@SophisticatedHillbilly's banner p

SophisticatedHillbilly


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 December 04 20:18:48 UTC

				

User ID: 1964

SophisticatedHillbilly


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 December 04 20:18:48 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1964

What is the absolute cheapest way to acquire a decent house? Money is tight, but me and the girl are tired of living in an RV, and we're ready to upsize. Land isn't a concern because we have a family property, but it needs to last awhile and it needs to be larger than the 350 sq ft (!) we currently live in. I've been looking at the following options:

  • Construct an A-Frame house. These seem solid, but the cost is somewhat prohibitive, at somewhere around 25k with me performing a significant amount of the labor. Not a huge fan of the shape either, as it seems to be pretty bad conceptually in the cost-vs-space sense.

  • Do one of these sort of things: https://www.steelmasterusa.com/quonset-huts/. Cost seems comparable to the A-frame, but for more space and durability

  • Buy a used mobile home. They can be surprisingly cheap. As low as free, actually. They won't last more than probably a decade, but hey, that's a future problem. Size is disappointing, but not unbearable. I grew up in a mobile home after all.

Any other ideas? Any actual home construction seems to move it into the 200k range, which seems not worth it to me relative to the steel building setup, though I'm open to other opinions.

Additionally, many who would report themselves as paycheck-to-paycheck have assets and are saving money. A friend of mine describes himself as such while putting 30% of his money into an investment account each check. To him, that money does not count because it is not available for spending (by his self imposed rules).

I think the Native Americans serve as a great second example. Forcefully immigrated? Not exactly. Forcefully moved and made part of the US? Definitely. The fact they also do poorly is a second data point in favor.

From my experience working in a job where the use of the quotes feature was vital: Google will randomly and without warning place users into experimental variations of their features as a form of A/B testing. If you get placed in the "Google prioritizes words in quotes" user bucket and not the "Google demands exact string match of words in quote" bucket, your search won't turn up the exact results and you're just out of luck.

I managed to escalate this issue quite high into Google support at one point, and the above was more or less everything they told me. Was quite stressful when I needed the exact match for my job.

To take it a step further: I happen to know someone who is either a billionaire or quite close to it (I believe he recently complained that his net worth had fallen just under the billion mark due to some supply chain issue) and is still absolutely not elite in any way. His money is in agriculture, and he is very 'country' in his mannerisms. I do think a world where he'd get to be 'in the room where it happens' would be a better one, but he doesn't act the part of the right sort of person, so he's just wealthy and subject to the whims of the worthless social-gamers.

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.

Good to know, and I'll take your word for it over random-poster-on-other-forum.

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.

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.

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.

Consider two identical twins. The parents force one twin to get good grades, play sports, practice piano, etc. The other twin is completely ignored and follows his base instincts (video games, probably). Unsurprisingly the first twin ends up with better life outcomes,

So I don't disagree with your actual point, but twin studies tend to converge on the idea that these twins will actually have roughly the same life outcomes.

There's always the sticky question of how to define "success", however. Some would say that a small-government US with a much lower GDP and less international power (but still #1), but much more personal freedom, local political control etc is more successful than a richer, stronger, less free US.

I think part of the issue is weird occurrences that have no satisfying explanations given, which people can then attribute to their own pet theory.

Take the Phoenix Lights for example. Super weird, seen by millions, and the only explanations given are "aliens!" and "super secret weird government shit." Given that to many people these are more or less the same thing, or at least connected, you end up with a lot of people that can then point to the Phoenix Lights as evidence of aliens.

Most serious alien believers are, in my experience, equally willing to accept "the government engages in numerous weird programs and experiments, often testing them on the unwitting public (or at least exposing members of the public to them) MK Ultra style," to explain these weird events as much as they will accept aliens, or demons, or synchronicities or kabbalah or whatever.

What they won't accept is "none of that happened, pay no attention to the strange occurrences, nothing happens that is not publicly available information."

People repeat this a lot but the only explanation I see for it is that the left keeps fighting and the right just doesn't. If you don't like the left that's bad I guess, but it rarely seems to be used to support the more general point: you have to actually expend effort for your beliefs to win, and you have to keep doing that forever or your beliefs die. "Blood of tyrants" and all that.

Without that, it always just feels like whining that other people actually try.

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.

The appearance of sameness across the years from 100 A.D. to 1600 are largely just a lack of detailed historical knowledge rather than anything meaningful.

As one random example: the invention of the (practical, iron) stirrup and (more advanced) saddle doesn't seem too significant to us because we don't care about horses, but it ushered in an era of political dominance by feudal lords and their knights. The invention of barrels, of particular metals, and fasteners, and construction methods. The Viking longship, that enables continuous travel from Iceland all the way to Byzantium in the 800's. The invention of double-entry accounting in the 1200's, etc etc. That's not even getting into social developments.

My historical knowledge isn't perfect, but there were massive advancements in things you don't even think about if you don't know the details. The deeper you look in the past, the more you start to realize the pace of change wasn't that different. This is especially true when you compare the change for the average person then to the change for the average person now. Sure computing was a big-deal of an invention but it took like what, 60 years before there was any meaningful impact to the average worker? Even longer, if you take into account the coworkers I've had who seem to have had no trouble retaining their positions despite being computer-illiterate.

Note that I'm not saying that the contemporary era isn't predictable, just that it's not really all that different from the speed of development in the past, with maybe a few exceptions. (Though frankly, I think even something as large as the Industrial Revolution is easily paralleled by the Agricultural Revolution.)

Nobel prize winning scientists can't exactly imbue intelligence, which SATs generally measure, nor was he likely taking the time to instill test-taking skills. I don't see why it would.

I mean they're surely testable, just not via the SAT. Give each student a research task and compare results and I'm sure you'll see a difference.

Going by SAT scores is like asking why a student's reading skills didn't improve by spending a summer with Usain Bolt. That's just, not really what they'd be focused on.

I've always seen it more as "accept that water runs downhill." Yes, you can pump water uphill, but there is a cost, and it must be done intentionally. Try as you might, you will never be able to get the universe into a state where "water runs uphill or downhill as needed at no cost" is a fundamental law.

People who successfully change things for the better tend to have internalized this. They understand that their actions have tradeoffs, opportunity costs, and that some things, like the past, are unchangeable. Others beat their heads against the brick wall that is reality.

I find it funny because previously (pre-2016) conspiracies seemed to be primarily a left-wing thing (usually plots by Big-INSERT-INDUSTRY-HERE or the surveillance agencies), with some libertarian types thrown in. Seems that as the left has become the establishment, they've turned away from the theories, and as the right has lost establishment status, they've gone further into them.

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.

The existence of said whiplash likely would have prevented the centralization. Less reason to invest in growing the power of the central authority of your opponent actually gets to use the power once in awhile.

I think this is where the class/income distinction is important. We need highly intelligent lower-class people, because we need highly intelligent people running industries like resource extraction which will never be high class. A role being difficult doesn't make it classy, and a society that siphons off its best production plant operators and logging magnates to become ad-revenue optimizers and theoretical history researchers isn't on a good path long-term.

Those systems tend to be framed as meritocratic internally though.

"Of course the aristocrats should run things, they are literally better than everyone else due to superior breeding (blood)"

"Of course we need to distribute things between the races, they are equal in their merits and so need equal rewards."

"Of course the most experienced people are in charge, they're the best at their job because they know it better than anyone."

Or for the credentialists: "Of course those with the highest credentials should run things, the credentials show that they're the best in their field."

Or for the IQists:

"Of course the smartest should be on top, smarter people are better than everyone else due to their superior inherent abilities."

I can't think of a system which a typical adherent doesn't frame as meritocratic. The question is always how to determine merit, which if you ever hired for a job you know isn't particularly easy.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability"

I think it does currently in some circles, but generally uses a more all-encompassing definition of merit. The 120 IQ guy who can stay focused and always be on time has more merit than the 130 IQ guy who never shows up or gets anything done. The 100 IQ guy with masterful social charisma has more merit than the 105 IQ guy with anger issues. IQ is a big factor, but not the only one.

In this way, I think merit usually just means "tendency to produce value" in whatever way the institution produces value. Attractiveness for the porn stars, charisma for the salesmen etc. High IQ correlates with all other forms of merit yes, but not extremely strongly so, especially within the range 90% of people fall into. The average used car salesman is a whole lot more charismatic than the average programmer, while the programmer is much smarter.