SophisticatedHillbilly
No bio...
User ID: 1964
SophisticatedHillbilly
8mo ago
Is there any school of legal interpretation that is explicitly outcome-blind? It's really the only thing I want in a judge, but none of the main schools seem to believe in it.
By outcome-blind I specifically mean that there is no sense that a ruling should be decided differently just because the 'correct' legal reading would result in something absurd or horrible. It seems like there's always this tendency to say "but if we rule the way that is obviously correct, it causes problems xyz and we can't have that" even among textualists and literalists.
I'm thinking of the "An AR-15 is not technically a gun" kind of ruling, or the "EPA gets to regulate every puddle" kind of ruling, or any of the various "such a precedent would eliminate most of the executive branch" kind of rulings. Though I can't link specific examples as I'm in a hurry and on my phone.
SophisticatedHillbilly
9mo ago
This is especially true when what we know of reality contradicts these ideas of infinities. You cannot divide a line an infinite number of times. Even a line the length of the entire observable universe can only be divided 205.2 times before reaching 1 Plank Length, beyond which there is simply no smaller unit to divide the line into. Infinities are useful abstractions, but reality operates in discrete units.
SophisticatedHillbilly
9mo ago
which is absolutely howl-worthy when you consider how convenient it was that there were clear and obvious miracles right up till the point we could properly document and examine them.
Well yes, because if they're not documentable, they don't eliminate the need for faith. If they are, then they would, so they don't happen.
I don't even necessarily disagree with you, but this is just a terrible point. It's countered by the very argument it's trying to address.
SophisticatedHillbilly
9mo ago
The counter would be that, in determining how much society offers various parties, it should matter how many people go against our most basic urge to survive because they think the deal is just that bad. One side opting out vastly more is important data.
This does create the rather intuitive answer that impoverished black men on average get a better 'deal' than the average middle-class white woman.
SophisticatedHillbilly
9mo ago
I wouldn't say they're bad per se, rather that they're a stabilizing agent. If there were only strong men, there would be no society at all, as there wouldn't be enough of the type who mindlessly upholds status quo. Too many however, and no necessary advancement and adaptation can occur.
They're the stabilizing rods of the great nuclear reaction we call society. Too few and it explodes, too many and you choke out the necessary chain reactions.
SophisticatedHillbilly
9mo ago
Admittedly it's been years since my experience with it, but I don't recall that being an option at the time. Could've just missed it though. Thank you for mentioning it, it'll likely help me out in the future.
SophisticatedHillbilly
9mo ago
Good to know, and I'll take your word for it over random-poster-on-other-forum.
SophisticatedHillbilly
9mo ago
Now unlike the above, this is merely "something I read somewhere at some point" and not official, but:
I've read that it's worse than that. They've frequently messed around with search function, and how they evaluate the changes is how many searches a user makes. I.e, if you type in a search, immediately find what you need, and leave Google, that's bad, while you search 4 or 5 times to get Google to finally show what you wanted, that's good.
The A/B testing is specifically trying to make the experience worse for users.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
Honestly it's one of those things I read somewhere, but I don't have the source on me or the time to find it. I will note that it was for general quality on numerous metrics which extends beyond physical attraction.
As to your point, it would only be true in a case where:
-
Everyone must have a long-term partner
-
No two people can have the same partner.
Both of which are distinctly untrue. Just means more women will share the non-1s or end up alone. People, especially women, have standards, and won't just end up with trash because everyone else was taken. There's always the option of getting knocked up from a man a couple notches up and being a single mother.
A man who is actually a 1 in attractiveness is actually horrible, given that even a total uggo would still score above a 1 with nearly any redeemable qualities. Single motherhood is almost certainly preferable to even being in the same room as such a man, let alone interacting with him.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1mo ago
Isn't this point basically just "yes you should be able to have contrarian views, but only when they're completely ignorable and useless." If the Opposition can't actually do anything, then there's really no point in having them. I understand if you just think the Anti-AI position is dumb, but your argument seems like a general argument against opposition.
SophisticatedHillbilly
3mo ago
And Gold was slapped down pretty hard in the 60-70s, and God was dead by the 90's. That leaves conquest, which we've all decided is illegal for whatever reason. We need a new combo, and "Cash, Grass, and Ass" doesn't seem to be cutting it.
SophisticatedHillbilly
3mo ago
I flatly disagree with this, though I'm sure data is hard to find.
SophisticatedHillbilly
4mo ago
Yeah that first definition seems about what I was thinking. Thanks for the more detailed info.
SophisticatedHillbilly
5mo ago
Actually, sexuality as well I would think. Any time I've viewed a particular strain of porn over an extended period, it's certainly influenced my inclinations and attractions in the real world as well. I won't give specifics, but some of these went rather far. I believe the porn treadmill is a decently well-known phenomena.
SophisticatedHillbilly
6mo ago
The problem for Russia is that they have not finished paying costs.
True, but I guess I'm not just expecting their costs to mount much higher without a proportionally larger gain. The front has largely stagnated. Any operations large enough to move the meter would also be liable to shred what's left of Ukraine's fighting population and end with much larger land gains.
Russia is not really having shortage of land, this is not a Singapore.
It's not about square footage, it's about production capability. Major steel manufacturing industries, a very significant chunk of farmland, some of the world's larger lithium deposits and (if they can push into Kharkiv province,) significant natural gas deposits. For western countries that are living on their inheritance, things like that aren't too important. For everyone else, resource extraction is vital. Even what they've taken now is a win. In the case of unconditional surrender? It becomes the biggest material win any country has had since World War II.
When thinking about the land gains through conquest, it's worth looking at through a lens of "How much would you have to pay to acquire that area and everything in it minus the people?" There is no way anyone could acquire it cheaper than the price Russia will pay for the war.
Now of course, all of this is predicated on "If they can keep it," but with the combination of nuclear MAD and the unwillingness of any other major powers to step into a full-scale hot war, that seems likely.
SophisticatedHillbilly
6mo ago
Russia will not get more powerful as result of that adventure
No, but they will acquire 62,000 sq mi of land that is better than most of the land that they currently possess. And the cost is what? Weapons that would have expired anyway? Some consumer goods shortages for things that no population actually needs to begin with? 180,000 men? That's only 3 men per square mile, a hell of a deal! And that of course is leaving out the possibility of Russia winning anything more than it has already gotten.
Maybe there are some more extreme long-term costs that I'm not seeing, but I really don't think so. What move could possibly have better contributed to Russia's long-term overall position.
My experience with it is from working with a mining company that surveyed a rather large area, including our property, looking for mineral deposits. It was a large array, probably around 10'x10', carried by a helicopter, and the results were impressive. Can't remember if they let me keep any copies of the study, but I'll dig and see if I can pull it up as it may have more details. It was definitely considered pretty cutting edge at the time, but it was like 10 years ago. Might have been more of a proprietary secret than I realized at the time.
SophisticatedHillbilly
7mo ago
Very interesting to know that about the Kinsey data, thank you. I never went as far as to actually look at the primary source (classic mistake!). Frankly it being defined that way makes the stats for farm areas absolute nonsense. Of course like half of people on farms have had "sexual experience" with an animal if you count something mundane like cleaning a horse's sheath!
SophisticatedHillbilly
7mo ago
That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of intelligent life theories. Some of my personal favorites are:
5. Intelligent life exists, but not in a form that is at all comparable to life as we know it. Perhaps it exists on some other combination of dimensions, leaving only strange occurrences when their "dimensional plane"* temporarily intersects ours. Perhaps they communicate in ways that are nonsensical to us, or seem to violate laws of physics, but this is only because they are 4 dimensional, or something like that.
6. There is a highly advanced species of subterranean-dwelling creatures that occasionally surface for reasons unknown to us and occasionally kidnap or observe people. Bonus points if you can tie this to Martin Van Buren's attempted expedition to the center of the earth and the Mammoth Cave Network.
7. A second intelligent species co-evolved with humans here on Earth and is controlling us or parasitically reliant on us for some reason. Could be lizard people, could be whatever else, but the idea is usually that they maintain secret control of all the world's important institutions while the actually-human-humans are basically livestock. Opens up exciting options for baby-eating and body doubles as well.
8. A second intelligent species evolved alongside but separate from humans here on earth and is still hanging around somewhere or is extinct. This would include all the weird theories of a giant-race still living in Afghanistan, a historical race of giants that once lived in the Basque region of Spain until the Romans worked them to death, a historical race of giants that existed in the Amazon rainforest, weird goblin people that used to occupy Ireland and are now the weird goblin people that live in the caves of the Appalachian region, and so on.
* Not really sure what the term is for "the set of dimensions on which something exists." Like if something is 2D+time vs something that is 3D+time,
SophisticatedHillbilly
8mo ago
Very different setup, but I've experienced the exact same issue before. Nothing fixed it until I replaced the CPU completely, but YMMV
SophisticatedHillbilly
8mo ago
There's an old sci-fi story (Asimov maybe) that I can't seem to find which involves the hunt for the most normal citizen of the country, who will then have his brain scanned by an AI, which will then compute the outcome of the election with 100% accuracy.
My ideal world would involve a jury selected similarly. We simply hunt down the most grill-pilled Iowan, the most relaxed Floridian, and so on, and form the jury from that pool.
SophisticatedHillbilly
10mo ago
Any explanation of the Christmas Effect that's faster than 1.5 hours?
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
This is almost certainly not true actually. Females have a roughly standard distribution in most traits, where most are about average. Males have a bimodalish, flattened distribution, where most males are either above or below average. Because of this, there are more men at either extreme. The peaks of humanity, and the dregs of it, are something like 10:1 male:female.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
Not all problems necessarily have practicable solutions, but I'll do my best.
Parenting: rebuilding intergenerational wisdom after a gap occurs is difficult, and the reality is traditional parenting is difficult to work in the modern world.
Additionally, the average parent just isn't that good at navigating the modern world in their own right. However, children need role models, guidance, and all that, and frankly the state should be able to provide at least some of that. State sponsored tutors, a restructuring of the school system, and similar things could help, or even just state funding for third-places with productive activities would be good.
Values: Mine obviously, but I'm not so unreasonable as to think that's a solution. I see it as [my values > your values > no values > my values inversed]. Most value systems I've encountered are broadly good, with some rough edges. What isn't good is a valueless society drowning in ennui. Obviously some values will prove to be maladaptive, but those inherently end up being uprooted one way or another.
Only a blackpill if you for some reason have no respect for strength or power, which would be odd given how important they've been for all of history.
More options
Context Copy link