@07mk's banner p

07mk


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 15:35:57 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 868

07mk


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 15:35:57 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 868

Verified Email

I've watched a number of scambaiting videos on YouTube which indicate that scamming old people is something one can do from one's home anywhere in the world and doesn't require any particular education or work qualifications. Watching such videos (try searching for Kitboga or Jim Browning on YouTube) can probably give you an idea of how such scams work and how you could set one up yourself. It seems like a high risk/low reward kind of endeavor, but that's probably to be expected as a trade-off for being able to WFH without any education or work experience.

  • -13

I've only seen Zendaya in the Spiderman movies and Dune, so I can't speak to her acting chops, but I can't disagree more on the idea that people are pretending that she's attractive. IMHO she's easily the most attractive prominent Hollywood actress right now. Maybe Rebecca Ferguson and Gal Gadot might come close? In any case, purely based on looks and ignoring any acting skills, her apparent popularity seems entirely justified to me.

I can't even think of there being any particular hubbub about her race in casting decisions. Even in the super hero movies she was in - a genre notorious for filmmakers accusing fans of bigotry in recent years - her casting as the character-equivalent to the traditionally red-headed white woman Mary-Jane was basically a non-issue, similar to Sam Jackson being Nick Fury.

Well, I don't care about the state of sex ed in America in the most literal sense of the term - I have nothing in my life that would be affected positively or negatively based on what these sex ed policies are. If I had children of my own, I would care, and if I thought my own future would be affected meaningfully by the next generation of adults being taught the pleasure of sexual acts in explicit ways, I would care, but I don't see how it would.

I would certainly prefer it that kids today were taught sex in ways even more conservatively than I was taught, but that's just my own aesthetic preferences, along with some empathy I have towards those kids, who I feel sorry for to some extent due to the world we created for them. But it's not my responsibility to care about these kids, and their sexual well-being ultimately doesn't affect my life all that much.

I don't see it. I'm not sure how the facts stated in the OP could have been expressed in a more dry and less outraged manner without outright sounding like (the old-school scifi stereotype of) an AI.

This was a private school, located in (what I as an adult now recognize as) a quite wealthy neighborhood in Cambridge, MA. FWIW, I do recall we were specifically encourage to masturbate for health reasons (specifically no STD & no pregnancy - any other benefits such as pleasure or whatever weren't mentioned IIRC), but I don't think any actual explicit instructions were provided, either orally or visually.

Your line does seem reasonable, but it also does seem like one that's hard to maintain from the current hegemonic belief that pregnancy and bonding with a partner are merely a couple of optional consequences one can freely choose to get or not from sex. That mostly just leaves the pleasure portion, and not covering that, along with the many now-mainstream techniques for accomplishing those, would leave a big gaping hole in the education that the internet can rush to fill (less of an issue in the 90s).

The OP is clearly saying you cannot infer anything about their beliefs or worldview on the basis of the mods they play. That is what I don't agree with. Those are not trivial things.

Indeed, and I agree with the OP and disagree with you. "Anything about their beliefs or worldview" is different from "anything [at all]." The deliberate choices one makes when modding falls into the latter category but not in the former category. E.g. if someone decided to make a mod that changed some pixels from brown to beige, it tells us that that person decided to make a mod that changed some pixels from brown to beige, which falls into the latter, but not the former. I doubt the OP would disagree with the notion that a modder deciding to change some pixels from brown to beige tells us that the modder decided to change those pixels from brown to beige, but he can speak for himself, I suppose.

Not every possible explanation is equally possible. I don't think people are missing the fact that the mod they were downloading, in the SV example, was explicitly about making a black character white. That context matters. Is it by itself enough to say a person is racist? Maybe not. But it does make it more likely.

Does it? It's possible that it does, but I dispute that you can believe with any meaningful level of confidence that it does make it more likely. This is the kind of nice-sounding narrative that intuitively makes sense and sounds plausible, and as such, if we believe it without doing the hard empirical work to check that it's true, then we should be highly suspicious that our belief in it is due to how plausible it sounds and how much it is in concordance with our intuitions, rather than how true it is. Again, in that SV example, it is, by itself, absolutely not enough to say the person is racist. Is it enough to imply that that modder is more likely to be racist than the typical SV modder or player? It might be, and it might not be, and we haven't done the hard empirical work to figure out which.

Similarly, in societal terms, if I’m a recruiter trying to hire for a white-collar job, and I have to make a decision based on limited information, I would have to be a complete moron - or a liberal ideologue - not to utilize my understanding of probabilities gained from observation of previous outcomes.

I don't think there's a magic bullet solution, but this is why I think legally mandated moronicism - so that everyone is equally a complete moron in this respect - accompanied with increased legibility into individual competence is the right approach. There should never be a case where someone's name or race is the only information given to you as a recruiter/hirer, and it should be punishable if you make some meaningful consequential decision in the case that somehow that were the only information given to you.

OK, I had to think about this for a while, but I think I follow. You're really only looking at those who are so far away from passing that they would fail to pass 100 times out of 100, and looking at the distribution of how badly they fail at passing? I think that makes sense, and you're probably correct in your inference.

t's kinda funny that 5 (or 5 Royal specifically I suppose) is the best Persona game mechanically (in my mind anyway), but that as I play backwards through the older games I feel like the PThieves are the least interesting characters. I feel like 3 and 4 have the group dynamics nailed down better. Plus Koromaru > Sparkly Bishie Teddie > Teddie >>>>>>>>> Morgana, you can't change my mind on the animal/mascot party member tier list. I am very grateful that they brought Baton Pass Shift over from 5, not having it in Golden was a bit of a learning curve.

Interesting, I've only played 3 & 4, and I'd compare 4 to 3 like how you compared 5 to 4/3 - mechanically, 4 Golden was basically the perfection of the 3/4 gameplay formula, but it was hampered by the fact that the characters just weren't as good as in 3. I also preferred the darker tone and themes of 3, though perhaps the story is mostly a wash, since 3 kinda dragged in the 2nd half while 4 had solid pacing with its murder mysteries throughout.

Kinda sad to hear that P3R suffered from being too close to the source material, according to a lot of people. It really would've been great if it had combined the best of the gameplay the series had to offer with the best of the characters and perhaps tightened up the story. But perhaps the exclusion of FeMC and the Answer portion from FES was a sign that this was more of a cash grab than an attempt to create the definitive version of the game (obviously any remake is a cash grab, but there's a spectrum).

I couldn't make it thru one playthrough either, but not because of whatever ideologies it was trying to sell. It was just the uninteresting, unlikeable characters that gave me no investment in figuring out the murder. I found the setting very boring, too, so exploring the area and meeting its various inhabitants and witnesses was just a drag. I can only imagine how bad the writing must've gotten later on as the story developed and the characters had time to breathe, because the writing started off very stilted and unnatural and only seemed to get worse as I kept playing. Shame, since the RPG system for investigation/interrogation/other detective work seemed pretty neat.

I'm a huge fan of beer, wine, and particularly whiskey, but I'm with /u/SubstantialFrivolity personally on that alcohol doesn't enhance the experience of eating foods, except for the intrinsic quality of the drink itself. Like, it's nice to eat beer with a burger at a bbq or have Margaritas with burritos or even red wine with chicken parm, but I see those as more aesthetic preferences than anything about the way the tastes go together. Same reason why I prefer to have East Asian-looking servers when I go to a Korean restaurant.

I'd say being drunk can sometimes increase the sense of hunger I feel, which indirectly makes the experience of eating foods better, but in terms of the influence on the direct experience of the taste, it actually dulls it, if anything.

If you think it's political/religious force that is important, then, stupid question here, but can't we just futz with that with our magic futzing machine?

But we'd also need the political/religious will and force to develop and use this magic futzing machine to change the population's political/religious preferences such that those political/religious preferences compel them to want to (re-)use the magic futzing machine to make women tolerant of losing abundant sexual access outside of marriage. I see this as moving the issue back a step.

That's a fair point, that one could genetically engineer people's sense of "intolerability." I do think there would have to be some sort of significant political/religious will behind developing and executing that kind of genetic engineering at a population level which would also of course be required for things like making women less hypergamous, etc. or changing birth sex ratios. I suppose my belief is that the political/religious force required to develop and implement the genetic engineering to make women more tolerant of losing abundant sexual access outside of marriage would be significantly more than what's required to implement the genetic engineering to make them slightly more male-like in their sexuality.

But you are correct that accurately predicting cultural progression is very hard. My own belief is probably mostly informed by my own lifetime experience of noticing how cultural progression always seems to go. But that's anecdotal and should be valued as much.

You're playing a DMC game on mouse and keyboard? That's probably a tougher challenge than trying to beat it in Dante Must Die difficulty with a controller. I thought DMC5 felt a lot like DMC3 in terms of the combat system including the rolls, but obviously with a lot of extra complexities in part due to having 2 other characters than Dante. One thing is that Dante by default in DMC3 had a dash due to defaulting to his Trickster style, but Nero and V don't have access to that and can only dodge by doing a lock-on roll.

I’ve abstained from masturbating for a few days before seeing her and it still happens—other times I’m fine but we can’t have sex for various reasons.

I masturbate every 2-3 days.

Hm, I'm no expert on this, but what's the longest you've abstained before attempting? My intuition is that 2-3 days just isn't all that long to build up... whatever it is that gets built up. I'd consider abstaining a minimum of a week, perhaps 2+, before the next attempt. If sexual times with her happens more often than that, then just stop masturbating altogether; you seem to have enough self control to quit porn for 2+ months, after all. And if you know that the only way you're getting off is with her, your body might find the motivation to step up at the opportunity.

I just think the idea of US citizens having access to uncensored LLMs at close to SOTA quality will be considered far more dangerous than weapons (short of nukes, though even then...), meth, and counterfeit money.

Then again, perhaps a cyber-based defense is more likely than nukes. Perhaps we'll get a Great Firewall of America to keep Americans from surreptitiously accessing the NK LLM. And equivalents in other nations too. But that has its own issues in implementing, of course.

I just don't understand why people continue to put so much effort into making the experience of drinking something more painful and more likely to cause bloating and gas. With beer, I see the carbonation as an acceptable consequence of the brewing process that also serves as a helpful way of enforcing a speed limit in taking in the alcohol. But with soft drinks, neither excuse exists.

what do you think is more probable, that the Doomers saw Terminator in theaters when they were children or that they watched Anime related to AI doom?.

I mean, neither is particularly probable, since the popular/good Terminator films are rated R, and I don't really know of anime related to AI doom in a similar way. I don't think Doomers tended to get their inspiration from fiction they watched as children, though, since the narrative of the Doomers tend to be very different from the AI doom narratives seen in fiction.

but Doomers are not a majority of people and are, IMHO, very different from regular people.

that is a major disagreement we have there. To me Doomers and "rationalists" in general are just regular people very good at rationalizing their biases.

I don't see where the disagreement is. I believe that Doomers and rationalists in general (two different though overlapping sets of people) are just regular people very good at rationalizing their biases too. That doesn't mean that they're not very different from regular people, because "being very good at rationalizing one's biases" isn't the one and only characteristic that defines humans. Regular people don't tend to look into technology and try to project it decades into the future to predict where things will go, which is how Doomers seem to have come to their conclusions. Regular people tend not to have much interest in AI or robots or technology at all, where as Doomers almost by definition do.

Personally, I think Doomers, again, largely got inspiration from looking at technology and projecting it to the future in a way that is... rather hubristic or conceited. I'd call them a modern iteration of an apocalypse cult, much like idpol/SJW/CRT/wokeness/etc. is a modern iteration of a religion. It fulfills all the roles of such things while transforming just enough things to be convincing to modern educated people who consider themselves scientific and rational, since the old versions of these had too many characteristics that were too obviously incompatible with science; so they just made them less obvious. But I don't think either were inspired by The Terminator or other such works of scifi.

I'm with you. Given the general lack of success of media companies to manipulate the audience into having preferred beliefs through putting out content pushing preferred messages, and the likely fact that in porn, if anything, the audience tends to be more motivated by pure id than with media in general, flooding sites with this just doesn't seem likely to work at all. Like, I've heard people talk a lot about incest porn and also "extreme" porn involving choking women and such taking over porn in recent years, but as a pretty regular consumer consoomer coomer who doesn't enjoy such things, I barely ever run into such things by accident, and even less when I'm looking for something specific. In fact, I don't think I've seen a single porn video of a woman being choked. Incest and pseudo-incest porn, it's easier to accidentally encounter, but also very easy to just find a near-equivalent video without it. It's just not that hard to avoid porn you're not into.

Right, a majority of people think of Arnold or HAL, but Doomers are not a majority of people and are, IMHO, very different from regular people. Regular people don't really think about this stuff and just connect the superficial similarities between Terminator and AI Doom in the future, whereas AI Doomers seem to have arrived at their position by looking at actual current science, not science fiction, and extrapolating into the future in a way they find plausible. I think inspiration by fiction, whether that be The Terminator or anime, is a tiny factor when it comes to AI Doomers.

Also, I'm assuming AIM doesn't stand for AOL Instant Messenger, but I don't know what it refers to.

I think the issue is most people in favor of rent control policies don't understand the economic arguments against them. They have mistaken factual beliefs. They correctly perceive the first order effects of reducing rent for people covered by such policies and think it is desirable. I think it takes a pretty specific kind of economics education to see the prices as outputs of a system, rather than inputs, and reason from the implications of that.

The issue here, to me, is that then the obvious follow-up question is, Why do they have mistaken factual beliefs? Surely some of them are just stupid and others are just in situations of forced ignorance, but I doubt that that covers more than a tiny fraction of them. So that would leave most people who are choosing to remain ignorant of the truth, which leads them to false conclusions; but why would they do that? My pet theory isn't "gut instinct" about what sounds good or what sounds bad to oneself, but rather another sort of "gut instinct" about what belief makes one more praised and less punished in one's social world. And thus people figure out what to remain ignorant of, so as to control one's own beliefs in a way that is beneficial to their social well-being (this may look like Bulverism, but in this case, the fact that these people in this hypothetical are mistaken, i.e. wrong, was taken as the baseline, so talking about how and why they landed on this wrongness rather than whether they're wrong seems appropriate).

That said, my pet theory might just be equivalent to the original assertion about what "sounds good," since one of the most common ways that I can tell of someone learning how to control one's own beliefs in such a way as to increase praise and reduce punishment socially is to modulate what "sounds good" (in an intuitive, ethical sense) to oneself.

The main thing for me is that one of my ear canals has a tendency to have the ear wax slightly come loose, loose enough that I can hear crackling when I walk or chew, but not so loose that I can get it out either through hopping or my pinkie finger, which usually just packs it in harder, only to come loose later as I walk. I either have to use a Q-tip or just tolerate the crackling sound (which isn't actually all that bad, since I'm not walking or chewing most of the time).

False awakenings are fun and fascinating experiences. I used to have them here and there, though I haven't had one in a long time. I too had the habit of hitting the snooze button while in the half-awake state, and that half-awake state I think is a big factor in making these happen, along with the related phenomenon of lucid dreams.

I think there's a common idea, popularized in part by Inception, of dreams-within-dreams, where your dream-self falls asleep and dreams, and that dream-self can sleep and dream, and so forth, and when you awaken, you awaken to the previous dream layer, then awaken from that, and so forth, until you awaken to reality (presumably, anyway). I don't know how much research there is in this, but my pet theory is that it's nothing like that, and that it's all just one "layer" of dreaming. Dreams are, almost by definition, fictional experiences we have in our minds while we sleep, and at some point, we might have the fictional experience of awakening during the dream. This, when viewed retrospectively through our memories, then cleaves our dream to what came before that experience of awakening and what came after, with the former being the 2nd layer of dream, dream-within-a-dream. But, in fact, we hadn't fallen asleep while dreaming like how Leonardo DiCaprio's character fell asleep while riding a fictional van in a fictional cityscape contained within a dream in Inception. This would also be why we can shoot up multiple "levels" of dreams in a night and remember those (to whatever extent we remember dreams, which is a whole other issue), but we don't go down the "levels" by actively going to bed and falling asleep in a dream (at least, I haven't experienced this or heard other people mention this).

I've also independently slept through 3 separate alarms intentionally placed in 3 different places in my bedroom before, but not for reasons related to false awakenings. I just had bad sleeping habits and was a heavy sleeper.

Oh yes, I remember being in grade school when that happened. I suppose 9/11 must have left a bigger impression on me (which is probably unsurprising), because I recall being impressed that the building was still standing and seemed mostly fine except for that 1/3 that was obliterated.

That's a fair point, the effective fungibility breaks down at some point. Of course, it's also the case that at some point they should run out of Israelis to blow up, but I think it's most likely that that point is far beyond the point after which they run out of metal pipes, so that's not really a limiting factor.