@RandomRanger's banner p

RandomRanger

Just build nuclear plants!

4 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 05 00:46:54 UTC

				

User ID: 317

RandomRanger

Just build nuclear plants!

4 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 05 00:46:54 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 317

he realized that the most common use of prediction markets is negative-sum sports gambling

How is that a harm of prediction markets, as opposed to just normal gambling? People have been gambling for thousands of years, they're not going to stop now. This is an innate part of the human condition. How much wealth has been squandered by 'people buying crap they don't need' syndrome? A good chunk of world GDP is wasted from that angle, people go bankrupt and suffer tremendously because of this. But we don't shut down capitalism because people lack self-control.

Nearly three-quarters of Americans (74%) say they have an overspending problem, with 1 in 6 (16%) saying their spending has ruined their lives. Meanwhile, a third of consumers (33%) revealed they’ve made a purchase they knew they couldn’t afford in the past year.

Even accounting for these statistics being fudged to draw headlines, that's still pretty high. Consider storage too, that's apparently a $40 billion market in the US, storing crap that they probably don't need and can't even fit in their houses! People need to learn to accept a reasonable level of responsibility for their actions.

The solution to sports gambling being bad is to just ban it, ban Ladbrokes and whatever else that it's being done with. That will reduce the problem. But we shouldn't pretend that this is in any way new or a problem with prediction markets. The issue is with stupid and weakwilled people being stupid and weak-willed. They'll find some other way to be stupid and weakwilled, abuse different financial products or mobile games. Also, there is an issue with unclear and inconsistent gambling regulation.

"Man who already believed in a conspiracy 100% discovers he can believe in a conspiracy even more than thought possible"

Seems very suss: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epstein-files-jail-cell-death-video-logs/

Investigators also questioned Noel about an unexplained change in the recorded number of inmates in the SHU, which appeared to drop from 73 to 72 sometime between 10 p.m. and 3 a.m. Noel said she was "probably" mistaken about the discrepancy and told investigators she had no memory of a count changing.

Thomas and Noel failed to complete inmate counts at 3 a.m., and 5 a.m. as well as mandatory 30-minute wellness checks of Epstein. Investigators speculated the officers may have fallen asleep.

Official reports state that Epstein died by suicide some time before 6:30 a.m., when his body was discovered by a corrections officer delivering his breakfast. No official time of death was ever determined. In recent months, there have been questions about the work of investigators probing the circumstances of his death.

They couldn't even find the noose he 'killed himself' with.

Thomas told investigators he discovered Epstein in his cell shortly after 6:30 a.m. on Aug.10 and that he "ripped" Epstein down from the hanging position.

Investigators asked what happened to the noose.

"I don't recall taking the noose off. I really don't," he replied. "I don't recall taking the thing from around his neck."

Noel, who remained standing at the cell entrance, told investigators she saw Thomas lower Epstein to the floor but did not see a noose around his neck.

The noose Epstein allegedly used has never been definitively identified. According to the inspector general's report, a noose collected at the scene was later determined not to be the ligature used in Epstein's death.

Well we have examples of nations correcting their demographics. Algeria for example got rid of all the French there. For about a century the Algerians were getting crushed by France but they still believed in their national destiny. Facing a weakened France in a changed international environment, succeeded.

Christianity is a different matter. I think people no longer truly believe in Christianity, at least not in the West. Some deeply believe in MAGA, white supremacy, progressivism, Zionism, Islamism, Chinese nationalism... Who deeply believes in Christ? Who is ready to fight and die for Christ? What countries are there recently that get less and less Christian, then suddenly more Christian? The US Christian revival I guess... But that looks like a brief reversal in the long-term trend.

Well, how effective do you think Christianity has been thus far in combatting pornography?

https://www.christianitytoday.com/2024/09/pornography-use-christians-study-barna-research-pure-desire-ministries/

In the church, pastors are now more likely report a personal history of porn use (67% versus 57% nine years ago). Nearly 1 in 5 pastors say they currently struggle with porn. And among Christians who have attended services within the last month, more than half say they view pornography at least occasionally.

Christianity is nothing if not diverse. I'm guessing you think 'gay marriage' is morally evil as an objectively true statement too, I don't disagree. But, according to polling, 55% of US Christians support gay marriage. That's not merely a sin but actively going against doctrine. Other countries may vary, I pick America because it's the biggest nominally Christian country.

I don't think they're real Christians, gay marriage is not accepted under Christian doctrine. Presumably they don't think you're a real Christian (oh he missed all the stuff about tolerance and niceness and not judging).

An end which you coincidentally don't state anywhere

I was pretty clear about all the things I think Christianity is against. I could list all the things I think it's for. You seem to agree with me about pornography being against Christianity. I don't see much disagreement between us on Christian doctrine.

But I think, since Christianity is visibly ineffective, it can't be the solution to the real problems in the world. If you think porn is objectively wrong, then what do you think about these pastors? What does that lead you to believe about Christianity in the world today?

you're sneaking in an assumption that Christianity exists as a system to reduce the absolute amount of "sin" in the world

Yes, it is? Christians are supposed to be against sin. They didn't bitch and whine when the Arabs blocked pilgrimage routes, they went on Crusade and fought hard to correct this. They forcibly converted the Baltics.

Christians of the past truly believed in their doctrine. They made enormous investments in church buildings back in a time of poverty. They fought immensely bloody wars over doctrine. The Pope's spiritual power made him a huge political player. Show a Carolean or one of Cromwell's soldiers 'Piss Christ' and he'd go on a rampage with pike and sabre.

Based Catholic Authoritarian State is unfeasible now and in 1900. But Ultra Based, Ultra Catholic/Protestant Authoritarian State used to be normal, so normal people didn't even write about it. That was just the expected context of society. Of course you brutally suppress heretics (nevermind Muhammedans, even if you've disgraced yourself you can still go to Austria and kill the Turk!). Of course people might be lynched for atheism or profaning the name of God. That was just common sense.

People now cannot even imagine Anglican death squads moving out to crush Presbyterians, most can scarcely even discern the difference between the two. The majority of Christians wouldn't even countenance the mildest expressions of their ostensible faith or doctrine if it goes against Progressive Doctrine. 55% of US Christians are fine with gay marriage, apparently. 'Extremists' today can get arrested for peacefully protesting or just standing menacingly outside an abortion clinic. Piss Christ gets lots of internet discourse and no bloody torturous executions.

That is how things have changed.

My thesis is that 'trad-cath society' was not on the menu in 1900 and still less so in 2026. Whereas Chesterton seems to be saying 'what we need is more Christianity, more Catholicism' when the clear trend is in the other direction, when Catholicism and Christianity is in an absolutely pathetic state in the Western world. If the brakes have failed, jamming your foot on the brakes harder and harder isn't going to do anything.

I mean just look at the world as it is today, Christian doctrine exists in a wholly different reality to what's actually happening in the world. The amount of pornography, sloth, pride, greed, sodomy, promiscuity, children outside of wedlock, profanity, bestiality, saturday trading, materialism, abortion (on a mega-scale and with state sanction/subsidy in many places) is just staggering. How much usury is there? We have oceans of usury, usury so advanced and sophisticated that they wouldn't even have language to describe how usurious it is.

Catholicism has clearly failed if its doctrine is totally ignored and routinely flouted except where Progressives find utility in wearing it like a skinsuit.

What Chesterton needed to do is examine why his proposed solution, despite over 1000 years of Christianity in many places, despite immense piety and crusading and pretty cathedrals, did not actually succeed in getting and maintaining the society he wants. Time moved against it. It's no longer practical to look thousands of years back into the past for guidance.

Just today we have yet more revelations of 'trad-cath' egirls behaving badly, Sarah Stock and Elijah Schaffer. The whole thing is a performative joke, it cannot be implemented in our modern society at scale.

Same with Tolkein's anti-industrialism. Sounds good, doesn't work. Not a real option.

I wish Chesterton and Tolkein and others could actually see the world of today... What would they then think about the plausibility of their ideas?

Yes, they preferred high-IQ trad-Cath noblesse oblige high society to capitalist mass democracy (Tolkien labelled it Americanism), Nazism, Bolshevism...

But it turns out that high-IQ trad-Cath noblesse oblige high society was not on the menu. It is not served by the chef. It is dead in a ditch.

19th century romantic ideals are not actionable in the industrial age, let alone the internet age. They didn't get defeated on the battlefield, it's not a case of 'damn, we were so close to just loving our families and being good wholesome people in a fine society of freedom and justice and all good things but then the Red Chinese invaded and forcibly made us use Tinder, forcibly taught us about the Kardashians, forcibly aborted more children since 1970 than all those who died in the history of warfare, forcibly made The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power'. That didn't happen, these old ideals could not manage with modernity.

The operating structure of our society and technology led us here. Wind back to the 19th century and we just get here again, faster if anything. The old system was clearly unstable, that's why it isn't around anymore.

Also I think it's no good to criticize others for 'cowering from modern complexity' while hoping that modernity goes away:

"In the break-up of the modern world, the Family will stand out stark and strong as it did before the beginning of history."

The modern world is going to break up? How? Peak oil? The fertility crash? Dysgenics? Climate change?

The better option is working in modernity, enjoying the good parts while avoiding the bad parts. Yes, I don't want to work in subsistence agriculture for my whole life. No, I don't want to work a pretend job shuffling paper around either.

Modern problems require modern solutions. We have these huge government apparatuses, they need to be made efficient and aligned to national goals. We have these huge industrial-technological companies, they need to be aligned better to public benefit rather than solely private self-interest (they need to do more and better worker training and long term investment for a start, don't take me for a socialist). We have the welfare state, it needs to avoid perverse incentives or dysgenically taxing the productive to shelter and multiply the unproductive. We have the internet, we need to make better use of it so people aren't watching short form video all day. We have AI, it needs to be aligned better, not least it needs to stop weighting white lives as a small fraction of black lives.

We will shortly have mass cloning, genetic manipulation, human-like robots. What then for the Family? Modernity has already pretty clearly wrecked the Family, what if it goes straight for the finishing blow?

Furthermore, I don't think that MAGA are 'nihilists'. They clearly believe that something matters! They might be uncouth or unsophisticated, even harsh or mean. But how else are you supposed to manage these tricky issues, mass migration being one they're most interested in? This is the age of fast travel. That isn't just going to go away. These issues need to be wrestled with rather than merely bemoaned like Chesterton does so eloquently. He seems to be of the 'if everyone would just...' school of thought. Nobody has ever 'just' and they're certainly not going to start now.

PS, I was just looking through various essays and it's funny how decidedly anti-Nazi conservative intellectuals of the 1930s basically sounded like Nazis in the early 1920s. Here he makes snide remarks about the Jewish element influencing the British empire and Jews running the Bolsheviks: https://americanliterature.com/author/gk-chesterton/essay/wells-and-the-world-state

Churchill even complains about Judeo-Bolshevism in his article 'Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People'

I think @RandomRanger had a similar comment that I am struggling to find (although, to be fair, it was pointed out that Ranger was using copilot which is a known dumpster fire).

I thought I was pretty far out on the 'singularity soon' wing of this website? In my experience AI is quite good for writing code, whether that's CRUD or more interesting code like pathfinding or O(n) tier operations or even writing out procedurally generated shaders and effects.

Not perfect, it does struggle and choke a bit right now on the more advanced or fiddly things... But what happens when it starts directing a 1000 subagents to attack your million line monstrosity of legacy code? What happens when it can error-test better?

There's an interesting contrasting series one could draw.

  1. Racial intelligence gaps are probably just real, as seen from all the IQ tests of different racial groups, the distribution of Nobels and technical achievement across the nations
  2. Even if they were not real and the gap in performance is due to culture, then much the same conclusions should be drawn (do not bring in people from low performing cultures - or commit to authoritarian mass-scale re-education and indoctrination programs to get them up to speed)
  3. If there is no biological or cultural effect on intelligence/achievement and it's just racism, then maybe white countries should just accept they're incurably racist since, somehow, their ambient racism field is still suppressing the achievement of POCs despite all these expensive affirmative action and DEI efforts. Perhaps oil and water just don't mix and they should be kept far away to minimize the effect... Or maybe 10x more money and effort needs to be spent on DEI? $1.2 Trillion wasn't enough, what about $20 trillion to sub-saharan Africa? Could the ambient racism field be tapped for power, how is it so effective at inducing dysfunction in blacks, even over long distances, even after great spans of time since whites had any influence? Is the racism field defending itself by getting Trump and other populists installed, is it too deep to root out?
  4. Maybe the only solution is genocide, to get rid of the ambient racism field?

I know this sounds sarcastic and dumb but if you take the premises and run with them under utilitarian human-dignity logic, that's where you end up. If white genocide raises world happiness by destroying the racism field and thus raising more black and brown bodies to high standards of living and achievement, isn't that then good? Revolutionaries in the 1960s debated this, some proposed the necessity of killing white babies to stop them growing up to continue the oppressive racist-capitalist system.

On the other hand, it would be much easier for the people with all the H-bombs and MIRV'd ICBMs to do the genociding... Or a transhumanist fix nowadays, I suppose. What does it even mean to make someone smarter and more capable with a transhumanist fix, is this ego-death, overwriting a personality, overwriting a whole racial group?

The exact mechanics of the racism field deserve much more study. This is an extremely important effect, if it's a real thing. Spooky action at a distance, across vast spans of time, very potent effect! And it seems to only 'work' when white people do it - Ottoman and Algerian slave-raiding and Japanese conquest/genocide doesn't seem to have the same effect white racism has on black and brown communities.

If the ambient racism field is just made up, then those who've been promoting and proposing the theory should be treated very seriously. After all, they would have overseen and promoted the waste of tens trillions of dollars, the misallocation and the miseducation of hundreds of millions based on a lie.