Being
8mo ago
I agree with your opening that Scott has a bit of a Motte & Bailey, but it seems to me like you might be doing a bit of the same. Mind defining your terms a bit?
I read Scott's post as creating a dichotomy between
a) Looks "Only" dating apps. E.g. Tinder
b) Personality/Attribute based dating apps. Among these are two basic groups: the long form (words words words. aka Date-Me Docs) and the filterers (the type where you match based on stuff like 100 dimensions of compatibility).
I personally think group b is should be split into these two for any sort of analysis.
From my perspective you are arguing against b being effective/popular by categorizing parts of "b" into group "a".
... if it were true we would expect to see a "two models" system. One mass-commercialized model where people looking for casual fun can swipe to find hookups, and a second non-profit or premium model where people can write long-form profiles to find high-quality partners
In my opinion this is EXACTLY what we do have. Tinder brands itself (and is widely agreed upon) as the hookup app. Hinge brands itself as "The App designed be Deleted." At a glance they look similar because they share some UI elements (swiping), but I think it's a mistake to lump them together. The fact that the UI is similar tells us something about mobile ergonomics, but not as much about the users' goals or the backend. At the risk of sounding like a Hinge shill (which maybe I am?), the matching algo and UX is pretty different and lead to different outcomes. I know several close friends who have great success on Hinge, at one point I may write an effort post about optimal dating strategies.
Even if they were the exact same app, the userbase and their motivations matter. While some (read: many men) use it for hookups that doesn't define it for the same reason that although many people use LinkedIn as a less (differently) competitive dating app, it should not be viewed as such.
tl;dr: "Describable dating" apps exist. They are popular.
As an aside, Dating Docs are a very eccentric approach that will turn off the vast majority of potential partners. I would strongly discourage anyone from having one. To the extent they are at all effective I think it's solely for the ability to signal you are open to advances. This can be done with a less costly signal.
edited to add line breaks.
Being
8mo ago
Sorry I missed the cut, but I'd strongly encourage you to not do prompts.
The best posts on SSC, reddit motte, & here have always been the ones where somebody dives deep into their area of expertise and/or hobby horse.
Reading somebody's 500 words on a given topic can be worthwhile if the person is a skilled writer and spends a few hours on it.
Reading years of expertise and domain knowledge distilled down to a single essay is almost always a delight.
I worry that if everyone just sticks to the prompt two things will occur:
- People will be bored. And I'm not talking about just the eventual readers. The task will feel like a chore that people have to drag themselves over the finish line for.
- The final work will be bland. Think of the school essays. They almost always sucked. And not just because most students are poor writers. For any possible prompt chosen, the odds that the members of this writing circle are going to have the best takes on the internet are small. And if their takes aren't among the best, why should any of us read them?
Exception: anything personal. Examples of prompts that are worth doing are ones where the question is essentialy free form, but just focused. Stuff like:
- "Why do you post on the Motte?
- "Do you think the culture war should be waged? Is a détente possible? What do you think is the best possible path to a truce?"
- What is an issue that you feel strongly about that nobody else seems to? Do you think others should care more (read: rant away. Works best on a fairly lighthearted topic imo)
- On CW topics, Why do you believe what you believe? How do you evaluate incompatible worldviews when both are espoused by (seemingly) intelligent, rational actors supporting their positions with evidence?
- What are your core values? Do you have a guiding value or even just a heuristic that you find yourself circling back to?
Also: Throwing my hat in the ring as a backup if you need another. I asked about writing groups a few months ago: https://www.themotte.org/post/436/friday-fun-thread-for-april-7/84920, but didn't want to take on starting it myself ;)
Being
9mo ago
Thanks for hosting this!
For those of you who weren't able to stop by:
- Shame on you ;)
- I'd summarize @lagrangian 's advice as the classic advice remains the best route: Grind Leetcode then mass apply to the major companies.
Being
10mo ago
This passes the sanity check for me.
Simplified version: think of puberty as a trigger in the opposite direction from what you’re thinking. It’s a process that tells the body: “hey, we’re finishing up the growing portion of life.”
Other posters mentioned eunuchs. Not that many eunuchs around these days so data is scarce, but we do have a mammalian population we can draw insight from: dogs.
The consensus is that neutering dogs does lead to an increased size.
Although your central claim is fairly reasonable: "People claim that it’s hard to be healthy, get enough protein, or not be deficient in key minerals on a vegan diet", I think the rest of your post ends up primarily engaging with a weakman.
Very few informed people disagree with the claim that it is "possible to be [moderately] successful athletically on a vegan diet."
The standard points of disagreement are as follows:
-
How hard is it to hit all macros and micros on a vegan diet (typically in comparison to a comparable omnivore diet)
-
Is a vegan diet optimal from a health and/or performance perspective
Since you are either ceding or not interested in the latter, let's focus on the former.
Based on what you have shared it does indeed sound like you have a healthy diet & lifestyle. But you are also putting in vastly more work than the average person would. So much so that I wonder if you realize how unwilling the average Westerner would be to do anything like what you have done:
-
Train consistently & intensely enough to become an elite runner
-
Track micros and macros (not sure how religious you are, but very few people are willing to do this)
-
Get regular, discretionary bloodwork
-
Analyze the bloodwork and make appropriate lifestyle changes
-
Adjust supplement intake based on season
None of the above would be realistic to ask most patients. Even just asking them to eat a few more forkfuls of greens or drink one less soda per day results in abysmal compliance rates after any length of time.
In terms of ease, I'm of the opinion that the average person who will never count macros let alone micros is going to have fewer significant deficiencies if they eat meat than if they do not. Would you agree?
Anecdotally, as someone living in a trendy coastal area I know several people who have switched to a vegan diet. None of them ended up healthier, at least one of them ended up needing medical intervention as a direct result.
(edited right after posting to fix one word)
Being
1yr ago
First one is decent advice ( if only because just get jacked first resolves to never wear it)
As far as the second outfit, if you have to ask you can’t pull it off.
Being
1yr ago
13 cm is quite tiny. Just the bench portion (excluding any legs) would be pushing 10. If you go DIY route I think it would be easier to make a detachable bench rather than foldable.
Sometimes DIY is easier if you just breakdown an existing product to fit your needs. If you start with something like this Amazon Basics Bench (I've had mine for a few years and it's surprisingly sturdy), you'd just need to cut the legs off and devise a new attachment mechanism.
Being
1yr ago
Noted. At this point, I'm leaning towards trying to find an existing group. If I spend a few weeks looking and end up disappointed I'll report back and set something up. I tend to not like to half ass things so if I do decide to do my own I'll be signing myself up for a decent load of work.
Being
1yr ago
I think I'm going to spend a few weeks looking around and maybe trying out a group or two first. If I end up (20% chance) deciding to make my own I'll reach out!
What genre are you planning on writing?
Being
1yr ago
First off, big thanks! Your advice is high-quality.
It's a lot like finding a good gaming group, but it's more personal because you're actually critiquing each other. In some ways, it's like dating.
Alas, my gaming groups have always been IRL friends so I've never had that experience. The dating analogy is a fun one. If there was a Hinge for writing groups I'd be all about it. Set some filters, screen out matches with some bants, and meet up - sounds like the dream.
I would personally recommend online groups focusing on your genre over a local group, unless you really find it valuable to have that face-to-face interaction.
I definitely agree that at least general genre matching seems like a must, but do you think it would be worth the effort to try local? I live in a major US city so, at least in theory, it should be possible to have both. I imagine that having face to face interactions could reduce a lot of the issues around dedication. Sanderson advocated pretty heavily for in person > online and while he's not my favorite author, the man gets shit done. As someone who has no experience with either medium (outside of a classroom setting) I don't have an informed preference.
My best experience was joining a larger online group, paying attention to who was actually a decent writer and gave decent critiques, and then contacting them to form a small private group of our own.
This seems like a winning move. Almost the only move upon reflection. I'd imagine the typical gatekeeping dynamic is in play: any group that is open to outsiders is likely going to suffer the weaknesses of that openness. I imagine that joining a group with the intent to defect is probably a point in favor of online groups? Would be much trickier and ruder to splinter an in person group without hard feelings.
Being
1yr ago
Being
1yr ago
tl;dr: How to find a writing group?
I've recently repicked up writing*. This time around I'm trying a more structured approach and doing more research on the art of writing. The one piece of advice that seems the most useful is about the utility of being part of a writing group. It seems to be an obviously useful strategy in terms of: feedback , idea brainstorming, motivation, & networking. I'm convinced I should join one, but where should I begin?
A local group would be nice to allow for face to face gatherings. Alternatively, maybe optimizing for genre over geography would be wise. But that's putting the cart before the horse - I have no idea on where to begin. I also wouldn't be opposed to starting my own group and putting in the effort there if I thought there was demand for it (here or elsewhere).
For those of you have joined a writing group (or deliberately chosen not to), how did you find your group? Was it the advertised panacea?
*Trying to thread the needle between progression and epic fantasy. I am willing to admit I enjoy the inherently pulpy progression fantasy, but just about every series is embarrassingly bad. And it really doesn't have to be. If there was ever a time to do it is now; I suspect there are only a few years left before the LLMs advance enough that they can write a high quality novel tailor made to every taste.
Progression fantasy is my guilty pleasure and I've read a truly shameful amount. So clearly I enjoy the subgenre (and the adjacent ones).
Yet I struggle to find any redeeming quality of DCC. IMO it's got all of the weaknesses of the genre and none of the strengths.
I know there's no accounting for tastes, but DCC seems to be one of the more popular series and I really can't wrap my head around why.
Mind trying to tell me what you found enjoyable in it?
More options
Context Copy link