@Kevin_P's banner p

Kevin_P


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 06:24:54 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 470

Kevin_P


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 06:24:54 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 470

Verified Email

What if they are millennial versions of Ted Kaczynski, taking the maximum expected-value path towards acquiring the capital to do a pivotal act?

Or maybe just taking the maximum expected-value path towards becoming insanely rich?

The collapse was dramatic but it's a consequence of the same high-risk strategy that had FTX valued at 32 billion USD a few months ago. If that's the upside then their actions can be rational even if the chance of success was quite low.

EDIT: Also SBF may have lost most of his money but according to this article he's still worth around $600 million US. So even if the company failed, rationalism still seems to have paid off for him personally.

I'd argue that the situation with the antivax movement supports the grandparent's point. Doctors and epidemiologists have always been against it but for the rest of the Blue Tribe the standard reaction was always "roll your eyes and move on" rather than TPTB doing everything in their power to crush it.

Obviously the red/blue coding isn't the only thing that's caused the change, but I don't think it's irrelevant either.

Why would I buy AI-generated imagery from Shutterstock when I could just make it myself?

Aside from the time savings that other people have mentioned, the other big advantage of Shutterstock is that it handles all of the relevant copyrights. Using AI art generation is probably OK from an IP rights perspective, but there's still a chance that a generated image will be close enough to the source material that the original artist could sue.

Using Shutterstock already insulates companies from the risk of traditional artists giving them a copied picture. I can see how people would see the same service as valuable for AI images too, at least until the legal issues get straightened out.

One big advantage is the thing most posts in the thread have been complaining about: The Algorithm (TM)

I'm going to go against the consensus here and say that I actually quite like the suggested videos page. The results are far from perfect but if a video appears on my homepage there's a better-than-even chance that it will be relevant to my interests, vs a roughly 0% chance for videos on the front page in incognito mode. And I don't think the results have got noticeably worse in recent months/years.

Logging in also gives you access to other features, including the subscriptions feed that shows you new videos from channels you've subscribed to, the ability to make comments (yes, youtube comments as a whole are trash, but there are still certain pockets that have value), and being able to give upvotes that at the margin will encourage creators to make more of the sort of content you enjoy.

What are ways that the Trump contingent could bring such a conspiracy to light without sounding like schizophrenic conspiracy theorists?

Maybe I'm out of touch because I'm not American but I thought Clinton's Pied Piper Strategy to push Trump to the nomination in 2016 was an established fact. Or at the very least a widely accepted theory even in mainstream / leftist media sources.

"They're trying the same thing again" doesn't seem like it would be treated as an outrageous conspiracy theory. Although by the same token it wouldn't be a shocking revelation either, just the standard dirty tricks that happen every election.

People here often bring up legal issues with relying on IQ tests etc but I don't think it's the real problem. The legal issues basically only apply to employers in America, but other countries without those laws are still experiencing the same sort of higher education signaling spiral.

Based on the page history at archive.org the "certain hospitalized patients" line was added in May 2020, with the "should only be used in a hospital or during clinical trials" part being added around a month later. At the time it seemed plausible that it would work.

The article is talking about charitable foundations rather than individual donations. Rich people set them up then hand over the management to professional charity administrators. The article argues that the money then gets diverted to standard leftist causes, regardless of the original donor's intentions, and that this is especially true for foundations that are set up to continue after the original donor dies.

The great majority of romantic fiction read by women, fan-fiction or otherwise, is heterosexual pairings with the OP, a female character from the setting, or a stand-in for the OP.

My priors were strongly in the opposite direction, at least in the fanfiction space, so I checked the numbers on Archive of our Own, (the most popular fanfiction site).

They confirmed my suspicions: M/M pairings are almost twice as common as M/F (4.7 million fics vs 2.4 million). They're also read a lot more, the most popular M/M fic had 8.2 million hits vs only 2.7 million for the top M/F fic.

I noticed that nobody has mentioned this yet so I'll throw it in for context: Margaret Thatcher abolished tenure in the UK back in the 1980s. The circumstances were pretty similar to today - the object-level issues were different but the basic layout of the situation was the same. It didn't create the sort of disaster that doomsayers are predicting but also do much to stop academics criticising the government, as far as I can tell things went on pretty much as they did before the change.

Latest scientific studies indicate that the share of gaming consoles owned by women (PDF, page 9) ranges from 42% to 52%.

I checked that PDF link and the data was 86% male which completely contradicts what you claimed.

Not sure if that was your point and you were trying to set up a contrast between "the science" and Nintendo's actual sales figures, but if so that didn't come through in the post.

Here's an inverse conspiracy theory that's also technically a conspiracy: Flat Earthers don't exist.

It's held up as the archetypical example of conspiracy theory believers, but I'm convinced that pretty much everyone who expresses support for Flat Earth theories - well over 99% - is knowingly playing along in a giant hoax, for a sense of community and the amusement of getting ridiculous stories published in serious newspapers. (Some of them don't actually realise this and think that only they themselves are roleplayers while the rest of their group are serious).