FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
And every gimmick hungry yob
Digging gold from rock n roll
Grabs the mic to tell us
he'll die before he's sold
But I believe in this
And it's been tested by research
He who fucks nuns
Will later join the church
User ID: 195
Men on online dating websites: notorious for respecting women's stated boundaries, infamous for their Kantian commitment to telling the truth, legendary for their long term commitment.
I mean if you want to work on the experiment together, I'll agree to your rules and see what happens. But I don't really think it's the glidepath to marriage to just show up online and say I WANT A HUSBAND.
The glidepath to marriage remains church.
She'd get a lot of interest. How much of it would be serious is a different problem, and one that is impossible for even the men messaging her to assess neutrally.
Besides the basic problem of a man stringing her along, one of the great tragedies of human life is that your hypothetical desperate tech bro is lonely and has zero success with women, but the moment this girl starts dating him he will not be lonely and he will not have had zero success with women.
Human relationships are so difficult because the deal is changing in real time as it is being executed. We say to the hot girl, go date the lonely techbro niceguy, he'll worship you because he can't get anyone else. But sometimes, by showing interest in the lonely tech bro niceguy, the hot girl improves his status so much, that he isn't lonely and he isn't a niceguy anymore, and he takes his new found confidence on the road.
Sudden emphasis? Shapiro's entire campaign for governor was built around ads of him eating shabbat dinner with his family, wearing a yarmulke, going to synagogue.
It was so weirdly prominent I was convinced he was just trying to bait his opponent, who was insane, into calling him Jew Boy and ending the race right there.
Sailors did it on long whaling sailing. But, you know, also the other thing.
Content produced and hosted on private platforms isn't the commons.
Yes yes, it's very fun being a free rider. Convenient that there are still enough rubes that we can get away with it for a while.
But you object to advertising and you object to paying for youtube, but you like watching youtube. How do you think youtube should be funded?
I don't think anyone has the juice to replace Trump. Love him or hate him, he is world historically talented.
Jared could probably handle the job, though he doesn't exactly have the popularity. At first Ivanka seemed like the pick, but I haven't heard anything about that in a long time.
At the very least, Trumpworld will always dangle a third term or a run by Don Jr to keep Rubio and Vance in line.
However, I like to watch YouTube on my TV, which means I get ads.
I despise these ads, and wish I could make them go away; however, I have a fundamental dislike of paying for people to unshittify their services.
How would you like for Youtube to pay for the infrastructure around getting those videos to you? Who do you think should be paying to host, manage, and operate the service?
I would assume that guys insecure about their cock list it as inches, while those insecure about their fitness list it as pack.
Still talking about white collar work, but pretty much any corporate or government job faced some of the same pressures.
Noticing that tendency is pretty much why I'm not in any kind of corporate work today. Because I figured there was a quota system in place and I didn't much want to find myself participating in it at the wrong moment. Today, of course, it could just as well be the opposite, but I don't want to be at the mercy of the wheel.
But this very much didn't stop me from achieving the goal of making a decent living.
Most advice that revolves around either women or men just losing the weight or just putting in more work or just settling for what they can get falls into the fundamental problem that everyone has never just and they won't do it tomorrow either.
I just don't like seeing my people blackpill.
Man I've met Shapiro and I can't bring myself to read these obligatory political memoirs. There's something downright bizarre about an Irish lass playing Real Housewives with them.
If it's not a business that makes money, it's a hobby, according to the IRS. I guess maybe you could classify it conceptually (though not legally) as a charity?
Which were tiny hobby websites, largely free riding on government and university research investments.
This is an individualistic argument, but isn't the more compelling case for removing ads one from social good?
There's no point arguing about the social good of advertising in the abstract, without reference to the content that advertising supports and makes available. It's the kind of woolly-headed socialism that college students love to talk when tuition comes up.
The proposition being argued here is "People should not be allowed to consume content unless they have paid for it."
Well, ok, that's too harsh. Probably more like:
"People should not be allowed to choose to consume unwanted content in exchange for consuming content that they want."
Without advertising, Youtube and Twitter are only available on a subscription basis, OTA TV and Radio are limited to government or charities, and newspapers would fail completely.
Once you are talking about narrower restrictions on particular kinds of advertising, there's probably logic there. But capital-A Advertising can't be isolated from the empire built upon it.
They are not technical people and don't understand this well.
When I block an annoying ad on twitter for Israeli hostage funding or something, it tells me that I can remove all ads by subscribing to premium. People don't get that?
They don't trust the company to be honest with them when they claim "this will get rid of the ads". The company can take it back at any time.
...And then I don't pay them the next month.
The company probably won't price the ad-free version in a way proportional to the difference in value. If they make 10 cents from you on ads, the price of the ad-free version may still be 20 dollars more, because they also like to do market segmentation and overcharge less price sensitive people.
What socialist powderpuff world do we live in where the profit a corporation makes has to be proportional to their costs rather than proportional to the value the customer puts on the service?
Of course this is a catch-22--if the customers don't buy the ad-free version you will claim the customers don't mind ads, but if they do buy it you will say that the market is obviously working and therefore there is no need to get rid of ads.
What catch-22? This is good price discrimination, every customer gets what they want at a price they can afford.
That's the newspaper industry breaking down, not the advertising model specifically.
"That's not the industry breaking down, just its entire revenue model. Surely the industry won't be impacted by the loss of the majority of its revenue!
In the 1950s the New York Times made 70-80% of its revenue from advertising, today it is just 20%. You think that has nothing to do with the decline of newspaper journalism?
How else does one model evidence based on consumer choice than by pointing to two options, understanding the tradeoffs between them, and charting what choices people make to see how highly people value those tradeoffs?
If consumers had no choice and could only consume content with ads, that would only tell us that they like the content more than they dislike the ads. NFL OTA broadcasts would fall in this category, viewers are making a decision based on ads. Add choices and we can narrow it down. We can say that Youtube users dislike ads at a value less than $14/month or whatever it is for premium. And we can say that the degree to which most people like having content from ad-supported platforms more than they like getting content from their local library > their degree of dislike of ads.
The big problems being
A) Trump is uniquely talented, so talented a politicians that he can force the tide to recede for a brief period.
B) Trump is selfish and paranoid, rightly so given the number and mendacity of his enemies, and is loathe to name or groom a successor that could turf him out.
Though I'm still surprised we haven't seen one of the kids set up as clear successor.
Hobby.
Honestly, I've never seen a library funding proposal I didn't think should be higher. It's literally price discrimination executed to perfection.
I don't really think the math works out the way either my good buddy @faceh has it or the way I do, chatgpt and grok estimates are garbage, my purpose in the example was using the same tools to show contrary results.
In reality men and women don't filter by these nice lists of attributes. "Don't ask fish how to catch them" and all that jazz. Men for the most part aren't really looking for chaste, demure, young, uneducated virgins to marry in two months; the few that are often have little trouble finding them at church or in high school.
Which lifestyle was achieved with zero government involvement, outside of the taxes paid to the public library!
Ad block is an easy price-discrimination tool, but it's not as comprehensive as the ban desires it to be, and ad block presents significant free-rider and tragedy of the commons problems on a societal basis, an argument I didn't want to get into again here.
But yeah, ad block solves at least half of the problem for anyone who cares enough to do it.
Yeah I can sit and puzzle it out, but when I'm writing quickly I stall thinking about it and then just use a different word entirely to keep momentum going.

I'm not going to read the article, but just in the URL I can see my wife's two favorite books she made me read.
More options
Context Copy link