site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 254438 results for

domain:amphobian.info?q=domain:amphobian.info

Hogwarts

Definitely woke, even if it was inspired by the works of a woman who later became a wrong-thinker. 1890s rural Scotland having the same demographics as UCLA, plus the deliberate inclusion of a wizard in a dress witch with a croaky voice.

It's worth remembering that JKR was very politically correct back when it was called that. She retroactively made Dumbledore gay, and in the stage show made Hermione black (and then tried to gaslight her fans into believing she always was).

Of course, the success of the game in spite of the attempted woke boycott probably strengthened the believe among dev companies that they can just ignore an angry twitter X Bluesky mob and sell the game anyway.

Why?

I mean this in the most sincere way. Other responses have straightforward mechanisms. I do not understand how that could be true for adopting a belief which I do not—can not?—rationally hold.

So I would be genuinely interested in hearing your justification.

Yes there is an over supply of residency spots, residents, and medical students. Somehow this doesn't result in an over supply of doctors.

It's complicated.

For instance medicine is overwhelmingly female now, they retire and go part time very easily - so our "finished" supply constricts.

The Raiders and Giants were bad with Barkley and Jacobs, they're still bad without them.

"The flipside of this is a good blocking and offensive team that has a bad RB who is carried by his environment. Najee Harris maybe? Not a lot of examples come to mind."

'bad RB' is sort of an odd category, the list of low resource acquires, considerable success, and then replaced by another guy with considerable success, just within the various branches of the Shanahan coaching tree is long (start with Terrell Davis), (even this year the 49ers have gotten 700 yards at 5.1 yards a carry out of Jordan Mason), and fairly central to skeptical valuation of RBs.

I appreciate the cross-posts. Twitter can feel like I'm walking through the crowds, listening to men preach from a soapbox. This is slightly more like a salon where at least I'm sitting down inside a building instead of walking along the street.

It’s funny to call a $20B business “modest,” but I suppose that’s true for Google’s scale.

According to this report, their services division spent $87B to make $144B. The Cloud and “Other Bets” segments are basically rounding errors in comparison.

Interesting, I didn't know that! I'll have to take a closer look at how his career progressed.

At the point I'm at, I've been thinking, this is a pretty good autobiography, but I haven't yet seen anything that I would expect makes anyone think, wow I really want this guy to represent me in DC. Though I see it starting to go in that direction already with my last day's reading.

Rule of thumb for me is game devs make 50-66% of what they could make doing boring enterprise dev work, with 50-100% longer hours

In the same vein I'm finding it harder and harder to approximate the value of these good RBs. On a really good offense they are clearly force multipliers, dynamic runners and catchers that add points to every game. The convention wisdom is that they aren't worth a lot of salary because they're replaceable, and even on bad teams they do very little. I'm more skeptical of this these days, seeing the big drop off in effectiveness on the Raiders and Giants offense after losing Jacobs and Barkley. The flipside of this is a good blocking and offensive team that has a bad RB who is carried by his environment. Najee Harris maybe? Not a lot of examples come to mind.

You know, I have never met a man who likes the Dumas books but was incensed that too much time gets devoted to this Milady character, or how it's bullshit that she's so powerful. Dumas chose to devote many more chapters to Milady. The chapters about her mission to kill the Duke of Buckingham are from her point of view. Dumas published the chapters serially, a lot of his readers were men, and I take it as evidence that he responded as much to popular demand as he did to his own creative urges.

I think I wasn't able to communicate my idea clear enough. You are correct that Dumas wrote her as a competent villain of the selfish, ignoble, scheming kind. And she meets her end in a way that is appropriate for this kind of villain: desperate, groveling, clutching at every straw until her head is struck down into the mud. However, this puts the modern writers in a bind: they need a "strong female character" and Milady as she has been written doesn't work as one:

  • if she meets her end on the bank of the Lys, she's no longer a suitable self-insert for female viewers
  • if she ultimately escapes her punishment, this will anger male viewers

The writers chose the easiest way out: Milady now competes with men in the male sphere: she's a dashing rogue now, someone who, even after sending Constance to her death, has the possibility of a redemption arc. No longer are underhanded tactics implicitly coded as feminine. Could the writers have come up with a different Milady, one that could attract female viewership, not alienate male viewership and at the same time not be an ahistorical girlboss? In theory, yes, but no one has time for this kind of tightrope walking in practice.

What about the first question @No_one posed - what's the nature of the opposition in Ireland?

The answer to virtually every "why is X industry/sector/institution woke?" is the same: It's the colleges and universities.

Every institution that wants or needs college graduates are getting people filling their ranks who have been subjected to four years of woke propaganda. I would call it entryism, which is kind of is, except it doesn't take much to subvert an insitution when the overwhelming majority of your generation cohort already believes what you do. Every insitution that is not explicitly right-wing/conservative/anti-woke and requires college graduates is subjected to this. Turns out, a lot of insitutions meet this definition, including most of the important ones.

Even if the game developers themselves are mildy resistant to woke ideology on account of their nerdiness (a fact I am not convinced of, but for the sake of the argument), the HR, Payroll, Executive Support etc teams are all full of woke graduates.

I've said it before, but I probably should say it more. If you want to stop 'wokeness', you have to target the academy first and foremost. Otherwise, we are just going to keep reaching "peak wokeness" every year.

I remember a decade and more ago people - back when the woke were called "SJWs", people would just brush them off as silly college kids, it's just a college thing that won't affect the 'real' world. Turns out, those college graduates actually had to go somewhere after college.

I truly believed he loved Microsoft, probably even more than Bill

Their respective portfolios certainly seem to imply so

"Overrepresented" is not enough. The claim is that woke politics is overwhelmingly dominant to the point where there're no antiwoke studios. Trans devs would have to be overwhelmingly dominant to match that claim or something else is going on to give even an overrepresented minority this outsized say.

I think politeness and not wanting to get in trouble with HR plays a big role.

I work with some trans engineers. Luckily there's no intersection between their identity and what we work on. It wouldn't make sense to inject the concept of gender identity into storage drivers.

But if I worked in some area that involved storytelling, and the trans engineers wanted to insert their identity into the stories, I'd be incentivized not to speak my mind. I'd want to say things like this is a vanishingly small portion of the population, it's harmful to children to encourage gender identity navel gazing, etc. But then I'd certainly be upsetting all but the most extreme high-decoupling autists among them, and I'd end up being told by HR not to say those things.

Why? There are no loud, visible anti-wokes?

They tend to be fired if they don't shut up. If they get into a dispute with the visible minorities, management can't fire the visible minorities so they fire the anti-wokes who rile them up.

Ah yes, the classic restrict supply, subsidize demand model. Once someone has given in to restricting supply, the only way out is to subsidize demand. So they say in every industry that sucks because of this exact phenomenon.

But I'm not sure one needs to get into the details of which frictions cause the 5-10% of unfilled slots to have a sense that perhaps that data at least doesn't cleanly support the claim that there is a "surplus" of residency spots. It's at least messy.

That would be anti-woke by the current paradigm, in which negative representation is generally considered worse than non-representation for the same reason that 'don't concede the existence of excesses since it will give the bad people grounds to continue criticizing' is a norm.

A paradigm of prioritizing beneficent representation doesn't go well with making light (or villains) of it. The viewpoint of 'any representation is bad representation' being replaced by 'you must endorse' is one of the distinctions between liberalism and woke.

If you’re a person or brand with a real audience they are powerless.

If you're at least as powerful as Joe Rogan, they're weaker. Others with real audiences have indeed been canceled, e.g. Roseanne Barr, Mel Gibson, and Louis C.K.

Does this place get indexed super fast by Google?

The Motte should take a page from DSL and ban all indexing.

Yeah, good luck making a movie without actors, camerapeople, costume designers and so on, but it's still the director who is the lynchpin of the whole production.

Saquon is the truth. You can't stop Barkley you can only hope to contain him.

Ravens vs. Eagles this Sunday will be a slug fest.

Thanks, that's an interesting idea. Any specific rubs you had in mind?

Glad you brought up Richelieu. In the book, he and Milady are aptly juxtaposed because of these very qualities: smart, adaptable, ruthless, resourceful, and seeking power. The difference is that Richelieu (for the most part) uses that accumulated power to make the state of France strong, while Milady (when not kept on a tight leash) uses it to pursue her own passions, including murder and revenge. That is Milady's one ultimately-fatal flaw: whatever her intelligence and talents, she ultimately serves her baser instinct. It's what makes her such great villain, while Cardinal Richelieu is merely an antagonist who aptly pursues goals contrary to whose of the protagonists.

She's not exactly portrayed as a role model by Dumas.

Exactly: Dumas develops her as a villain, not an anti-hero. And as a villain, she is absolutely the tops. She has her own clearly developed story arc. She has a great back story. She grows as a character. Her resourcefulness gets developed and revealed and stages. By the time of the "boss fight" scene, the reader really believes that it indeed takes four musketeers and a professional executioner to finally kill her. All that, and the only time she lifts a weapon is to pretend to wound herself.

Men hate when women characters like this are empowered.

You know, I have never met a man who likes the Dumas books but was incensed that too much time gets devoted to this Milady character, or how it's bullshit that she's so powerful. Dumas chose to devote many more chapters to Milady. The chapters about her mission to kill the Duke of Buckingham are from her point of view. Dumas published the chapters serially, a lot of his readers were men, and I take it as evidence that he responded as much to popular demand as he did to his own creative urges.

I mean, how much more empowered can a character get? The Duke, forewarned by a lucky fluke, captures Milady, imprisons her, puts an incorruptible guard over her. In a few short days, she not only gets that guard to help her escape, but to carry out her ultimate mission: kill the Duke. I mean, damn! that's Power!

Can I quote stats on university hires? The percent of federal "science" grants going to DEI programs?

Ooo, please do. I'd be interested.

I don't think anyone's claiming that SJ is fully or even mostly gone. Certainly, I would tell anyone claiming this to extract head from own anus and take a look around. The claim @Ben___Garrison and @MadMonzer are making is that the six-metre two-tonne croc has lost a few centimetres and a few kilos, and (in BG's case) that the trend will continue. It's definitely still very big

Ballmer is the classic example.

How much of a bean counter was Ballmer, really? I truly believed he loved Microsoft, probably even more than Bill.