@100ProofTollBooth's banner p

100ProofTollBooth

Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.

1 follower   follows 2 users  
joined 2023 January 03 23:53:57 UTC

				

User ID: 2039

100ProofTollBooth

Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.

1 follower   follows 2 users   joined 2023 January 03 23:53:57 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2039

This is a link to a marketing fluff piece by the company "Hims", which makes its money selling finiesteride, promoting the "sexiness" of shaved / bald heads

The fact that a bullshit e-commerce company that profits off of male insecurity took the time to say "bald is sexy" makes me seriously question your unsubstantiated assertion.

Immediately piqued my interest with the combination of the title and the obvious pseudonym of the author.

a PDF of this book is immediately available on a first page DuckDuckGo search. It is the homepage of Kevin MacDonald who wrote the forward of the book so thats ... interesting ... if Corey / MacDonald are trying to make money.

Anyway - how seriously researched and planned out is it? Or is this a "should've been a blog post" style reactionary writing a la Jim's Blog?

LOL. This is very online "it's da joos!" conspiracy theory midwittery.

Fucking GOAT'ed comment, to use the parlance of our times.

Congrats! That "zero to one" of actually getting the damn thing out to customers is the hardest part.

I hate to use the cop-out, but it's so obvious here;

Physical beauty is inherent and always subjective, no? A higher level of body fat, for instance, has objective downsides compared to being within a more normal range, but there are people, both male and female, who viscerally and immutably prefer it. So, even if a full head of hair is objectively a better marker of virility, vitality etc. it can also be subjectively worse. And the whole genesis of this thread was obviously around female sexual interest (or lack thereof) in balding or bald men.

Again, very interesting and informative.

If I'm reading you correctly, my updated hypothesis has also been more or less invalidated. We aren't in a situation in which a meaningful percentage of blue collar (or any) careers create the demise of those who work in them. And from previous comments, we can also say with decent confidence that "disability grift" isn't a multi-billion dollar scam industry. Furthermore, with the amounts involved, there aren't really "disability queens" who are collecting thousands of dollars per month. It's an unfortunate group of mostly honest people who get a few hundred extra dollars to get by. Based on your comments on the end-of-lifers, it also seems disability insurance acts as kind of publicly-funded hospice care as well. Sad, but understandable.

Given all of this, I'm actually, now, tempted to think that system works about as well as a system like this could. It's inefficient, sure, but it feels like it's mostly doing a service to those in need (perhaps to an unsatisfying emotional degree) and without a disproportionate drain on public resources.

I'll make the humble request again to get your input on that.

Are you 'Throwaway05' as well? The phraseology and semi-trolling strategy seem similar.

Sorry, I was unclear. I was agreeing with you. Furthermore, I was saying that vibe-coding / AI coding often falls into exactly the trap I quoted.

(From your link)

"It highlights the dangers of engineer overconfidence[2]: 428  after the engineers dismissed user-end reports, leading to severe consequences. "

This is AI-coding in a nutshell.

Compassion and empathy do not require acceptance or being a door mat.

This is my nomination for one-liner Motte And Bailey of the year (so far).

It's amazing how much this bleeds into other genres as well.

I have a penchant for Noir/Neo-noir novels. Think The Last Good Kiss by James Crumley. The story is full of anti-heroes. The whole point of the protagonist is that he's a beat-up, broke private eye who mostly lives to drink and works to support that habit. But there's still a ton of hints at his Vietnam service which gave him the skills to be a decent private eye. His skills were earned through a crucible in the jungle.

Is this personal software you build and sell on your own? Or is this part of a corporate / small biz code base.

In the RCC, You can live a consecrated single life that isn't religious. It takes discernment and represents a real commitment. If one doesn't go that route, doesn't join a religious order, and also doesn't have a family, I don't believe this is seen as inherently sinful, but the person should be honest with themselves about selfishness, laziness etc. As far as I can tell, discerning one's vocation should be very intentional and not accidental or emergent happenstance. If you know what you're doing and do it with good intention, there are many, many good ways to live.

We have good evidence to believe that free will is mostly BS

Citation needed.

it is still true that childhood abuse ruins your life outcomes.

Citation needed. Also, there's literally a cottage industry in within hollywood that does nothing besides making films about people who overcame their childhood to do amazing things.

We have some knowledge of things like the impact on your brain chemistry and psychological development

Citation needed.

We can point to incredibly poor outcomes and paucity of truly effective treatment.

Citatio--nevermind.


Let's say you come back with bulletproof evidence for all of your claims. Think through the implications. How do we as a society ever hold anyone accountable for anything? What "counts" as trauma? Who decides? How do you account for individual variation in the ability to cope with negative emotions?

The whole point of our legal system is that it is based on the premise that there is the law and only the law. Your personal circumstances have little to do with how you are judged against the law*. "Your honor, I had a really hard childhood. I think you should take that into account during this armed robbery trial." That would be pants-on-head insane because it would mean every single law and every single interaction with it would be an inherently subjective exercise. There would, in effect, be no laws. No laws, no society ... you get the picture.

Compassion and empathy do not outrank truth.

By implication, you're also preemptively condemning literal children to a life of low expectations and patronization. "Damn kid, your mom was a crackhead and dad beat you? Well, don't feel bad about being semi-homeless for a while, it isn't your fault." Or, in this specific Aella case, "Sure, sure, honey, you're a multi-millionaire with a massive online following, but you go right ahead and have a public meltdown." Why not encourage them to rise to their potential? Why not deliver the much, much better message of "despite what has happened in your past, you can create a good life and be a valued, pro-social member of whatever community you choose**"

Pairing all of this with your initial dubious claims we have yet another example of the satanic nature of current therapy. It's the embodiment and fulfillment of the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations. It takes otherwise healthy people who may need some encouragement and turns them into fragile, dependent slaves to the cult of "self-care", "triggers", "boundaries", etc. Many are literally permanently drugged and then reminded that such drugging is "necessary" to keep them ..... stable? I'll take volatile but responsible and competent over "stable", flaccid and burdensome.


  • Caveat around edge cases here. Self-defense, other in extremis circumstances.
  • Except if that contradictions biology.

Thanks! Learned a lot. Dispelled some notions. AAQC rec'd.

Unfortunately, this actually makes me more pessimistic than if you had said "50% of claims are bullshit." This is because what you're describing really does look like a political solution to medical problems. It does seem insane that certain jobs, if done repetitively over 20+ years, will, with high probability, lead the laborer to breaking their own body to the point of disability. I don't think those jobs should be "highly regulated" so that people can work them and remain healthy; I think they shouldn't exist for humans at all. I don't want more coal miners (i.e. humans who travel under a mountain) - I want coal mining robots.

I don't buy it. He'd have to time the jump perfectly and then there's still a lot of "how did you avoid debris / fuel / landing on something hard"

I've never even heard of Walmart Labs

whereas everyone in the industry knows...

Ask your friends at Goldman Sachs about Allen and Company.

I'll put this here because I've never put it anywhere else and this has been a week of extreme not good for me.

One of my best High School buddies killed himself in November of 2022. There was a group of about five of us who were inseparable all of junior and senior year. College did college things and we start to drift apart, but would sometimes still catch up when people tended to come back to the hometown for Christmas or Thanksgiving. After I learned of "Dane's" (not his real name) suicide, it fell to me, for various reasons, to contact his High School girlfriend. She was also part of this friend group and everyone had bet money that she and Dane were going to get married. They really were a loving couple.

When I called her and relayed the news, her reaction was pretty predictable. Though they had split finally over 10 years prior, she was still quite upset though still in control of herself. After the initial shock had subsided she do the normal thing and asked me how I was feeling about it.

And that's when I exploded. I didn't break down. I didn't sob. I got intensely angry. Not at her, but at Dane. Because I saw that a saying I had heard before was true; suicide doesn't end pain, it just distributes it out. Here was a woman who had shared her first love with Dane and then gone about her life peacefully. Gutted. A friend group of four other dudes who perhaps lament the fact that we've fallen out of contact with each other is now brought back into contact via tragedy. The family opted for a family only funeral, so the four of us got on a Zoom with the intent of meeting up somewhere for an irish wake for Dane. But, 15 minutes in, we kind of looked at each other and collectively decided, "No, we don't actually want to fly to see each other like this." Dane's dead, and it's hard for me not to remember that with some anger.

I think the circumstances surrounding your cousin are much different. I was only adding a perspective on suicide that I think goes unsaid sometimes. It's a tragedy, of course. I don't know enough about the last two years of Dane's life to know what he was going through. There's some mystery, in fact, about the final few days, but that's for the family to know. Still, the fact remains that that final act wasn't final. All of the hurt is still out there floating in the corners of the hearts of so many other people now.

This is all correct and an important improvement on what I originally commented.

Taking the issue up one or two levels of analysis, I believe there's a fundamental and close-to-irreconcilable tension between being Catholic and being American. I was listening to an SSPX sermon on the drive home from my Dad's last night and the priest points out that America is a protestant country founded on and steeped in protestant principles. Catholic integralism has approximately 0% shot of taking root in the American Federalist system. (That being said, however, Catholic political leaders, especially in the judiciary, have, for decades, punch above their electoral weight.)

The overwhelming majority of the time, voting in America, for theologically serious (TM) catholics, is a choice for the lesser of two evils. My guiding light, for some time, has been a candidate's perspective on religious liberty. Never their voiced position, mind you - religious liberty is one of those issues everyone always says they are for, but their voting behaviors often betray them later on.

Watch real football.

2025 NFL Schedule Press Release

Is this the same Nicholas Decker who wrote the "when to kill Trump" essay or whatever?

As an adult, cars I owned have all been F-150s from 2000-2010. Part of this is due to the fact that I don't fit into most sedans (height) and even the ones that I do physically fit into, the resulting vision angles are so extreme that I feel it's unsafe for me to drive them.

Pickup trucks are big and so I fit into them. I like how they age - if you have a 10+ year old truck with some dings and scratches in it, it looks like you've really worked and used it. I'm suspicious of Trucks that are treated like show cars - glossed to hell and back, not a scratch in sight. If you're keeping it that pretty ... why not just get a literal show car?

There's a lot of debate on Ford/Chevy(GM)/Ram/Toyota. Based on a decent amount of research and a lot of conversations with mechanics at bars, the answer is that for the 150/1500 series, they are more or less all the same. The Toyota's are probably more reliable, but the Tundra is kind of ugly. The real fuckery over the last 10+ years has been all of the digital systems integrated into the engines to manage fuel economy. Truck engines really weren't designed for this and so people are having all kinds of maintenance and reliability issues.

This is why my next truck will be a 250/2500 series. As these are full "heavy duty" work trucks, the manufacturers don't try to play games with the engine, transmission, suspension, or fuel systems. Everything is big, overbuilt, more simple, and more reliable. The downside is they are, out of the gate, more expensive and, if you do need major maintenance or repair, that will be more expensive too.

It has nothing to do with EVs in particular. Emissions mandates and general "green consciousness" have really fucked up the pickup truck market. 150/1500 Series trucks are over-engineered now and, therefore, don't have great margins. The solution? Luxury trucks. Some new trucks can easily hit 70k or more because of a large number of non-mechanical bells and whistles; leather seats, infotainment etc. I would LOVE for there to be a dead simple V8 150/1500 for $25k off of the assembly line. This would be the "work boots" of trucks.

But government regulation has made that impossible. So now, new Trucks have subscriptions to Apple TV.

I feel like I was more productive with them a year ago than I am today.

I don't think this is just you or even a mystery. I've noticed the same thing, but I was talking to a friend and he came up with what I think is an excellent theory.

Through about mid 2024 (this is a rough timeline), the major AI companies were focusing totally on model performance broadly defined. The idea was that whoever could "break out" with the absolute best model would capture a $1 trillion+ market. Then, as open source and/or cheaper models began to not only keep up with the Big Boys but, depending on how you evaluate them, actually surpass some of them, the realization dawned on OpenAI, Anthropic, and Gemini; model performance is a race to commoditization. Commodity products can't sustain valuation and growth desires for companies with tens of billions in investment.

What's happening now is that they're all re-using their tried and true playbook; build products for customer engagement. The models from the Big AI firms today, I believe, are developed to maximize engagement instead of developed for maximal performance. I don't mean that they intentionally dumb them down or force them to produce knowingly inaccurate responses. I think it's more in the structure of the response. Take software development for instance. A response nowadays for "how do I design an API for my database" comes out in a nice, concise little five step plan. The LLM will conclude by saying "let me know which section you want to dive into first!" It all feels so "on rails." You think, "shit, this might be pretty easy" and you start to whip something up. Flash forward several hours and ... well, you said it.

My memory seems to tell me that asking that same API question last year would've produced a fairly technical blueprint for designing APIs in general. I would've looked at it and thought, "okay, that helps, but it looks like this is still going to be work." And, here's the important part, I may have then gone to a different website to research good API design. I would've disengaged with the LLM.

It's no surprise to me that a lot of the recent hype cycle has been "LLMs are replacing google as the primary means of interacting with information on the internet." Google's cash comes from the fact that most people don't even navigate directly to the URL they're interested in but, pop open google and type "nytimes" and hit go. It is actually "the front page of the internet" (sorry, reddit). If you have that same situation with OpenAI/Anthropic/Gemini where people start at those chatbots everytime they want to do anything on the internet, it will support the user growth and engagement numbers that might be able to support the valuations of these companies (although I have some serious doubts about their unit economics).

Not the commenter you were responding to, but I'll bite:

First, re-create high social penalties for promiscuity for both men and women. I'm not the first to say this but the sexual revolution of the 1960s can be accurately viewed as the fight to let women behave in the same ways as the absolute worst of men. Being a "cad" or a "cocksman" should be socially treated the exact same as being a homewrecker. Dating is fine, but it should be used to figure out if there is an alignment of values and a shared vision for the future.

But, but, consenting adults! Who cares if two people just want to f*ck! Well, everyone, judging by this thread and many others like it. You have the situation now where promiscuity is not only tolerated, but lauded as some sort of expression of personal discovery, autonomy, and that most meaningless of words, _"empowering." Leaving aside the fact that this isn't true, the circumstances create a situation where the most antisocial of people can hit "defect" a million times and benefit greatly from it while those who are looking to cooperate are in a constant state of paranoid suspicion about any sort of medium length relationship they may find themselves in.

Second, get rid of no fault divorce. I know this is politically untenable, but I'm offering what I think is a correct solution. Marriage has to be meaningful and a real commitment, or else it's just a temporary tax arrangement with unbalanced incentives for the two people in it. Because of the history of marriage and family law in the US, women are usually the one's with the counter-incentive to staying in a marriage long term.

Much like @Amadan, I'm not actually that worried about following marriage rates because 1) I think most marriages today are shams anyway and 2) We're approaching a situation where 1/3 to nearly 1/5 of children are born out of wedlock. Marriage is so hollow now that policy positions that try to nudge people toward it aren't really serious about solving the problem.

I also agree with @Amadan in another way - blackpilling is not only (by its own definition) futile, I think it's just wrong. Once you pair secular materialism with battle-of-the-sexes blackpilling, the question has to be asked; why not just blow it all out in a cocaine-and-hookers weekend and then end it with a 9mm breakfast? Usually, the responses I hear are along the lines of, "I don't want to take such a cowardly way out", "I still want my life to mean something", "You should still try to be a good person." Hmmm, interesting how that kind of sounds like there's actually a higher level moral and ethical framework in play. Maybe these hardcore secular materialists really are trying to both fill and not acknowledge the God Shaped Hole.

Not to blow the scope of this comment into the stratosphere, but I do often think that we might be living through an inflection point in human history on par with the invention of writing, if not even moreso. The technological and political change over the last 100 years (which is a single long lifetime or about 1.5 - 2 "standard" lifetimes) is truly a phase change when compared to all of human history before. We've mostly outpaced our cognitive hard-wiring. So we see the effects of that across nearly every facet of life. I don't doubt that in 1000 years, it's likely some humans, looking at our times, will say "lolol, they totally had no idea wtf was going on during pre-Nuke early-AI." But this is no excuse to smash the like button on fuckItAll.mpeg. Do the best you can and try to find genuine happiness where you can. Even better do the "right" thing, so long as what you define as the right thing is a self-contained and demanding moral framework.

I look forward to his polyamorous wedding with Aella after a tearful, twitter-gangbang based reconciliation. Just like in the movies!