that if you contextualise those as making the films inherently anti-male, I suppose you're consistent.

In a similar vein many films have "I don't get men, they're rapacious bastards"-style quotes by female characters who you are supposed to sympathise with, so I suppose I can say that if you contextualise those as making the films inherently anti-male, I suppose you're consistent.

That's pretty much my attitude, yeah. The key difference being that a lot of these #girlboss movies include lines like that essentially as fanservice for the audience and the creators don't really mean it (although that being said, we've been debating since last week as to whether or not the "purpose of a system is what it does", and I suppose movies are "systems, broadly defined). Whereas The Room is such a painfully honest, unvarnished expression of its creator's worldview and wish-fulfilment fantasy - it seems reasonable to conclude that the worldview the movie espouses is literally that of its creator. I'm not even sure if Wiseau has the empathy and imaginative capacity necessary to model a character with a worldview other than his own. (I feel like he'd struggle mightily with the breakfast question.)

The key difference being that a lot of these #girlboss movies include lines like that essentially as fanservice for the audience and the creators don't really mean it

Not entirely sure that's the case, really. In general, I think the percentage of ideologues in Hollywood is higher than people think it is, and that these pieces of "fanservice" for the audience are actually the stated beliefs of many of those involved (see: the clip of the Disney executive producer effectively stating she had a not-so secret gay agenda which she inserted into films wherever she could). The ratio of true believers to cynical grifters is probably much higher than is usually acknowledged, especially once taking into account the fact that truly believing something is a great way to gain the corresponding benefits of that belief system without bearing the costs of deception. Even when they conduct fanservice, they are basing it on what they would personally want to see.

Whereas The Room is such a painfully honest, unvarnished expression of its creator's worldview and wish-fulfilment fantasy - it seems reasonable to conclude that the worldview the movie espouses is literally that of its creator.

That's odd because I view The Room as a bit of a nonsensical Rorschach test of a film where you could pick out any number of statements to prove any number of things. There are a number of scenes which try to model differing worldviews, I think, and there are even some hackneyed attempts to try and deepen Lisa's character a bit (e.g. introducing her mother Claudette, who pressures Lisa to stay in a relationship for money against her stated wishes, causing the affair in the first place). Wiseau is not very good at trying to represent these other perspectives, but the point he wanted to convey is also incoherent enough that it's difficult to tease out exactly what it is. Pretty much the only larger-scale point I can glean from the entire thing is that Tommy Wiseau is amazing and he should never have been betrayed, and if he had killed himself that would have truly shown Lisa/the actual real-life girlfriend she represents.

It feels a little voyeuristic, honestly. Like watching someone have a low-level mental breakdown over the deterioration of their relationship.

As mentioned very recently, Homeworld 3.

It's a space game no wait it's a woke manifesto no wait it's one writer's crusade to normalize foot and giantess fetishes no wait it's a gooddamn cash crop and nobody cares what's inside because everyone bought it for the name only.

It's playable, by all means, but the gameplay is so bitch basic it might as well not be there and the writing is so damn bad it's bad just bad.

Not sure if that fits your criteria, but man, do I hate HW3.

The strange thing is that Blackbird had some generally competent releases before hw3, like Shipbreakers. Although maybe that was one guy's core gameplay demo with a crapload of garbage writing added later in production, with the story being the final turd dropped on release.

It really does seem like most issues with modern games come from the writing committee taking over, suffocating the "one decent gameplay concept" that's at the core of most good games.

one writer's crusade to normalize foot and giantess fetishes

Fucking sold!

Oblivion. Might be strange to mention one of the highest rated games of all time, but nothing else captures that bizarre terrible film feeling. The incredibly ugly characters, litany of bugs, weird system choices, and of course the Radiant AI system form a perfect storm.

I have little hope that a future Oblivion remake would be anywhere near as good because they will simply sand away all the interesting parts

STOP RIGHT THERE YOU CRIMINAL SCUM!

Them’s fighting words!

Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude ... it took everything that was good about the larry games and just removed it.

Not having played any of the old Larry games when I played Magna Cum Laude, I could only view it on its own terms, and as the video game equivalent of Animal House/American Pie/every other silly teen sex comedy, I thought it was decent. The first joke in the game (wherein the big titty blonde Southern girl who wears a cowboy hat and loves country music refuses to have sex with Larry because he... isn't Jewish, and as a Khazar queen she can't sleep with a Gentile) was pretty clever and made me laugh a lot.

I’d argue Steel Battalion (2002) probably counts. It is maximally, offensively realistic. It requires a $200 (in 2002 dollars) custom controller with dozens and dozens of buttons and a throttle. Just starting your tank requires a 10 button startup checklist sequence. The area of the screen showing the actual gameplay is the size of a postcard, because you are looking out the viewing slit of a tank. If you don’t successfully punch out of your burning tank (that has its own molly-guarded button), you die. And enjoy the digital afterlife buddy, because the game is automatically wiping your save file if you do. It all combines to make a game that’s borderline unplayable not because it’s broken but because it’s so uncompromisingly committed to the experience.

The first Steel Battalion was a cult hit. The actual disaster was the sequel from 2012 that tried to do the same thing with Kinect motion controls instead of a custom controller.

What's interesting about ET is that it's biggest problem was from a design point of view. It was programmed as a top down game, but visually it was a 3/4 view game. So it had a big problem where people fell in pits because their head hid the bottom of the pit on screen.

I don't know if it's quite on the same scale, but have a look at "Robot Alchemic Drive" (R.A.D.) for the PS2.

It took the perspective that piloting a giant mecha would be hard, so it should feel hard to the player.

You walk the mech by controlling each leg with the paddle buttons. You're controlling the mech and the guy sitting on his shoulder at the same time and he jumps off it you hit the wrong button.

Of course the ridiculous controls were the main selling point of the game, so it doesn't really qualify.

In general I think it will be difficult to find good examples. Movies end up with more interesting results because there are hard limits to what an editor can do once the shooting has finished. Releasing a bad movie is the only way to recover costs.

Video games have the advantage where once you have assets and a working engine you can tweak the mechanics until you get something at least mediocre. Fortnight was famously saved in beta by introducing all of the construction mechanics to an unimpressive pubg clone.

Reminds me of that mecha game where you have no joystick, no mouse, just the keyboard. It’s command-line only.

Hmm, if this would be the thread of "mediocre games that you enjoy" I could list a bunch, heck, here's recent one: Evil West it's a AA title with very shallow story but quite fun gameplay when you get some upgrades and start playing it like a god hand clone.

But getting to the topic, I simply refuse to play through deadly premonition to the end, it's torture for nothing. The gameplay is super bad, I tried 3 times and when the fighting starts I just want to murder whoever worked on the animations. It was no in-game joke, I truly believe it was created on a floor from scraps with a team consisting of interns. You can't tell me it was done otherwise.

For any other bad games from the past I highly recommend Ross Game dungeon series, there is a lot of hidden gems for your liking, here's his recent one - Sabotain

I've got something that might fit.

Hardspace: shipbreaker

Mechanically an amazing game and very fun.

Story wise atrocious, and heavily panned in many reviews.

It's a story of workers doing a miserable and dangerous job for shit pay, so they rise up to fight their bosses by destroying a bunch of property as a form of strike. It would probably be a fine story as a movie.

The problem is it creates a total mood disconnect with the player. Not only do I enjoy the main characters' supposedly "miserable" job, I actually payed money to the developers to do this "miserable" job.

I think other games solve this sometimes mood disconnect by just having dishonest characters tell the player that what they are doing is fun and good. Like Glados in portal.

I ended up trying to make as little progress as possible in the Hardspace campaign, until I was done with the game and wanted to see for myself just how bad the story was. It's just cringe. And one of those things that you don't realize is an unwritten rule of video games storytelling: never directly trash your own video game within the video game. If you need to do so for storytelling reasons, get an obviously dishonest character to say nice things.

In between HW3 and Shipbreaker, we have two Blackbird Interactive games as answers here. A gold mine of cringe. Wonder what they'll do next.

An extraction shooter marketed to fans of boomer shooters.

Wait, Bungie has that covered…

It also has the main antagonist (the company) alternate between being doing things that are moronically evil (killing you to obtain a genetic sample that they could get with a cotton swab) and moronically nice but still presented as evil (apparently I get to keep the entire value of the things I disassemble? What?).

The other big problem is the total inability to see outside their own perspective. So of course the union representative is a brave, butch young woman with curly pink hair, who signs you up to the union without asking, and the corpo is a fat, lazy middle aged man who thinks that training and safety is a waste of time and brags about how he rose to the top and you can too if you work hard like him.

Ya I forgot how much I hated the union rep lady. For a while I just pretended the story ended with me ratting her out to the boss and her being fired.

I've met real people like her and they drive me absolutely insane. A self righteousness mixed with a self centeredness that turns every interaction with them into a lecture where you can't get a single word in.

The worst game that I've personally enjoyed probably is PS3 launch title Mobile Suit Gundam: Crossfire (called Target in Sight in Europe). In this game, the player participates in various engagements of the ground theater of the One-Year War—not as an ace pilot, but as a grunt who starts with a GM or a Zaku and doesn't get a Gundam or a Gelgoog until late in the campaign.

When it works, it's a reasonably fun game. The mobile-suit models are gorgeously detailed, with multiple paint schemes based on what stat boosts you give to them ("heavy" for better attack and defense, "water" for better wading speed, etc.), unlockable weapons, and even part-specific damage (e. g., if your MS gets its right arm knocked off by too much damage, it will also lose any weapon that it's holding in its right hand, but it still can wield other weapons in its left hand). The music, both in menus and in battles, also is exquisite. However:

  • Battles generally run at approximately 15 frames per second (on original hardware; IIRC, emulation is a lot better when it doesn't crash).

  • When you've locked onto an enemy MS, your MS will shoot directly at the enemy—without leading the target! There's an alternative aim-down-sights shooting mode, but it's pretty awkward to use, since (1) you can't really move around while aiming in this fashion, and you want to be moving in order to dodge enemy shots, and (2) all your projectiles, whether bullet or beam, are quite slow. Just resign yourself to missing half of your shots. (And, of course, the enemy Guntanks are pretty good at sniping you from their stationary positions at the far side of the map.)

  • There are a few GM Sniper variants available for the player to use, but their sniper rifles carry so little ammunition (literally a single magazine), and are so hard to hit anything with, that they are essentially worthless. Why are they in the game if you can't even finish a mission with them?

  • During battles, you often can refill your ammunition at supply bases. This is effectively mandatory on longer missions. However, supply bases quite often will glitch out and stop working! This happened to me so consistently on the extra-hard version of the Zeon campaign's final mission on "very hard" difficulty that I never was able to beat it.

With digital distribution, there are countless games that are clearly asset flips made with minimal efforts, that have terrible aesthetic. And drawing the line to exclude those is difficult because sometimes the game will have one aspect the dev actually cared about and then everything else is bought assets and minimal effort.

That said... Though the reason I was made aware of it (culture war/Gamergate) likely primed me to have a negative reaction to it, Revolution 60 does have an aesthetic that cause me to cringe. Though I can certainly imagine others having the opposite reaction to it.

Another candidate, I have not actually played it for myself, but watched the excellent MandaloreGaming video on it, Anonymous Agony is pure teenage cringe with voice actors that are way too good and trying way too hard. I think there are parallels to draw with The Room in the "weirdo surrounded himself with some pretty talented people and his weirdo vision ended up on full display" sense.

We had a death in the family recently. It will be a simple funeral - a viewing, a cremation, and a burial of her ashes. I chuckled a bit when the funeral home asked us for a DVD for the photo slideshow during the ceremony. It got me thinking - how is AI technology and AR/VR going to change the future of the funeral industry?

Imagine that an AI avatar was trained on voice recordings, videos, photos, and text of the deceased. You visit the cemetery with your family and you all don the VR goggles, stepping into the living room of grandma's house. She's tending to the garden and her avatar ad-libs about her tomatoes and the recent weather. Just as you remembered from a few years ago before she had to go into the nursing home.

If you've seen the incredible improvements in image and video generation in the last 2-3 years, as well as the improvements in text-to-speech (see a previous Friday Fun thread post that I shared) you'll probably agree with me that this is something we'll see in our lifetime. Yes, we'll have a period of uncanny valley, but when it's fully ironed out, there will be a convincing digital copy of ourselves floating in the ether.

Everyone spends some time chatting with grandma then she excuses herself to take the cookies out of the oven. You decide it's about time to grab lunch with the family and say goodbye for now.

The funeral home charges you for the disposable insert in the VR goggles that soaks up your tears.

My mother has actually been doing a text version of this with her ancestors that lived in the 1800s.

She fed hundreds of pages of translated letters into the prompt, and can have the AI sort of respond to fake written letters with real sounding stuff.

I expect text based AIs are probably already possible for anyone that spends enough time online, and especially if the training data is comprehensive enough.

Cool! It's just like the Torment Nexus (from the famous Black Mirror episode "Don't Invent the Torment Nexus", which Charlie Brooker meant as a cautionary tale...)

In this case, Be Right Back, with the robot replaced by AR/VR. In all fairness, likeness to a Black Mirror episode should not be a thought terminating cliché.

A lifetime? More like 2 years. The only thing we can't do today (with good results) is the interactive AI avatar or real time video.

The other reply is right, you don’t have anywhere near enough data on Grandma (unless she’s a famous celebrity with a 40+ year TV career) to train an AI that ‘feels’ like it’s her. She’ll make an infinity of hand movements, facial tics, use certain words and the illusion will be instantly destroyed.

It’s as much about learning the things she would never say as it is appearing like an authentic old person. For it to be fully authentic those Meta glasses will have to catch on so we can record dozens of hours of mundane interactions with others. I would estimate that a few thousand hours would be enough for a good facsimile.

Nobody's storing their data rigorously enough to have a compelling product. The first generation of kids who are going to be able to digitally replicated were born in 2018, with auto-populating albums of videos and photos in cloud services. The adults aren't recording enough of their real thoughts and opinions.

Maybe me going through a couple days of interviews with an AI from my deathbed will be enough? But it'll be a pretty shallow copy.

If it was just a brief little loop of one specific memory, like the photos in Harry Potter, then I guess that would be OK. But it's not going to stay there, is it? It will develop persistent memory and learn over time, so it's basically an afterlife. And every single member of the family will want their own version, so now there's 10 copies of grandmas that have all evolved over time. that sounds horrible.

I feel that, just like all technology, its use can be both beneficial and harmful depending on how we approach it. An avatar can help us remember and honor those who have passed, and perhaps even help us get over their death. There's a reason why people put photos of their loved ones on the wall - you look up at them from time to time to think about how they would say, or how they would react to something. On the other hand, the avatar can make us indulge in our worst neuroses - Using it as a crutch and refusing to grow, or clinging to the past and being untruthful with oneself.

Shit, that actually sounds awesome. The awkward conversations that are sometimes a risk with loved ones when they're alive can be undertaken with a "rewind" button?

I'm sure a family could agree to have a merged copy of grandma. Something we should start specifying in our wills.

Don't get me wrong, I can absolutely see how this would potentially be awful, but being able to talk with your ancestors has been a strong human desire for a long time. It'll be cool right up until they lobotomize my model for problematic language 20 years after I pass.

I reckon it'll be more like "sanitize your speech in phone calls in real time 20 years before you pass".

I fail to see what's so horrible about it. It's a pale shadow of true immortality, but it's better than nothing, and I don't see how ten copies is any worse than one. You could always get them to sync up, and if you can't, then a granny who has a different set of memories and doesn't remember what you said to her last week is not much different from a living one with dementia.

I disagree that it's better than nothing. Such a "copy" wouldn't be the person you love, it would be a simulacrum pretending to be them. Even if it's many times more convincing than what we could do now, it would still be nothing more than a doll. The original, the being with actual value, is lost forever. If I can't have my loved one back, I wouldn't want to piss on their memory by pretending that a cheap imitation is a reasonable substitute for having them around.

If that's how you see things, then you have the option of not creating such a simulacrum, and asking your family not to make one of you. If you're an EU citizen, you probably have stronger legal recourse, such as the people who successfully got ChatGPT to ignore their names.

I would be entirely fine with such a clone of me being around when I wasn't. I don't see it being any worse than people fondly looking back at pictures or videos of the deceased today, they're gone either way, and they're instantiating a replica in their brain to represent them.

Sure. But the fact that I may have legal recourse does not make the idea not horrifying. I was explaining to you why I find it horrifying, not saying that there's nothing to be done.

It's a pale shadow of true immortality

It’s the only immortality that is realistic. Not because “brain upload” is against the laws of physics but because it’s probably grossly inefficient.

I'll take it over being plain old dead, and we'll have to see what future technologies can do in regards to full-fat uploading. Like living on through your genes, it beats utter non-existence.

Wouldn't it be great if your kids could see a healthier, better version of grandma? No reason to wait until she's dead, just turn on AI grandma and avoid an awkward trip to the nursing home.

If she's lucky, maybe someone will remember to turn on grandma's "your family cares about you and comes to visit regularly" VR experience.

I think the future is going to be far more awful and dehumanizing than we can possibly imagine right now.

Wouldn't it be great if your kids could see a healthier, better version of grandma?

Certainly, that's why I'm a transhumanist and a doctor.

No reason to wait until she's dead, just turn on AI grandma and avoid an awkward trip to the nursing home.

I presume you don't see yourself doing this, and neither do I (assuming my grandmas were anything but ash now). So most decent people who visit because of obligation or simply because they care will continue doing so. The people who had little inclination to do so won't, and I don't see this making much of a change on the margin.

So far, improvements in telepresence and telecommunications means it's easier for lonely old folk to speak to their families, leaving aside their issues operating a phone or a video app. The alternative wouldn't be a drastic increase in visits, it would be them being left even more in the cold than is already the case.

I see /u/newintown was banned, but also all his (?) posts were wiped. I am not criticizing the ban necessarily (though 'spammer' seems vague), but wondering if the self wiping was done by the user or if that's what happens with certain bans? Paging @netstack

If the former, that's really annoying. If the latter, this seems like something new.

Self-imposed, as with the last few of his accounts.

Thanks.

For more context, there's a particular troll who makes a new account, makes posts consisting of a link to an article usually having something to do with white supremacy, adds a bit of commentary, often including a critique of the white supremacist point sufficiently weak to trigger people's instinct to correct obvious errors, and then deletes their post once the thread gets rolling. Then they get banned, and start the whole process over a week or two later. They've been doing this off and on for years now.

I've read here and there about a person continually making accounts but your outlining their MO is new to me, thanks for clarifying. Some people really do have too much time on their hands.

Indeed - that's just one of our regular trolls. There are several who do things like this, with slightly different MOs. (It's possible, even likely, that some of them are the same person.)

I miss Julius Branson. If only we could coax him back instead of the boring trolls.

Hah, I was thinking of him too while reading this thread. He was more interesting than most of the other trolls. I snooped his accounts a year or so ago but it looks like he's mostly stopped posting about "powerology.". What a strange little era that was.

I want the Hock guy back. Surely he's done it by now and, having been on a big hike, is drowning in women

Sometimes wishes come true He was here 4 days ago.

He was commenting again a month or so back, so he's alive and well, and probably not in Alaska.

I think I may have added onto his delusion at one point. In a thread he was involved in, about really unattractive men; short, autistic, ugly, balding men etc, I said to the guy that most women just want those dudes to go wandering off into the frozen wastes (i.e. fuck off and die), and he replied and was convinced I was encouraging a Hock type of trial to prove their value...

Oh, he's still around.

So, what are you reading?

I'm still on Korzybski and Lovecraft. Also going through a few religious things.

I just finished Elena Ferrante's second Neapolitan novel. The writing is terrific and beautiful, but the plot movement left something to be desired in my mind. The first book was far better. I might still get around to the third some time this summer if I can get it from the library, it's not a difficult book to read, so it's a good vacation book.

This weekend I'm planning to dig into Moneyland, which my mother picked up for me at the bookstore because an old advance copy was available free, I guess it's a book about how rich people move money around. Should be a fun read.

I'm wrapping up The Cartiers on audiobook. I'll do a bigger writeup when I finish it, but it's a really fascinating work of family and business history. The jeweler aspects are interesting, the innovation of platinum settings and the creation of iconic pieces like the Santos and the Tank. There's also a personal view of European history to it, the family firm working its way through wars. In 1870, the business almost failed during the commune, but ultimately survived and made money selling the gems of bankrupt Paris aristocrats. In 1914, all three brothers (Louis, Jacques, Pierre) served; Louis most famously as a general's aide behind the lines would invent the Tank style of watch based on seeing early tanks at the front line, though it was Jacques who would win the Croix de Guerre and serve at the front lines despite his brothers and father urging him repeatedly to avoid combat service and think of the company. After the war they lost their Russian customers, but did a roaring business recycling gems for cash for exiled Russian Whites and (sub rosa) for the Soviets. With the firm remaining open through WWII, it's a snapshot of real life for frenchmen in occupied Paris, and what it actually looked like. The aftermath permanently reoriented their business toward their US offices. It's not exactly a worms-eye view (these are guys who had bitter rivalries with Faberge, challenged Rothschilds to duels, and made gems for kings and capitalists) but it's a uniquely selfish view: the Cartiers cared most about Cartier, and though they were often patriotic ideology was secondary to personal interest.

How difficult was the first book? I'm thinking of reading it in Italian (my Italian is workman-like but not good). Do you feel like it works as a stand-alone?

I'm a dirty monolingual so I read it in English, but the language wasn't difficult, nor were the concepts. There is a lot of mentions of interplay between dialect and "Italian" in the text, so idk if in the original you'll run into Neapolitan slang. The first book is pretty self-contained, and it's mostly one of those post-modern one damn thing after another books anyway, but knowing it's a quartet I'll probably finish it up.

Hmmm maybe not the best Italian book for me to start with in that case. Thanks for the info.

I'm finishing a short story collection by Peter Watts, aptly titled "An antidote for optimism". I don't know man, I just don't get misanthropes on a fundamental level. The cynics, the antinatalists, the degrowthers - he's all that and then some. And I resent the probable riposte that it just means that I'm not enlightened enough to see the human and universal condition for what it is. Sometimes it feels like people like him or Von Trier or Herzog treat/use depression like a contagious vector - trying to spread it around to dull their own pain.

I am in the middle of the Culture series and feeling a loss of momentum. I enjoyed Player of Games, Consider Phlebus and to some degree Use of Weapons but it feels pretty underwhelming afterwards.

The State of the Art was a weird mix of short stories that barely kept me going. Had to skip ahead to Matter since the others aren't available in my library.. I'm finding Matter is also rather snoozeville.

Any other good ones? I really like being immersed in the Culture parts of the Culture universe but all of the rest is not that interesting.

State of the Art was pretty awful and threw me off bigly. The only story I liked was about that suit from the crash-landed guy.

If I were telling anyone else new to the series how to read it, I would say "skip it".

I do think it's a bit "overrated" as far as sci-fi goes. None of the books is going to change your life like some other 5/5 sci-fi, especially not the back half of the series. However, re-looking at the synopses for Matter/Surface Detail/Inversions/Look to Windward, I will say you still have some exciting books left. Hydrogen Sonata was a bit weaker, but still worth reading to complete things.

All that said, none of them are set primarily in the culture. If that's what kept you hooked, then be warned.

No love for Excession? That's got to be in my top 3 among the series.

I also loved Inversions, but IIRC it's about as far from the Culture parts of the Culture universe as you can get.

I found Look to Windward so uninteresting that I remember my annoyance with that better than I remember any of the plot.

Matter and certainly Surface Detail were both worth reading; perhaps better than Consider Phlebas, if you don't give the latter credit for introducing the whole universe.

Surface detail is great.

I second this, Surface Detail was my introduction to the Culture (though full disclosure it's also the only one I've read so far, doh ho ho).

The O'Rahilly by Michael Joseph O'Rahilly. A biography of one of the leaders of the 1916 Easter Rising in Ireland, he tried to stop it from happening and ironically ended up being the only rebel leader to be killed in action (as opposed to being executed). W.B Yeats wrote a poem about him. I had barely heard about him before and it's unclear whether this is whether he was relatively unimportant or because he ended up on the wrong side of history for opposing a rebellion which has since become glorified (though by now the revisionists have had their say).

The book was written by his son Aodogán O’Rahilly and he makes the latter case. I haven't gotten to the action yet but the family anecdotes and descriptions of life in the late 19th/early 20th centuries are interesting. It's a bit of a mystery as to why O'Rahilly became a radical Irish nationalist. Unlike most of the other Irish revolutionaries I have read about he had no family history of Irish nationalism, they had even removed the O' from their surnames, he had no experience in war and he wasn't a young man with nothing to lose either. He was part of the rising Catholic middle class, enjoying an income of £900 per year and he was married to an even wealthier American heiress. The most you see are hints here and there in his personal letters before he quickly becomes devoted to the cause.

I haven't gotten to the action yet but that should be interesting. The whole Irish Volunteer movement was subversions within subversions. On the one hand you had moderate parliamentary nationalists like John Redmond successfully convincing 90% of the Volunteers to go and fight in WW1 (Ireland had no draft) and achieve self-government by showing loyalty to the crown, on the other you had the secret oath-bound organisation of the Irish Republican Brotherhood doing their best to take control of the organisation and turn it into a force for insurrection. All that was for certain was that a 180,000 strong nationalist paramilitary organisation was being built to counter an equally large loyalist paramilitary organisation and O'Rahilly was helping to build it.

On the day that he drove across the country alone to join the battle he tried to stop, speaking to the people who had just wrested control of the Volunteers and relegated him to the sidelines of history, he is quoted as saying - "Well, I've helped to wind up the clock -- I might as well hear it strike!"

Finished War at Every Door. It seems to me to be more of an overview of guerilla resistance practiced by both sides in East Tennessee in the American Civil War. A little light on the details of what motivated each particular person and how they came to their views, but I suppose that's a bit difficult to know. It's more of a high-school history class level overview of people, places, incidents, and times, but at a high enough level that I found it interesting and easy to keep up with reading.

What I'm more interested in is any evidence to support or refute the theory that the Borderer elements of the American South were never all that into slavery, secession, etc, and it was all a Cavalier thing. After reading this book, I don't think that theory is specifically proven or refuted, but remains a possibility. It does seem to have some possible jumping-off points for further research on the subject, which I may or may not try my hand at at some point.

The book does seem to have a "both sides" view. Both the Confederate and Union armies experienced guerilla resistance and tried various methods to deal with it, some working better than others. The guerilla resistors mostly hassled civilians supporting the other side and small groups of soldiers and civilian Government representatives from the side they were against. They sometimes tried more direct interference with larger-scale military operations, which was mostly of very limited effectiveness and brought down harsh reprisals - the most direct example is the Unionist attempt to burn several bridges early on in the war, which would have impeded the movement of the Confederate armies northward to defend against a then-planned Union invasion (Wikipedia summary). This did not go well and mostly lead to a number of executions by hanging after court-martial.

The Door by Magda Szabó is a little over 300 pages long. The plot starts around page 200. I'm not enjoying it.

Reading the second book in "La Saga de Los Confines" by Liliana Bodoc. Trying to only reading in Spanish until my DELE exam in May.

For a Few Demons More (The Hollows, book 5) by Kim Harrison.

Just read the wiki

Tell me so much more?

Is it good / fun ?

Sure! I'll start by saying that I can be easy to please with books in general, especially when I'm getting them for a couple-few bucks a pop at the Kindle store. On top of that, I have a soft spot for Urban Fantasy thanks in no small part to Shadowrun and Anne Rice novels when I was a teenager and, more recently, The Dresden Files. But yes! I like them so far and have been having fun getting to know the world and the characters, and when I saw that a whole bunch of them were on sale for a few bucks each, I got all of the cheap ones for my Kindle.

I'd say that thus far, The Hollows books are, in a general way, reminiscent of the earlier Dresden Files books to me, which is to say that they have a strong MC narrating in first person, they aren't too heavy/grimdark despite both MCs having issues with their respective authorities, they have the mystery novel aspect to them, they have good worldbuilding, and they are centered around a Midwestern city. The Hollows seems to be a little bit more lighthearted and whimsical overall, although there is plenty of double dealing, death, and hair-raising adventure to be had in each book thus far, as well as plenty of relationship drama. For me, it's the development of the various characters that I'm really enjoying and where I feel the writing shines, including the will-they-or-won't-they situations, the snags, imperfections and complicated interplay between the various characters and factions that are slowly but surely drawing our MC into deeper and more troubled waters. I particularly like how Harrison has developed and deepened the relationship between MC Rachel Morgan and her roommate and business partner, Ivy.

If you like the looks of it, I'd encourage you to pick up Dead Witch Walking and give it a try. Also, I stayed kinda general here to try and keep away from spoiling anything significant but if you want to hear more/have more specific questions, fire away!

So this happened

Anyone know anything about the Order of Nine Angles? Sounds a little Monty Python.

It’s a satanist terrorist organization. There’s an episode of an open source intel podcast called Popular Front that has more information on them. It is extremely un-Monty Python.

There's also these two part episodes from Subliminal Jihad. The link is from porn site because they're patreon only episodes.

It's a very left podcast, but they have some great episodes.

It would be interesting if this site had more parapolitical posters.

$6000 a month with minor engagement on every post, I wonder who's funding them.

Most discussion is on Discord and a lot of it is actually on X/twitter. I don't know why you'd use Patreon for that.

They're the most popular, but there's tons of other similar podcasts that popped up in the last few years.

For those who'd rather know what the link says before clicking:

A Wisconsin teen allegedly killed his parents to "obtain the financial means and autonomy necessary" to kill President Donald Trump and overthrow the U.S. government, federal authorities said in court documents.

In cases like this I support damnatio memorae.

Herostratus may not have been forgotten, but he does also not have emulators.

To what extent is it incumbent on a person who desires to see more US manufacturing to purchase already existing US made goods?

To what extent is it a fair critique to say "If you want to see Tariffs, buy all your t shirts and underwear from LAA, buy your shoes from Allen Edmonds, buy an American car, etc. And if you aren't already doing that, you aren't serious about Tariffs."

Or is that the participating in society meme?

Personally, I'm not really pro-autarky, but I do try to buy as much as possible from America. I had to giggle at some of the tariff takes the last couple weeks: I already buy American made socks (from Costco but that's too obscure I guess) and most days the majority of my outfit is American with LAA and Gustin handling most casual basics, Outlier pants, and a lot of things from Boathouse right where I used to row at Dadvails every year. Sneakers are the one thing I buy exclusively foreign, in that I only buy obscure Amazon minimalist-shoe knockoffs because they're the only thing that fits my weird feet. And that's pretty much my ideal: I should have the ability to buy American, and I prefer to, but I like having the ability to buy a vast variety of things that are exactly to my taste. If there were a MiUSA alternative to WHITN, I would buy them, even for a premium!, but they don't exist to my knowledge.

Or is that the participating in society meme?

In many ways the perfect motte and bailey question. You can own an iPhone and be a communist, but you probably can’t buy the latest iPhone every year and be a communist because - even if you think FALGSC is inevitable - communism is an international movement that sees even the lifestyle of the Western middle class as the product of grotesque exploitation of third world peasants and proletarians that would be swiftly corrected under a communist revolutionary movement.

Peace is often found when lifestyle and your worldview are in some alignment. It is possible to be an actively-gay-sex-having Catholic priest (albeit a bad one who, I imagine, is breaking his vows) who nevertheless advocates that gay sex is bad. I suspect there is some torment involved, though, no matter the undoubtedly complex knot of justification and self-deceit. If you believe in America, I suspect it feels especially good to buy American. Plus, if you have money, the quality is often better.

I believe that people generally have an obligation to undertake actions to make their preferred society more likely. In other words it is incumbent upon people to make the world a better place. Be the change you want to see in the world and all that.

So someone who desires a favorable balance of trade for America can rightly be called hypocritical if he drives a Kia. It’s possible to make the case that a Toyota made in Arlington would be hypocritical but I wouldn’t, personally.

I don’t call this obligation unlimited; we can have a favorable balance of trade in which we export f-150’s and import coffee. But it seems like where the USA makes normal, cost-competitive goods(I’d point to a 10% price difference for consumables and 25% for durables, but those are just numbers), you can judge a favorable balance of trade supporter for buying foreign.

Can anyone steelman why corporate taxes are good but tariffs are bad?

I still see people even as of the last couple of days advocating for higher corporate taxes.

I will tackle the tariff half of the question. I assume that you paired it with a question about corporate taxes to indicate that you are looking for arguments against tariffs that are specific to tariffs, as opposed to generic anti-tax arguments. I will also assume you are asking about tariffs under Trump as opposed to tariffs in the abstact.

1. Comparative advantage. The essential idea is that each country produces things it is good at and exchanges them for things it isn’t good at. If you reduce trade by creating tariffs, that makes everyone poorer. I won’t dwell on this because there are many good explanations of comparative advantage on the web.

2. Logistics. Canada exports most of their oil to the United States. The United States produces more oil than it consumes, so importing oil from Canda allows the United States to export a lot more oil. With U.S. tariffs on imported oil, it makes sense for Canada to export oil to countries that need it to avoid the tariffs, but that is going to cost Canada a fair amount of money to build the necessary infrastructure. The United States also loses because consumers in the American midwest have to pay more for gasoline and companies involved in oil export lose work.

This could be classified as an example of comparative advantage (the U.S. has an advantage in exporting oil), but I list it separately because it is not an obvious example.

3. Uncertainty. Trump has repeatedly announced tariffs and then changed his position. This makes it very hard for businesses to invest. A business can’t very well invest in a factory to make something covered by tariffs unless the factory would be profitable without the tariff, because no one knows what the tariffs will be a year from now. Similarly, a business can’t invest in a factory that would be profitable without the new tariffs, but relies on imports as inputs so tariffs could make it unprofitable.

4. Loss of trust. The tariffs imposed by Trump are generally in violation of international agreements that the U.S. has signed. For example, the tariffs on Canada violate the USMCA agreement that Trump negotiated during his first term.

I imagine that some countries will still negotiate deals with the United States because they feel that they have no choice. (One such country would be Israel, which preemptively eliminated all tariffs on U.S. goods before April 2.) But the European Union is strong enough that I don’t see them making a free trade agreement with an untrustworthy partner.

This loss of trust is across the board, not just in trade. For example, the United States cannot find itself in a position where it has no choice but to default on its debt (if the Treasury has trouble rolling over its debt, the Federal Reserve can function as the buyer of last resort), but it could decide to default. That's probably the rates on long term treasury bonds have been so high recently.

5. Corruption. Trump can say to both foreign leaders and U.S. companies, “I’m willing to consider lowering the tariff you are concerned about. I’d like you to do me a favor, though.”

  1. Comparative advantage. The essential idea is that each country produces things it is good at and exchanges them for things it isn’t good at. If you reduce trade by creating tariffs, that makes everyone poorer. I won’t dwell on this because there are many good explanations of comparative advantage on the web.

The thing I haven't seen anyone really address is that usually, the Comparative Advantage in question is lax safety and environmental laws. Sure, we have less land well-suited for Cocoa plants than South America. But the reason why it's cheaper to build a factory in China than the US is because China has no qualms with forced labor, unsafe conditions, and pollution. The government of China is able to force people to produce things that there is no demand for, including brand new ghost cities.

Are people just ok with this, morally and ethically? Is there any concern that this is a strategy that China has been employing to explicitly hollow out the American Industrial Capability which won WWII for the Allies?

The forced labor concern don’t apply to Europr, Japan, South Korea, Israel, or New Zealand, which have all had tariffs raised.

Yes, this is true. I would be for a kind of trade union that where the main requirement for entry is not exploiting their workers or environments (and maybe combined with a military pact.) Of course, the EU might have a different understanding of what that means than the US...

I'm not super informed on this but my impression is that I don't really like the American leftist habit of labeling working conditions they don't like as having "low labor standards" when the alternative is just those workers not being employed at all. I suspect most European countries have standards above this even if I wouldn't particularly like those jobs myself. It's easier for me to believe China doesn't have them given their track record on human rights in general and that they have labor that's much more accurately described as forced or coerced. So the US need not be the gold standard for what acceptable labor standards are. There is still no need for any tariffs at all on Europe and the other countries I mentioned (except maybe Israel but we can start by cutting off other sources of funding to them first).

I was referring to European countries making it almost impossible to fire an employee without a solid record of misbehavior and prior notice.

America decides, "We will only have free trade with countries that maintains worker accidents under a certain threshold and has solid enforcement against slave labor on exports."

Then Europe says, "We'll make our own free trade organization with countries that have a good enough social safety net and do not allow companies to fire their employees willy nilly." And the US gets kicked out of the global trade anyways.

Except that would never happen, because they would love to sell to us. It's mostly a thought experiment to try to assess where the line is that we wouldn't' allow countries to cross. China at one end, Canada at the other, where is the line drawn?

It’s charging someone for the services your government provides vs. charging them for not using those services.

If we have to raise revenue, I’d say to do it that way instead of LARPing at autarky.

Fundamentally, because it’s easier to avoid paying a tariff than to avoid paying a corporate tax.

Why is a corporate tax a better way to raise money than a tax on, for example, jogging? Because if it’s big enough, people will simply stop jogging, and in the end the state will have no money, plus a semi-pleasurable activity will be prohibited. You are strictly worse off than before you started.

In a world where every state tried to finance itself entirely with tariffs, foreign trade and state revenue would drop to near-zero. In contrast, corporate tax world would be similar to our world.

Where are people arguing in favour of corporate taxes?

Is this not the position of most of the left? Tax corporations more?

It's the position of the left part of the left and occasionally the center left, and them talking about corporate taxes is nothing new or noteworthy so I was wondering if someone else was suddenly talking about it or if it was just the usual subjects bringing out their hobby horse.

Maybe better suited for the culture war thread, but I think I'm leaving the Catholic Church. I converted in 2022 for a number of reasons. I had already felt drawn to Catholic literature/aesthetics for almost as long as I could remember (I loved Silence and A Canticle for Leibowitz), was incredibly dissastisfied with the secular attitude towards spirituality and morality, and was drawn to the simplicity of Jesus' simplification of the Jewish Law: Love thy neighbor as thyself, and Love God. I choose the Catholic Church over other denominations because it was not woke, open to revising stances on scripture (evolution), and concerned more with works over just belief.

It's been three years since I went through RCIA and converted, and a combination of contradictions between the church and my other beliefs about the world has become difficult to resolve. This center around two big areas. The first revolves around veganism/animal rights/environmentalism. Although this certainly wasn't always the case historically within the church (St. Francis and the Benedictines come to mind), there seems to be this attitude at least in my parish that animals and nature were only created for us to do with as we please. This is backed up by an interpretation of Genesis that suggests that God created man to rule over animals and nature. Not only do I think this is wrong ethically, we know many animals have conscious experiences and shouldn't be treated "however we want" (not to say that they should be treated like humans necessarily), but it also seems to have led to disaster in relationship to our environment. Even if you don't believe Climate Change is a serious issue, we have replaced most of the vertebrate biomass on land with us and our (maltreated) farm animals. Certainly there are many in the Church who would see this as wrong (the Pope included), but it doesn't seem to be so in parishes I've been to, and to justify it scripturally it seems like you have to jump through a bunch of hoops.

The second issue has to do with the relationship between divine revelation, philosophy, and science. It's not the church hasn't historically changed its position on things (slavery, evolution, not doing everything in Latin), it's that any change has to conform to certain core dogma and be based in an interpretation of scripture. But the more I read of philosophy, the more I've started to believe that certain tenets of catholic theology don't agree with objective reality and are poorly argued for by the "greats" (Augustine, Aquinas). The problem is not necessarily that these tenets are wrong: more so that they can't be interrogated in a reasonable philosophical manner because divine revelation is unquestionable.

The final unrelated reason that I'm leaving is the people. When I first joined the parish, we had a much more vibrant young adult community that actually did stuff together, had interests beyond theology, and generally was much more concerned with works than beliefs. Through a combination of people moving away and/or leaving the church, it seems the only people really left are trad-caths who I find boring, close-minded, and fail to see the core of what Jesus was trying to say. The Dominicans who run the parish, while being excellent administrators, and kind people, aren't much better when it comes to intellectual openness.

Anyway, I'm open to coming back to the church when/if I move away from the current parish I'm in to more Jesuit-friendly pastures. But without massive reform, both philosophically and practically (being much more concerned with environmentalism and non-human life on this planet), I think this era of my life is over. I'm not sure where to go next spiritually, but hopefully that will come with time.

Others have addressed the theology/philosophy a bit, so I'll speak to the other two.

Re. environmentalism and animal welfare, I do agree that many Catholics oversimplify the genesis story as you describe. FWIW, I've heard some priests and laymen say (and I personally believe) that humanity is something akin to a "father" or "priest" to all animals and to nature. We have authority over the natural world, but we also have an obligation to treasure it, to respect it as a gift, and to leading it to perfection by applying human virtues (charity/mercy, temperance, humility) to our interactions with it. I don't know if that makes sense, but I could try to give examples.

I've thought a lot about this over the last few years, as I am living in Japan, and Shintoism is quite nature-focused. I've heard it said by some here that "ittadakimasu," the one-word ritual word said before meals, mean something like "I will (humbly) take," as in "I will humbly partake of this food given to me through the sacrifice of animal and vegetables lives.". Not sure how many people here truly believe that, but I think it's a good little reminder to be thankful for what I consume, both to God and His creation.

As far as parishes go, some are just not great. I've been living in a rural part of Japan for a few years now, and my family probably includes nearly 50% of the entire population of kids. The median age is probably over 70. The priest himself is nearly as old. I tried to get involved for the first 2 years we were here only to be politely ignored. The level of catechesis here is lower than in America, even among young people, if you can believe it. Ignorance of basic doctrines, so it's impossible to have much of a discussion about faith.l or Catholic life. Zero accomodations for kids. There was a cry room, but the priest asked us not to use it unless the baby was crying, and asked us to sit in the first row instead (!) with our baby and two toddlers and one young elementary schooler.

I was angry the first few years I lived here, but then I realized -- maybe I was not sent here to enjoy parish social life or have deep discussions. Maybe that's not what my mission is. Maybe I'm supposed to be here to be an example of a young family with kids in church. Maybe I'm here to learn that theological rabbitholes and after mass coffee and donuts aren't what Mass is about. Maybe I'm not meant to feel spiritual peace and ruminate on scripture during mass, but instead to do the hard work of showing my kids how to pray, and to show others that yes, it is possible to have more than 1.5 kids and to bring them to church every Sunday. My point is -- consider why God brought you to this parish. Some spiritual work is fulfilling and rewarding, and other spiritual work is taxing and dry, and which is which differs based on the person. Perhaps it might be worth trying to engage with some of the folks you dislike at your parish with a more open mind.

FWIW, I've heard some priests and laymen say (and I personally believe) that humanity is something akin to a "father" or "priest" to all animals and to nature. We have authority over the natural world, but we also have an obligation to treasure it, to respect it as a gift, and to leading it to perfection by applying human virtues (charity/mercy, temperance, humility) to our interactions with it.

I agree with this. My take (which I guess my dad instilled in me) is that God gave us the natural world for our use, but we are stewards and not owners. So for example, I feel no qualms about eating meat because God put the animals there for us to enjoy. But I also wouldn't butcher animals I'm not going to eat, or kill animals just for the hell of it, because ultimately they don't truly belong to me. I believe that I am responsible for those creatures, and one day I'll be held to account for what I've done if I misuse them.

As regards the broader topic of environmentalism, I have been reflecting recently that my views mean I should be an environmentalist to some extent. I think that people do take things too far sometimes, but I owe the natural world some level of care even as I make use of its resources. What that means in terms of concrete policies I should support, I'm not sure. But I do think that I should figure out where exactly I draw the line between "responsible stewardship" and "overly strict" with some of these environmentalist topics.

I'm skeptical of large society-wide initiatives, there are just too many places to hide graft and ulterior agendas. So I apply my environmentalist principles the same way I try to apply my other Christian principles -- locally, on whoever and whatever is around me on a regular basis. I have a hard time figuring out whether a given political policy actually helps, but it's easy to not waste food or destroy plant or animal life unnecessarily, to "leave no trace" when camping, and to tend the small strip of land around my house to make it beautiful. This is a bit more abstract, but I also think that gifts are meant to be enjoyed, so I make an effort to enjoy the outdoors and say prayers of thanks while doing so. I think that's also part of it.

Good thoughts, thanks. I think you're definitely right that acting locally is a great way to do good in ways you can be sure of the outcome.

I’m confused. Do you believe in the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ or not?

Shouldn’t it all follow from there? It appears it doesn’t in your case, and this reads like you’re upset your new social club became lame.

Were you lying about your beliefs to these other Catholics? You’re open to rejoining the church when the correct people once again associate themselves with your parish?

Does being near more Jesuit-friendly believers suddenly make it once again true that Jesus died on the cross and rose again?

This is an epistemic mess, and you make me wonder how many of you are on the pew next to me, agitating for my church to update its interpretation of holy scripture.

Yes I do. But it doesn't all follow from there unfortunately because the church is built on much more than just Jesus' passion, resurrection, and death. It's largely built on Pauline interpretations of the Gospels, and the entirety of the Old Testament which is largely contradictory to the New Testament. It's not as simple as just "repent and believe the gospel" because so many things have been grafted on top of that are required to be part of the church.

I think you're reading me extremely uncharitably here (as the other catholics that I complain about do too), and actually makes me want to leave more than I already do (which is perhaps what you would want anyway, which I have some sympathy with). Things empirically do not just follow from reading the scriptures (or else why would there be so many denominations of Christianity). I believe in Papal Authority and church hierarchy which is one of the reasons why I am catholic. The Jesuits' have a much more open interpretation to theological problems where I struggle with the Dominican positions.

I agree I was too harsh. In my defense it wasn’t clear whether you were quibbling with your local expression of Catholicism or if you had simply thrown out the whole faith because your friends moved away. You say yourself you converted for the books and incense and are leaving because of your own ideas of animal welfare or other unarticulated abstract philosophical objections.

I’m not even Catholic myself. But my eyebrows do jump up when I read “I believe in Papal authority and hierarchy but don’t think I’ll do what they say or follow to them to their conclusions.” Also isn’t weekly Mass, like, super required?

Yeah, if they believe in papal authority, it would follow that they have to believe and do all the rest.

Whenever I meet young adult Catholics I have a great time. They're polite, open-minded, and not infected with the WMV like almost every other denomination. The older folks are often really tough to get along with.

I don't know if this is because you're a convert, but it seems like your problems are not with the Catholic Faith, it's with the people in the pews next to you. Ultimately, I only really need from the Church access to the Sacraments. 99% of my spiritual development has happened at home. How often do you go to Confession and receive Communion in a state of Grace?

I recommend reading Fire Within to see what the end result of spiritual progress would look like. Having an idea of the goal in mind can help a lot. If you already have a goal, what is it? From what you wrote, it seems like your biggest goal of becoming Catholic was to flee an Atheistic Identity while still holding Atheistic Suppositions about the world.

There have been times and parishes where I don't interact with anyone at all, pray silently instead of paying attention to the homily, receive the sacraments, and walk away. It's wonderful when the Church can also provide social opportunities, but it's not often that this happens.

Augustine and Aquinas are not infallible and their philosophy isn't infallible. The Church has not committed herself to their philosophy, even in cases where she uses the phrase "Transubstantiation" there is no commitment to the Accidents/Substance distinction of Aquinas.

If you really need a change of scenery (and a church that doesn't treat Aquinas like Scripture) see if there are any Eastern Catholic churches near you. A benefit of finding an Eastern Catholic Church over converting to Orthodoxy is that Orthodoxy will make you go through initiation again, while you'll be able to just go to an Eastern Catholic Church without a fuss. But I would rather you try Orthodoxy than disappear.

Before I stopped going to mass completely (~2 months ago), I would go to confession every couple weeks and not usually receive Communion unless I did so (I too am a miserable sinner that tells stupid lies and masturbates).

My goal in converting to Catholicism was to try and connect with the divine that I know is out there in the world. I didn't write this in my post but I had a mystical experience at the church of the holy sepulcher in 2019 that convinced me that something around Jerusalem/Jesus/Christianity was special and true. I've very rarely felt this at mass, but this is perhaps from trying too hard to connect with other parishioners/the institution rather than what I came there for (God).

This is all true and helpful and has inspired me to make another effort to find Christ. I'm going to return to mass and read the book that you suggested and see if it helps me overcome my philosophical doubts and recenter myself on the sacraments and a connection with God.

Thank you for hearing me out, I was worried I came across as too harsh, but it looks like I'm only medium harshness comparatively.

If you ever want to talk with someone about your doubts, philosophy, the Bible, etc, feel free to DM me. I also highly recommend Jimmy Akin for a rational (though he was doing it before the Rationalists, he's just likely autistic) explanation of Catholic teaching. And I have Joe Heshmeyer and Dr. Brant Pitre to thank for making the Bible seem coherent and reasonable. All three are all over Youtube and have books out.

One of the biggest difficulties smart people run into with Catholicism is that a lot of what you find in books and online is classified as "acceptable theological opinion." It's a small "t" tradition and hasn't been made dogma. Even a Nihil Obistat on a book doesn't mean that everything in it is 100% dogmatically true, it simply means "nothing (currently) obstructs," there's no outright heresy in it. That doesn't stop people from acting like their particular theological hobby horse is 100% set in stone and disagreeing with it is tantamount to leaving the Catholic faith.

Sorry to hear! That sounds difficult.

I’d recommend checking out Eastern Orthodoxy. Fasting from meat is much more common and well regarded over here. Also to your points about theology, there’s much more room for Holy Scripture.

My parish has had a lot of Catholic converts with similar issues to you I believe.

I have thought about it before and will see if there are any Orthodox churches near me.

I hope it works out for ya. I'll warn you tho not all Orthodox churches are created equally hah. There's a ton of variety.

Some of them are deeply ethnic enclaves with all the liturgy in a foreign language, others are entirely in English. YMMV.

Since it's Holy Week this week, it might be worth visiting a service if it's feasible -- Friday evening (Lamentations), Saturday Morning (Descent into Hell), and Saturday night (Pascha) are all highlights, but next Sunday is also very Paschal and lovely.

I think this would be a problem with any institution. It’s full of us miserable sinners. I find myself drawn to high church Protestantism and it’s the same thing. On paper or on YouTube videoed of the services far away from any real people messing things up it sounds great. The real people are not like the theoretical ones that populate that denomination in your head. So I think at some point, it’s better to find a church that you actually like and worry less about the aesthetics and denomination and theology and simply get involved.

I find myself drawn to high church Protestantism

Nice! What sort of church do you attend?

(I'm Presbyterian/Reformed.)

LCMS Lutheran, though im rather fond of the conservative Anglicans as well.

I like the idea of the Tree in Genesis being an endangered species; it is not in the consuming of the fruit of “knowing good & evil” that we damned ourselves, but in preventing its flourishing and multiplication; that our consuming it halted the spread of the knowledge of good and evil, which required the tree to remain in a virginal state carefully tended by God. The tree itself was, in a sense, monogenes — one of a kind, only-begotten. This then has environmental implications: the very first sin which doomed us was our harm to endangered nature in its virginal state. And we see how the Gospel factors into the story of salvation: the monogenes of God (and endangered Messiah of man) must perish on a dead tree, after spreading the seed of Moral Wisdom involving good fruit from good trees, to resurrect in the appearance of a gardener (to Magdalene).

I like this metaphor a lot! I'll have to use it myself.

So the obvious question to me here is: how do you feel about transubstantiation?

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