HighResolutionSleep
No bio...
User ID: 172
HighResolutionSleep
5mo ago
"Family formation" is not an answer to the question of "what do men get out of this". Under present conditions, men are not offered an ownership stake in the families that they form. They are at most leased a family on a month-to-month basis conditional on the wife being kept happy. Republicans have indicated little capital of any kind earmarked for changing this.
I will give credit to Republicans for offering the first non-token resistance against discrimination toward my kind of human being that I've witnessed in my lifetime—and for that they've earned my vote. But if they want further buy-in to the lifestyle, they will need to offer more.
HighResolutionSleep
5mo ago
Pro-life and anti-single-mom is only a contradiction if you also believe an implicit third proposition: women have no agency.
HighResolutionSleep
5mo ago
Perhaps this is a big reason that women with power feel more compelled to use that power to distribute gibs to other women, while men don't.
HighResolutionSleep
5mo ago
Ok, assuming this is true, this means there's space for money to potentially go back to men more, right?
HighResolutionSleep
5mo ago
But without a welfare state the taxes would, presumably, be smaller.
HighResolutionSleep
5mo ago
Sure, but women want gibs more as a matter of simple fact. It is absolutely gendered.
HighResolutionSleep
5mo ago
Your point being?
HighResolutionSleep
5mo ago
Men who were elected mostly by women. Who want gibs.
This "women never do anything" perspective is one of the major pillars holding the status quo in place.
HighResolutionSleep
5mo ago
I'm not completely opposed to telling brown legal immigrants and citizens in illegal immigration hotbeds (kind enough to label themselves "sanctuary cities") that they really ought to start carrying their papers, provided that the state of exception doesn't last too long.
My bet, though, continues to be on nothing ever happening. The browning of America will continue apace, and the Trump deportation spree barely a blip in the grand scheme of things.
HighResolutionSleep
5mo ago
As a Shareholder-American, it sure would be great for me. Not so sure about others, though.
HighResolutionSleep
5mo ago
Eh, I've always been far better at not buying candy than not eating it. YMMV, of course. It costs thirty seconds and is worth a shot.
HighResolutionSleep
5mo ago
HighResolutionSleep
5mo ago
The damage isn't done by money simply being created or spent. It's done when it's used to Dig Up and Fill Holes Again, or worse, paid to my political enemies to actively undermine my interests. The money is then "backed" by holes dug up and filled again, or hit pieces against Twitter nobodies.
These things probably don't generate as much real wealth as what the private sector would back it with instead, if it was allowed to create the money instead.
HighResolutionSleep
5mo ago
Indeed, it's true that if I want the government to lower its deficit spending on Hole Digging and Filling Up Again, then I am also calling for an equivalent reduction of surplus enjoyed by Hole Digging and Filling Up Again companies. The alternative isn't that money never being created, the alternative it is being created through other means. Under our current system it doesn't even have to be the government. The private sector can also spend money into existence.
I'll feel less bad about Social Security if ever convinced the only alternative is UBI For Women and Single Mothers.
HighResolutionSleep
6mo ago
In short, I think you're arguing as though women shoulder most of the risks in the current romantic equation. When there's an serious argument that it works the opposite way.
This is simply the best way of putting it. The conversation on these issues is always completely upside down. When it comes to reproduction, women hold virtually all of the power. Holding men more accountable for it will have little effect, save only though indirect splash damage at best.
HighResolutionSleep
6mo ago
I don't anticipate that AI has come close to plateau—I do suspect that specifically the strategy of throw data at LLM has began to plateau. I suspect that the initial rush of AI progress is a lot like the days of sticking a straw in the ground and a million gallons of oil under pressure gushing out. Sure, it's never going to be that easy again. We're probably never going to have another "AI summer" like 2022 as before. But I don't think we have to. People have gone on about peak oil for decades, and we've only gotten better at extracting and using it. I suspect people will go on about "peak AI" for just as long.
As far as I can tell, AI is already generally intelligent. It just has a few key weaknesses holding it back and needs a bit more refining before being outright explosively useful. I see absolutely no reason these problems must be intractable. Sure, making the LLM bigger and feeding it more data might not be able to solve these issues—but this strikes me like saying that jumpjack output has peaked and so oil is over. It's not. They just need to find better ways of extracting it. Sure, contemporary techniques developed over five whole years of global experience hasn't been able to do it, but that does nothing to convince me that it's impossible to get AI models to stay focused and remember fine details. History has shown that when you're dealing with a resource as rich and versatile as oil, economies can and will continue to find ever more sophisticated ways of extracting and utilizing it, keeping its value proposition well over break-even. I suspect that general intelligence on tap as cheap as electricity will prove to be at least as deeply and robustly valuable.
I do suspect that AI hype circa 2025 is a bubble, in the same way that the internet circa 1999 was a bubble. The dot-com bubble burst; the internet was not a passing fad that fizzled away. The vision of it that popularly existed in the late 90s died; the technology underneath it kept going and revolutionized human society anyway. With AI there is both too much hype and too much FUD.
HighResolutionSleep
7mo ago
Now there's talk about going back to the defacto open borders of Biden's times.
Is there any evidence that this wouldn't just happen anyway?
HighResolutionSleep
7mo ago
I've been incredibly bearish on "civil war" rhetoric since it began, but this proposition would be a fantastic way to pluck the dumbest possible outcome out of the haystack of nothing ever happening.
If the Supreme Court did this, Trump would no longer have any incentive to do anything other than march his most loyal thugs into the courtroom, dome all nine on public television, declare himself Emperor of the United States, and simply let the chips fall where they may. Would he do this? I'm not sure, but you never know how someone is gonna behave when they have been truly cornered until it happens.
Is this a risk worth taking to give an illegal immigrant two flights back home instead of one?
HighResolutionSleep
7mo ago
The same 90 seconds I need to be able to say "I'm a fucking citizen, please stop these thugs." Garcia didn't get his
You have been lied to. Garcia did, in fact, get the opportunity to prove he was allowed to be here twice.
HighResolutionSleep
7mo ago
This is highly fact pattern specific.
Sure, which is why the example you've provided is completely irrelevant to the case at hand. Sure, if a cop went and pulled me over and shot me in the head because he thought he was Judge Dredd, that would be a pretty hideous denial of due process.
But if that cop brought me in front of a court that deemed me guilty two times, and a third wound up putting a temporary stay on my arrest to a particular jail that never made it to the cop before I was put there, that's a completely different category of error.
HighResolutionSleep
7mo ago
Every indication is that every effort was made to give this man due process, and that a procedural shortcoming prevented the third opinion from preventing the deportation.
If the cops pick me up and toss me in jail because they have a warrant for my arrest they didn't know was cancelled, my due process rights are not being violated. I am a victim of a procedural deficiency. To say that my right to due process has been violated would be incorrect.
When you combine this with the sensational rhetoric of "this could happen to anyone" etc, this incorrectness becomes undeniably malicious. It is a lie.
People are telling this lie because they want to paint the image of the Trump administration as an unhinged and tyrannical force. People getting the wrong idea when hearing these lies is a feature, not a bug.
HighResolutionSleep
7mo ago
Exactly what due process do people think was missed?
They don't. They are simply lying. Yes, it is my belief that to say Garcia was "denied due process" is a lie.
I spent the first few days or so believing that the Trump administration had simply picked up someone off the street who looked brown enough to be an illegal immigrant and sent them off to El Salvamo without so much as a leaf of paperwork. No due process. No oversight.
I was lied to, and the lies had their intended effect of planting a false understanding of the facts into my mind. "This could happen to any citizen!" Please.
I'm most disappointed in myself. After eight years of this shit I still haven't learned to assume every negative thing I hear about Trump is an outright lie until I see it with my own eyes.
HighResolutionSleep
8mo ago
My memory of this is that the general feeling was that, yeah, things are really bad right now because of the financial crisis, but things will recover and go back to normal. Then they never did.
When I feel my radicalism softening, someone always comes in to remind me that winning World War III is more achievable than giving men a birthright buy-in to their own societies.
More options
Context Copy link