@JulianRota's banner p

JulianRota


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 04 17:54:26 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 42

JulianRota


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 04 17:54:26 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 42

Verified Email

The actual ARFCOM thread about this is pretty long and has some interesting content, ought to be okay to post since it's already locked: https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/Looks-like-Karl-from-InRange-TV-isn-t-shy-about-his-love-of-Drag-Queens-Karl-buttmad-p-32/5-2607124/

I used to post on ARFCOM a lot in the early-mid 2000s, back when PHPBB style boards were the main type of social interaction online.

Thanks, this sounds more like how I was thinking about it. Like, maybe the algorithm can, or at least could, make okay decisions if it had all of the information. But then isn't actually gathering all of the information and getting it into a form that could be entered or written down somewhere like 80% of what doctors do anyways? I'm not sure if it matters how good the algorithm is if any professional could have already made the best practical decision before they even would have been able to enter all of the information into some system anyways.

I believe lying is quite effective, and there's no need to be consistent. On one of my longer-running Reddit alts, I've claimed to live in at least a dozen different cities, none of which I've ever actually been to. And made up a bunch of careers, family situations, hobbies, etc. Let any attacker read them all and try to guess which if any are real and which are fake. The bonus of being highly inconsistent is if you slip up once, there's no way for any attacker to know that that detail is real versus all the others.

I posted most of what I was able to find. If you know more or better, I'd be interested to hear that.

Near as I can tell, the original source is this Telegram post. Some nobody with virtually no engagement. Their group's only sign of real-life activity is a banner drop done by 2 people. I found dozens of channels with hundreds to thousands of times the exposure mocking it as an obvious fed trap, and zero promoting it. Looks to me like the usual batch of activist groups lifted this out of obscurity to scare people, promote themselves, and get more donations. Oh, and also waste a ton of law enforcement time chasing ghosts and protecting things that were never threatened.

The black people I consider friends don't say how much they hate white people. Biased sample perhaps!

IME, the majority of upper-middle class American white people have a big blind spot about this due to only interacting with black people in contexts they find familiar. Where do most people meet their friends? School, work, hobbies, sports, music, etc. If you do mostly typical white people things for those, the only black people you will meet and have the opportunity to talk in depth with and befriend are the one who have already chosen to step away from primarily black activities and participate in mostly white activities for an extended amount of time.

Unless you go out of your way to do something unusual for your race and class, like get deeply enthusiastic about rap music or playing pickup basketball, and stay with it despite being one of only a handful of white people (how do you think those black guys who choose to do white stuff feel?), you will never meet the black people who mostly want to stay around their own and do their own things and never hear the kinds of things they say to each other.

It's a hard thing to study or do research on, and there's not much media out there that covers it. I have no idea how to get hard numbers on it. It's definitely out there though. The Boondocks TV series has some good examples. If you've read Freakonomics, there's a passage in the story about a university researcher embedding with an urban Chicago crack gang, whose leader happens to be a black college graduate with a business degree who tried working in a normal legitimate business but felt too out of place there. Consider the deeper meaning - everyone around him must have understood what he was talking about and why he chose to leave a white-collar job to lead a crack-dealing gang.

I've listened to him for a while off and on, IMO this is his usual schtick, to find a news item of interest and discuss it from a perspective of taking it maximally seriously. This leads to him frequently seeming to take contradictory positions. He's previously said things like, if Confederate statues make black people uncomfortable than we should indeed take them down, and take words they find offensive, i.e. the N word, out of our vocabulary, etc. I've never seen him approach things from a perspective of, my true worldview overall is X, is event Y a good enough reason to update it?

The weird part IMO is he must have known something like this would happen if he applied his usual MO to this story in this way. I wonder why he chose to do it now. Maybe he just doesn't care much?

I'd also say, if you don't already know that a very substantial number of black people (not all, but definitely more than a few percent) really truly do hate white people, where've you been, and have you ever really talked to black people?

It's mostly irrelevant IMO. I've been on hiring committees at multiple companies and nobody has ever commented on whether a candidate had a website at all, much less the quality of it. It might help if you made a site that did something cool or interesting and were prepared to talk about it at an interview. Most interviewers and decision makers will realistically spend 15min max checking out your resume and any websites before the actual interview. Do at least make sure any sites you list aren't horrifically ugly or broken though.

I would also say that while I don't have a ton of love for doing graphic design, it's probably worth knowing at least enough HTML and CSS to make any project site you build at least not too ugly. Some of the newer CSS stuff isn't too painful to work with.

It may be worth getting a humidity gauge for your living space. Islands and coastal areas usually have decently high humidity outdoors in all seasons, but if you heat a space more than 10-20 degrees C, the humidity in that space will be substantially lower unless you deliberately add more water.

I just started using Silexan as suggested in Scott's post about a week and a half ago. I never thought of myself as someone with anxiety issues and never been to a doctor for it or used any prescription drugs. But dammed if it doesn't really help my mental state. I feel a lot less worry and what I guess is anxiety especially with regard to habits and social interactions. I feel like I have significantly more drive to do stuff. No issues or side effects at all, aside from the mild scent in burps, which I don't mind. Just ordered another batch of the stuff.

I've had some mild eczema issues. Here's a few things that have worked for me, not sure if you've tried any:

I think the root cause of it being worse in the winter is spending time in heated places which are inherently low-humidity. Setting up a humidifier powerful enough to get the humidity up above 50% or so if it isn't already may help. As may a humidity gauge to see what it actually is in the spaces you live in.

Mild Corticosteroid cream seems to help quite a bit, including the OTC hydrocortisone. I found this site that lists all of the varieties and strengths of them. A prescription for a Class 6 helps a bit more and seems to be mostly harmless for routine use or as needed.

I couldn't say about 1400 specifically. I'd say I basically think that many aspects of these traits were at least present in sort of a prototype form at least as far back as that. As in, not necessarily openly embraced by the notional leaders of nations, but often present in the mid to upper layers of the societal elite. Stuff like the Enlightenment and Reformation didn't magically appear out of nowhere. I'd note that Columbus was able to secure funding for his voyage despite being completely wrong in his calculations about the size of the Earth. Did anything like that happen in China? I expect they had the resources to do such things, but if they have, I've never heard of it.

Funny, I'm just starting Homicide myself.

I've been meaning to write at greater length on the concept of rejection of process and how it has affected the traditions around declaring and waging war. But the short version is that for a variety of reasons, the concept of "act of war" is basically meaningless in today's world.

If it's perceived as being in your country's overall advantage to go to war, or maybe just to the advantage of a particular leadership clique, then you will wage war. Something will be perceived as an act of war, or false-flagged, or they'll just do it anyways and count on nobody really noticing or caring. If it's not, then all sorts of things that could be considered acts of war may be ignored, or responded to in kind only rather than escalated. I don't think either Israel or Iran have any interest in or real ability to wage proper war against each other, so it won't happen.

I don't. If it's not sufficiently interesting for me to remember, I don't see any reason to force it. If I ever need it again, I can just open the book again.

Distributed battery systems have started deploying over the last couple of years.

Do you know of anywhere public I can read about the deployment of grid-scale energy storage systems? I've been under the impression that this was mostly speculation and proposals from various academics and think-tanks, with little actual construction and deployment going on.

I have no proof for this, and believe that it is fundamentally un-provable, but I believe that for whatever reason, Western Europe has developed a culture that is the most highly optimized in existence for embracing and taking full advantage of a long series of compounding technological advancements. I don't have a full list of exactly what this entails, but I believe it includes:

  • Belief in individual liberty - others can do as they please as long as it doesn't harm you

  • Low role of honor/shame/guilt - if you screw up, you can fix it, try again, start over with something new, etc

  • Low dedication to any particular elite - anyone who comes up with a new idea good enough to put them on top can go ahead and take that slot

  • Openness to criticizing yourself and your culture and embracing new ways of doing things

Obviously not every single individual member of this overall culture believes all of these about everything all the time, but I think it's still essentially the dominant core values of the culture. Other cultures succeed or fail in the modern world to the extent that they embrace these values.

Many other cultures have attempted to catch up by embracing the current top level of technology, but if they don't adopt all of the values along with it, they will eventually fall behind when the next advancement comes along. I think of Japan and China, which have at various stages done a pretty good job of adopting the current top level of technological advancement, but seem to inevitably fall behind when the top level moves ahead. Russia could probably be described about the same.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are farming bots designed to look as human as possible, including posting at the average rate of a reasonable human. It may not be quite as fast, but it's easy enough to automate, and no reason you couldn't have a single bot run tens of thousands of accounts like this, so you might still get a reasonable number of decent karma accounts after a month or so.

Many people have compared this to the Winter War. Soviet performance was similarly inept there, but they did basically win in the end, getting relatively modest territorial concessions though rather than total control of Finland. Maybe that's the best thing to expect here too.

FWIW, I've noticed something kind of related - if you make a post that gets a lot of direct replies, you do get notified for all of them, but the newest ones are at the bottom of the comment responses on the notifications page, so you have to scroll past all of the older replies and their full subthreads to see them, which is kind of easy to miss. It might help to sort the replies on the notification page as newest-first.

I get your first point, though I suppose that's something that all movements of any sort will have to live with in the modern age.

On the second, I don't think I agree. I'm saying we need to make a reasonably good-faith effort to follow our constitutional processes in the intended ways. As far as I know, nothing that could reasonably be described as that took place with respect to the civil rights conflicts. I think Roe v Wade is pretty far from that.

An interesting point as well. I have wondered at times if we're a little over-concerned with how safe our children are, harkening back to the 90s era of complaining that everything is "for the children" and Free Range Kids and all that. I may need to think a little on how those basic beliefs intersect with the abortion stuff. I wonder how much the Chinese care about abortions?

Well that's a point. Maybe the whole thing is me just over-thinking things. If you're happy with the situation, then all is well and good I guess.

I find your post interesting because we probably have the same actual positions on abortion and directly related issues, but I've mostly taken the opposite conclusion from what happened with the overturning.

My impression overall is that the bottom line is that pro-life leaning people are roughly 50% of the population (including 50%-ish of women by the way). The Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendments, Supreme Court, all of that stuff, is meant to cover things we have more like 90% agreement with as a society. In this view, Roe v Wade was always an ugly hack. There's nothing about it in the Constitution and it's ridiculously stunted reasoning by abortion activists to get their preferred point of view enacted as court precedent and thus immune to legislative processes. Keeping it in place only serves to ensure we are constantly fighting Holy Wars over Supreme Court nominees over whether they will or won't swear to keep the ridiculous charade in place at all costs.

The Constitutional Amendment process is very tough for a reason - only things that we have very broad and long-lasting agreement on in our society should end up enshrined at that level and protected by court rulings. If we desire to have abortion granted that level of protection, it should be done right - by passing an explicit Constitutional Amendment about it. If there isn't the support level needed to do that, then abortion doesn't belong there and issues around it should be resolved by state and federal legislation, the way it was intended to be. That's why I think this is a good thing - states where pro-life is strong will now be able to pass and enforce the legislation they wanted to, hopefully without bothering people outside their state much. States where pro-choice is string will continue to be able to have abortion on-demand. People with strong positions on the wrong side of one of those lines will be able to move somewhere that their preferred policy is in place. Democracy in action!

Bottom line, pro-life is a solid segment of our population and they aren't going away. If your political position is that their policy preference must be absolutely suppressed at all costs, then what you're advocating for is not Democracy.

I lean red overall politically, and I am aware that this may have cost red team / Republicans some degree of the gains they would have expected in the recent midterms. I think that's a reasonable price to pay to get this issue off of the national stage. Let the states make their preferred laws, let them sneer at each other, and keep the courts for things we aspirationally have broader agreement on.

I think "but extremists" is hardly ever a useful take. Yes, of course there are extremists on both sides of every issue. Most of the time, they aren't relevant due to being small in number. It might be a useful barometer if we can show somehow that the extremists are growing in number. Or if we can see their positions changing.

I don't agree with the pro-life extremists, but I don't think their positions or numbers have changed much. The pro-choice extremists may still be small in number, but their position does seem to be crazier than it was before. Free abortion on demand for everyone is one thing, but is it really appropriate to brag about it?