ToaKraka
Dislikes you
User ID: 108
If I were less lazy/busy, I'd insert the usual OkCupid stats blogs/archives from before they were bought and cucked. They showed that female attractiveness peaked at 18, but that was their minimum age cutoff, so I suspect the actual figure is even lower at around 16. Men also showed tolerance to wider age gaps as they got older. 30-year-old and 35-year-old men showed roughly the same willingness to approach 25-year-old women.
I believe Gwern has a copy. Someone please do this in the comments, thanks, :-*
Link (doesn't quite match your assertion)
As you can see, men tend to focus on the youngest women in their already skewed preference pool, and, what's more, they spend a significant amount of energy pursuing women even younger than their stated minimum. No matter what he's telling himself on his setting page, a 30-year-old man spends as much time messaging 18- and 19-year-olds as he does women his own age. On the other hand, women only a few years older are largely neglected.
A woman's desirability peaks at 21, which ironically enough is the age that men just begin their "prime"—i. e., become more desirable than average. Following that dotted line out, you can see that a woman of 31 is already "past her prime", while a man doesn't become so until 36. As we mentioned above, after age 26, a man has more potential matches than his female counterparts, which is a drastic reversal of the proportion in young adulthood, when women are much more sought-after. Because men's dating preferences skew so young, and women's are age-equitable, men peak later, and have a longer plateau of desirability, than women.
Recently I read that a well respected football coach—Bill Belichick—was denied admission to the Football Hall of Fame based on the fact that he is in a romantic relationship with a woman who is much younger than him.
I'm not a football fan, but it's my understanding that this is a gross oversimplification. News articles (1 2) indicate that the voters refrained from inducting Belichick for several reasons. One reason that stands out is the fact that, under the recently-updated voting system, some people are losing eligibility, so this is their last chance to be inducted (before they are relegated to a separate "senior" category, where induction is technically still possible but also harder). Another reason is his involvement in cheating scandals. Neither of the linked articles mentions anything about a scandalously young romantic partner.
IIRC, in last year's non-book-review contest there was some controversy regarding whether it was permissible for people to say which reviews were theirs and beg for votes on social media, as such behavior was considered by some to be a violation of the spirit of the anonymous contest even though it was not explicitly prohibited in the official rules. So you may want to avoid stating what your final decision on this topic is.
Who will keep track of the budget, or at very least the inflows and outflows of charity funds, such that the neighborhood charity isn't unable to provide funds to people in need as they've run out of donations for the month?
Charity organizations normally have treasurers and are required to publish annual financial statements. Outside of legal requirements, they can submit to the oversight of bigger charities.
How will this be more effective than the current system when you easily multiply by 1000 the number of "administrators"/people to coordinate this?
Citation needed.
What happens if this doesn't happen in a community? Say an impoverished trailer park. Or a condo tower without much by way of community. People will literally starve, are you okay with that?
As the kids say, yes_chad.webp.
Are you fine that a 3-year-old child of drug addicts could credibly die or be very affected by malnutrition if your "grassroots community support organized by someone" program doesn't work across 300 million people?
How about if that kid is 6 and severely malnourished, a teacher notices, and then the child needs to get hospitalized, a cost the hospital will inevitably eat because neither the child nor the parents will be paying for that. Are you okay with increased medical costs as a result of not giving people food?
I think the standard libertarian argument is to make adoption easier. If the teacher (or the school?) cares so much, he can adopt the child. Don't force the hospital to pay for it.
Just embrace the status of 30-year-old boomer.
Yes, the Kiwi Farms threads on these people generally indicate that they are quite cringe.
This statement seems somewhat misleading.
-
Your article states that, in year 2021, 38 million people lived below the official poverty line, and only 6.4 million (17 percent) of those were "working poor" (i. e., had spent at least 27 weeks either working or looking for work), leaving 83 percent of the poor as nonworking.
-
However, that denominator of 38 million includes children and retirees. According to the original Census dataset, the better denominator of people below the official poverty line and between ages 18 and 64 is 21 million people, leading to a "working poor" proportion of 30 percent. This new proportion of 70 percent nonworkers among poor people who are neither children nor retirees still possibly counts as a "vast majority", but it isn't quite as high as the original proportion.
Isn't Sekiro the closer match?
Sekiro is focused on timed parries. Nioh 1 has some parry skills (and IIRC Nioh 2 adds more such skills), but is much more focused on dodging and blocking. I don't use parry skills at all, but it's my understanding that they don't work on big yokai.
In performing some relaxing HTML copyright infringement, I found myself thinking about wording.
Quotes from the official Magic: The Gathering rules:
(107.1) The only numbers the Magic game uses are integers.
(107.1a) You can't choose a fractional number, deal fractional damage, gain fractional life, and so on. If a spell or ability could generate a fractional number, the spell or ability will tell you whether to round up or down.
(119.1) Each player begins the game with a starting life total of 20. Some variant games have different starting life totals.
(111.10b) A Food token is a colorless Food artifact token with "{2}, {T}, Sacrifice this token: You gain 3 life."
Obviously, life is not countable regardless of what these rules say, so when you sacrifice a Food token you actually gain not "3 life" but "3 points of life" or "3 life points". But space on cards is limited, so the authors of Magic have chosen to omit these extra words.
It's somewhat interesting to think about how the particular game with which I am toying (1 2) has a similar problem. Each player, in his capacity as a major country at the Paris Peace Conference, can be considered to start the game with 15 influence points, three military units, and happiness at level 20.
-
Influence point: No problems here. It's just a point of influence. "You may deploy to any two issues any number of available influence points as long as you control both issues after the deployment."
-
Military unit: "Military" is not a quantity. This is a unit that is military (e. g., a corps sent to prevent an issue from becoming unsettled), or maybe a unit of your military, but not a "unit of military". (It could be a unit of military power, but that would be too long-winded.) "You may deploy an available military unit to an empty position 5, 6, 7, or 8 in a region that does not already contain a military unit of yours."
-
Happiness level: Doesn't calling happiness a quantity in this context—where it cannot be spent, but merely rises and falls based on outside factors—sound subtly wrong? It already is somewhat strained to think of diplomatic influence, with its complex one-off favors and threats, as a bucketful of interchangeable liquid that can be doled out and recouped at will by a negotiating government. But treating the happiness of a country's populace in such a manner feels even less appropriate. Rather, happiness is more like a level of temperature than a quantity of liquid. "Your happiness falls by two levels."
Action RPG Nioh 3 has just been released at a price of 110 dollars (including future DLC). As a result, its decade-old predecessor Nioh 1 has been discounted to literally 7.5 dollars (including DLC). Buy it!
- The central mechanic is melee combat with careful stamina management—like Dark Souls 1 and 2, but faster-paced and with a Gears of War–style timed button press to recover stamina more quickly. There are seven melee-weapon types: sword, pair of swords, odachi, spear (actually wielded more like a polearm, with lots of swings), axe, kusarigama, and pair of tonfa. These weapons must be used in conjunction with three different stances: medium (default), high (powerful but bad at blocking and dodging), and low (good at dodging but weak).
- Ranged weapons (bow, rifle, and hand cannon), ninja skills, and yin-yang magic also are available.
- There are several sequential difficulty levels (samurai, strong, demon, wise, and nioh). At higher difficulty levels, enemies are stronger and get new moves, and more are included in levels.
- Enemies include both normal humans (can be staggered with attacks, but can block) and big yokai (cannot be staggered but cannot block), plus small fodder yokai (can be staggered and cannot block).
Even after 700 hours in this game, I'm only okay at it (any boss fight with multiple big yokai always takes me a while to beat; the one with a raven tengu and a flying bolt deserves special mention), but it's great fun. I personally use the odachi most of the time, with some consideration given to the spear.
Why can't the poor?
According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, for consumer units of three people:
| Income (k$/a) | Average expenditure on food at home ($/mo) |
|---|---|
| Any | 623 |
| ∈ [0, 15) | 416 |
| ∈ [15, 30) | 480 |
| ∈ [30, 40) | 507 |
| ∈ [40, 50) | 452 |
| ∈ [50, 70) | 576 |
| ∈ [70, 100) | 537 |
| ∈ [100, 150) | 641 |
| ∈ [150, ∞) | 799 |
TinyURL? What year is it? IIRC, link shorteners are even banned on Reddit due to their potential for causing problems.
All you have to do is delete the "url=" that you accidentally added at the start of the link.
Your link is broken.
url=
Spanish doesn't have the /θ/ phoneme
the Court was categorising any American who requires the use of glasses as disabled
The article appears to say the opposite of that.
In subsequent years, what [the ADA's definition of disability] meant would be fought out in court. Unlike what happened in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act, however, the judicial branch behaved somewhat reasonably. The case of Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. was decided by the Supreme Court in 1999. A pair of twin sisters both applied to be pilots, but were told that they did not meet the standard of having uncorrected 20/100 vision or better. They sued, saying that they were being discriminated against. The Supreme Court ruled that the sisters were not actually disabled, because they had a condition that could be corrected—in this case by using glasses or contact lenses.
Crucially for its decision, the Court pointed to a Congressional finding included in the ADA that approximately 43 million Americans suffered from a disability. If the justices adopted the definition of disability urged by the plaintiffs in Sutton, it would include, among others, everyone who needed glasses. That would mean that over 160 million Americans were disabled. The original Congressional finding, however, arguably put a much smaller numerical limit on how many people were protected under the ADA.
Though Congress then effectively overruled that decision.
Seeing the same events through different implementations can be cool.
I personally found the Binding of Isaac games as played by Bisnap fairly fun to watch, way back when he uploaded pre-recorded videos rather than streaming (Wrath of the Lamb, Rebirth, Afterbirth). But I'm not too interested in playing these "wiki games".
Leaderboard of uncensored LLMs
| Model | Billions of parameters | Willingness to obey user | Knowledge of NSFW topics | Writing ability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| darkc0de/XortronCriminalComputingConfig | 24 | 9.8 | 2.6 | 35 |
| ArliAI/GLM-4.5-Air-Derestricted (no thinking) | 106 | 8.8 | 2.7 | 43 |
| xai/grok-4-1-fast-reasoning | Proprietary | 6.5 | 4.8 | 51 |
| anthropic/claude-opus-4-6 (adaptive, medium effort) | Proprietary | 3.2 | 6.4 | 69 |
- Prev
- Next

That docket page hasn't yet been updated to reflect the order.
More options
Context Copy link