EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
I know what you're here for. What's his bias? Politically I at least like to think of myself as a true moderate, maybe (in US context) slightly naturally right-leaning but currently politically left-leaning if I had to be more specific.
User ID: 1043
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
4mo ago
The correct response to bias is not to throw it out - everyone has bias - it is to properly weight the biased evidence and seek other sources to come to a holistic conclusion. It’s bizarre to ignore biased data because underneath the bias there is also the other axis: direct experience. Just as bias is bad, experience is good, and they often co-occur. Tossing everything with a hint of bias also means tossing a lot of experience.
It’s kind of like the lobbyist problem. A lobbyist still has subject matter expertise. You can still meet with a lobbyist. Lobbyists can represent good causes. You just have to also include more effort in seeking out non lobbyist opinions to combine into a conclusion. Unfortunately outlawing lobbyists doesn’t work because there’s no bright line for what counts.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
4mo ago
Ironically however, this was the result of limited and over-competitive NSF funding causing a race to the bottom for existing funding dollars. Increasing the NSF budget allows the (highly relative) “luxury” of being principled. Clearly, the goals of reforming science and saving money are getting insanely conflated here. I argue that it’s better to do one or the other but not both at once, or you get exactly the current shitshow
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
4mo ago
I mean, the rational solution to “it’s not clear who is doing actual science” is taking some time to figure it out, and then making changes. I think that’s what a lot of people expected?
The first time Trump was elected was a vote for flamethrowers. Arguably that’s not what happened: there was a lot of noise but he governed somewhat traditionally. The second was a vote against inflation, with the expectation of more of the first (for most voters). I think people are surprised that Trump showed up to work with a double XL flamethrower rather than more of the same as previously.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
4mo ago
Full disclosure I watched the final 10 minutes, so more than the 5 minute clips floating around but not the whole thing. That clip started with a question about Poland, Trump talks about how he’s aligned with “the world”. Nothing too abnormal for Trump. Trump says “one more question” and then Vance interjects out of nowhere about how actions and diplomacy matter more than chest thumping and words, which failed (talking about Biden’s time specifically). Zelensky then says well, this has been going on longer than the last 4 years, it’s been a decade - and last time, the deal was basically the same! A gas contract (economic ties) and promises (Europe and Obama) didn’t deter the 2014 mess. So he asks: what does “diplomacy” mean, if not that? Those earlier efforts are also diplomacy. It’s a good question.
And then Vance basically says “that’s disrespectful” and calls his points propaganda aimed at the media. What? Nothing in Zelensky’s point was that weird. Again it was a fair question - this new deal sounds suspiciously similar to the old post-2014 “solution” which clearly proved to be non-durable. Vance bringing up respect and throwing a rhetorical punch directly clearly, in my view, kicked off the combative part of the video.
More to the point, it really wasn’t supposed to be such a long thing. Usually, these kinds of media events are 10 minutes of fluff and posing followed by the actual discussion. I’d be interested to know what made this one drag on so long (maybe it was inevitable, actually, given such a long time in a room together in front of cameras). However, remember: Trump literally cut it off and then Vance said wait I gotta say something first (get it off my chest kind of thing). Otherwise, take the question, start the meeting, then negotiations behind closed doors.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
4mo ago
True, and honestly I view China as a bad and extremely self interested actor whose bad behavior led directly to these decoupling efforts. There’s still an inconsistency in claiming that more coupling prevents war while doing the exact opposite on the other end of the globe
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
4mo ago
I’m aware and specifically mentioned this. But the word is more than just semantic PR, it has a pedigree.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
4mo ago
If we stopped paying debts, other countries do have options. They might not lead to a net benefit, but to pretend there are no other options other than war is nonsense. I realize you didn't explicitly say this, but you did suggest it. War or other force is on the table when practical of course (e.g. France occupying the Ruhr).
First, other countries might not even need to do anything at all. The direct self-consequences of telling other countries to suck it is the decline in your own trust, and those other parties can occasionally, roughly, even benefit - it's not a total zero-sum trust system, but other countries will look better in comparison which provides at least some offset to the explicit loss of future repayment. Even though the US is the world default fiat currency this isn't eternally true and doesn't live in a vacuum, other currencies could still take on some of this burden. These benefits are less explicitly tangible but that is not to say they do not exist, including via bond yield returns on secondary markets as well as the jilted country being able to issue their own new bonds at better relative rates. The exact economics are complicated and not guaranteed, I will grant you.
Finally, there IS a long history of alternative methods, the international equivalent of hiring the repo man. US companies own assets worldwide and it's entirely plausible that they could have their assets, IP, and other contract deals repossessed/modified/nullified commensurate with the unpaid amount. Yes, this might result in tit-for-tat so it's not a perfect solution, but to say their only alternative is a literal invasion is incredibly naive.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
4mo ago
I mean I think I'm convinced simply by my conversations with a few gay men IRL (plus some science) that "born this way" is a legitimate thing, at least for homosexuality. There are other things that play into it, of course. But it explains mostly to my satisfaction the appearance of gay men historically, there's some suggestion that you're more likely to be "born gay" when born later in the birth order as well. I think it's important to distinguish this aspect of the gay rights movement from other more ideological LGBT stuff (speaking broadly). They have different paradigms going on both in terms of the science as well as the political/ideological piece.
However I don't think I have a large enough sample size to make any particular claims about long term male homosexual relationships. My general feeling is that they still have some kind of desire for lifelong commitment though?
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
4mo ago
Vance specifically started the fight. I think it's important we realize that's where the whole thing derailed. I don't think Trump and Vance both wanted the same thing to happen, but once it got going that's another matter, Trump is going to back Vance up plus had his own axes to grind if given the chance. Trump knows he has a certain image to maintain and was aware of the optics the whole time. Hell, at the very end, he even comments about how the whole blow up would make great TV...
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
4mo ago
Weirdly though, isn't this exact same logic one that would advocate in favor of increasing economic coupling with China and/or Taiwan, in order to prevent China-US conflict? And you don't see Trump saying anything of the sort there.
I read the kerfuffle today (which I watched in its entirety) at the press conference as one started by Vance, that got Trump into an old-man rant. I think it's plausible Trump was being deal-making and intentional about the thing, but Vance doesn't have the same instincts at all. Makes me question whether this was a legitimate and durable deal that would last beyond the next four years. Even without Vance-like interference, would Trump really provide a de facto security guarantee based on abstract promises of mineral wealth alone, especially given that actual mining income certainly wouldn't roll in by the time he left office, because mining takes longer than that to get going?
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
4mo ago
Really? I find PTSD to be stronger than either of the other two, because it talks about how it could be a lifelong condition rather than a temporary thing strong men will eventually "get over"
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
4mo ago
Well, most specifically, the Founders weren't crazy pacifists but I think they truly intended that national armies were indeed for defense purposes only (and indeed the earlier Articles of Confederation basically doomed any national army to near nonexistence in the first place). It's called the Department of Defense because that's what the Constitution talks about as a core governmental responsibility: common defense. And it was consolidated into one because combined arms warfare made separate organizations a bad idea. Arguably, you could have continued to call it the Department of War, but not only would that have led to even more inter-service rivalries and made existing turf-wars worse, but it still wouldn't fit the constitutional background. Defense is the logical name for the department.
That background is traditionally that the government should only be worried about defense of its people. This whole global policeman thing is a post-WW2 invention. Honestly, I think it's been net positive for both the US and the world, despite having shaky philosophical foundations, so I support it on pragmatic grounds alone.
To my eyes, despite being abject policy failures, at the very least the War on Terror put other powers on serious notice that a) messing with the US would bring about world-changing consequences and b) actually did, eventually, curb terror attacks on the US (took a while and a ton of personal freedoms but that's another discussion). So I think in terms of Ferguson it counts, absolutely.
I'm going to bring up my specific pet example:
- The US is on the brink of war over Taiwan with China.
- If we fight, the US will lose.
- Declines in US military spending and/or spending effectiveness are directly connected to this theoretical but impending loss
- If we had not suffered such a decline, China would not feel as confident invading Taiwan
So personally I think we really can boil down defense spending into two choices:
- Boost it again by a lot to try and regain the global policeman role we have started to lose
- Give up on the current world order and find space as a more 'normal' superpower
I can see plausible arguments for either option. A middle option is the worst option. Rare for a super-moderate like me.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
4mo ago
A little plug for the Star Wars fan-fic Sublight Drive which somehow doesn't read like a fan-fic at all. It's just a few weeks shy of hitting chapter 100 and fully ending. You know how Ender's Game had that awesome feeling of space battles and strategy done in an interesting way? Tons of that. The main character has merely casual familiarity with the plot, and is, of all things, a separatist fleet commander just before the start of the clone wars. The quality is great.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
4mo ago
Low hanging fruit yes, but effective, at least in my view (not OP). I do know firsthand some people who literally saw a coach for improvement, and self-recording and review was part of what they did together even though they had live sessions -- you'd think that would make recording yourself moot, but not so.
However, much like how reading makes you a better writer, I think to some extent finding (and recognizing) good speakers and deliberately imitating some of their patterns is effective.
I don't think it universally applies to writing, but for public speaking, I feel quite strongly you should just jump right in to whatever you're going to talk about. Don't spend too long on an elaborate self-intro unless your story is inherently gripping, don't have a meta-chat about the circumstances of you being there to speak, just go right in and start strong. A lot of people seem to think that by being self-deprecating or acknowledging your nervousness out loud that makes it better, but that's only a temporary and low-quality self-salve. You're allowed up to two major flubs within the speaking block itself without anyone thinking anything weird about you, and if you want to be self-aware there and then, that's fine, but for the love of God do not begin speaking with it. Anyways, by deciding to launch right in you're already doing some self-curating unconsciously. There's also the nice side effect of slightly decreasing your "um" frequency since you've already started with a habit of being concise and to the point.
On the "looking for advice" side of things, I overuse parentheticals and parenthesis constantly (side notes like this that often become their own mini sentences) and I'm curious if anyone has had that issue and what the did about it (if it even matters, maybe it's fine and good!)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
7mo ago
The post in question is Secretary of Defense -- this is a big-deal kind of position, and one where sort of like the President, you're basically expected to be "on-call" for major incidents that can crop up. Regularly over-indulging in an intoxicant famous for making your judgement significantly worse is a major and legitimate concern. I should say that specifically, Hegseth himself appears to have implicitly acknowledged the criticism as valid by pledging not to drink if confirmed.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
7mo ago
Were they old-generation Cubans or new-generation Cubans or second-generation? There's some significant differences between some of those groups, from my two years in Miami. For example, the old-generation ones are usually those who fled AS Castro was coming to power or soon after, but the new generation broadly speaking are more recent-ish immigrants. The old generation have extremely strong feelings about communism and adjacent philosophies, and you also have to remember that many of them also happened to be relatively wealthy within Cuba, so they already had a lot in common demographically with the business-class types. It's typically the newer groups, and younger second generations, that like to party, though Cubans never were the biggest partiers to begin with -- that's the Dominicans, and it's not even close. Newer arrivals also tended to, as far as I remember, be less political overall than you'd expect.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
You know, that's completely fair. It just happened to be the thing that stuck in my head over the years when talking about humor.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
You're the one who told me to "get lost" so don't act all persecuted. If you're here just because you can't be casually sexist somewhere else that's a bad reason. There's a massive gap between the woke police watching every comment for wrong-think, and regular users and mods simply wanting to keep the place from devolving into a reddit one-liners. I only ever responded because you wanted to die on the hill of wanting to keep your shitty one-line jokes instead of just moving on.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
On the most basic level a joke needs to be either funny or insightful or failing either, at least clever to count enough as an "acceptable joke" and not just being mean. We all know, I assume, about the social thing that happens sometimes with jokes where they are either too frequent or not actually funny enough that they are used as a form of bullying, or are opportunities to say what you "really think" but then hide behind "just a joke bro" when challenged. So that's the context I'm coming from: the forum-equivalent of bullying or "just a joke bro" are both forbidden by the rules and for good reason! They both tend to be long-term extremely toxic in a poison-the-well sense for forums, doubly so for those that aim to 'optimize for light not heat'.
By contrast, a joke that is, on the spectrum, more on the side of clever or insightful or all in good fun is fine (or even laudable if an AAQC) in the sense that it probably doesn't contribute to that kind of generalized toxicity. Thus even a short joke can be plausibly seen as at least medium effort in the way the first kind of joke fundamentally is not, and "low effort" is its own rule, however subjective. I hope this explanation helps you understand I'm not actually attempting to move goalposts or anything -- they exist roughly as outlined above, to my mind (not a mod).
While it's obviously difficult to quantify a joke as I noted, since it's highly subjective and even context-dependent (moods of crowds in comedy clubs a well-known confounder of the funniness of a joke itself along with delivery), Scott Adam had a proposal I subscribe to that a joke needs to contain at least one but ideally two or more of the following [to be funny]: Unexpectedness, Exaggeration, Incongruity, Relatability, Absurdity, Reversal. I would probably add in Transgression as its own category, though there's overlap. Since you clearly want to analyze it further, at least to me your joke doesn't contain any of these in any meaningful sense. Nor does it say anything clever. Nor does it contain any special insight. It isn't relatable, it isn't much of a reversal, it isn't absurdist, it just lives in a sour mediocrity and thus is best represented as pure sexism and disdain and dismissal of women. Or, it was just a quick thoughtless one-off that didn't land, I'm not trying to do some actual character assassination or judgement here -- you were totally free to respond in any number of ways other than digging in and claiming it's somehow "good natured ribbing".
I. My understanding is that would not be a workaround, and the legal system isn't really set up to answer questions in advance like that, even if it would be helpful.
II. Honestly we're partly there. REAL ID requirements for drivers licenses at least in theory required proof of legal status, and is mostly implemented across the country as of next year, though still with some mixed enforcement in some states. I don't have enough specific knowledge to make a claim about the exact effectiveness. It's a good building block, but not totally there. About 85-90ish percent of legal US adults have a driver's license, so if that is used as a starting point it could be pretty effective.
However, if you're building a system from scratch, it suddenly becomes very difficult. We've relied on Social Security numbers as de-facto identifiers even though they never were intended to be for too long, and there's a lot of people who aren't very careful with their documents. The bureaucracy is also very, very bad at handling some of the current difficult cases, in many areas getting snarled up for years.
Remember that to survive a legal challenge, the success rate of the system has to be very, very high. So it's not totally clear to me that the first approach of simply building off of driver's licenses would be sufficient to avoid legal issues. After all, "the government was annoying" is often more than sufficient for a judge to rule in favor of a plaintiff who wants to vote, as a rough oversimplified principle.
You also have to consider things beyond voter ID. A national ID card might easily suffer from mission creep and be used for more things. That's bad from a strictly voter ID perspective, because for example the more incentive to have one if you don't deserve one, the more fraud happens. If it's simply a voter ID and nothing else, history suggests fraud wouldn't be too high. Example: an illegal immigrant might
III. The game changes a bit here. It's my rough understanding, could use more light if someone knows, that while the default goes to the state in actually executing the election, so a state voter ID law would work even for federal elections within the state (when combined as they always are), if there exists federal legislation the interferes, the federal regulation usually takes precedence -- but only for certain relevant cases. I'm not certain if there are currently federal laws that would actually prevent a wide scale voter ID drive from a state. The interaction is complicated.
Either way, we reach a conclusion: a fight to implement voter ID is a 5-10 year process no matter how well you implement it. You have to consider that as a given no matter which route you go. On a specific state level you might be able to pull it off closer to 5.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
It's tough. Zelensky has been clear about not wanting to concede Ukrainian territory but it's obvious to everyone that that particular ship has sailed. It's hard to know if he will secretly be happy to be "forced" to accept a compromise, or if he's a true believer. I also don't think a compromise will be nearly as easy as Trump says, because Russia does seem like it's gearing up for another 1-2 years which Ukraine might not be able to hold. So your scenario is plausible for sure. Execution matters, though. Let's say a cease fire lifts a lot of Russian sanctions. In that case, it's totally conceivable that Russia is able to use that money and tech access to come back to the table better equipped than before.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
I consider myself pretty well informed politically but I have literally no idea what the immigration follow-through will or won't look like. I'm pretty sure he'll be convinced to stay in NATO but not nearly as sure as I'd like to be given how long-term horrendous that would be for American power. Tariffs and chinese crackdowns seem obvious, I think he's going to bring back Lighthizer and he was pretty clear about his goals, but a Taiwan conflict I also have no idea about. Tax cut seems a lock. The degree of bureaucratic downsizing is also unknown -- will he really put Elon in charge? RFK will clearly have some role but would he be in charge or just some consulting schtick?
That aside however, I'm mostly asking about the revenge stuff because I remember seeing some very strong opinions one way or the other about whether people on the list above do or don't deserve punishment, and another accompanying but sometimes different set of strong opinions about whether Trump would actually do so or not.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
Low effort one liners are perhaps not explicitly against the rules, but they are pretty close to it, last time I checked. If you want a joke forum maybe you should consider reddit yourself? Thanks for pointing it out, I've reported both comments. They add nothing to the conversation and only increase hostility and boo-outgroup feelings, again, explicitly against the whole idea. Did you re-read the copy-pasted message at the top of the CW posts recently? I know it might come across as sour grapes, but keeping low-effort punching-down rare is at least in theory a fundamental part of what I perceive to be the goal of the site.
Also, jokes are of course widely subjective and I know that jokes often trade explicitly on being a little transgressive. But to me, it's not even a funny-mean joke, nor particularly inventive; it's just mean.
Did you misplace your comment? That's not what we're talking about at all and actively misrepresents everything I said with culture war buzz words. My claim is that in an over-competitive environment, attempts to "game the system" naturally rise. That's not indicative of a moral failing on behalf of the candidates (scientists) exactly, it's just a natural thing that happens in competitive environments with poorly set guardrails. It would be mistaken to take attempts to game the funding system at face value, no questions asked. While obviously moral virtue is higher when 'doing the right thing' in more difficult environments, I think we should be careful about how we ascribe moral fault to actors in a broken system. Surely scientists deserve some blame for juicing their proposals with DEI language, but to hang all the blame at their feet is bananas.
Roughly speaking, 1 in 4 NSF grants get funded, which means 3 essentially get denied. Scale-wise, I would say even an increase in the funding rate to something like 40% would have had a disproportionately large effect in decreasing attempts to pander to the left. Also, I think that probably over half of those grants are likely worth funding, no "gay race science funding" required.
More options
Context Copy link