@MaiqTheTrue's banner p

MaiqTheTrue

Renrijra Krin

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 02 23:32:06 UTC

				

User ID: 1783

MaiqTheTrue

Renrijra Krin

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 02 23:32:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1783

My generic advice for habits is that if you want to stop, you need to put as much friction as possible between you and the stimulus. In the case of sugar and alcohol, my advice is “win at the grocery store” meaning don’t buy things that you don’t want to be consuming. If you’re quitting alcohol, then don’t have any in your home. At minimum, that means drinking requires you to get dressed and leave home. And if eating cookies requires you to bake them yourself or having ice cream means putting on pants and getting in the car, you’re not going to do it much.

I think honestly, I’d distance my family especially children from these people. You can be personally nice, but don’t let your kids hang around that family as the child is likely experiencing social contagion and his parents seem unwilling or unable to question it or do anything about it.

I think outside of the world building, there’s not much to Sanderson. It’s interesting in a kind of D&D setting way, but it lacks a lot of cultural elements, the characters and plot aren’t that interesting, the politics is nonexistent.

There’s a difference between comedy satire and making fun of someone’s death. And a lot of statements made by news media and regular media today would have been so horrific to someone living in 1960 that they would have whisked these people off the air as soon as they said some of the things they said. There’s no chance that Kimmel would have been able to mock the death of a political figure in 1964 probably not even 1974. Not necessarily that people had thin skin, but you weren’t going to stay on the air even to finish the monologue if you were doing things like that. More than likely you would end up seeing Kimmel escorted off the set and the producers apologize to the audience for that bit.

I mean the problem with incremental changes is that they’re often gamed along the way. If you make sudden drastic changes then you can’t simply keep going while your lawyer finds the loopholes. And thus you end up doing things like fudging job titles to make tge lower wages not taxable. Sure a senior developer might get 160K a year. But Pajeet is actually a junior developer (just ignore that his tasks are exactly like a senior developer). Or if it’s 180 days in country before fines or payments kick in, you just need to get the guy on a plane on day 180, wait a few days and bring him back on a fresh H1B. If you give the. Until tomorrow to cough up the money you can’t rules-lawfare your way out of it.

The problem is the format itself. It’s basically a live podcast, with a host that tells bad jokes, a ton of padding, and set dressing because for some reason it is being put on TV instead of on the radio or in a podcast. And in that vein, its competition has huge advantages— cheaper format, not being bound to a time slot, cheaper hosts, no need for sets, costumes, or live music. Any decent comedian could do exactly what Kimmel and Colbert were doing at 1/10 or less the cost, and I don’t think the format of late night comedy shows makes sense.

They weren’t celebrating on mainstream outlets though. Pretty sure Johnny Carson did not make a “lol Mansons shot a deserving pig” joke or even make a bacon reference. Weirdos on the fringe are going to weirdo. But in our moment, especially considering how relatively stable our country actually is, the fact that a mainstream TV show and mainstream news and movie/tv stars and musicians are doing this is simply not what I’d call a fringe movement.

So what, the IDF machine-guns them to avoid crowd crushes??? They draw invisible, imaginary lines that, when crossed, get the Gazans shot? Come on, there's a very simple answer here. Few would justify Palestinian suicide bombings like this - 'it was for the Israeli's own good that the Palestinians blew up that bus full of civilians, they crossed an invisible Palestinian security line or something.' Suicide bombings are acts of hatred.

The Israelis also hate the Palestinians. That's why they torture them, blow them up, steal their land, knock down their houses, use all these elaborate terror tactics, shoot them when they're unarmed and obviously no threat. They've been doing this for years, before and after the present conflict.

I mean the situation for 70 years has been Israel gives the tiniest bit of leeway to Palestinians, which jihadists immediately exploit to kill Israelis. It’s obviously not a good thing, but there’s no line that won’t be crossed by Palestinians, and thus Israel no longer has any social trust whatsoever for Palestinians. They’ve been suckered too many times, so the6 see no reason to give quarter. Your “obviously unarmed” Palestinian might well be wearing a bomb (this happened for decades, which is why when Israelis strip captures to their underwear — looking for suicide vests. The supposedly apartheid tactic of making Palestinians use a separate bus stop and be searched before getting on a bus is a response to bus bombings in the 1990s.

I’d avoid doing stuff like thins simply because I don’t actually believe it’s sincere in this case. There hasn’t yet, to my knowledge been anyone pushing back on the left leaning side against the “white nationalist Christian nationalist, or fascism” rhetoric, and im talking about pretty big names on the left. They want to take credit in some sense for being the humane guys, but then they aren’t willing to do, well, anything up to and including banning people on left leaning media or social media for saying stuff like “we have 400 days to save democracy” or trying to sneak in “yes shooting him in the neck was bad but he didn’t like trans people or immigrants so he doesn’t deserve sympathy.” If you can’t full stop say “we have to tone down our rhetoric to prevent violence,” there’s no waters edge to be had. It’s simply using the name for marketing.

My issue with Krav is that it really doesn’t teach fighting. It’s basically a system that can teach you how to use things you know, providing you learned them somewhere else first. And because most schools are not quality controlled in the least, you often have guys who have never been in an actual fight teaching things they don’t understand how to work to other people who know nothing about fighting. BJJ has faults, as does boxing, but at least in those systems, the to-KO or to-tapout rules of competition and the fact that the culture around those arts insists on winning competitions, you can be pretty sure that the guy who’s teaching you how to get the other guy into a chokehold has done so numerous times on an opponent actually working to stop him and knows how to make it work. It isn’t just something he demonstrated in class, he learned it by using it in competition. And that same competition will teach people how to think about fighting. You’ll learn how to see the next technique being keyed up, learn to think 3-4 moves in and how to control range. If you can’t do those things having “efficient techniques” doesn’t matter. If you can’t control range I can be out of range quickly or step in and be inside of where you wanted me to be.

I don’t think the software is make or break. The issue is Reddit having a very online user base who don’t really want to give up on ready access to millions of other people who hang around on forums all day. Getting an entire community to uproot itself and go elsewhere is not easy. Our move took months of planning and I think we still lost somewhere between 40-60% of our active users.

This is why most such protests are met with deafening silence. They know that they have no real option to leave. They can turn the page black as long as they want, Conde Nast doesn’t care because once the users get bored they go back to posting and commenting as usual. It’s basic negotiation— if you can’t live without the product, then the other guy can do pretty much anything he wants. You will whine, but eventually you’ll go along.

It’s used quite often in conversation and even in marketing. It’s obviously a metaphor, but there’s really no equivalent for women. There’s no thought that being too into masculine things (like sports) makes you less of a woman, but there are numerous activities that men avoid for being too “feminine” and thus emasculating to consider. Art is a big one, and it’s almost assumed that any male who is into art is basically a sissy and probably gay on top of that. A woman never really has the same consideration. She can hunt deer, field dress it and drag it to camp secure in her womanhood. She can box and beat the crap out of people and still be seen as a woman. On the accomplishment side, a male would not be considered a man unless he had a reasonably high status job, his own place, and a non-junker car. He’s less than for that. A woman can have no job, no car, and live with mom and dad and still be seen as a woman. And on it goes. Men have to work to be man enough to be considered a man by other men and by women. If you fail, you’re stuck until you manage to leave and go accomplish masculinity.

So are women issued a woman card? Does such a concept even exist? Men are constantly worried about being “man enough,” yet again women don’t have to sweat it. If they have boobs, they are a woman, whether or not they accomplish anything, whether or not they have kids, whether or not they dress like women, etc. There is no woman card to issue, because unlike manhood, it’s not something you have to achieve.

History might well have a role as well. Jews have their entire history of being persecuted specifically for being Jews, and this obviously creates the solidarity, not just because you care about other Jews, but because history shows them that their survival depends on being aware of persecution of Jews because it will eventually come for them too.

Modern Christianity probably not. Most modern Christians are basically ecumenical believers— they believe that Christianity is true enough for them, but they don’t see Christianity as the one true faith, nor see themselves as christian before other group identities they happen to hold. That’s true today of Westernized Christianity, but there are times and places in history where this wasn’t the case. Orthdox, Traditional Catholics, and fundamentalist Christians are more likely to think this way, and more likely to see themselves as Christian before things like nationality.

What if you actually believe that the options are Christianity or Hell?

That said, if aren’t to some degree enforcing your values, they won’t take them seriously. Why should a kid believe that you really think pornography is bad if you don’t have any enforcement of rules against pornography? They won’t.

See I tend to see it in the opposite way. Men are not the default, as men have to earn the right to be seen as men. Women have to basically grow boobs and they’re women. Children are children by default as they are born as children and remain so until they become something else. If I have to achieve something to be considered a real man, then being a man is not the default.

I think in both cases you see the person not really wanting to grow up. They want to be the opposite gender in ways that don’t force them into adulthood.

My biggest negative on smartphones and tablets is how much everything on them is designed to be distracting. Like you don’t just dip into an app, it’s working hard to make you spend as much time as possible there instead of doing something else. It’s a hyper stimulating experience and im tired of looking around everywhere at people who think socializing means sitting in silence staring at separate screens and not talking or doing anything.

I mean sure, but most advice isn’t “just do the right things.” It’s generally at least something the person understands how to do. Work smarter, not harder is advice if you define or explain what that means. Setting a specific goal using SMART frameworks is good advice.

But assuming the advice is actually good advice as in useful to the person receiving it, a bigger problem is that the person doesn’t want to do the work, doesn’t want the grind, doesn’t want to miss out on fun to reach the goal. Quite often they blame the advice when it wasn’t bad advice so much as you made excuses for not doing it. I think there are plenty of things I could be getting better at, I know exactly what to do, but it’s just hard to follow through. And if I don’t, it doesn’t mean that the advice sucked. The advice is fine. The problem is me, and placing the blame in other places is not helpful.

There is no such thing as apolitical government data. He has an agenda, and I’d suggest finding it by looking at the types of data he’s highlighting, and especially any sorts of data he’s not highlighted. My suspicion is that he’s pushing a Trump-bad narrative by digging up data sets that make Trump look bad. If the GOP wanted to push a narrative through the data, they can simply put it on their various platforms and move along.

My sense of the thing is that a lot of advice fails due to the advice being hard to actually do. For example if I wanted to lose weight, the actual advice is the same for almost everyone: fork put downs. That’s it. If you want to lose weight, you have to eat less than you do now (for general health it’s also good to eat better foods and exercise). But of course this is hard to do. You have to resist the urge to eat, probably a lot. You have to be hungry at times. You probably are going t9 be working out a lot and thus be tired and have sore muscles. In short following the advice sucks. And if you’re busy it’s probably going to be hard to resist the drive thru on the way home, or easy to skip the gym. Is the advice wrong? Not really. But people have a hard time sticking to the “suck” until they make the habit stick.

The advice for school success, again, is pretty universal. You have to study, do lots of practice problems, read the textbook, write those papers, and in general apply your ass to chair and grind. It’s easy advice to give, and much like dieting, if you actually do it, you’ll see results. The problem, again is that doing that sucks. You can’t game as much if you’re studying and writing papers and doing practice problems. You miss out on parties. Maybe you can’t go on as many dates. Resisting those things is hard. Forcing yourself to work when you don’t feel like it is hard. And eventually most people fall off, maybe excusing a night or two for fun. Maybe not doing quite as much homework or researching just a little less. And most people won’t stick it out through the suck to get the results. Again, the advice isn’t the problem. It’s the person not sticking with the advice long enough to make a good habit and see results.

I mean I don’t think I’ve seen anyone in a position of power have concrete plans that they stuck to even at risk of losing. TBH, looking at how people in power actually behave, principles are not how you understand government. Principles and ideas are not end points, but tools to get power. And if you watch politics with such a thing in mind, outside of a few crazy true believers, you can probably figure out where the chips will fall with 80-90% accuracy.

I'd like to steelman the idea of prior authorization by rolling it into my own perspective that I've been trying to sustain over time.

The fundamental principle is that prices matter to patients. This statement simultaneously seems trivial and is also quite profound in context of the medical industry. There are doctors even here on The Motte who have sworn up and down that prices don't matter, but frankly, they're just wrong about this. This NYT piece reinforces this basic principle, though it does not state it quite so forthrightly.

That is, the story of the article is that, two days before the planned surgery, the author and his wife.

Price matters, but it’s really hard to put a price on survival. And even with transparency in pricing, there’s no way to know the difference between “cheaper but just as good” and “cheaper because it’s dangerously substandard care/medicine.” And it’s likewise difficult to tell when something that sounds trivial isn’t. It’s a lot of information asymmetry that the patient can have a really hard time understanding. And in some cases a high price can be taken for a sign of quality.

The difference is that China still believes it’s good and that it is capable and has a right to do things and claim the benefits of having done them. The West probably at least since the 1950s has been browbeaten into being a henpecked househusband hoping that by acting weak it can appease everyone else. Until the West believes in itself like China does, expect no large scale projects.

I mean other than that congress would get even less done with thousands of members? I think the size limit is needed simply because there’s no way that a 3000 member house is going to get any useful work done. 500 members is already pretty big, and the current congress hasn’t passed a proper budget in over a decade. Adding more people to the body isn’t going to fix the inertia.