DecaDeciHuman
No bio...
User ID: 3518
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
But, there is no evidence that more space leads to people having more kids.
The typical argument is that fertility is closer to an AND/ALL relation, not an OR/ANY relation, and that we have a limited enough sample size compared to the number of pertinent variables that every nation is doing something or other to negate the statement. In which case strict demands for evidence before doing anything are utterly doomed to failure.
("Draining the coolant out of all our cars has nothing to do with cars breaking down - see, the next nation over has cars breaking down all over too and they don't take the coolant out. What? Yeah, they drain the transmission fluid out, but that's irrelevant - we don't take the transmission fluid out and we have cars breaking down all over the place!")
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
Density increases supply, and therefore decreases prices.
Only under the assumption that e.g. single-bedroom apartment rentals are indeed substitute goods for e.g. owning single-family homes. This may or may not be the case, but is worth stating, as it appears to be a load-bearing assumption for that argument.
(If there are a thousand families wanting a two-bedroom apartment, and 1200 two-bedroom apartments, and you replace 600 of said two-bedroom apartments with 900 one-bedroom apartments... I can easily see the price of two-bedroom apartments increasing drastically.)
Continuing working my way through (rereading) Ian M. Banks.
I have a growing thought that the Culture series would have been (even) better if about the last two chapters of most books had been cut out or reworked to leave things more ambiguous. Many of the books have an epilogue or two that outright states
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
"Oh no I drove past my friend's house."
(hopefully this isn't considered a low-effort post)
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
It's not just the difference in straight-line distance. It's also that it's a lot of back-to-back sharp 90 and 180 degree turns, which are slow and exhausting to drive especially in winter conditions.
Admittedly, this observation is based on the base curves not your catboxes - catbox blocks a surprisingly large chunk of the internet, myself included.
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
Exhibit A in 'how to make your local fire/ambulance/police department planning agency very annoyed at you'. Another problem is anything that results in a closure of a section of street will cut off a lot of people. Yet another problem is if this is put anywhere that gets winter conditions.
I suppose one could put in authorized-only cutthroughs similar to how divided highways do, though this would eat into the area for housing, and would require enforcement to prevent them from becoming impromptu shortcuts.
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
Does There Is No Antimemetics Division count?
Or some of the books in The Laundry Files? Though this one is more played for comedy.
One other arguable contender is NSFW (and I am going to err on the side of caution, not seeing anything one way or another in the site rules, and so not mention it beyond this sentence.)
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
Didn't expect to see brony content from anyone other than @DuplexFields
There aren't exactly that many reasons for the topic to come up here, aside from maybe FiO (which I see has already been linked). And the brony community's unwritten rule of 'be open about being a brony' it once had (which is half the reason it became somewhat notorious in the first place) has mostly disappeared.
Regarding my favorite brony content
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
That would be encouraging; this doesn't match the typical definition of 'alt account' any more. May be worth clarifying if so.
(Do you know Wikipedia redirects 'alt account' to 'sockpuppet account'?)
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
Congratulations: this is a point that makes considerable sense in retrospect that I hadn't seen before. Thank you!
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
In a perfect world a commoner of one ethnicity wouldn't even know about the existence of other ethnicities at all.
I see no way to accomplish this other than restricting people to never contact or travel beyond their immediate physical neighborhood. Is that what you consider a perfect world, or are you intending a different method of accomplishing this? If so, what?
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
(Writing carefully here. I do have an opinion on this topic; this post is intended to be about understanding the conflict as opposed to my particular view.)
You may make better progress if you understand the other side's actual typical arguments more. Let me lay out the more common complaints I have heard:
There are some quibbles about the exact rates, and which immigrants are acceptable, but I don't think the median position is, "everyone except O-1A visas can fuck right off."
Said side sees ~all discussion along these lines as a motte-and-bailey argument:
Motte -> "unrestricted immigration prioritizing other places undesirables"
Bailey -> "restricted immigration of skilled workers we cannot get replacements for at any price"
Convince them otherwise and you'd make far more progress.
There's the issue of language barrier, but I find it non-salient.
Initial language barrier is not the issue here! Said side sees a perceived trend of immigrants that make no attempt to integrate, instead forming and maintaining foreign-language & foreign-culture clumps.
America has no shortage of land.
In much the same sense as the world has no shortage of water.
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
In particular there are always motives for a government in control of the Overton Window to push the window towards Big Government and away from checks & balances.
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
so having purpose-specific definitions of certain categories in certain contexts is better than the alternative.
I am in agreement with this specific statement.
The point in contention between the two sides here is precisely if 'MSM' and 'gay' mean the same thing or not.
If they are not, then of course there needs to be a separately-created purpose-specific definition.
If they are, then 'gay' is said purpose-specific definition, and 'MSM' serves no purpose.
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
Meta-level comment - not a question but I can't find a better place to put this--
I have figured out over time that I am extremely skewed towards being privacy-conscious compared to the general population. Some might call me paranoid. Quite possibly. If so, functionally paranoid.
I have no fixed identity on the internet, beyond the quasi-obligatory 'official' email address that so many things demand these days. No fixed nom de plume. I keep myself well aware of how many bits of entropy I burn on a single account, and when that gets anywhere near potential deanonymization I move on. Extends to varying my writing style & time of day between accounts.
This used to be straightforward; I find the (non-doxing-by-design part of the) internet lately has been getting smaller and smaller.
(Why I bother to write at all as opposed to readonly consumption is a different - although potentially interesting - discussion.)
I also by-and-large attempt to follow community rules even when breaking them would be essentially consequence-free (but am nowhere near naive enough to assume everyone does).
When I run into what appears to be unintended consequences of a rule, my general reaction is to follow it - but to make sure that the people of said rule are well aware of said fallout. I am fine when it is acceptable collateral damage - but I try to ensure that said people are not under the false assumption that there is no collateral damage occurring [insert classic image of damage in returning bombers here].
One of the rules of this site is "Keep to a single account.". I believe I see the intended upsides of it, and will follow it regardless.
As a result I will be leaving this site at some point, and will not be returning.
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
If we loved our jobs, we would do them for free.
Counterexample, and more general counterassertions.
I love my job. I would not do it for free.
Why? Because I have a finite amount of time available, and there are other things I love more than my job. (Obvious example: owning a roof over my head. Less obvious example: doing only the parts of my job that I enjoy the most.)
Loving other things more than X does not imply I do not love X.
Not wanting X and only X to the exclusion of literally everything else does not imply I do not love X.
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
Being gay doesn't inhibit one's ability to be a dispassionate public servant. Being avowedly racist does.
This is possible to determine only either with a time machine or the benefit of hindsight.
There were periods of time for all of my examples where the common opinion would have been "of course this statement is correct/incompatible with his position".
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
Alternatively:
"If someone had stated the Earth was round on their own time it would be disqualifying. It's not so much the act itself but the attitudes it betrays, attitudes which are (or rather ought to be) incompatible with his position."
"If someone had stated they were left-handed on their own time it would be disqualifying. It's not so much the act itself but the attitudes it betrays, attitudes which are (or rather ought to be) incompatible with his position."
"If someone had stated they were gay on their own time it would be disqualifying. It's not so much the act itself but the attitudes it betrays, attitudes which are (or rather ought to be) incompatible with his position."
etc.
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
If someone had tweeted [terrorist] did nothing wrong even on their own time it would be disqualifying. It's not so much the act itself but the attitudes it betrays, attitudes which are (or rather ought to be) incompatible with his position.
If that's your position:
a) Beware of weaponization. Group A requires that you state X; Group B requires that you state !X.
b) Beware of blackmail potential. Group A requires that you state X, then will keep it quiet until/unless they need you gone.
c) Beware of the Abilene paradox, especially when combined with shifting social norms over time.
d) Beware that suppressing expressions of opinions is not the same as suppressing the opinions themselves. If I have a person with a weird position on foo that is otherwise a good fit for the position, I can compensate for that. If I have a person with a weird position on foo that they never expressed due to fear of consequences, I cannot.
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
What odds would you put on the deficit being lower than it is now when Trump leaves office?
Lower under what metric?
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
Unfortunately, people do not need "many" essentials, by definition. They need "all" essentials.
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
Read the parent with a /s. It's a complaint about people who dismiss nuclear due to deaths while simultaneously liking hydro.
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
(I should remember that sarcasm is not particularly effective on the internet.)
(My point being: if you're concerned about deaths from nuclear power... even under pessimistic models nuclear power ends up being much safer than, say, hydro.)
DecaDeciHuman
4mo ago
And this is why I'm skeptical of hydroelectricity.
"own"? I thought you were talking about apartments.
Anecdotal: the families I know all - all - fit into either families who managed to own a house, or fled from cities precisely because they were fleeing from apartments and condos. The main issues being stability was not within their control (e.g. if things are tight this month you can put off properly patching your driveway - but not if the condo association voted to do so), and moving was expensive both in direct financial cost and indirect impacts from e.g. children having to move schools.
Remember that something like 1-in-4 American households live paycheque-to-paycheck. If you're in that position, unexpectedly having to move can financially ruin you.
More options
Context Copy link