MathWizard
Good things are good
No bio...
User ID: 164
MathWizard
Good things are good
1d ago
Is this a thing for everyone? Because I have also observed this.
My guess is that it's the thing you do where it's late and night and your mind starts wandering about all sorts of heavy topics: plans, ideas, memeories, past arguments, regrets, etc. And women just have to say it out loud right then and there because that's when they thought about it.
MathWizard
Good things are good
3d ago
I would still consider a scenario that's like 90% socialist with 10% capitalist hack to be socialist, just like I'd consider a scenario that's 90% capitalist with 10% socialist hack (like universal healthcare) to be capitalist. I'd still consider a long-term successful example of that to be pretty surprising.
Unless it's like post-singularity with some genius AI overlord who can simultaneously solve the economy, efficiently produce tons of resources, and doesn't need much human labor so can just distribute them without much concern for proper incentive structures. But I'd expect such an AI to also be able to solve capitalism's problems and create libertarian capitalist utopia too. For now, when dealing with humans, you need the signalling mechanisms.
MathWizard
Good things are good
4d ago
Capitalism tends to produce more efficient/powerful/good outcomes than Socialism.
I can imagine a world filled with rational and/or kind-hearted beings who were able to cooperate together efficiently under a socialist system and share things with a lot less deadweight loss than a capitalist system where people keep trying to exploit each other for profit. I just don't think that's the world we live in, I don't think that's the kind of species we are. Capitalism's greatest strength is its robustness. It can take selfishness and wastefulness and corruption and theft and stupidity, and it automatically pushes back and has individual pieces break without destroying the greater structure, so it can evolve and become stronger. Negative feedback loops instead of positive feedback. Socialism allows corruption to fester and grow like a cancer. At least, that's the world I think we live in. If that were to not be the case and whatever excuses socialists make about why it's always failed were actually true it would change a lot of my beliefs about economics, politics, and human nature.
MathWizard
Good things are good
5d ago
The trial judge rejects the defendant's argument. In this case, defendant actively engaged in a fistfight with the officers, showing that he indeed was willing to carry out his threats to harm them. The trial judge imposes a total sentence of four years (with the possibility of parole after two years) for the two threats. The appeals panel affirms.
This creeps me out. The idea that he doesn't get in trouble at all for attacking people (which he did), but he does get in trouble for "terroristic threats" (I would not consider threats against a specific person to be "terroristic"), and the guilt is proven by the fact that he did attack people (even though he was acquitted of this).
Is this simply that the criteria for "assault" are strict and he didn't quite meet all the criteria? Because what this looks like to me is an ad-hoc "we think he should get a little bit of jail time but not a lot, so let's just convict him of something that carries a smaller penalty than assault." and abusing the law to get that outcome. Because in what world do you prioritize punishing words over actions?
MathWizard
Good things are good
5d ago
The treaty influences the interests that a power thinks it has. And the domestic and international support it gets. If Turkey suddenly starts bombing Libya with normal combs, the U.S. might not get involved. If Turkey suddenly starts gassing them with chemical weapons then the U.S. might get up in their face about it and either attack them or provide defense to Libya (possibly in exchange for concessions). It would have no bearing on the actual strategic value to us of invading Turkey or defending Libya, but politicians care about getting re-elected, and telling people "we helped defeat the evil chemical weapon users" sells a lot better than "we picked a side in a war".
Power is ultimately derived from strength. But power that does not move does not count, and treaties are an excuse to move for anyone who already wanted to but lacked a sufficiently official reason.
MathWizard
Good things are good
8d ago
Sure. But then the second graph demonstrates the sensitivity of the model to this assumption. This turns out to be a critical assumption that heavily influences the results, at least the part of the results we care about. Therefore any conclusions/morals/takeaways need to emphasize this caveat.
MathWizard
Good things are good
9d ago
Here’s another graph where the benefit of other people caps out at 50% of them going outside. The situation is much better! Your couch can be pretty great before the activity starts seriously dying off. But again, just like before, once it reaches that critical threshold, average happiness gets worse for a bit before it gets better again in the world of only shut-ins.
[Insert Graph that looks barely at all like the first one]
So the moral of the story is, to avoid isolation and depression, move to a big city, pick popular hobbies, and if someone asks you to go caroling this Christmas, go even if you don’t want to, because it will make the experience better for everyone else.
I was with you up until this conclusion. How on Earth do you look at that second graph and draw that moral from it. The existence of a tiny window where happiness is a decreasing function while being increasing in the vast majority of space suggests that the moral for the second set of parameters is "we should prioritize making indoor activities more fun because in almost all cases it increases happiness. Also we shouldn't pressure introverts to participate in social activities because they're clearly enjoying themselves more via their revealed preferences."
We get very different conclusions for the first and second set of parameters if we're being honest instead of using motivated reasoning based on a pre-supposed moral. The actual moral for the overall model should probably be something like "this deadweight loss phenomenon appears under some model parameters but not others, so the applicability of this to the real world depends a lot on the circumstances and we need to measure and investigate further to determine which world we live in, but it's an interesting possibility especially in less crowded spaces such as rural areas."
MathWizard
Good things are good
10d ago
A more charitable read would be that by blithely denying the label and then agreeing dismissively and moving on he demonstrates a level of disdain/apathy for the label. He doesn't care whether he technically meets the dictionary definition of the word "racist". It's a word. He cares about [crime statistics] and object level concerns. Having the confidence to take one for the team and say "if you're going to derail the object level debate and go on some unimportant tangent about whether I'm a "racist" then fine, I'll let you win this point, since I don't expect any of my audience to care anyway, so we can move on to something worth talking about."
He's not taking it seriously, but in 2025 taking a debate about whether someone is "racist" or not seriously is pointless. Everyone just uses it to mean people they don't like. I would argue that Morgan defected first by bringing it up in the first place, so a sarcastic dismissive reply to that particular point and then a transition back to something that actually matters is an appropriate debate tactic that doesn't make me trust him less.
MathWizard
Good things are good
22d ago
This is a really bad take. It's trivial to conceive of a preference ordering consistent with any standard, being:
-
Having a partner who adheres to X standards
-
Having no partner
-
Having a partner who does not adhere to X standards.
As a typical example for non-strict standards, consider X = "does not regularly smear shit on themselves". Most people would rather die alone than live their life with a shit-smearing partner, but still would like a partner in general as long as they can find one that meets their standards. If these standards are stricter then they're making a larger trade-off: stricter standards are going to drastically lower the probability of finding someone who meets them, but presumably increases the value of finding such a partner.
So if they have a strict set of criteria and stick to it anyway despite knowing it reduces their chances, it means their preference for those standards is stronger than their preference for having any partner, which is nonzero evidence that their preference for a partner is small, but it's absurd to extrapolate from that to concluding that their preference for a partner is negative. That scaring off most potential partners is actually the goal rather than an unfortunate side effect. If that were the case they could just call themselves asexual and not mention standards at all.
Small non-negative numbers exist.
MathWizard
Good things are good
25d ago
If you pay each employee a generous $100k/yr then you can easily do that with 1/3 of your money. I'm not able to easily verify prices, but AI suggests that the apartment or house would be somewhere around 30k-100k per month which... on the lower end would eat up a large chunk of your money, but is still in the right ballpark and order of magnitude, so you could probably afford one but not both.
Inflation is not uniform. And land in particular is especially resistant to technological improvement, so it makes sense that its relative price has increased much more (as population grows) than most other things. Meanwhile stuff like super fancy technology is much cheaper than the equivalent in the 1950s, and those all averaged together produce the effective inflation rate. So the modern version would give you have a smaller house but with fancier computers and smart technology, which is either better or worse depending on your preferences, but should average out to about the same.
Or, another way of thinking about it is that the $1.1M person is less rich today compared to everyone else than the $100k 1959 person would be, but in a world with cheaper and more plentiful goods and services their purchasing power is similar (greater among goods and services which have gotten much cheaper, but lesser among things that haven't because they're not actually as rich as the 1959 person)
MathWizard
Good things are good
25d ago
Is that relevant?
That's not how inflation works. Inflation has already taken that into consideration. $100k in 1959 would be the equivalent of $1.1 M today. If that's your annual salary, you could be hiring maids to drive to the grocery story and do your shopping for you, personal chefs to make whatever you want out of whatever recipe cookbooks you got for them, foreign or domestic, and delivery drivers to do your shopping while you sit in your home cinema.
Yes, you wouldn't have smartphones or modern medicine, but you'd have the best things available to anyone at the time. This is a bad thought experiment comparing middle class now to middle class 1950s. The entire point is that you would not be middle class, you would be rich. Why would a rich person have a little TV set with a fuzzy picture?
Yes, I would rather be rich now than rich then, if I could choose between $1.1 M now or $100k in 1959. But that's not what he said.
It seems obvious to me that whatever default/inherent level of humiliation a minor engaging in vanilla sexual activity on camera entails is what laws against child pornography are already designed to punish. It is with very high probability some level of humiliating/traumatizing, especially in the "minutes, hours, or days following the sexual misconduct depicted in the material". That's what the 14-18 years are for. That's a harsh punishment for a nasty crime. The enhancement is for people who are coercing them into sadomasochistic things that cause additional pain or humiliation and make the crime even worse than usual: a special subset of child porn. Not "masturbation". In no world would anyone describe "masturbation with a marker" as "sadomasochistic". If that was not a child, nobody would blink an eye. It is a child, so we should punish it according to the normal laws for "normal" child porn, in-so-far as it's vanilla sexual behavior and the the person's age is the only reason to notice at all.
I don't do this. I save my nighttime thoughts for later when/if it's an appropriate time/place to say them out loud, if they're worth saying out loud at all. I guess I only have a very small number of data points to work with, but I'm also extrapolating from the general stereotype of men being more stoic.
More options
Context Copy link