Templexious
Stuck in time
User ID: 2308
Templexious
6mo ago
Have you documented the cause for your swap anywhere?
Templexious
7mo ago
Yes, but at the end of the day, they cannot simply tell the SS administration they do not need the money to be paid out to them.
Ideally the taxes would outweigh the costs, and it's only a small footnote, however it is indicative, I think, of the structural inefficiency.
Templexious
7mo ago
One minor tweak to social security which would only be a tiny footnote for the system, is that already-wealthy individuals can't opt-out of social security as it stands. As such, even if you wanted to give away your income to other elderly in less fortunate positions, you would have to personally find them and give that cash away.
In this case, distributed coordination by way of opting out from those who have enough cash to pay for their own expenses isn't even possible.
Templexious
7mo ago
I have. Of the cardio sports I come closest to enjoying, I enjoy swimming the most, but don't have a pool I can use that's within a reasonable range. I'm not a very competitive person, and much prefer personal challenges.
If I had a really nice bike I would consider it, but I don't live in a terribly bike-friendly area.
Templexious
7mo ago
That kind of advice is simply intractable for me. I know what I will or won't do, and have tried going full hiit in the past, it just sucks and there's no mental reward for doing it. I don't get runner's highs or other forms of mental reward for working out. The best that will happen is people notice and compliment me.
Obviously the intent is to build up to full hiit intervals but I'm not going to do the insanity videos at their full schedule. I'm not going to pick up a pace or schedule that's more punishing than rewarding.
At any rate, thanks for the practical suggestions, I'll keep those in mind and see if they will fit my routine.
Templexious
7mo ago
I've leveled out the weight loss at roughly 26 bmi, 28.5% body fat, and 30 lbs of fat loss since starting the semaglutide shots.
The goal was to slide off the shots and maintain the diet, but to hit my goal (another 20 lbs of still remain) I've added in some more exercise than just the dumbbells and short walks. I've always hated cardio, but the immediate social gains of having lost this much weight are so noticeable that i'd be a moron not to start doing more.
I've picked up a copy of p90 and the insanity workout video series and will be half-assing them. The goal isn't to be bulky, it's to lose the chub. We'll see if, through winter, I'll be able to maintain everything I've lost so far.
Templexious
7mo ago
It was a pretty long drawl of text that really meandered and had the trappings of an effortpost, but had immense padding and tonelessness.
Forgot what was supposedly being said within moments of reading it, unfortunately. You'll need to take my word for it that what RandomRanger wrote was immensely more interesting to read than what dmz posted.
Templexious
7mo ago
I am saying that what you're complaining about is difficult, if not impossible to expect from the judicial branch. Different judges and assistants etc will all produce write-ups of extreme variance of quality and kind of language, and we're not about to unseat a judge simply because they used excoriating and casual if overly harsh language as opposed to the court room sarcasm we're used to.
That is, "we are way beyond the point" is not a phrase which would cause me to bat an eye, especially in cases where the judges felt one party or other was not playing nice or was turning the court processes into a circus.
Templexious
7mo ago
To your first question: you can generally tell when a judge is pretty sick of one party or another when you read their rulings. If they feel like the other parties aren't taking the process seriously or taking advantage of the system, their tone will reflect that.
It is not uncommon for judges to joke or use incredible amounts of sarcasm in the court room. The supreme court can get fairly notorious about roasting and escalationary language in their rulings. Whether or not it's justified in the Trump cases, I'm not sure, and haven't been paying much attention, however considering the incentives at play it wouldn't be a surprise.
Templexious
7mo ago
This was an exceptional read and summary, and would love to see more posts like this on the site.
I have long since memory-holed how much of a shitshow the ongoing war against the second amendment in the US has become.
Templexious
7mo ago
his stupid war.
Just double-checking here, but you do know that Putin did, in fact, invade Ukraine, correct?
Templexious
7mo ago
Right. It still leads into conflict with the bit of text from the book of mormon against it and whether or not his existing wife would consent to the polygamy, but I'll concede the point. It is certainly clear the only reason the church walked back the act of sealing men to multiple wives was because of pressure from the country. If the leaders felt the country and rest of the world became more amenable to it, a new revelation would come out reinstituting the policy.
Templexious
7mo ago
A quick google suggests that is not the case any more:
Today Church members honor and respect the sacrifices made by those who practiced polygamy in the early days of the Church. However, the practice is outlawed in the Church, and no person can practice plural marriage and remain a member.
The standard doctrine of the Church is monogamy, as it always has been, as indicated in the Book of Mormon (Jacob chapter 2): “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. … For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.”
In other words, the standard of the Lord’s people is monogamy unless the Lord reveals otherwise. Latter-day Saints believe the season the Church practiced polygamy was one of these exceptions.
Templexious
7mo ago
Keep in mind also that Tim Ballard was married. I'm sure his wife didn't exactly consent to him trying to sexually proposition the women who went with him on these trips.
Unfortunately, as Quantumfreakonomics notes, she has not spoken on the issue, and she is most certainly a victim.
Templexious
7mo ago
That's exactly the line of reasoning and theories I'm rejecting until evidence comes forward.
For the record, I'm not denying that zionism, even jewish supremacist ideologies exist and are propagated without half the measure of scrutiny or being allowed to talk about it.
Templexious
7mo ago
It has been interesting to see the inversion of blame posts like this attempt.
Like the theory that the ADL is funding neo-nazis. Why would they do anything like that? It's an insane proposition if they were actually being paid by the ADL. And it has zero upsides. If the ADL had a whistleblower moment it would entirely dismantle their whole organization.
I do have my own conspiracies regarding jewry, but "the ADL is actively stoking anti-semitism" is an incoherent proposition. Toss eggs at me later if there's leaks that show they were wiring money or writing checks funding neo nazi demonstrators, but you'll need to forgive me for being a bit skeptical at this overexplanatory theory that's cropped up the last few months.
Templexious
8mo ago
I suspect I'm missing something here.
Allow me to break down my argument further for you, hopefully it will elucidate the meaning.
Assumption: A business existing is better than a business not existing. They provide some good to the market that satisfies some vague demand. Assumption: Per the OP's framing it is better to fire all 25 workers in order to get rid of the excess, because you evaluate the group as a whole, not individuals in the group.
Under these assumptions, and within the OP's thought experiment, would it be better to put the factory out of business to get rid of the 20 parasites, or would it be better to keep the business still running, when the only option is to fire the entire group in order to be rid of the union workers?
My response:
If you fire an entire group based on this heuristic, then congratulations, your factory no longer runs. If you can extract profit from the factory and people still buy the product for cheap, then you aren't losing anything by having some excess.
Some vague morality points, perhaps.
If profit is still being extracted, and the factory is able to continue to run, it is better to keep the factory running, even with the excess. Is it better for a factory to run with an optimal crew-number? Sure, that is not under dispute. In a less contrived thought experiment, you fight the union and reduce the number of workers until you hit a "true"/safe/optimal minimum for your goals, or if demand is high, expand the factory so you can utilize those 20 excess workers and ensure they're producing value.
The thought experiment has a lot of assumptions baked into it. The other issue perhaps, is that I don't use profit or money as an equivalent to calculating utility.
Templexious
8mo ago
If you fire an entire group based on this heuristic, then congratulations, your factory no longer runs. If you can extract profit from the factory and people still buy the product for cheap, then you aren't losing anything by having some excess.
Some vague morality points, perhaps.
I saw it a while ago after beating axiom verge, but didn't play it. Perhaps I'll give it a shot once once I've put celeste through its paces.
Templexious
8mo ago
it's a good game, and worth a play. The level design is uneven sometimes, but that seems intentional.
Templexious
8mo ago
In my spare time, I have been playing platformer and sidescroller games. I finally snaked around to celeste.
Not a fan of the story, mostly because the characters are whiny and annoying, but damn if the soundtrack isn't a tour de force and the gameplay makes me want to break my controller.
Luckily the dialogue is short, and the game wastes little time getting to crushing me with its difficulty while ensuring progression is possible.
Templexious
8mo ago
Ah yes, the famously-solved and not at all under debate questions about right of patients and consent toward self-modification.
Templexious
8mo ago
Given current trajectories, Transhumanism and Posthumanism are the default futures.
Homemade biological modification will become more prevalent and likely, and the tools will become more difficult to regulate as patents and copyrights on the technologies expire. People want to be able to modify their bodies- whether it's injectables like semaglutide for weight loss or the jews of gender taking pills that give them breasts, or women taking injectables for more plump lips and hips, or people injecting magnets in their fingers for little parlor tricks.
If you have the means, you will be able to modify your body as you want. Modify your kids to be in the shape and form you want via embryo selection. These are futures that are happening now and will not go away. The social pressure for access to these tools will not abate.
As such, my position is that attacking transhumanism is a fool's errand.
Templexious
8mo ago
There is an implication that the people using the term are not, themselves NPC's, however, even a cleverly written script that breaks the fourth wall doesn't mean the character is actually a complete agent.
You can't tell a mass of people who have watched their prices skyrocket and housing prices and rental prices skyrocket and also that many are having a harder time finding jobs for the equivalent pay that "things are fine".
It's been constantly debated whether or not economic indicators are direct abstractions over reality, and to tell people who are feeling down that "things are fine, actually" is akin to mass gaslighting. When talking to a group of people who are used to constantly being lied to and therefore eternally skeptical of establishment that their beliefs and understanding of reality are wrong or incorrect, this is especially egregioius.
Now, you mention that there's no way of bringing about an equivalent to election-loss shock to show the flaws in polls, and then argue about the use of other economic data to make a point. While a useful metric, the establishment groups will use whatever metrics they want to say things are "fine, actually" so long as they have enough donations and electoral support that they don't get voted out each election. I've never, for example, seen major party leaders ever cede a point and change their policies or messaging until after it lost them an election.
As such, economic data debates are only as useful if the establishment is willing to listen and hear out and change their views accordingly.
More options
Context Copy link