@TheGodhead's banner p

TheGodhead


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 15:46:36 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 869

TheGodhead


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 15:46:36 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 869

Verified Email

Any fans of Warhammer 3 or Victoria 3 here? I’m not a serious gamer at all, picked them up on a Steam sale and just find them confusing. Only game I’ve played seriously is the last three Civilization entries and even then I only have 600 hrs on Civ 6 since 2016.

Is anyone of the opinion that even honest, non-coercive casual sex is immoral, for secular reasons? I think I share a common preference among men that I’d rarely pass up on a hookup with an attractive woman but would probably not date a woman long-term who has slept around too much (“too much” is probably decided on a case-by-case basis and there are other factors involved). I can see how that’s hypocritical in one sense. And according to my own value system, I’m denigrating the value of women I have no long-term intentions with but other men with my shared preferences might. But a certain libertarian perspective also says “whatever is honest, legal, and uncoerced is ethical” and men (including me, probably) will just have to learn to settle later in life for women with a higher body count than they deem acceptable.

I’m finally getting circumcised later this month as a 24 year old to treat mild phimosis and severe frenulum breve. Hoping this will give me the ability to have some semblance of a normal sex life. Has anyone had this procedure as a teen/adult?

Thought I'd share my experiences playing soccer for the first time. Maybe some fans can weigh in on this and confirm/deny some of what my friend said in the following story. And if you're not a fan, might motivate you to watch/play a match yourself.

Sports have never really interested me. Try as I might they always seemed repetitive. I have a friend, we'll call him John, who has been playing soccer casually for 11 years now. He often sends me highlights of Ronaldo or Messi's best plays and I sort of just nod at what I assume is impressive athleticism but never really appreciated on a deeper level. Last week I was traveling and ended up in John's city, where he agreed to let me spend a few nights. But he insisted that I join him for a casual soccer game. He plays in a rec league at his university (not varsity) and we weren't even playing with the rec league team, just a bunch of grad students who play casually. The circumstances were less than ideal. I was running on about 7 hours of sleep total the last two nights combined and was kept awake mostly by nicotine. But the weather was nice and John was adamant so I agreed to a match.

I was predictably terrible. Slow runner, uncoordinated, had a hard time keeping track of the action. To make matters worse the players for whatever reason didn't bother to wear any identifying jerseys or headbands so I had to figure out as I went along who was on what team. Overall, I pretty much achieved blocking the player with the ball a few times and forced them to make an inconvenient pass. Not particularly fun but a decent workout at least.

Later at John's apartment, he asked me some questions about the experience and we talked in person for the first time about the game and why he enjoyed it so much. As we talked, I began to understand the appeal myself, even as an unathletic STEM guy. John basically made it seem like, at the highest level, soccer is more of a mind game than a test of speed and strength. Before, I naively thought the game worked like this: "You dribble as fast as possible. You keep track of the few people closest to you and look to pass it to the teammate closest to the other team's goal who is available. Rinse repeat until you win the game." In a sense this isn't wrong, but I massively underestimated just how much information processing the best players do during a game. John estimated that as one of the better players in his rec league, that he could keep track of 4-5 objects on the field with a very high level of accuracy. Say, the ball and 4 of the players' bodies. He guessed that the best player in his rec league could track 6-7 objects at the same level, and the best pros could easily handle over 20. Idk how accurate this is. But to prove his point he analyzed a play by Sergio Busquets (I'll edit this post with the video once I find it) where he, based on a very brief <1s glimpse of a teammate in his peripheral vision, running at an angle to him, knew exactly where to pass the ball such that it would reach said teammate from a distance. And it was by far the best pass possible in the situation, far from any of the other team members. In another video, he receives a pass from a teammate despite 3 defenders standing between him and the ball. This seems impossible. How did he know where to stand? The answer: he was watching where the defenders were looking the entire time enough to know they hadn't seen him. I had no idea that level of spatial awareness, that fast and over such a large distance, was even possible.

Some more videos he showed me featured Ronaldo scoring goals in the dark and Ronaldo pulling off knuckleballs, basically a technique where you kick the ball with such little spin that it takes on a very erratic trajectory, but when does correctly might lead a goalkeeper to anticipate where it would land had it had a normal spin.

Overall, much more interesting things going on that I had previously given the game credit for. And something I could see myself watching in the future. Also worth noting that for the first hour of my own match, I felt like I was going to vomit or faint. But after that, I got a second wind of energy, and felt very relaxed, even had a mild runner's high. John explained it as my body burning fat instead of the glucose in my bloodstream, have no idea if this is bro science or not.

Interesting video on Near-Death Experiences and what they might tell us about the afterlife.

It's basically a summary of the book "Why An Afterlife Obviously Exists" by Swedish philosopher Jens Amberts. It makes the case that:

  • Almost everyone who has an NDE comes to believe in an afterlife
  • There are no psychological/sociological predictors of who has an NDE, so they are a random sample of the population
  • 10s of millions of people have had them
  • They're skewed by age ofc, but even children who've had these experiences describe them in similar terms

The go-to physicalist explanation for why these happen is a release of DMT in the brain at the moment of death, which I'm sure the author is aware of. I haven't read the book yet but I'd be curious to know how he compares these experiences to DMT trips. Given the sheer number of people who've had NDEs there must be a few thousand who have also tried DMT, would love to read their thoughts comparing them. Of course, even if they did claim there were substantial differences, we could say that other chemicals are involved in different doses and these are all just a particular flavor of psychedelic trip. Still, seems like a topic worthy of more research.

Considering who posted this it's difficult not to read it as a thinly-veiled rant. I think the responses cover most of the best answers but I'll add that the phenomenon you describe is very exaggerated online where a subset of users (especially on Reddit) have a rabid hatred of incels, Redpillers, and any group of men who have anything less than perfectly normie, bluepilled opinions on gender relations.

I'm reminded of this thread where a young man sexually propositioned a classmate he was friendly with. It did not go well for him. I think his approach was misguided and someone should nicely tell him that, he's still very young and has plenty of time to learn from the mistake. But many of the commenters jumped straight to "he's doomed to be an Andrew Tate fan or an incel". I think this is a bizarre, almost autistic response. Like telling someone posting about struggling with their faith in Christ that they're doomed to be Dawkins fan. There's definitely some people just looking for an excuse to rag on sexually unsuccessful men. Either women who just use them as an outlet for their rage or men virtue signaling their superior moral status.

/r/Tinder is similar. Every now and then a woman will post a man starting a convo with an overly forward pickup line and the comments will be filled with people saying "ha! next thing you know he'll be complaining about how women on Tinder don't wanna fuck him!". Which is especially bizarre considering that the most popular genre of post on the sub is men trying similar lines successfully. Almost like a low-effort, sexualized pickup line will sometimes get you laid on an app designed to get you laid with as little effort as possible. Shocking.

In general I wouldn't put too much stock into the opinions of people who comment things like this. Worth remembering that a lot of the content you read online is produced by insane people. In real life, women are mostly just baffled when they hear an otherwise normal guy is romantically unsuccessful. I remember an ex being shocked my college roommate was still a virgin and she said something along the lines of "why doesn't he just talk to some girls at a frat party and get it over with?". Which is sort of adorably naive. Though tbf that was in 2017, slightly before that incel discourse had reached its peak online.

As a huge fan of the books Season 1 was a massive letdown. I was willing to cut them some slack on some of the standard woke stuff (every country's demographics looking like a college brochure, unisex magic source instead of the book's gendered system) but Rand's final showdown with a weirdly laid back Ba'alzamon being about Egwene being too cool to settle down and start a family really crossed the line for me.

To hijack this thread, what's everyone watching? I finished Midnight Mass recently and thought it was great. Well-written, unpredictable, and balanced takes on religion. Starting Yellowjackets now and am not particularly enjoying it.

I have had very little alcohol throughout my life, but recently I've been going out for 1-2 drinks a week. Even after a light dinner, and one beer, I'm still tipsy enough that I stumble over my words. If I keep this up, can I expect my tolerance to improve any time soon?

Any advice from overcoming a particular pattern of procrastination where I put off something -> eventually start it which makes me feel stupid for not starting earlier -> causes me to put it off more after minimal progress?

Millei seems interesting, anyone have a good summary of his beliefs and policy goals/ how likely he is to achieve them?

Unrelated but what exactly is the Starbucks situation that lead to some people boycotting them? I’ve heard it was nothing more than them telling union workers they couldn’t display the company logo in protests that activists decided to describe as “Starbucks supports genocide”, is this true?

Male bisexuality is heavily stigmatized among women. Even many women who call themselves allies and post about their support for LGBT rights would find it a turnoff to learn a man sleeps with other men. Female bisexuality on the other hand, is so common (at least among my demographic of Zoomer yuppies) that it wouldn't signal much of a loosening of priors at this point. So it's mostly gays who have their own communities now.

Was just offered a data analyst position, specifically in Revenue Management, starts January. Will be my first data job, transitioning from software engineering. Will also be my first in-person corporate job as I've been working from home since the pandemic. Any advice? I'm pretty good with SQL and the Python ML libraries, also setting up basic data pipelines in the cloud. But I don't know anything about Revenue Management.

I have precisely the opposite problem. Basically an atheist with respect to a personal, interventionist God, but trying to incorporate some sort of progress-oriented spirituality in my life to mixed success. I’ve experimented with New Agey concepts like the Law of Attraction, but it’s difficult to fully embody them when I know they’re fundamentally psychological tricks without any metaphysical underpinning.

Planning a trip to Italy and realizing I might be one of the last few generations who can see it once its lows birth rates lead to population collapse. Got me thinking about how the Romans and Byzantines would have felt knowing their descendants would be rich beyond their wildest dreams and simply not reproduce enough to replace themselves.

On a happier note, any travel recommendations? It will be on a cruise but we’ll get 12 hrs a day in a few major cities.

Thoughts on Dune Part 2

I'm a huge fan of the first 6 books, read the first 3 times (though granted it has been a few years), and thought the first movie was a very well-made, faithful adaptation. It had a few flaws, such as no mention of the thinking machines, Butlerian Jihad, or guild navigators, and also the Harkonens being a little too cartoonishly groteque. But it took itself seriously, was visually dazzling, and I really liked that it captured the psychedelic/religious ecstasy elements of the book.

The second one, I'm much more lukewarm on. Much more significant changes from the books (rarely for the better) and just wasn't as dramatically impactful. Spoilers for both movies and Book 1 to follow:

|| Much shorter timeline, so Alia isn't born yet by the end of it. Jessica taking the Water of Life was a very intense scene and I thought the image of the fetus' eye opening conveyed a lot to the audience in a simple but direct way, but there were no visuals explaining her newly acquired access to her genetic memories, it's sort of just explained to us later on. I recalled this Villenueve quote from an interview:

Villeneuve: “Frankly, I hate dialogue. Dialogue is for theatre and television. I don’t remember movies because of a good line, I remember movies because of a strong image. I’m not interested in dialogue at all. Pure image and sound, that is the power of cinema, but it is something not obvious when you watch movies today. Movies have been corrupted by television.”

And this scene largely fails at that, especially compared to the first. With this movie's $190 million budget, I'd have liked to see something like this scene from the Northman that really drives home the point that "hey, this is a big deal, this woman now has millennia of memories from her female ancestors, it's not just a creepy voice possessing her every now and then".

Paul's Water of Life scene is thoroughly underwhelming. No trippy psychedelic visuals, just a brief glimpse of an adult Alia and a vision of a baby Jessica in a crib with the Baron watching over her, revealing her parentage. Later we see a shot of starving people crawling across a dry desert floor with Jessica walking around them completely unbothered, suggesting the jihad (though they unfortunately but unsurprisingly stick to the phrase "holy war" in the movies) was largely her doing.

Stilgar is much more noticeably zealous. I actually liked this change, added some tonally appropriate humor to the movie (unlike Marvel heroes quipping in the middle of a battle).

Chani isn't the consistently loyal, supportive wife in all but name from the books. Zendaya (playing the same role she plays in every other performance) is defiant and is by the end of it the only Fremen who openly disapproves of Paul's actions. The final shot is her frowning into the camera waiting to ride a sandworm away from Arrakeen. Contrast that with the book's iconic "history will call us wives". This dynamic could have been much worse in today's climate, there's no girlboss moment where the competent, self-assured woman teaches the incompetent, overconfident man a lesson, but I still get the sense, like with the Wheel of Time show, that Hollywood just can't commit to a hero's journey story truly centered around a male protagonist.

This line was dropped:

“Try your tricks on me, old witch,” Paul said [to Reverend Mother Gaius Mohiam]. “Where’s your gom jabbar? Try looking into that place where you dare not look! You’ll find me there staring out at you!” The old woman dropped her gaze. In favor of a less demeaning scream of "Silence!" Too sexist for a modern Hollywood?

Absolutely no mention of the Spacing Guild or CHOAM. 2 of the 4 factions that run the Galaxy and the ones most directly reliant on Spice production, a pretty significant omission. Granted, this is a complicated power dynamic to explain but we could have at least gotten a shot of them in the ships above the planet discussing the political situation like we did in David Lynch's adaptation. Come to think of it, I'm not sure how anyone who hadn't read the books would have understood just WHY the spice is so important. Sure we see Paul and Jessica unlock some new abilities with it, but that doesn't itself explain why all the Imperium's houses are so invested in this one planet.

Chalamet is just not the best choice to play Paul IMO. Book Paul had an edge to him, Tim mostly doesn't.

The final showdown in the throne room was in general, VERY underwhelming. In the book, Paul's internal monologue really conveys the psychic weight of this scene. It's exactly the sort of moment that could have used the first movie's dramatic Middle Eastern chanting and slow-motion. The future of the humanity hinges on this one point forseen in Paul's visions. But the cinematography was very dry and it was over as soon as it started.

Lasguns everywhere. Fun to watch but totally immersion-breaking. Why are the Sardaukar bothering with swords at all if lasguns-shield explosions aren't truly mutually assured destruction?

This change really bugged me because it just feels so thematically off-the-mark. In the book, it's established that Paul's ultimate control of the spice hinges on the fact that he knows how to trigger a chain-reaction that would kill all the sandworms. This is unique to him as it depends on his knowledge of the planet's ecology he learned from the Fremen and their fanatical devotion to him. The Landsraad accepts this and surrenders to him as the de facto Emperor, though there's a jihad anyway. In the movie, Paul threatens to somehow use the family atomics to destroy the spice supply. The noble houses reject this and this kicks off the jihad. This sets up a Part 3 more clearly but ecology is too thematically integral to the plot of the books to justify this change.

Feyd Rautha's character gets much more screentime than the books. Gives as an aesthetically pleasing black-and-white scene on Giedi Prime, but he seemed far too robotic for me, doesn't even react to being fatally stabbed other than to congratulate Paul on fighting well, which is totally out of character. ||

Overall this isn't a terrible movie by any means, and I imagine if you liked the first and haven't read/don't particularly care for the books you'll enjoy this one. But it was a letdown especially compared to the high bar set by the first.

The only reason to play this game is for Immortal Empires, which requires all three games in the series.

Doesn't appear to be true anymore, looks like you just need the first two games/DLCs to access all the factions and leaders.

What’s your story about?

Pitchfork's Best Albums of the Decade for each decade are decent, diverse lists (though avoid the ones that came out after 2016 or so). After that Spotify playlists are quite good. Just pick a song you like and the radio station based on that song will usually introduce you to similar but less well-known music. That's how I discovered Melvins through a radio station based on Alice in Chains' Them Bones.

Would you have any qualms about going out with a girl who’s 18 or 19? I had a 25-yo friend turn down an attractive girl because she was 19.

The case he makes is that there is significant overlap. A Christian might see Jesus as a spirit guide, a Hindu might see Shiva, but there’s still a sense of the other reality being eternal and more real than this one.

Is any women who isn’t pregnant/disabled/very old actually going to be flattered by you offering her your seat? Surely the vast majority would find that really awkward and borderline demeaning?

Finished The Darkness That Comes Before. Great first entry, especially considering it's mostly setup for the main event of the trilogy. I did correctly predict that Skeaos is in the Consult.

Will do. Curious if you have a link to that discussion. A search of the site only turned up culture war content.

chainsmoking

Isn't vaping a much less unhealthy way of consuming nicotine?

Interesting, earlier this year I did watch some of his interview with Bernardo Kastrup, one of my favorite modern philosophers, on the Theories of Everything Podcast but it didn't particularly stick with me. The series you linked sounds interesting, I'll give it a shot. Though I'm generally skeptical that a search for meaning is necessary or desirable. But I am coming from a more Buddhist nihilist perspective meaning is mostly a cope for dissatisfaction caused by misdirected attention. I didn't realize Vervaeke himself is a Buddhist, so if he still makes the case for finding meaning I'm open to hearing it.