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

Showing 25 of 242636 results for

domain:arjunpanickssery.substack.com

Oh man I read this the exact opposite of you.

I thought Trump was extremely, savant level charming. It honestly made me sad that most of our politicians are so terrible.

Him pointing out that he wrote Schumer his first check, or getting in the jabs and stuff against Eric Adams (even if they were all pre written, which I doubt since it sounded very much like trumps “voice”) made it feel like there is hope that we can all actually get along.

Maybe this is just crack to me since I’m an upper-class-adjacent (friends and I are now scheming to buy a table at this event) Catholic, straight, cisgendered white male with a wife and children.

I loved this event last night. I am legitimately in afterglow this morning from it text back and forth with the aforementioned friends making (probably just aspirational tbh) plans about going to this event.

Maybe I'm not evolving the discussion much but I think he is unique or at least extraordinarily unusual in his shamelessness.

But who else can?

Vance, DeSantis, Abbott, and Scott are the obvious candidates that spring to mind, and I wouldn't rule out Kushner or Don Jr. either. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans also have a reasonably deep bench of young-ish state level officials of which i expect at least a couple to ready for promotion to the national stage within the next 4 years.

Recall that no one outside of Florida had even heard of DeSantis prior to 2016. (Sure he'd been a state rep. since 2012 but how many people know who thier own state rep. is much less who anyone else's is?)

I do think that there are advantages to not having too high an IQ. I studied maths at Cambridge and met my classmates.

On the other side, I think a lot of the issue here is about this being as much a jobs program as a broadband program. Satellite broadband doesn’t employ a lot of backhoe drivers.

TBH there are only like three good scenes in the whole movie. The D-Day scene gives the impression that the film is going to be a gritty, morally-grey story about how war is a pointless, hellish slaughter. However, it quickly pivots to an all-too-typical morality play of good guys vs. faceless evil Germans. The only part of the film that humanizes the Germans in any way - the arc with Steamboat Willie - ends up being a story of how treating a Nazi mercifully was a blunder with horrible consequences.

I think the film squanders an opportunity to tell a genuinely interesting story about how the war was a ghoulishly unnecessary waste of millions of the best young men that the West had to offer. However, that is clearly not the story Spielberg wanted to tell; nor, frankly, is it a story America would have wanted to hear, so I can’t blame Spielberg any more than I would have blamed any other director.

I think they will, personally, though I'm not sure what the protections are.

U-6 includes workers employed part time for economic reasons plus persons 'marginally attached' to the workforce -- those who have looked for a job in the last 12 months but are not currently looking for work.

This is the spread -- U-6 minus U-3, that is, the marginally attached plus the part-time for economic reasons. It tends to follow the unemployment rate, so this is the percentage spread (U-6 minus U-3, over U-6). Neither is particularly high right now.

I'm pretty sure that the test specifically asked us to avoid zooming in haha.

But I was also looking out for artifacts. A lot of smaller details lack symmetry and become squiggly in a nonhuman way. Also random blotches and spots that don't make much sense.

A bet that a counterfactual would be superior is never going to resolve.

I have, in saving private ryan, the cinematic scenes are in the beginning whereas in this one, they are spread throughout. For me that makes this more rewatachable, that too is a great movie, worth rewatching so good point.

Trump is not the driver of this sentiment, he is just the only one willing to harness the latent desires of the electorate.

But who else can? J.D. Vance? Seems kinda unlikely. Desantis? Tried once, failed... maybe he could succeed without Trump as opposition, but it seems doubtful. What the Democrats hope is not that the GOP goes back to pre-Trump, but that their base basically dries up and blows away, becoming an unaffiliated and impotently dissatisfied group who can be ignored electorally. The GOP keeps the neocon remnants that haven't gone over to the Democrats, plus a few paleocons and business republicans who aren't neocons, and as a result is so small that it never is able to mount a serious challenge again.

The problem for the Republicans is what does the post-Trump era look like.

I love J.D. Vance. I think he's the smartest politician we've seen for a long time and he is clued in to the real problems we face in a way that the dinosaurs in both parties are not. He is probably one of the few politicians who has read Scott.

But let's be honest. He'd get slaughtered in the general. High IQ white guys like Vance don't win minority and blue collar voters.

Now that the Republicans have gone populist, they will need populism to win. It feels overly dramatic, but I am seriously worried that unless Trump wins we will have uniparty rule for a long time.

The key to the mother and child picture is that the child is missing the halo, and any depiction of a regular saint would be more differentiating from Mary

The one problem he has is that he's had multiple melanomas removed, because he did not wear sunscreen at any point in all that time lol. He knows better, he doesn't deny it, but he still doesn't put it on.

Yeah, that’s what hats and detachable sleeves are for. Who needs sunscreen?

The only World War 2 movie I would consider rewatching

Have you seen Saving Private Ryan? When I watched Dunkirk all I could think was that it was Nolan directing a PG-13 Ryan knockoff.

We've had IQ tests for about a century now. Don't you think we would have noticed if there was actually some advantage to being stupid in that time? Why would another 20 years make a difference?

What kind of positive traits would you expect to find?

The Zapruer Film of the 21st century. Obama had just given the order to kill Bin Laden. Seal Team Six was making final preparations as he spoke. The newly-released long-form birth certificate listed the time as 7:24PM, but on history's clock it was sunset, and the sun of the old world was setting in a dying blaze of splendor never to be seen again.

Is Republicans take even the house a bold take?

I think they'd be pretty low. 82 is old, he'd be president til 86. After Biden that will be an impossible sell, Trump makes decisions emotionally but I think even he would see the futility in running in 2028. He also does listen to some of his closest advisors, family etc. and they'd certainly advise against it. I'd give it maybe 10% tops.

That said I'd give a return to pre-Trump election dynamics even lower odds than that. You'll have someone like Vivek or Vance running next. The neocons were jettisoned and joined the dems, Republicans are solidly the populist party for now and I don't see any changes in the political trends that caused the political realignment. If anything there will be long term effects of the recent mass migration that will fuel populism and racial spoils politics for decades to come.

I think people are kidding themselves about how well we understand genetics and the mind. I hereby bet that in twenty years they realise the lower-IQ kids they were screening out actually may have had superior brains and intelligence traits in other respects.

Is your objection to the whole concept of U3 unemployment as a statistic. Should we not collect such data because you prefer U6?

yes_chad.jpg

Nobody should be reporting on U3. They should be reporting on U6 and LFPR.

It's perfectly reasonable to be annoyed at deliberately misleading statistics.

By "the government's actual goals", do you just mean what they asked for, or are we talking bigger-picture like "get more people to live rurally"?

There is no going back to pre-Trump, any more than there's going back to pre-FDR. The milk is spilled, the eggs are broken, the die is cast. Trump is not the driver of this sentiment, he is just the only one willing to harness the latent desires of the electorate.

If you care about corruption, Nancy Pelosi's career of insider trading is right there. What you want has nothing to do with corruption, or you'd mention the net worth of politicians on a congressional salary. You'd mention book deals that are explicitly excluded from bribery and ethics policies. What you want is something else.

I think what you want is to return to the migration consensus, because that's what I think is the only true difference between politicians and parties these days. You know this is true because of what happened in France, where, when push comes to shove, there's the remigration party and there's everybody else. This explains the Never-Trumpers and the likes of the Cheneys and Mitt Romney. This explains the hysteria over Trump, and the uniparty. Maybe I'm wrong, but I this isn't about corruption, and Trump is not particularly corrupt when compared to other politicians.

It's not. Choosing the best embryo out of a small handful won't move the needle, especially when only 2.5% of people in the US do IVF, and only a small percentage of those will do advanced genetic testing. And some hospitals are already refusing to work with similar services like Orchid.

I calculated below that this service, if widely implemented, will lead to a 0.005 rise in IQ per generation. So maybe IQs, instead of falling by 1 point per generation, will only fall 0.995 points.

Idiocracy, not Gattaca, is our current trajectory. On a population level, this does essentially nothing.