@5434a's banner p

5434a


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 18 19:56:37 UTC

				

User ID: 1893

5434a


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 18 19:56:37 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1893

The drugs themselves are another issue. Joyce claims that [puberty blockers] have never been put under clinical trials and aren’t even made for that purpose according to the manufacturers. They’re meant for treating adults for hormone-related conditions or to chemically castrate sex offenders.

I thought their primary purpose was as a remedy for precocious puberty? A 9 year old girl begins menarche, goes on puberty blockers for a couple of years, then you take the brakes off and let nature resume its course. The purpose is not to go on puberty blockers until long past the typical age of puberty. Chemical castration aside the sensible use case would seem to be to attenuate excessive natural hormone levels and bring them back to the normal range, not suppress normally functioning hormone levels and reduce them below the normal range (how much of sex offending is accounted for by excessive hormones is not something I know, but it's not implausible).

I was looking at some old school photos the other day and there's a striking amount of development where at age 12 we all (95%) looked like kids, at 13 we looked gawky, and at 14 we were largely close to our final height if not our final weight - that is to say it's a typical S curve, and a pretty fast one for its effects that occurs within a narrow age band. What happens if you block puberty long term? You can't remain a physical child forever, right? How much do puberty blockers impart lasting effects on physical development after the typical age of puberty has passed? Conversely I doubt you could achieve full adult physical development if you gave puberty stimulators to a six year old. I imagine an outline of these questions could be trivially tested with plant experiments.

All of these questions get glossed over by TRAs in order to support the wishful thinking that sexual development is endlessly reshapeable with the right tools and endlessly redefinable in the absence of tools. On the other hand it could also support arguments for transitioning at ages younger than 16, which raises a different set of problems.

Another man objectified for his hands here, but mine are much more surgeon's than labourer's.

I mentioned in another post a couple of weeks ago that I have a soft spot for assymetric facial expressions like smirking. That's probably a bit weird. A certain habit of gaze direction is weirdly charming and could fall under the same assymetry category. Other types of body language and unconsciously expressive gestures too, but it's hard to categorise those.

Re Stonehenge, a few miles down the road is Avebury with a lesser stone circle that is continually open to the public on account of being slap bang in the middle of the village, and with a nice pub at the side too. It's not worth making a special trip unless you're already in the Bath area but it's worth adding a mention of it to your entry on Stonehenge for anyone who might be interested.

I think you're muddling "shelled up" with shelled out.

Not American and not Catholic, not a woman, I usually collapse the abortion threads.

I haven't changed my position but I've had a little more flesh added to the bones of the various arguments. Ultimately nobody thinks abortion is good as an end in itself, it's a lesser-of-two-evils debate where one side chooses the mother (and alleviating social ills downstream from unwanted children) and the other side chooses the child (and alleviating the moral ills downstream from permitting unwanted children to be killed before they reach the cradle. Note that it's permitting, abortions won't effectively stop if the permission is withdrawn). It's a poisoned chalice but I'll prioritise lowering the burden of social dysfunction over evading the gravity of moral judgements.

There's lots of programmers and software devs on the internet, you can hardly move without encountering them. Seems like there's a lot less sysadmins and network engineers. Clearly both are deeply engaged with the internet as a technology and equally essential to its functioning. Am I right to think it's because programmers have a lot more free time to shitpost leading to a skewed impression of the tech landscape? Maybe network engineers just call themselves programmers to save on splitting hairs when talking with laymen? Or can software engineers do all the network tasks if they need to but chose software because it's a better salary? It shows up in the "learn to code" memes too where people offer advice about leetcode practice but I rarely hear anyone suggest getting a Cisco cert. On the other hand I sometimes read posts by software developers who admit to having no idea how anything works outside of their IDE.

Asking mainly out of idle curiosity but if I ever get to the point where I need to look for a job in tech I feel like I'd be more inclined towards network tech than working in a game studio or brewing up a new algorithm for FAANG.

I guess my first question is what do you actually do in a day? Are you remoting in from a comfy cafe laptop to restart a buggy service and then Googling how to write a script to automate the task for the next time it happens, or are you up to your neck in cat5 cables while your phone explodes because Shanghai is losing $20m for every minute that their server is offline. Or is it more like sitting in meetings looking at project dashboards and politicking to pass the responsibility for who will do another site inspection to check on the contractors you tasked to do the dirty work of scripting and plugging in the cables?

Does Cisco certification mean you're effectively dedicated to routing infrastructure or does network engineering bleed over into other aspects like storage provisioning and electrical specs, or interfacing with ActiveDirectory or AWS and those types of network dependent services?

How do you keep track of all the infrastructure? Running a home network with a few self-hosted services gets pretty complex when you start adding in everything from power demands to storage demands to network segregation to virtualisation, I can't imagine running a full commercial network with all the attending expectations. I guess you just aggressively silo responsibilities into limited roles.

I'm a curious amateur at best, but only being passively exposed to what's on the internet gives the impression of reading the output of one multi-faceted omnipresent techetype who runs everything and without working in the sector it's hard to untangle that into more accurate and discreet person sized models.

What do you do with the collected dust? Are there any unusual uses for it like, say, mushroom cultivation, or boring uses like compost improver, or is it just bulky waste to dispose of?

Merton and Hislop are the core of the show, Hislop fitting into the role of the straight man to Merton's funny man. I don't think the show could continue its success if one or the other were to leave as it's the both the quality of their input and the dynamic between those two which raises the show above the many other panel shows where average comedians with above average agents use the format of a current affairs quiz to ladle out their pre-cooked jokes. I was surprised when I learnt that Merton and Hislop have a pretty low regard for one another off set - not unheard of for established comedy duos but these two only play those roles by chance.

You forgot to mention that Hislop is the editor of Private Eye and one of the most sued people in Britain. He's less about laughing at poor people and more about holding politicians and other public figures' feet to the fire. That gives him a strong footing for skewering the guest politicians who continue to appear on the show despite the show's 30ish year history of using them for satirical cannon fodder. Johnson did better than most on that account.

Merton is a deadpan surrealist comic with an encyclopedic knowledge of Charlie Chaplin and Alfred Hitchcock films.

I used to watch it every week but slowly lost interest over the Brexit/Trump/Johnson years as the real world became self satirising. Bit of a golden era for impressionists though, Dead Ringers on Radio 4 hasn't been the same since Biden took office.

Object restoration hobby videos. A lot of them are suspiciously clickbaity but some are more straight forward. Clickbaity ones tend towards digging up a cosmetically damaged high value object like a Rolex, the straight forward ones are more like restoring a rusty antique bench vice or a pair of bespoke leather shoes.

Big Clive. An affable Scottish electical engineer who dismantles and analyses the circuitry of discount shop gadgets.

Techmoan. A man who buys and reviews a mixture of high end vintage hifi components that were out of the ordinary buyer's reach when released, or low end Amazon novelty hifi components that are beyond the ordinary buyer's good taste.

SoftWhiteUnderbelly. A retired commercial advertising photographer conducts open-ended studio interviews with the inhabitants of Los Angele's Skid Row. This is the one I'd most recommend to Motte readers for the obvious sociological aspects. The common thread running through many of their narratives is a shitty childhood that the person assumes is basically normal. While they often have a sympathic story reading the comments is mind boggling to see people praising pimps, johns and heroin dealers with bottom shelf platitudes about what nice boys they are. It's like they watched The Wire and can't tell Bubbles from Snoop.

IsaacArthur. A man with an amusing accent (Virginia?) analyses sci-fi technology through the lens of real world engineering possibilities.

This guy who builds huts and other primitive technologies in the woods by himself

The ones I've watched always seemed dubious, it might just be the one channel I landed on. A guy makes a beautiful swimming pool in the jungle using only a knife and a bucket... hmm. At the least it seems like they always pick a spot with the softest, loosest, most diggable dirt in the whole world. There's never half of two brick walls buried four inches down.

People doing traditional crafts (especially Japanese art craft like urushi and kintsugi, wagashi making etc)

Link it up. I love watching craft and Japanese woodwork videos.

Thanks, bookmarked for later.

speech or hearing disability

I realised after posting I probably should have said something like speech impediment instead of describing it as amusing. I've seen lots of people say that his voice makes it unwatchable but combined with the accent it's a little extra part of the appeal for me, and it's too prominent not to mention it. A hearing problem would make sense too.

Does straight sex have a similar dynamic? I'm curious to know.

Power dynamics are weird. Or at least they are to me.

For the longest time I'd assumed that gay men engaged in a pragmatic and egalitarian division of the passive and active roles so that both people get a fair turn. Because in my mind a kind of intuitive equalising game-theoretical situation would develop where neither would be content to get the short end of the stick over and over and would simply leave. I was surprised to find out that the model is wrong, and that, as you confirm, the active and passive roles rarely swap over. I was more surprised to learn that apparently the passive role is predominant among gays. They're not struggling to find someone to fuck, if anything there's a surplus of those, they're struggling to find someone who'll fuck them. (Apparently a similar situation is common in BDSM communities). As a straight man this is an unfamiliar dynamic. The active and passive roles tend to play out naturally in straight sex. I'm often left wondering why a partner is out of breath afterwards when she's put in about 80% less exertion. If I was holding out for a woman who took a physically dynamic role in sex I'd be setting myself up for disappointment. Women's sexual passivity is such a commonly shared assumption that they frequently criticise men for not knowing where the clitoris is while also neglecting that they've got both hands free should they care to look for it themselves. Men however have to be reminded not to touch themselves in situations that aren't even sexual.

I'm not sure that I expected it to be greatly different on account of the inherently active-passive roles but it's still a disappointment when you grow up fantasising about something vaguely "lady in the streets, freak between the sheets" where the woman can match your sexual dynamism and you find out it's more like "passive in the streets and between the sheets". (And then you look around and notice women pathologically attributing their passivity to men, and that this itself is a manifestation of passivity....)

To formative childhood experiences, even when I was very young there was an intuitive specialness to attractive women. Men were background noise. Big powerful man? I suppose it would be good to be someone like that. Small wimpy man? I suppose it would be worse - unless he has an attractive wife. Image of a woman in a flattering outfit? Entrancing. A naked woman? That felt like discovering magic. If I'd seen a full on porno I would have thought the male lead was incredibly enviable rather than psychologically threatening, you know, if I'd thought of him at all. Reframing the social dynamic as one where you give up and compete with the woman to win the man is incomprehensibly gay. Horny straight men know that horny gay men exist. We know that Grindr exists. Some of us even know that the gay men who exist are keener to get dicked than do the dicking, and that there's a common gay fantasy for seducing straight men. We prefer getting rejected by women.

Getting back to competition informing orientation, the flip side of competition isn't limited to withdrawal. There's also cooperation. I lost 90% of interest in competition just as I hit puberty because that age was when sports stopped being a cooperative activity to generate the most fun and became a narrow contest solely to make number go higher than opponent, which as I saw it sucked all the fun out. And to be clear this wasn't a rationalisation to deal with being bad at sport, I was consistently among the first picks for any team sports and chose to drop out of playing for the school team. While I lost interest in conscious competition I still developed a typical pubescent boy's interest in women. I went and found the fun in drugs and music instead, and the sexual interest was (un?)satisfied with porn. I would have been better served if I'd had it explained to me that I could have competed against myself to achieve objective improvements and crucially that those improvements would in turn have afforded me better opportunities in the realm of sex and dating. Sadly/gladly I was in my late 20s when PUA evo-psych gave me a model that explained the world in a way that better mapped to reality than the blend of romantic stories and latent cultural feminism I'd been brought up with (women don't like arseholes, The One exists, be a modern man, it will happen if it's meant to be, etc).

some are arguing that taking hormones means that trans women are indeed biologically female

From the link: "to be a trans woman is to have been through, be going through, be intending to go through, or desire to go through a process that results in a change of a person's sex to female"

Tacitly admitting that only men can be trans women makes a poor argument that they're women. Wait a second, notice the sleight of hand in framing the premise in gender terms and the conclusion in sex terms? Very clever! But oh no, wait a second longer, that means a female can't be a trans woman.

Using the writer's own definition, either a) gender is primary and only a man can be a trans woman, or b) sex is primary and a female can never be a trans woman. Conclusion: Trans women aren't women and they aren't female. Alternatively, man and woman are empty signifiers and the pursuit to justify crossing from one category to the other renders the enterprise meaningless.

My position - the position a decade of high tempo trans rights advocacy itself has led me to - is that trans women aren't trans women either. It's a polite fiction. The uncomfortable reality is that they're transgender men with bad logic and a rhetoric built of sophistry. I've got no business telling them how to live their lives: change your name, buy some surgery, switch your wardrobe! I won't stop you. Demonstrate adequate commitment and I'll refer to you by the fitting pronouns and use practical labels out of simple pragmatism. But don't claim seriously that you are what you aren't and you aren't what you are.

[And vice versa re women/men and males/females.]

I've got a plan to dip my toe into salsa classes and other non-formal partner dances. What's holding me back is I'm making a concerted effort to clear out the backlog of loose ends accumulated from sub-diligent general living before I take up new projects and hobbies.

The primary reason I want to try partner dancing is that I've spent years going to clubs, parties, raves, festivals and other gigs and I'm fed up of the atomisation and informality. No matter the size of the crowd or the style of the music the audience were 99% locked in to focusing on the performer over the music or the other attendees, and any dancing that did happen was either self-conscious freestyling, lesser or greater degrees of going berserk, or thinly veiled dry humping.

Since you're here and it sounds like you've got some breadth of experience, how would you describe the differences in the type of people who are involved with the different styles? Any hobby drama or other funny/memorable stories?

Competing for female attention in latin dance totally fits my model. Here's my completely uninformed stereotypes of open classes (I assume the competitive level acts as a filter), please correct or confirm.

Rock'n'roll/Ceroc/Lindyhop: High metabolism neurodivergents with that weird blend of woke politics and retro aesthetics.

Salsa/swing: Casual singles. Divorcees dancing with unmarried tech workers and suave manlets.

Kizomba: As above but the divorcees are older, hornier and outnumber the men who are scared off by the more direct sensuality.

Tango: Trad types who like rules and following them. Etiquettists.

Ballroom: More stable relationshippers, enjoy the glamour, inclined to take the activity seriously and with all the conflicts that follow.

Street: DDR variety Asians, retired b-boys, female actual-dance-students polishing their moves.

Not sneering, I could probably fit in with nearly all of them to some degree.

Given that the activity involves dancing all night how pervasive are drugs? What's the drinking culture like? I guess the need to both be coordinated and coordinate with another person puts a natural ceiling on that aspect.

I notice you've put curvy in scare quotes, lol. Meeting women is a secondary but admittedly conscious goal. Nonetheless dancing is fun for its own sake. As I said it's mostly to find events that have the more structured socialising, structured steps and the different expectations that follow from that - you can't dance for a minute with a new partner and not meet them, but you can dance in a crowd for an hour and meet nobody but the barman. The gender imbalance is another drawback of all of the music-first scenes I've been around. I've lost count of the amount of times I've done a quick head count and found an 8-1 men to women ratio.

I'd be happy to try out most styles just for fun, the only ones I'd avoid are the high tempo, highly athletic ones that reward lifts and dives and suchlike.

Extra question, and one that might prompt another story or two: What's the - ettiquette probably isn't the right word - concerning involuntary erections? Take a closed position dance style, add an attractive woman, lower the lights and top off with sustained synchronised rhythmic movement... You don't need to be a rocket scientist to predict where that can land.

And vice versa women. Natural physical responses don't discriminate.

Miniscule level question of philosophical aesthetics: Is a television wall-mounting bracket more part of the wall, or part of the television?

I have a black TV set and a white wall, and I'm shopping for a bracket. The one I've chosen comes in black or white. In my mind the true-to-itself colour would be unpainted metal. I've flip-flopped a couple of times but I think I've made my choice. I'm interested to hear others' opinions and reasoning.

The recurring themes seem to be about being desirable and being desired (in the way that they desire best). The countervailing horror, beyond being undesirable, is that they're being desired in all the ways they desire least.

Why though? I think it would be okay if the TV was white too.

This TV will be at roughly eye level when seated. It's not an issue here but a lot of TVs now are so big that often it's only elevated positions that are practical.

Agreed. Without the TV the bracket has no purpose and no business on the wall and so the colour makes more sense to match the purpose rather than the context.

Next question. Whether to swap out the power cable for a white one?

If this is added can we include an option to hide it? I like upvoting the things I like and feel it has its uses on the backend but the inherent potential for pandering to the implicit popularity contests of having directly viewable counters has always rubbed me the wrong way, so it would be nice to have an opt out.

I can't find it now but somebody wrote a reasoned defence of the film at the old subreddit. It's fine for popcorn viewing but while the premise is based around artifical intelligence the plot pivots on crushing organic stupidity.

I'd recommend almost any other AI/cyborg film first other than maybe Her, which funnily is increasingly looking like the more believable future.