domain:savenshine.com
Every pure blood family is a well known family because the total number of wizards in Britain is in the thousands, almost certainly below 20,000 even with much longer lifespan than normal for humans. There are conceivably older wizards in their nineties or hundreds who know by name the vast majority of the wizard population in the country.
It’s also a largely post-scarcity society in which bad jobs are done by magic or slaves (eg. the dishes do themselves in the Weasley kitchen), so we imagine people working “service jobs” like shopkeepers or cooks do so primarily because they derive enjoyment from that customer interaction rather than because they need the money. There is financial inequality but it’s mostly abstract except when it comes to the purchase of some magical goods and services (like wands or brooms or magic candy) that cannot be conjured out of thin air and thus require the labor of actual other wizards. Textbooks and other things seem to have some semi-inviolable magic copyright attached.
Most people are essentially middle class, working in the few things not outsourced to magic (aforementioned artisanal magic crafts, the justice/courts system and government, some hospitality, and education). Many people appear to do just fine having little or no real employment, perhaps because wizards can conjure space, light, heat, food, warmth and can teleport. In this context, a job in “the civil service” ie Ministry of Magic isn’t the same as a sinecure in a muggle government. It’s likely the ministry creates a job for any wizard who wants one; the destitute are those wizards who choose to be.
Thanks for adding context. It would probably be better without the somewhat blatant culture war bits.
I'm a little ambivalent as to the extent to which this arguably constitutes "recruiting for a cause," but I will, tentatively, allow it.
if god forbid we go under some invisible sum of $spending per minute, then they actually slam the bill on the table and just kick me out as if I am some hobo. So much for friendliness.
The hell? I have literally never had this happen in my entire life in the US. Either there's some other layer to why you're having that experience, or you are the unluckiest person to ever visit a restaurant here.
I would agree Parisians are crazy behind the wheel of a car, but I think that's orthogonal to friendliness.
Yes, U.S. waiters are awful.
"Hi, I'm Stacy, and I'm going to be taking care of you today".
10 minutes after your food arrives: "You still working on that?"
French service is much better, generally.
The cultures are in some ways more compatible with the US, but there's also an element of those countries being poor and needing tourist $$$ more, so their tourist-facing norms ended up being shaped differently.
We finally made it to Aquilo.
Are you playing in a group?
No. There are either aliens (or whatever) or there's a very deliberate and massive psyop to that effect underway, involving high ranking members of both parties, lying officers, fake footage, etc etc etc.
We're past the point of "nothing to see here." That's now just the uncomfortable noise people make when they figure there are no aliens but can't think of a reason for the psyop they feel like really getting behind.
Week 12 thread now live: https://www.themotte.org/post/1258/weekly-nfl-thread-week-12
I believe the answer to this is basically anywhere other than Tokyo, Kyoto and Okinawa.
If you can deal with cold, I had friends recently visit Hokkaido (Sapporo for sure, think other places as well) and they reported it was comparatively bereft of tourists.
For warmer climes, I've generally heard that Kyushu isn't as flooded with foreign tourists as Honshu while still having plenty of impressive natural and historical sites.
I recall reading it in a high school English class. I wouldn't say it became more memorable, but it was reinforced by 2 TV shows many years apart: 1st with Lost when an episode featured a vast stone foot that appeared to be the remains of a larger statue, which seemed like a clear reference to the poem; 2nd with Breaking Bad when an episode was titled Ozymandias in an explicit reference to the poem and likely meant to point out Walt's growing pride and hubris and hint at his inevitable downfall.
There are certain word choices that differ between classes. Using the words “toilet” or “posh” is a very clear indicator that you aren’t upper or upper middle class.
Washing your hands before eating and being generally obsessive over hygiene standards is middle class, while the upper class generally prefer shabby chic and pick up half-finished meat bones with their hands.
Steretypically, the middle classes are afflicted with status anxiety, and therefore obsess over getting things right. Witness the Dursleys scripting out dinner etiquette before Mr. Dursley’s boss arrives for dinner. Whereas etiquette for the upper classes is just ‘whatever the upper classes do’ so they don’t fuss about it too much.
A classic example is the very PMC Nick Clegg and his wife going to dinner with the the Camerons (the Prime Minister and his wife, as upper class as they get) and being shocked when Mrs. Cameron used cheap mayonnaise from a bottle instead of using something fancy or making it herself. Not needing status symbols is the status symbol.
If I add in context are you going to make it visible ?
First encountered it in class in either grade or middle school, cemented by Civ IV in high school.
Finished Final Cut last night, loved it. Started My Brilliant Friend on the train this morning, having heard from everyone and their mother that it's fantastic. Only got about fifteen pages into it, don't know where it's going yet.
Save the comment and return to it is the closest we have.
I understand. One aspect of my problem is how do I collect information of different formats from different places into information that actually allows me to improve my life and the life of others.
I'd suggest the old fashioned way, just writing down your summary and sharing that summary. If a bunch of people are doing bad workouts, share a better workout routine among them. Cite it with sources from the people that know workouts.
A suggestion for mixing up your information diet:
Real life is not siloed in the same way as the Internet, so you can mix up your information diet by sampling from your locality. It is of course still siloed in its own ways. I live in a neighborhood with a bunch of families, all of my friends here are parents. But I know there is a variety of political views, news sources, and job experience among them. The online silos of my neighbors look very different from one another.
All I can say is that it's a numbers game: throw enough shit at the wall and eventually some of it will stick. Most of what I've written in my life I can no longer bear to look at, but there's the odd story here and there that I'm still proud of.
I've only told a couple of people about the book so far and am deliberately not going into a huge amount of detail. The basic premise is that it's set in eastern Europe. There's a woman working for a pharma/medtech company who's working on an invention which has the potential to completely revolutionise diagnosing fertility disorders, but she's concerned that the invention will be stolen from her and used for purposes she doesn't intend.
The only time I say "always" is in quoting a fake person that is doing a bad takedown on the concept of erosion with a bad hypothetical example.
I even mentioned fudging of prices. Which I would have thought helped clarify that prices are not some exact mathematical thing.
I'll say what I said again: Prices reflect reality.
Saying that they don't perfectly reflect reality is not a disproof of what I said. Just like finding one mountain that is coincidentally less eroded does not mean erosion is not true. Utility is part of reality and thus prices will tend to capture information about utility and reflect that information.
Marx's work doesn't say there is a slight mismatch sometimes between market prices and utility. It says there is almost always a mismatch, because employers exploit employees for their excess labor to make profits. That is the fundamental economic misconception.
If a price is wrong, then there is often a method to profit off of that incorrectness. If some segment of workers is underpaid then their is a profit opportunity to open a competing business and pay them more than they get now and less than the full value of their wage. The greater the discrepancy, the greater the opportunity.
Adoption is mostly an American phenomenon though, so that may be more cultural than evolutionary. For instance, only 4k adoptions for all of India’s 1.4 billion. If humans somehow evolved an evolutionary drive to care for kids who weren’t their own, then that evolutionary drive would have disappeared somewhere in our distant past, due to decreased gene proliferation
For math specifically: most US states have adopted some version of the standards that were put together by the National Council of Mathematics Teachers and the US National Research Council's "Adding it up: helping children learn mathematics" report. The latter focuses solely on Kindergarden-8th grade, and in my opinion may explain why the NCMT standards are coherent up to 8th grade but lose serious steam in their recommended standards for 9th-12th grade. I have never understood the sense of teaching Algebra 1 for a year, then switching to Geometry for a year, then once the students have forgotten all about algebra switch back to Algebra 2 and spend the first half just recapitulating Algebra 1 for those who utterly forgot it and boring the rest silly.
How do you overcome self-loathing as a writer? In high school I loved to write and I did so unselfconsciously, but in college I started to "try" and found that every time I wrote something that in the moment felt profound, when I read it again the next day I found it terrible and embarrassing. Is there some mental trick to short-circuiting this impulse? I really want to write as I remember it being as enjoyable as playing music.
Also, what are you writing about? Tell me about your story and characters.
Mine is the fear of missing out on potentially helpful information. What is yours?
This is certainly part of it. Even if you don't 'like' any content at all, twitter, youtube et. al will feed you only more of what you consumed previously - even worse if you follow other accounts. But I also just really don't want those companies to built up a profile about me in order to sell me ads.
It also has previously unintended side-effects: for example, people now frequently report having trouble ad-blocking on youtube. This isn't an issue if you're not logged in.
Though it's strongly implied that both Crabbe and Goyle generations are almost too dimwitted to use magic.
In the weeks up to the election, I started listening to the NYT podcast, especially "The Ezra Klein Show" by Ezra Klein, "The Daily" by Michael Barbaro, and "The Run Up" by Astead Herndon. I usually thought of the NYT as this bastion of liberal thinking leftist thinking, uncritical of what they are. I no longer think so. I now think that the best journalists of the NYT (the ones who get to have podcasts) are self-critical, intelligent, and are powerful voices articulating the current problems of the world. Obviously people have flaws and they might not be able to understand their own biases from time to time, look no further than Michael Barbaro's recent interview with Bernie Sanders where Sanders at one point exasperatedly remarks "Michael, you haven't heard a word that I've said, and that's... impressive". But on the whole, I respect individual NYT journalists a lot more after this US election.
For my first top-level post, I want to draw attention specifically to an episode of "The Daily" titled "On the Ballot: An Immigration System Most Americans Never Wanted" which has Barbaro interview David Leonhardt on his investigation on the immigration issue. I thought it was a good look at the historical progression of immigration laws in the United States. And like the journalist on that episode, the conclusion was: "It's the Democrat's fault, and the elites". Whether it was LBJ and RFK (sr) who fought for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, promising that the country won't be flooded with immigrant worker, but then didn't think to close the loophole that is family immigration, or it was Bill Clinton who couldn't deliver on the findings of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform lead by Barbara Jordan (btw, an absolutely awesome woman), or Biden with his perplexing loosening of the southern border compared to Obama.
The closing was especially poignant, Leonhardt noted:
To be fair, like the video pointed out, there were reasons why the Democrats made such missteps. LBJ/RFK was too idealistic regarding family immigration (they never thought of chain migration) and the opponents of the bill were racist (right message wrong messengers). Clinton had the pulse of the electorate, he set up the commission, but was opposed by both Democrats (pro-immigration idealists) and Republicans (corporate interests in keeping wages low). Biden, worst of all, had Trump-derangement syndrome with regards to immigration and loosened policy.
One might ask "why now? why didn't this become such a huge issue for the American electorate in the last half of century". Well, it's because times were good. Immigration is just another big issue but never one of the biggest. Economic growth smoothens immigration concerns (and there are a lot of upsides to immigration). The crux is this exchange [emphasis mine]:
As an aspiring US immigrant myself, how Leonhardt interpreted the findings of Barbara Jordan keeps ringing in my head:
Or as Barbaro summarizes:
Or as how I would put it:
In the end, I have a growing sympathy for the anti-immigration argument (irregardless of how much more stress or heartbreak this is going to cause me the next few years), a new respect for the journalists of the NYT, and at least three more podcasts I look forward to every week.
I suppose my question to kick off discussion are:
More options
Context Copy link