domain:open.substack.com
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
8m ago
It is. The rest of the game is just absurdly good, and I'm confident they'll iron this part out in short order in any case. I've made it to Vulcanus, and am figuring out the smelting system in preparation to World War Worm. It's amazing how much better things have gotten from what I previously would have sworn was the perfect game.
cjet79
8m ago
Resurrecting an old discussion?
I think I said all that is necessary at the time.
07mk
12m ago
Heck, I'm middle aged but not quite at that age yet, and I'm pretty much 99% of the way there. The older I've gotten, the more I've realized that there's just no good reason to care about how other people perceive my body outside of a certain small subset of cases. Certainly not when they're strangers who are males in a locker room or other communal changing space. If other people dislike the sight of certain parts of my body, first of all, I empathize, but second, that's their problem, not mine. If the sight of my junk displeases them, I'm not going to lift a finger to help them solve their displeasure; I've got enough of my own to take care of, thank you.
This whole problem with being or viewing same-sex nudity in these kinds of contexts seemed pretty strange and somewhat arbitrary to me when I immigrated from Korea to America at the age of 6, and it took me some effort to adapt to it. In Korea, already by the age of 6, I was accustomed to going to public bath houses where men and boys (and, I presume women and girls as well, in their own half) of all ages would just freely walk around with everything out and minimal effort to cover anything up.
faceh
14m ago
I have come to despise the proliferation of messaging apps with slightly different functionality, and each one tries to justify itself somewhat differently but end of the day the features anyone cares about are identical.
"Meta" missed a huge chance to live up to their name and build up interoperability with every major messaging app so that Facebook users could end up having a single account on one app that allows them to chat with everyone on every other app through one interface.
sun_the_second
20m ago
That just sounds like an implication you're a gangster who isn't afraid of cops and likely has a blood feud with one, to me.
ControlsFreak
26m ago
Facebook messenger? That sounds like some niche service that you want me to get to contact you. Don't you have, like, SMS on your phone?
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
30m ago
If a man can successfully pass as a woman then he should be allowed to use women's restroom, although it seems like saying we "allow" that is pretty meaningless in that case. If we can't tell that it's a man how could we stop him?
The problem here is that the percentage of MtF who “pass” is vanishingly low. It’s nearly always spectacularly easy to “clock” an MtF - especially once you hear the voice.
I’m actually agnostic about so-called “bathroom bills” myself, but however we end up resolving the issue, “an MtF can enter the women’s bathroom if nobody notices it’s an MtF” is not a solution, because it will lead to 98% of the same outcome as “no man can enter the women’s bathroom.”
Recursive_Enlightenment
32m ago
How about "I think I know your father, he is a police officer, right?"
Stellula
33m ago
The problem this creates it that any tomboyish looking woman is now a target for harassment.
Why do trans people need to use the bathroom they don’t belong in so badly? We literally have them sex segregated to protect women. Why do these men need to be in the enclosed, single exit room with women?
The grace here should be going both ways: I’ll call you the name you are asking me to, but you need to realize that your fetish is your own fetish, and shouldn’t be imposed on women who are simply trying to exist. Just let them have the bathroom FFS.
campy
39m ago
No serious medical issue needed, just reach the age for routine colonoscopies and you're there.
f3zinker
Its A/B testing all the way down
40m ago
Help me make sense of a breakup?
Hello Mottizens, I come with a basket of questions and some baggage! As some users might be recall, finding a woman is something I used to complain about a whole lot. Well that has changed, now I complain about finding the right woman, and just some venting for those willing to lend me an ear.
Basically, I went on a few vacations and took a bunch of nice high quality pictures and dating apps started to work for me now. All the downsides applies, bad match rate, bad response rate, bad conversion to date rate, but the match volume is just enough for to me to work off of on.
I've been in cycling in and out of situationships the last 7 or so months. And god this is depressing.
The event that pushed me over the edge was my most recent bout. Matched with a girl on the apps. Immediately start talking for hours late into the night, goodmorning/goodnight texts all that. We have excellent chemistry, our dates are 7-12 hours each. Very strong mutual physical attraction (she initiated most of the "moves"). Very loveydoveysweetypookie kiss hands, forehead, etc in person and online all the time. I fell head over heels for her, and honestly the first time in my life, I unironically truly "fell in love". Didn't feel this many good brain chemicals in a loong time. This is over the span of 3 months
And I thought it was mutual. Then one day, she blindsights me (and I mean SERIOUSLY blindsight, I DID NOT see this coming, I've gone as far as letting GPT and close friends read all our chats, no one sees anything). Says we should stop seeing each other because she'd be moving away for work for a few months and that it's too early to commit to an LDR (that is 2x longer than the duration we've dated). Long story short, we need to stop seeing each other. We decided to "stop" seeing each other on good terms though, to still keep in touch and what not.
Okay, I accept my losses (and the fact that maybe she found another guy and the NO LDR thing is bullshit, and I potentially just got tossed aside), delete all the pictures I took of her, and initiate the whole "breakup" recovery process, etc. 5 days after that, she comes back into my DMs. Short message about missing me, and having to let me know that. I respond a bit later anyways (knowing full well I might be strung along, but I fell head over heels, remember?, I really really really want it in my hearts of hearts to workout nevertheless!). We start talking again. Both of us are very guarded and casual, but we are talking, that's where I am right now.
And I hate being here! Odds are I'm going to be disappointed+hurt again, maybe she was just feeling lonely, missing talking to me and impulsively sent that message with no intent to reconcile. God I hate this. I want to just make her fess up, but that might ruin any chances of reconciliation (call me a bitch, a simp, a beta, idgaf, it's what I want deep down). I can't even get myself to fully committing to move on because I got drip fed some hopium and the thought of doing all of this all over again for it to end up like this is not appealing in the least. I'm also looking all over for women that are similar to her to replicate this, but I know that probably has nothing to do with what us two individuals had.
The only features that I think I need to replicate this are:
- She needs to be relatively high IQ. IDK what, for some reason my charm (or lack thereof) just doesn't work on women below 120IQ, and dealing with any below that is difficult for me.
I'm so convinced of the above, I'm willing to go back to grad school because I rarely meet women in person, and the apps have just given me situationship after situationship and lame, boring women.
I saw a meme
I've seen great minds of our generation ruined by 3 month situationships
And honestly that feels more than relateable right now. These small series of events have left me shook at a time when I need my time and energy and mental bandwidth more than ever.
Share anecdotes, advice, harsh truths, whatever. I've read reddit, I've talked to friends and GPT, but the motte is delivers the most useful help.
Recursive_Enlightenment
43m ago
What's with old people is that if you have had a serious medical issue you lose all sense of embarrassment and shame concerning your naked body because you deal with doctors and nurses looking at it, and you stop caring about how you appear when naked in front of others.
MedicalStory2
48m ago
We should have a different word than collapsed for "lost 90% of its users" or whatever happened to Tumblr. It still works fine and is the only social media that I read. I just read people's archives, but I understand even the feeds mostly just follow in chronological order. It would be my first recommendation for what you're looking for, but you would have to, at first, find your own blogs to follow there - perhaps shieldfoss and morlock-holmes and who they interact with would be a good place to start, perhaps not. YMMV. The whole point is that you can decide there
CanofWorms
54m ago
Go on Spotify and look up beginning singing lessons and practice them in the car. 20 minutes a day and I promise you, you will see improvement.
Next step up is taking a singing class. You can usually find a 8 week program for around $300-400 and it’s a fun way to get out of the house and sing with a group.
Good luck.
ControlsFreak
58m ago
We require people to get car insurance because we know they will make the wrong decision (not getting insurance) if left to their own devices.
What type of car insurance do we require people buy? Hint: it's not the type that compensates them if they screw up their own car. It's for a different purpose. What do you think that is?
Most of the rest of your comment appears to be just additional restatements of the things I've already responded to. Yes, car owners lack knowledge, and they'll make mistakes sometimes when they don't use the services of a professional. I don't see where you've made any further advancement on the argument.
When it comes to the more subjective stuff it does get a bit fuzzier but the fundamental problem remains, no layman has the knowledge and experience to make these judgements, just googling a pubmed article is not enough, smart and educated people think they can figure it out but this requires training and experience. The average person has no chance and society needs to be organized around protecting average and below average people.
I do think that this part is a slight refinement. At least one that I only obliquely addressed, not directly. When it comes to the subjective parts of auto repair, it gets fuzzier, but the fundamental problem remains. Laymen aren't going to have the knowledge and expertise to make those judgments, and the Chilton guide isn't enough, either. They need training and experience. Average person has no chance... of that last few percent that is still probably within the realm of the basic guidance where there might not even be a consensus, anyway.
The regulatory state has its problems but we require building codes because people will elect to live in a poorly built slum if given the choice because it's cheap. We have to protect people from themselves.
This is just tripling down on paternalism, and it's one that is soundly rejected in most rationalist spaces. YIMBY is currently reigning supreme, haven't you heard?
People don't like being told what they can/can't put in their cars, but nothing is more important than thousands of pounds of steel hurling down the road at high speed, where lives are at stake. We can't possibly let people work on their own cars. ...or at least, that's the conclusion of your logic.
aardvark2
58m ago
The reason I think this is because the number of tokens used for input (which is the entirety of the chat) is a really inefficient way to capture the state of the game.
Do you mean that naively entire conversation gets gets passed to LLM for each step, making it O(N^2) which grows very quickly?
WhateverHappenedToNorman
1hr ago
We require people to get car insurance because we know they will make the wrong decision (not getting insurance)
Specifically, though, people are forced to get third party liability insurance, because there the costs of their wrong decisions is very much borne by others (the argument could be made that ultimately wrong medical decisions could end up like that, but it's a greyer matter).
In some ways, I kind of want to reject the idea that all of our social policies should be aimed at minimizing female deaths like an autistic actuary.
As a simple example from another domain, I kind of don't care if the facts on the ground are maximally unfavorable to me in, say, the gun control debate because I am pro-liberty and am willing to bite the bullet on this. Even if an angel came down and gave me divinely inspired tablets that showed with 100% certainty that we could reliably remove, say, all ~40,000 gun deaths per year in the United States by repealling the 2nd Amendment (and the vast majority won't convert to knife deaths or whatever), I would still say we should prefer 40,000 annual deaths to the infringement of liberty that would involve.
I don't want to empower the government to enforce any kind of bathroom policy, and so I'm willing to put up with a few women falling victim to men and ex-men in the name of liberty. My opinion wouldn't change if an angel came down and gave me divinely inspired tablets showing that such a policy reliably leads to X female victims of violence each year.
I feel the same way about casual sex with strangers, and a number of other issues. I'm willing to bite the bullet on the idea that freedom often comes with negative consequences for part of the population. I still think the government should enforce contracts that turned out to have been bad bets (which is why I was angry when Scarlett Johansson was succesfully able to cow Disney during the pandemic when they shifted movies to streaming where she got a worse deal - she made a bet, and it turned out to be a bad bet. If Disney wants to smooth things over with her, they can do that outside of the context of a contract dispute as a show of good will, but in an ideal world Scarlett Johansson should have been forced to live with the original bad deal, because that's what contracts are for.)
Throwaway05
1hr ago
We require people to get car insurance because we know they will make the wrong decision (not getting insurance) if left to their own devices. Some people try this anyway.
We know that people will make the wrong decision with medicine also. Some of this is objective - people would prescribe themselves substances that are controlled (for a reason, for instance opiates), people will ask for treatments where the benefits are clearly outweighed by the risks. Consider all the people who use marijuana when they clearly are not supposed to,* or try and get Addy as a performance enhancing drug, or use illegal substances. What do you think would happen if you could just Dilaudid at the pharmacy? It would be a catastrophe.
The classic non drugs of abuse example is antibiotics. People will ask for antibiotics every time they get sick. Even when it's clearly viral and therefore the abx won't help. They will demand abx, they will write reviews complaining about it and bully the prescriber into giving them abx - even though they won't do anything helpful. Zero benefit.
And the costs can be high to the individual (side effects can be very bad), and to society (antibiotic resistance is increasing greatly). If someone becomes disabled because they took an abx of their own recognize society will pay the cost. This is not theoretical, people kill their kidneys with NSAIDs for example (that's OTC).
If left to their own devices patients will make objectively shitty decisions. The regulatory state exists to prevent this, you don't want people on the road without insurance.
When it comes to the more subjective stuff it does get a bit fuzzier but the fundamental problem remains, no layman has the knowledge and experience to make these judgements, just googling a pubmed article is not enough, smart and educated people think they can figure it out but this requires training and experience. The average person has no chance and society needs to be organized around protecting average and below average people.
The regulatory state has its problems but we require building codes because people will elect to live in a poorly built slum if given the choice because it's cheap. We have to protect people from themselves.
People will take a gamble on "it's fine I have a 1% change of a bad side effect from this antibiotic but society will pay the cost and even though this infection is viral maybe its not."
This is stupid.
People do not like being told what they can do and put in their bodies, but little in the world is as important to get correct as human lives. I remember what it was like before I was a doctor, I thought I knew what I was doing I did not.
*I'm not saying nobody is allowed marijuana, it's complicated.
Both sides understand that "protect women" is the only widely shared moral foundation.
Yes. Although this is not a stable equilibrium either. A society that enshrines "protect women" but doesn't enshrine "respect men" ends up becoming horribly biased against men.
Example #1: Ukraine. Women flee the country and are living their best life clubbing with rich Germans. Men are press ganged against their will and go die in a ditch somewhere.
Example #2: Men perform nearly all the dangerous jobs in the U.S. (Probably 99%+). These jobs, which have high rates of death and dismemberment, often pay more. However, any time men make more money than women, there is talk of a "wage gap" which must be corrected.
The recognition that sexes are different must come paired with the recognition that both sexes have special needs and duties. Women are not inherently morally superior, but we've evolved as a species to see them this way because of the intense demands and vulnerability of motherhood. In an anti-natal society women might as well just be weak men.
daguerrean
1hr ago
Bathroom 1: For men, trans women, trans men, and any iffy dykes who freak the chicks out. Bathroom 2: For feminine women
I feel like this is the unofficial rule for everything, or at least it should be in our intuition. Like the NBA is not the men's basketball league, it's the open basketball league and no women are good enough to play there. So we have 2 leagues, open (NBA) and women (WNBA). At my college there were two kinds of recruiting events for computer science majors, job fairs for all and job fairs for women only.
I think it was Aella that wrote about how passing was actually meaningfully important in the whole trans issue, and I have to agree. If a man can successfully pass as a woman then he should be allowed to use women's restroom, although it seems like saying we "allow" that is pretty meaningless in that case. If we can't tell that it's a man how could we stop him? To me this basically feels like the norm thirty years ago, kind of an unofficial don't ask don't tell restroom policy. If you look like an absolute freak then yes women should be able to scream and shout at you and summon security to harass you for an hour or so.
Edit: In a way it reminds me of this classic. I feel like they both come down to "know your place" and act accordingly. Now how do we codify that into law? I'm not sure how, but I'm not sure it needs to be.
07mk
1hr ago
Likewise if a woman is walking home alone at night and notices a lone male person walking some distance behind her, and begins to form a suspicion that said person may be following her. I doubt very much that she would be consoled if said male person yelled out "don't worry, I'm not a rapist!"
David Cross came up with a jingle to properly communicate this notion over a decade ago.
As in, you're opposed?
More options
Context Copy link