Templexious
Stuck in time
User ID: 2308
To whence shall we roll back the clock?
We joke about the glory years, the years when Things Were Better, which just so happen to coincide with people's younger years. You get me to say what years I would like to roll back the clock to and live, I would probably say somewhere around the 90s-late 00s. I am an outlier, as far as I know. Virtually no one I know would like to roll back the clock to spitting distance from two thousand and fucking-eight.
Back when the most lefty thing on the internet was a girl telling people that she didn't appreciate being propositioned for sex on an elevator. Pre-tiktok, the era of old forums. The iphone still a twinkle in Steve Jobs' eye. The era when Google and Microsoft weren't the undisputed emperors of your lives.
Actually, forget that. We all know there's nowhere to roll back to, we can only roll forward, embracing the aesthetics of what we imagined the past to be. I, for one, am glad that I am not eternally inundated with "WOW DAE PARENTS ARE BOOORIIINNG????" ads. You can pull my 70-lb tub of legos accumulated over more than twenty years out of my cold, dead hands, NSA. And it's probably true that in the next 30-40 years that democracy and republicanism-as-we-know it will no longer exist.
No seriously, whence come the true techno-king? Who are the contenders for the first immortal god-king of humanity. I joke in the phrasing, but it is not exactly an incorrect joke now, is it? It is very probable that we will have the first actual trillionaire human in the next thirty years. The first effectively-emperors of mankind.
The only reason companies don't do governance of humans is that they're shit at it, actually, and Democracy is surprisingly efficient over long timescales. But assume for the sake of thought experiment, that the singularity happens, and we have our first crowned god-emperor of humanity thanks to the creation of AGI. Who are our contenders?
Personally, I should expect them to:
- Be in AI or AGI development already or in the next 2-3 years
- Be incredibly wealthy already
- Likely be from a company currently valued at least in the tens of millions of dollars
As such, pick your top 5 most likely individuals to become humanity's first true techno-kings, and why. Do you have any you think are sleepers?
I'll hold back my top-fivers for a couple days or so.
SJ-ers will continue to exist so long as there are those from oppressed groups who become intellectuals and want to teach their stories.
Will they lose, long-term? Perhaps if they don't openly side with the State of Israel.
teachers just don't actually care if our children isn't learning.
Which is why involved parents who will go out of their way to ensure their kids can rotate shapes and will bribe admissions officers to get into the best school, those kids have better outcomes long-term. Because teacher has 30-odd kids to deal with and the odds that your kid gets the attention they need to excel is basically 1/30 even if you factor out teacher biases.
With teacher biases the odds are worse. Parents who realize that teachers don't give a fuck and are able/willing to make up for that fact will have obviously better outcomes. Of course, if you have dumb parents then the kids will probably be dumb too. But instilling a work ethic in kids by way of parent involvement is a quality all its own. No wonder the high-iq middle class have less kids, if they "get" this fact- the amount of energy and resources required to help one kid get out into a top-10 college and therefore career is insane.
It's not a particularly surprising reaction, no.
Nor is the rolling over and acting offended that people reacted to IH the way that was entirely expected and predictable?
"Ah yes, these edgy jokes we used caused the expected reaction. Now, we will be offended on IH's behalf toward the people who took the bait."
It would be bad bait if no one took it, no?
this individual
"this individual"-ing Nick Bostrom is a hilarious way of wiping away his work in promoting effective altruism and longtermism.
Most of the argument is about where the line should be
The number of arguments which boil down to some form of sorites paradox is very annoying.
Vote counts should at least be hidden for longer. Perhaps a week. The impulse to focus on upvotes is a siren song.
50k potential federal employees turning over every time a president changes would be a pretty massive change in how the government runs. It would make for excellent fireworks.
we live in a far from ideal world and budgets aren't infinite, so I have no qualms about letting die those who are an onerous burden.
If the cost is being borne largely by private actors, what cost is it to the government? Surely, if a private individual or charity group is able and willing to direct their funds to keeping those children alive, they should be allowed to, no?
Regardless of earnest hand-wringing about the sanctity of life and how it's beyond such loathsome things as cost-benefit analysis, you don't see the global GDP diverted to help an orphan that fell down a well
You do see people expend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, to save kids trapped in a cave or save an individual diver who went into a cave, however. Much of that is almost always from the national coffers. To say nothing of charities who's entire goals are to save such people, regardless of said cost.
If society can forward cash from its coffers toward elderly patients at nursing homes, it can spend some money keeping some kids alive. Especially if a society-- hell, an individual- chooses to shoulder that burden, keeping most of the cost of the existence of that child out of a country's own economic burdens. It's one thing to say "the state will not fund this any more" - it's another too deny access and use of private resources.
An early example of cancel culture in action
About 10 years ago
I have news for you.. cancel culture has been around for as long as the media and people getting offended have been around.
Nursing homes are in aggregate a symptom of a social disease- end of life care for the elderly and the infirm is atrocious.
Society has kicked families out of their homes, and left the elderly out to dry, while simultaneously sucking up adult children's time that would be spent caring for the elderly in their last years.
The problem is that historically, we simply didn't have the technology to keep them all alive, usually, when elderly would spiral, they would spiral relatively fast- infection, diabetes, cancers, all things that had no cure in the ancestral home. In the current era, we just wait for them to decline, and while we have cures for the most major diseases, we have nothing to help the elderly live more fulfilling and yes, even economically-productive lives. They are shoved into a heartless building where they play bingo on Tuesday at nine am and wait for god to come knocking, with the very occasional visit from what remains of the local evangelical churches activities.
Yes, there are problems in nursing homes, but no, there's no incentive to solve it, one way or the other. The country seems locked in indecision on this particular issue. The AARP is the largest focus group in the US, and as a bloc, holds a stranglehold on the younger generation's ability to help them solve their problems. Young and middle-aged voters are similarly out-of-sighting and out-of-minding the entire problem- shove the elderly into a nursing home and visit once a month until they die-if you're nearby. Maybe do a task that the nurses haven't gotten to. Then move away when offered a raise or a new job in a new state.
Ol' granny's got 5 years still left in her, nevermind that she can't make her way to the toilet any more, but her son Kyle is 50 years old and still in his career and living in tennessee, five hundred miles away.
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.
Have you documented the cause for your swap anywhere?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
his stupid war.
Just double-checking here, but you do know that Putin did, in fact, invade Ukraine, correct?
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.
I was wondering if anyone would call me out on the use of whence. Congrats! 🧐
More options
Context Copy link