Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
Hello back frens
User ID: 2022
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
Whats the "ussri" name about btw?
He stuck to a regime and has a beard, which, if not quite Dwarkesh Patel standards, is eminently respectable.
As far as I know, beard minoxidil doesnt need to be kept up. Androgenic hair is easy to get and usually sticks around.
But this only holds if all the numbers are accurate and independent
I dont think Bayes theorem requires its numbers to be independent (whatever it would mean for a conditional to be independent of its condition).
It's no surprise I didn't think of this, since my anecdotal evidence is that there's no shortage of ungracefully balding Indian uncles both at home and abroad. But the numbers don't lie here.
It might be quite heterogenous within India, too.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
For instance, generals can just order the President of the United States to be placed under house arrest. A hundred thousand nude bodybuilders are converging on Washington...
Not really clear what that scenario looks like, but either way theres a significant chance Hanania faces the wall, dont you think?
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
as that you believe the latter but realise that touting that principle is a bad look/likely to decrease support for you
This is the part I disagree with, because I dont think they run this calculation, following the rule literally is not even on their radar. The way I think of it, their understanding of what following a rule means just is what will make other people say they followed it. Like thats what meaning is. The "other people" are a little abstract, for example they can see what you do even if noones around (not that thats relevant in this case) but its all based on social cognition. They do this even if it would be to their advantage to really understand, because its all they can do.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
I would guess they also genuinely believe that its different when we do it. Most people are unable to take anything as literally as they would need to to see the symmerty there. (This is in part why I was surprised. I have strongly internalised that people are crazy, much crazier than being against abortion, and I would have thought you have too) I suppose you could say that they are therefore unable to really believe anything, but that doesnt seem productive.
Its not about the inconvienence. Its about Officially declaring that this is not the thing Good People are supposed to do. Its not a trivial inconvenience countering milgram-power, its taking away milgram power by defrocking. Who a conservative government can actually do that for remains to be seen of course.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
Not that I'm not guilty of this myself - it is still genuinely difficult (sic) for me to believe in my heart that right-wingers really think fetuses are people being murdered
Im surprised by this. There are lots of pro-life people. How many of them would have to be just rationalising before the number of genuine believers reaches lizardman levels? It seems pretty clear that theres a line of thought there thats compelling to a significant number of people (though I sometimes feel it should be the left that its compelling to)
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
Reee, my outgroup is full of animals who would never compromise or act in good faith! This justifies me never acting in good faith either.
This can in fact be true, though I would recommend a slower pace of escalation than him even then. How would you know when it is true?
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
I have a bit of a different perspective than the other two here, but perhaps it will help you understand them.
The evidence for human free will appears to me to be overwhelmingly strong
If I ask you why you did xyz, you can probably give me an answer. In what sense is that answer true, if the reasons you give me didnt cause you to take the action? If you agree that they caused the action, congratulations, thats all the determination materialism requires. This is an unconventional perspective to take on actions, but a common one on beliefs. It is in this sense that people say they dont choose what they believe; my reasons are as they are, and they cause me to believe as I do. And for me, "I would really like believing it" is not one of the reasons that convince me (at least, not a very convincing one) - so it may be that I want to believe something but dont believe it. I dont know what "observation of free will" you think contradicts this, but IME people are unable to describe it in non-circular terms.
You can't compare their Kolmogorov complexity, or Minimum Message Length, or employ any other test to determine which of them is more likely than the other
Those are some very heavy guns for what in this case amounts to a very simple argument: What reason is there for thinking the uncaused cause is embodied in a human born around 0 AD? Not a cosmological reason; because it is quite different from the phenomena which are visible cosmology, and would be complex to nail down based on them (try if you dont believe me!). By contrast, there could be cosmological evidence for a seamless loop; a big crunch for example may just imply it as a straighforward application of ordinary physcial laws. There are other things which could be proven by cosmology, even if none of them are currently - but christianity is not one of them. If there are reasons to think the first cause is the christian god specifically, they are not about cosmology, and would likely be just as convincing without making the first cause argument to begin with, so dont.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
The technical issue of holding territory if you manage to capture it is still hard to solve.
I dont think either of them want to hold enemy territory. Iran maybe as a long-term goal, but theyre on the defensive here so its probably not in play. Israel is fine with distance-policing their capabilities.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
I have tried all of them except the LSD, which Im not going to. Didnt do shit.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
Because I think the Aella brand reasonably analogous to a demonette. Chaos creatures are created and strengthened by human thoughts and feelings in their domain, and try to induce more of those through their actions. They are analogously weakened by refusing to notice or believe in them, which is how Fabiuss superhuman boneheadedness allowed him to survive a direct encounter with Slaanesh here.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
‘This is the moment of testing. The moment your hearts are weighed against the Phoenix’s feather. Are you not curious at the outcome?’
‘Not remotely. I know my worth, and I know my crimes. This court holds no jurisdiction over me.’ Fabius straightened, trying to slow his heart rate. His muscles strained against unknown pressures. It was as if he stood at the bottom of a vast ocean, and the weight of thousands of fathoms pressed down on him.
‘Its jurisdiction extends far beyond your ability to conceive, alchemist. You have committed crimes of such monstrous elegance that even the gods themselves grow uneasy. Look – see – they sit in judgement of you.’ A too-long finger drifted upwards, and Fabius followed the gesture. He looked up, and something looked down.
It was not a face, for a face was a thing of limits and angles, and what he saw had neither. It stretched as far as his eyes could see, as if it were one with the whole of the sky and the firmament above. Things that might have been eyes, or distant moons or vast constellations of stars, looked down at him, and a gash in the atmosphere twisted like a lover’s smile. It studied him from an impossible distance, and he felt the sharp edge of its gaze cut through him, layer by layer. There was pain, in that gaze, and pleasure as well. Agony and ecstasy, inextricable and inseparable.
With great effort, he tore his gaze away. ‘There is nothing there,’ he snarled, his teeth cracking against each other. His hearts stuttered, suddenly losing their rhythm. He pounded at his chest, as internal defibrillators sent a charge of electricity shrieking through him. The chirurgeon flooded his system with tranquillisers, and he tapped shakily at his vambrace. A secondary solution of mild stimulants joined the tranquillisers, stabilising him. He ignored the urge to look up. There was nothing there. Nothing at all. ‘There is nothing there,’ he said again, tasting blood. ‘There are no gods. Only cold stars and the void.’
The pressure increased. Something whispered, deep within him. It scratched at the walls of his mind, trying to catch his attention. He ignored it. ‘No gods,’ he repeated. ‘Random confluence of celestial phenomena. Interdimensional disasters, echoing outwards through our perceptions. I think, therefore I am. They do not, so they are not.’ He met the Quaestor’s bland gaze unflinchingly. ‘Gods are for the weak. I am not weak.’
The Quaestor nodded expectantly. ‘No.’
/u/Amadan is entirely correct and in fact doesnt go far enough. The controversy is part of the game, and so is you thinking about how You Can Save Her. There is no form of attention you can pay to this that makes things better, except possibly in minecraft.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
And the reason why anyone treats that credit as valuable is because we're also simultaneously in debt to the issuer (we owe abstract value to the government in tax payments in this case).
The problem is that the particular nature of this debt to the issuer is a free variable, so a thing defined from it is a function rather than an object. "Regular" debt is like this in the sense the the government can technically just decide to default, or print its exact obligations which is basically the same, but there is a well-defined understanding of what normally happens to debt that there isnt so much with money, and the bit that there is changes based on what monetary theory the state adopts.
That's what I think I've been saying from the start
What youve said at the start was that inflation is a reason you might stop spending more because you dont like inflation. What were discussing now is that the benefits of more spending stop when you start to increase inflation. Thats consistent with the old comments, but a significant and to me much more useful addition.
This is all an explanation of how it all already works.
How it works so far may be consistent with your theory, but also others where there is still cause to worry.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
"But currency is a liability to the central bank that issues it—a promise to stand behind the currency’s value in the future."
If thats why currency is debt, then youre including that promise into "what currency is". You would then have to, whenever you try to use the fact that "currency is debt" in your reasoning, also show that the promise wont be violated, else the argument is invalid. And you of course cant already use "currency is debt" to show that something will work out without breaking the promise, because thats a regress.
It's something you observe after the fact.
Thats fine, if you can tell at the end of each period whether you went over in the previous. It sounds like youre now suggesting something about inflation as the criterion. Is accelerating inflation the right criterion and old economists where just too worried about going over, or do you object to that criterion as well? What do you think of NGDP targeting?
I suppose it just looks more like just looking at the real world.
With private debt, the strategy of taking on more and more debt looks great right until noone is willing to lend you more. People rightly want a plausible model for "observations in the real world" before making them loadbearing. The temptation to ignore limitations based on "real world observation" is omnipresent in economics ("Most people are willing on the margin to help a bit without direct visible compensation, therefore communism"), and using theoretical problems as a setup to ignore theory is precisely what keeps critics of mainstream economics outside the mainstream.
The actual concrete accounting, logic, and plumbing seems much more useful to nail down and understand first, before starting to build more & more elaborate models on various assumptions.
Even without an end-date, economics always depends on expectations about the future. Trying to understand whats happening in the here and now before you get to those doesnt work.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
How is that uncharitable? Im not interpreting it that way so that its less defensible, but because whats even the point of the post otherwise? The turkish border is not simply a complex border, it is from a domain so explicitly political that we all know its just down to negotiating peoples preferences. There are plenty of examples of complex boundaries you could pick otherwise. The biologist arguing with king Solomon is suggesting a categorisation thats better for understanding the world, and is rejected by Solomon on the basis of prioritising economic considerations. Even the quote in my last comment is quite clear about purposes: Turkey has its exclave to honor the Ottoman ancestor, and "man" has an exclave around someone if itll save their life.
The point of the post is to change categorisation from an attempt-objective assessment to a negotiation, such that to consider someone a woman even though it causes them distress, there has to be some downside to doing so thats more important in absolute terms. A downside that occurs with regards to a specific purpose, like scientific simplicity, can still be judged as "not important enough" because its only the general purpose (in Scotts case, maximising utility) that really matters.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
It is a bit counterintuitive, but every bike ride is one less car ride, and this means a great cycling city has less congested traffic for cars.
In my experience, a cyclist on the road causes more delay for cars than another car would. Even though the bike is smaller than a car, it effectively blocks the same amount of space: the safety distance behind is the same, and that dominates the physical length. Being thinner is balanced by 2x+ the sideways distance for passing, plus for passing it usually doesnt matter how much of you sticks in the next lane, just if at all. And then they still are slower and often less predictable.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
but that is what it is
The fact that they historically descend from IOUs and there are some conventions left over from that time does not tell us "what it is". Again, what actual reality stops the fed from listing all yuan as its liabilities?
I can't think of what borrowing in gold would mean.
Someone gives me 100 gold, and I commit to giving him back 104 gold in a year. In between, I will presumably sell the gold for money, do something with the money, and then buy gold to pay him back in the end. The difference to borrowing money is that the gold price need not be the same at the start and end.
Can depend on how strict you want to be about the term full employment.
I asked about this because before you suggested employment as an indicator for the right deficit. Do you have any suggestion for something that directly tells me when the appetite for monetary saving is satiated?
By the nature of having decent "automatic stabilizer" fiscal policies...
Things like this are why Im wary of your nominal-only analysis. I would like to know if the people doing that spending then end up worse of from your previous spending, and how that can in turn influence previous saving. As is Ill have to work it out myself sometime when Im not right about to go to bed. It propably also negates/displaces the growth benefits of that previous spending.
but where we're all plowing endlessly into the stock market like a clown car, bidding it up constantly
In theory, all stocks should have the same expected ROI. If you unselectively pour money into a market thats in equilibrium, then active traders will lower their standards for what IPOs to buy, and a corresponding supply of them will show up. The money ultimately goes to new investment.
That is part of why I suggested it: Because while just more demand will grow the economy generally, it also makes a difference what that money is spent on. Digging ditches an filling them back in is worse than building more capital. Putting money into stocks means that the active traders will direct it towards the best investments. Note that current practice is that the fed does its intentional inflating by ultimately subsidising lower interest rates - that has a similar effect. If you do government spending specifically for the sake of the economy, thats generally better than spending on specific things (again, excepting cases where a certain investment is only open to the government).
And this just may be of interest to you: The classical models dont believe that people will increase monetary savings indefinitely, for reasons that go back to the "unwinding date" that came up before. I dont know how familiar you are with economics outside of macro, but classical models use backwards induction a lot. Backwards induction requires some kind of "end of the game" with final scores to reason backward from. What is that? Well, it turns out that the backwards induction arguments you want to use in general economic models dont depend on how far away the end date is. So you bascially model the situation as if there was an end date so far in the future that only these in-principle effects are relevant.
Youre not getting any utility out of unspent money at the end, therefore youll spend it down before you get there, therefore monetary savings dont grow indefinitely. Im very curious what an economics looks like where you avoid these indefinite future end arguments generally, rather than just in this one context.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
Having family members sell access isn't illegal assuming no quid-pro-quo, it's just an optics problem.
No, what I mean is, if Joe offered to do whatever thing the client wants to corrupt him for, in exchange for payment to Hunter, and Hunter doesn't give any money to Joe, and thats the plan. I would expect this to be illegal as well, but I dont know US law that well.
Im not entirely on board with treating a simple dollar bill as an IOU. I understand your point about it gaining value from being usable for future taxes, but the bill does not, at the point of issuing, create any obligation for the future. "I owe you tax relief, the amount and whether thats relevant at all to be decided, by me." is not a financial instrument, because thats true of everything. Nothing prevents me from demanding taxes in yuan (or kilos obsidian, or literally whatever) instead of dollar tomorrow, so how are dollars my debt, and yuan arent?
Other question: If the government borrowed in a foreign currency or gold rather than dollars, would that be inflationary?
I also notice that you never say whether somethings is in nominal or real terms, whats up with that?
In aggregate, what we find is that people like to accumulate monetary savings over time
This might be the crux. If people want monetary savings to keep increasing in real terms, that would mean theyre willing to work for more than theyll consume, indefinitely. Thats certainly a disagreement with the classical model, but its not really over something monetary. In that case, I can see how you can grow the economy by just spending the money they dont. A few remaining disagreements:
First, I dont think this leads to full employment necessarily. Firstly, because while more demand can be expected to increase employment, but there neednt be any finite amount of it where employment becomes full. Secondly, because the willingness to increase real saving per unit of time is propably limited, and drawing on that full amount might not be enough for whatever you want to do.
Second, even if savings increase over the long term, there will be fluctuations. If a lot of people suddenly want to spend money that youve already spent for them, what happens?
Last, people want savings, but why would they want dollar denominated savings over non-monetary assets? If people just buy index instead of sitting on money, does that already do what you want to do?
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
None of my pseudonyms tries to project a unique personality. They speak with exactly the same personality—just on different topics.
It might actually be a good sign if they did. If even different fake online faces are only shaped by their own incentives and not each other, then your real life face is propably safe.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
I did wonder if the name derived from "face". I didnt think of a letter being alphabetical numbering without any indication its not part of the word.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
You can't, that's the main draw of it.
My point is that, as nice as it may be to have something like that, it cant be all of society. You need? women, not just biological ones but social ones too, and you need to have some space for that. Even if they are then not nerds, then nerddom would need to have some kind of interface for an intended complement, and it doesnt. Nerds just want to marry nerdettes, and want them to not do the women things except when the need for it is really in your face, and then they copy something from mainstream society or wing it.
And from the male side, the really feminine thing to do is to just be one of the girls.
Is it? Concern about your appearance really is feminine behaviour, so IMO its congruent that trans women pursue a female body.
The people who do most of that complaining are not nerds.
Yes, but a lot of people from the overlap are here, thats why I brought it up. I didnt really understand the rest of your paragraph there.
My guess was USSR + SSRI, but that didnt and doesnt make sense.
More options
Context Copy link