@Nwallins's banner p

Nwallins

Finally updated my bookmark

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:17:52 UTC

				

User ID: 265

Nwallins

Finally updated my bookmark

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:17:52 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 265

There is an undying faction of TMA (traditional martial arts) which refers to BJJ as blowjob jujitsu or similar, as though some rhetorical win can possibly reverse the steamroller that modern MMA represents. Reassuringly, this faction gets smaller every year as the evidence rolls in.

Sure, but it takes the sting out of

this community in particular had egregious problems with this

When in fact it's a general problem and not particular to this community.

Small breweries in the US need to sell out as their exit strategy if they want growth, due to post-prohibition regulations that severely limit interstate distribution. They go from tiny to massive in a single step, and the scaling of their recipes, methods, and processes nearly always results in a decline of quality but with a presumable increase in consistency and quality control. They’re not “bad” for being sellouts; they’re typically worse for the drinker in small but noticeable ways.

Arnold Kling on SVB points out mark to market vs held to maturity.

When interest rates go up, the value of a portfolio of fixed-rate bonds or mortgages goes down. Roughly speaking, if the bank paid $100 to buy a long-term bond with an interest rate of 2-1/2%, and now the interest rate on a comparable bond is 5%, the bank’s bond is worth about $50.

The regulators should make you mark down the value of your assets to their current market value and force you to shore up your capital. They should make you stop paying dividends and executive bonuses, for one thing. You should not be allowed to make any more risky loans, because of the moral hazard: if the risk pays off, you return to profitability; if it goes badly, then the taxpayers take a bigger hit via the deposit insurance fund. You have an incentive to take desperate gambles.

If the bank is genuinely solvent on a mark-to-market basis, then any gambles it takes are with the shareholders’ money. Once it is insolvent on a mark-to-market basis (or “semi-insolvent” as Tyler put it), it is taking gambles with the deposit insurance fund’s money.

But instead of requiring banks to mark long-term bonds to market value, the regulators give banks a loophole. They say that if you have your bond in a “held to maturity” account, which means you do not intend to sell it, you can pretend that it is still worth $100.

Indeed, it is true that when the bond matures, say, in twenty years, you will get your $100 in principal. But in the meantime, the interest rate that you pay to depositors will have gone up. If you have to pay 4-1/2 percent interest and you get 2-1/2 percent interest on your bond , then you lose $2 per year. For twenty years. You will run out of capital and be busted before the bond matures. When people can see that coming, there will be a run on your bank, and you will be busted right away.

The “held to maturity” loophole blinds regulators to the true condition of the bank. It allows the bank to keep taking in short-term funds, with which it can then try desperate gambles where the losses are borne by the deposit insurance fund. That is what the S&Ls did back in the 1980s. It did not end well.

Would somebody shooting paintballs at you actually motivate you to get a job?

The paintballs are motivation to be homeless somewhere else. A local solution that is not masquerading as a global solution.

Only a decade ago the "multiple personality" thing was recognized as larping social contagion, and now it's back to being treated seriously?

Scott Alexander has written about this, I feel pretty certain. Tulpas (intentional creation of additional personality) and victims (unintentional multiple personalities) seem to be real phenomena, if rarer than claimed.

This jogged my memory of seeing roughly 20% of all solo drivers in cars masked up, throughout 2020 and into 2021. I can’t even.

Blame TheMattell

the Fed’s unprecedented rate hikes

Unprecedented, or unexpected? Even the softer version seems tough to defend. Were we going ZIRP forever?

FdB weighs in

The argument is that, because someone has enjoyed personal or professional success after a public shaming, therefore “cancel culture” does not exist. This is all somewhat confused by the vague boundaries of cancel culture - boundaries that are vague, I think, for the benefit of both the cancelers and the anti-cancelers. I think “a culture where social norms are enforced with repeated and vociferous public shaming” is the most useful way to define the term. Regardless, there’s a couple different kinds of weirdness here.

The first is a point that many people have made: the fact that someone has endured or recovered from the repercussions of public shaming does not mean that there are no repercussions or that those repercussions are fair. Additionally, we could add that the survival of any particular public figure after a public shaming does not necessarily mean that there isn’t a prevalent culture of public shaming.

Foreign policy is a thing, and Israel is one of the US' most steadfast allies outside of the Anglosphere and the #1 ally in the Middle East, modulo oil and weapons deals with the Saudis.

There is also the question of shared values. Liberal democracies are natural allies, unlike the rest of the Middle East.

It has very little to do with religion or ethnicity, IMHO.

Just some feedback as there are no replies here. There is a distinction between a wall of text and an effortpost, but it can be subtle. OP reads more like the latter, to its credit. But while I was nodding my head according to the first 5 paragraphs or so, I had an intense desire to "get to the point". While I understand the value of dripping out information and keeping the reader hooked and engaged, I found myself skipping ahead to try to find the thesis, or novel point being made.

I have a concrete suggestion: if it takes more than 5 paragraphs to "get to the point", then you're better off summarizing and defending, rather than buttressing and presenting.

To be clear, I guess I am delineating two different rhetoric styles: buttress and present, where by the time the point is presented, it's basically a foregone conclusion; and summarize and defend, whereby the point is not hidden til the last minute but is instead presented early, allowing the reader to grapple with it, and then defended later by the author.

Both styles have their places.

I'd strongly suspect there is a prison pipeline that feeds "Aryan Nation" type ideology, and these types do buy into it.

Where are the creative songbirds of thought and word who would transcend this opposition and maybe get both sides to become aware that both are equally stuck in the human condition?

Joe Rogan, maybe? Jordan Peterson, less so.

Maybe the programmers with anime profile pics are the inauthentic fakers?

Seriously. My top 3-5 lady programmers were all AMAB. Patriarchy?

Criticism accepted. I completely revised the post. Less than ideal, I agree.

Eh, I don’t think the homeless actually represent any sort of voting bloc. And in representative democracy, wealthy landowners with local business ties and tons of skin in the game curry way more favor with politicians than those with nothing to lose.

If the politicians desire to turn a nice city into an indigent shithole, then I suppose that’s what they will have when people of means vote with their feet. See also, Detroit.

Isn't this just openAI's RLHF working as intended?

Perhaps, if you are cynical. I think that, faced with Rozado's findings, they would try to correct the bias. Open question: when judging an individual by its group characteristics or membership, assuming that unbiased is not an option, is it better to exhibit implicit bias or explicit bias?

Eh, what about carbon monoxide poisoning, or nitrogen narcosis, or enough morphine to kill a large horse? Or heck, how about general anesthesia followed by a severing of the carotid?

Have we really not figured out how to reliably get a human to go to sleep and never wake up?

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next 5 days. Number one, Israel expects Hamas to violate the the ceasefire, per usual. Of course this suggests a false flag attack as well, where Israel stages a pretext for a retaliatory response. I expect that Hamas accepts the cease-fire posture at the top, but there may be provocations and skirmishes at low levels originating on both sides. I doubt we will get to the first 5 days without a major violation or conflict.

Prediction: 5 day ceasefire is honored by both sides, as judged by lack of hostilities or contention by the end of the period: 50%

This includes a successful hostage exchange. I expect there to be minor quibbles and contention. But we should know, broadly and deeply, whether each side is reasonably satisfied.

If the first 5 days go acceptably for both sides, the next 5 are likely to as well.

Prediction: 10 days of ceasefire and hostage exchanges are "successful" (not without hurdles and reversals): 10%

Again, are both sides reasonably satisfied?

The cost of enforcing zero bike theft is generally higher than allowing a few thefts.

the almost certainly true idea that it requires far less innate talent to be a straight-A/high SAT asian student from Palo Alto than it does to be a straight-A/high SAT black student from Detroit,

This doesn't seem obvious, unless you are having innate talent do the heavy lifting. What do you mean by innate talent, and is there any evidence for your claim?

In the 60s, Marvin Minsky assigned a couple of undergrads to spend the summer programming a computer to use a camera to identify objects in a scene. He figured they'd have the problem solved by the end of the summer. Half a century later, we're still working on it.

Have you seen e.g. https://segment-anything.com/

Yes, I don’t understand quite what Trace means by “the cultivation of more intellectually serious humanities and social sciences departments”. Cultivation sounds like grassroots, bottom up. Conservatives certainly can’t improve the intellectual seriousness of these departments from the top down. I’d say that’s a bigger responsibility, for those in charge.

So what can conservatives do for cultivation? Hillsdale and GMU, I guess. But aren’t they already doing this? What’s the actual prescription here?

Cancel culture regards the intent and attempt to end one’s career, reputation, and livelihood. Just like we did to the Nazis. It’s very real and very alive. That some Nazis escaped to South America does not change the Allies’ intent and attempt to hold them accountable.

What is risible is for ordinary people to try to give other ordinary people the Nazi treatment. Before social media, CK may have run into some small-time, inside baseball sanctions. Maybe FX and HBO get wind of allegations and fail to renew his hit series. And if the CK infractions are truly egregious and criminal, then maybe there is mainstream media coverage. But I believe the whispers here both started and were amplified by social media before mainstream media ran with it.