@RenOS's banner p

RenOS

I cope, therefore I seethe

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 January 06 09:29:25 UTC

				

User ID: 2051

RenOS

I cope, therefore I seethe

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2023 January 06 09:29:25 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2051

My expectation at this stage is that no one actually challenges, and Biden is coronated. Taking him on is a highly risky option - if you fail and Biden loses some people will blame you for the loss, potentially killing your future prospects. If you take him on and he wins that's even worse - now the President has a very personal grudge against you.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the american system, but rebelling at the convention does not actually directly impact Biden's chances at the general election, right? At most indirectly since it makes the democrats look chaotic.

But the popular impression & even the mainstream media is sufficiently critical of Biden at this point that I think there is a good chance that if someone already sympathetic challenges Biden, and Biden wins the convention anyway, but then proceeds to lose the general election, that person will get a large boost in popularity and media pieces about "if only so-and-so had won the convention, everything would have been different". It might even be better for the person than winning the convention outright, since no potential democratic nominee has a >50% chance of beating trump. Better make a good impression now and then fight against someone else in the next election.

Even assuming that DC is so well recorded that it is almost impossible to not notice, it doesn't need to outright be an op. It can simply be someone inconvenient for whatever story the CIA wants to push. Which in this case would probably mean somebody who is openly and obviously anti-trump. But again, that would just be damning in a different way.

I agree one could have seen the signs from the start, but it was easy to tolerate or even join in the sneering since many of the early targets were simultaneously ridiculous and unsympathetic, like scientology.

He didn't say that evil is the goal, merely that he did it deliberately. As in, the kind of person who knowingly dumps poison in the river if it's not punished, as opposed to the person who is just running their plant so incompetently that they can't stop polluting everything even if they don't want to. As you may guess, I'd prefer the former, since he can be persuaded to change his way, while the latter is incapable of doing so.

Imo history has vindicated him; The advent of meritocracy, which often only cared about morality insofar as the person can be relied upon not to work against the interests of the employer, caused a major speed-up of progress. Greed used to be seen as a vice that needs to be reigned in, but through capitalism we managed to channel it into productivity instead.

I don't necessarily think we should entirely ignore morality, but combining competence with good incentives leads more reliably to good results.

Huh, you're clearly more knowledgeable about bees than I am. The queen suppressing the workers' reproduction with scent reminds of an argument I've heard; That, while the gay uncle hypothesis doesn't make evolutionary sense for the gay uncle himself, it does make sense for his siblings. Meaning, effectively castrating your brother so that he has to invest into your offspring is a viable strategy. It wasn't a very popular argument, however.

No, worker bees are sterile and afaik share half the genome of the queen, so serving the queen is in their direct "genetic interest". This is classic kin selection.

They do now? Nice, didn't know that.

People really, really like the idea of group selection but from an evolutionary perspective, it just doesn't seem to work out. People have tried it to model it, but it always ends up collapsing. The problem is precisely the "weeding out free-riders and the hidden sociopathic". Kin-selection does so automatically, since if you're cooperative, your relatives tend to be as well and if not vice versa. Furthermore, clan structures can and do weed out free-riders directly as well.

Btw, this does not mean that free association and broad cooperation is impossible long-term; It just means that you need to structure it in a reciprocal way so that everyone benefits.

I really hate these. One half is specific to a tiny cultural niche of elites, the other half is more about the author propagating an image of themselves than about actual advice. General good advice is a rounding error.

Some examples:

Eat beforehand. You aren’t distracted about what’s being served or chasing down a tray of mini hot dogs, letting you focus on the most important thing: connecting with people.

No. If food is served, it's rude to eat beforehand. Also very wasteful behaviour, the host feels obligated to set up enough for everyone, the guests don't eat and at the end it gets thrown out.I know this is what cultural elites behave like, but normal people do not and it's a good thing.

Please don’t ask people to take off their shoes when entering your apartment. It’s rude.

Where I'm from it's the polar opposite. You don't even need to ask, everyone ALWAYS takes their shoes off and if not it's considered quite rude unless they stay in the hallway. Not everyone gets to have a job where they only move through clean spaces and/or can pay maids to clean after them.

If you’re going to go, go. Do not plan to leave the party early. If you have to leave early, I say do not come.

This just screams "Either we do it my way or not at all." It's the mindset of someone who is so popular that they can confidently tell people to fuck off for flimsy reasons and still be confident that there'll be a line waiting behind them. No, it's perfectly normal to have multiple obligations and to compromise between them.

There is multiple popular theories under which it makes sense. The simplest and most common on the left is that trans is real, but there is no reliable way to detect it except through introspection by the person itself. And introspection is hard, and even harder if you're young, so it's better to set up at least some safeguards to make sure that people really get to think things through. This is also why there used to be rules like "try to life like a woman for 3 years and if you still like it, we can talk about that bottom surgery". In fact this used to be the dominant theory, and it's a pity that it got replaced by the current insanity, even though I don't entirely agree with it either it's just much, much less destructive.

Unfortunately "low functioning" has become a bit of a no-no term, everyone is either "high functioning" or just has autism (which still includes plenty of "medium functioning"). There's a few newish papers using the term, but most are older, and none are about what we are interested in.

But as usual in science, you can read between the lines. Generally speaking, autism is nowadays considered a continuous range of impairment, literally called ASD (autism spectrum disorder). One of the more popular ways to measure it is the social responsiveness score (SRS), which is then transformed into the SRS T-score (corrected for age, gender etc. similar to how IQ isn't just a raw test score but normed to 100). The T-score is normed to 50 with an SD of 10, so 60- is normal, 60+ mild, 65+ medium, 75+ severe. There's also quite a few other measures, but understanding at least one makes reading the papers a lot easier.

I'd say the closest to what you want to know is the heritability of these quantitative traits (1,2). TL;DR: the SRS T-score is moderately to highly heritable, in fact most measures of ASD severity are. In particular, I'm a big fan of monozygotic vs dizygotic twin comparisons since they sidestep many of the usual complaints, which in this case leads to a high heritability estimate of ~56-95%. There's a few other concepts you can take a look at, such as familial risk (which often don't include a measure of severity, only an ASD yes/no which is imo outdated at this point) or autism prs scores, but the results are mostly consistent between them.

So, in short, your children will most likely have an autism level similar to your own, with maybe a slight correction towards the mean and with a significant variance. Which necessarily implies a substantially increased chance of severe outcomes given the continuous nature of the disease. Exact numbers are difficult to give without knowing more, sorry. But chances of 10% and upwards, depending on where you make the cutoff of what you consider sufficiently problematic, aren't implausible.


On a sidenote, my favorite approach is measuring the degree of relatedness between siblings (for those that don't know, siblings, unlike parent-offspring pair which always get almost exactly 50% of each parent, can in theory range from 0-100% in genetic relatedness depending on which part of the parent's genome they get, though in practice it's a normal distribution around 50%) and then measuring the heritability based on that. Since this is doable for the majority of society, it further sidesteps some complaints about twin and/or adoption studies such as non-generalisability or different treatment between obviously different siblings.

Imo his handle is a bit too on the nose for his posting habits. This forum is primarily filled with incorrigible contrarians soapboxing about everything that is wrong, so with his stated views he does end up constantly posting that, well, everything is fine.

Its different with your own kids imo and you learn to deal with it. I used to be pretty awkward and easily annoyed around kids, nowadays I can spend hours even with other kids.

Also, you should simply keep them active. Most times when kids talk that much they aren't outside enough. And you can tell your kid to shut up once in a while, it's just that modern parents are absolute doormats way too often. But they're not gonna sit still, you need some activity for them to engage in, ideally you have some default things that you worked out together. For example, our daughter is three and on weekends if she wakes up earlier than us, if we tell her sternly that she can either come cuddle or do her own thing, but we will not get up earlier than ~8, she will just go to her art corner in the living room and draw things, or go to her toy kitchen and pretend-make coffee and so on.

In general my experience with having kids that things that I thought would be a problem weren't, and the problems were things that I wasn't aware of beforehand.

This is pretty much my life already tbh. Our district is literally called "university district" and the demographics are exactly what you would expect, we have a giant park in front of us that is overall very clean and has multiple nice playgrounds, my "commute" is <10 mins (by bike) to my daughter's daycare and <5 mins (by foot) to my work. We live in an historic city with a beautiful old town center that we can visit in less than 30 mins (by bike, again).

The pay admittedly isn't great for our level of education but still far above average and easily enough to get by with a family. There is a minor crime issue, mostly stealing bikes.

Imo, SPN was at its strongest in the first two seasons, when it was 90% episodic monster and 10% overarching season storyline. Kripke also said himself that he originally intended for the show to be only three seasons. My personal impression was that the Azazel storyline (the first two seasons) fit with the design of the show in general (in a show about hunting down monsters, hunting down a more powerful monster makes sense) and seemed clearly intended from the beginning, the Lilith storyline ( third and fourth season) already felt tacked-on and increasing scope clearly strained their resources as you said, and the Lucifer storyline (fifth season) was just the same problems, but moreso. He also did several bait-and-switches already (SAM IS DEAD! Lol nope he isn't DEAN IS IN HELL! lol nope he's back on earth).

Every season after that was just repeating the mistakes that Kripke had already committed. Kripke also still stayed on the show as an consultant for the entire runtime, and being the orginal creator I don't believe that he didn't give his blessing for the garbage that was to come.

First season was fine, but the writing was already on the wall by the end of it. Didn't even bother with the second season and don't have the impression I missed anything.

Kripke is also just not a good writer for anything but short episodic monster-of-the-week style shows with black/white morality - see Supernatural. Almost all the overarching storylines were awful and contrived. He can do some decent character work, but it's always obvious whether a character is supposed to be good or evil. And there as well he had a massive problem with dragging things out by ending every season by putting everyone back to starting positions.

People who played Elden Ring on release were already 11 years late to the party. I like it, but it's de-facto Dark Souls IV. Not just mechanically, even many specific weapons and specific characters (welcome back, dear old friend Patches).

Triple A sucks because they ironically make too much money, so they can afford to hire way too many people. Add modern culture with its low hierarchies & trigger-happy hypersensitivity and you have a recipe for disaster. It's way too many cooks, and each cook is especially confident about the stuff they don't like, so everything ends up extremely bland, bloated or both.

Japanese culture doesn't really have these particularities. I strongly recommend Kojima's games as well.

Other good news is that the indie scene is also stronger than ever. The modding scene, likewise. So it's quite easy to avoid the triple A slob, though some issues extend beyond it (for example, even indie devs lean significantly more woke than average).

I'm reporting on how it's perceived by the establishment politicians, and they're usually pretty clear that high turnout = good. Likewise, the establishment media will usually report negatively about record low turnouts and positively vice versa (unless the wrong parties are being voted for, but OP takes care not to do that).

Yes, I understand you correctly. I've had the discussion on not voting vs false/unmarked voting vs protest voting a bunch of times by now. Whether you keep it blank or do whatever else that results in your vote not counting, it will at best just not end up being noticed at all. The voter turnout is high, the good parties are being voted for, everything is fine. At worst, if people look at statistics on unmarked/wrong ballots they'll just conclude you're to dumb to fill out the ballot appropriately. I've seen that literal reaction in action "oh did you know that like 10% of ballots end up not being counted because they're unmarked or so? That seems high." "Yeah some people can't even vote lol".

Imo the correct course of action is either not voting (after all, if you're disillusioned about something, you would usually not continue engaging in it) or protest vote.

Generally, very low voter turnout is considered a signal that people become disillusioned and that a change of course is needed.

Marking you ballot in any way except the accepted one on the other hand is usually considered a simple mistake and counted as such. So currently the message you are sending the politicians, as seen from their pov, is that you're happy with the system as-is, but you just failed to follow very simple and easy to understand instructions.

On the biological level, paternal age is just weakly associated with birth defects. You have something like a 1.3-1.5x increase of autism spectrum disorder (note, this includes high-functioning individuals!) for older dads (>40), which is already somewhat cherry-picked since there is plenty of disorders not associated with paternal age. For comparison, the risk of major chromosomal disorders such as Down Syndrome are roughly around 10x for age 40, 40x for age 45, and 150x for age 50 (not to mention that becoming pregnant at all becomes more difficult, and no you should never rely on IVF). And if your child gets one of these, it's pretty much guaranteed to be somewhere between low or non-functioning.

But I'll still strongly advice for you to start with it ASAP. Having young kids is absolutely exhausting, and vice versa it's lots of fun being physically active with them once they reach an age where they can engage in typical outdoors hobbies. Both you and your kids will be much happier if you're younger.

In addition, most women want a husband who is slightly older than them, but not by too much. This is especially relevant for you if you're as autistic as the base level mottizen. Sure women love the older gentleman stereotype, but as a default you shouldn't be overly confident to fit the bill. If we assume that you want to have 3 kids, spaced decently apart (ca 3 years) with a low risk of major disorders (<35 maternal age), your partner should ideally be ~29 when you're starting to have kids. If you want to have some time to get to know her, this is more like 25 when you start dating. This is already a slightly awkwardly high age difference with your current age. You're probably not be able to pull off the ideal case anyway, but no reason to make it unnecessarily hard for yourself.

Yeah, have fun being (at best!) dropped into the wilderness bc your caretaker AI hit some economic difficulties. Humans already have a very strong in-built anthropomorphising bias and will often waste incredible money on pets, but this is a function of their affluence. If times get hard, they have no trouble getting rid of and/or mistreating them. In theory we might be able to design AIs who love us so desperately that they won't do it, but this is not the path we are currently going. And even then you'll have the problem that rogue AIs unburdened by humans might outcompete the good ones anyway. Either way it just seems like a stupid bet to take.

AFAIK contemporary research has trouble actually showing advantages for the worst students, while there seem to be moderate negative effects for the best students. I have the impression that in a "strong" society, you can improve some of the worst performing groups by giving them help and good examples to follow while simultaneously harshly punishing, up to kicking out, troublemakers. On the other hand, if the troublemakers are not punished, they can drag down everyone so much that it overwhelms any advantage of exemplary behaviour or help from better students. But in the current climate this is not really investigable, so the research base is pretty bad, and the researchers are also far too biased to be trustworthy. There is also the "issue" that the current level of segregation isn't actually hard to overcome for a competent immigrant parent (in fact, highly educated immigrants basically end up in good schools by default without any effort, at least here), so the number of students that would improve in a better school is pretty low. Even low-education high-conscientiousness immigrants will leave bad schools quite fast.

Unfortunately, IQ is still not supported by any company AFAIK. You can get general health embryo selection to avoid the worst disabilities and reduce the chance of some common diseases, and this will almost surely indirectly benefit general competence as well. But tbh IVF sucks pretty hard, and the tech is still in its infancy. Genomic Prediction/Lifeview afaik has not fundamentally improved its testing since 2022 or so, in fact probably couldn't even if it wanted to at this point unless they do a major reorientation. Orchid I have less info about, but from what I can gather it's at least still improving. Very hard to tell which is better in practice at this point, though I lean towards GP since their publications were generally more technical/in depth. But sometime in the next few years Orchid will probably overtake them.

My usual recommendation is to definitely do embryo selection if you do IVF anyway, definitely do it if you know you're in some kind of high risk group, but if you're neither it depends a lot on how well your wife handles IVF. You can also sequence yourself and your wife beforehand to see what your risk profile is to begin with.

Tbh I don't see either 1. or 3. as remotely realistic. You say "RandomRanger's concerns are moot because no efficient rival can appear to outcompete neo-primitives", I say "Obviously any neo-primitive will be outcompeted by non-primitives". Hydrocarbon certainly makes industrial civilisation easier, but there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that it was strictly necessary, and even less that we require it now that we have already developed so far. Even worse, RandomRanger's point is about farmers, not industrial civilisation, so hunter-gatherers were already outcompeted long before hydrocarbons were relevant. There is just no going back.

Wall-E is also an intrinsically unstable system. The beings profiting from this system (humans) have no power, the beings who have all the power (AI overlords or such) do not profit from it. No matter how many safeguards we set up, a single mistake and we're done.

For better or worse, some sort of transhumanism seems to me like the only way forward.