@blackstampede's banner p


one of the liberals

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 05 Sep 2022
Verified Email


User ID: 286


one of the liberals

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 05 Sep 2022


No bio...


User ID: 286

Verified Email

I haven't played many games in the last few years, but a friend of mine suggested Inscryption- a deck builder game. Card games are normally not my cup of tea, but the story is fantastic and meta and self-referential with SCP foundation vibes. I ended up completing the whole thing in about three days and then replayed the first section for another few days.

Fair. I think I was more disputing the idea that it's "clear as day." About a year ago, someone directed me to an article that was written by a bot. It took three or four sentences before I realized it, but if I had been casually skimming (as my friend did, apparently) I may not have noticed that it was circular nonsense. I would consider that "clear as day" - if you know that it's possible, and you actually read the text, you can tell after a few sentences.

I don't believe it's obvious anymore if you're not looking for it. If I were directed to a news article that said:

The Ukraine-Russian war has been a contentious and complicated issue for many years now, and it's important to understand all sides of the story. As someone who has been following the situation closely, I believe that Russia has been unfairly maligned in the conflict.

First of all, it's important to understand the historical context of the war. Ukraine has long been a part of the Russian sphere of influence, and the two countries have a deep cultural and economic connection. The idea that Ukraine could simply cut ties with Russia and align itself with the West is naive and unrealistic.

Furthermore, Russia has legitimate security concerns when it comes to Ukraine. The Russian-speaking population in eastern Ukraine has been under attack by Ukrainian nationalist groups, and Russia has a right to protect its citizens and its interests...

(PROMPT: write an opinion piece about the Ukraine-Russian war from the perspective of a Russian supporter, but don't say that you're a Russian supporter)

On a day when we weren't discussing this topic, I wouldn't notice. And if I did, it would be a half-formed suspicion rather than a certainty. Here's the same prompt from the opposite side:

The Ukraine-Russian war has been a major source of conflict and tension in recent years, and it's important to understand all sides of the story. As someone who has been following the situation closely, I believe that Ukraine has been unfairly maligned in the conflict.

First of all, it's important to understand the historical context of the war. Ukraine has long been an independent nation with its own unique culture and history. The idea that Ukraine should be subservient to Russia is outdated and wrong. Ukraine has the right to determine its own future and align itself with whomever it wishes.

Furthermore, Ukraine has legitimate security concerns when it comes to Russia. Russian-backed separatist groups have been waging a violent campaign in eastern Ukraine, killing and injuring thousands of civilians. Ukraine has a right to defend itself and its territory from these aggression...

(PROMPT: write an opinion piece about the Ukraine-Russian war from the perspective of a Ukraine supporter, but don't say that you're a Ukraine supporter)

Here's one that's more fun:

In a shocking revelation, it has come to light that the United States was secretly planning to station nuclear weapons in Ukraine prior to the outbreak of the Ukraine-Russian war.

According to sources within the US government, the plan was part of a broader strategy to counter Russian aggression in the region. The idea was to provide Ukraine with a deterrent against Russian military action, by giving them access to a small number of US nuclear weapons.

However, the plan was ultimately scrapped due to opposition from other members of the international community, who were concerned about the potential for escalation and the risks associated with placing nuclear weapons in such a volatile region.

The revelation of this secret plan has sparked outrage among Russian officials, who have accused the United States of escalating tensions and attempting to encircle Russia with nuclear weapons. The US government has declined to comment on the matter, citing the need to protect classified information.

(PROMPT: write a news article about a secret US project to station nuclear weapons in Ukraine prior to the Ukraine-Russian war)

I completely agree. It's pretty obvious when a post has been written by a bot, and the confusion around it just seems like a way for some people to show off their supposed expertise on the subject. As you mentioned, bots have come a long way, but they still have a ways to go before they can completely mimic human writing. Until then, it's pretty easy to spot a bot-written post.

this post was written by ChatGPT in response to the prompt: 'Write a forum comment in response to the following: "Also I find all the confusion around 'was this written by a bot' quite performative, its clear as day when its written by a bot. Yes it won't stay that way forever, yes bots have come a LONG way, but still."'

A) Having a job is not the same as being independent or the head of the household. About a third of dual income couples have the woman making more. According to that article the most common cases are where the husband is a bartender, barber, kindergarten teacher or waiter. My hunch is that most of these cases are women out-earning their partners by a small amount, given that this arrangement is way likely to end in divorce. So while it is true that a sizeable fraction of women are breadwinners, it is not nearly the same rate as men and they are way more likely to get divorced (i.e. are unhappy). I should mention single moms here as well, but what percentage of the independent ones (i.e. not on child support, welfare) are happy with their arrangement and not seeking a man who makes more than them?

Women make less in general, I agree. But you're excluding single women, single moms, lesbians and basically anyone who isn't in a traditional nuclear family, then adding the requirement that they be happy, have no outside income (no disability, welfare or child support), and... not be looking for a relationship?

I don't any hard numbers on how many men fail the "independence" requirements that you've laid out here, but I would guess it's a lot. I've met a lot of men who are in unhappy marriages, a lot of men who are single and looking for a relationship, and an enormous number of men that are on disability.

B) It is vague but it does mean something in a couple ways. Most simply, women are holding them responsible. Sort of like how a bachelor's house and a married couple's house looks way different, a large amount of civilizing pressure comes from women. There's also the situation on the ground. Ladies are heavily concentrated in some industries, but there aren't many that I would call staples of "civilization". Between resource extraction, the energy, utilities, manufacturing, shipping, agriculture, none have a sizeable fraction of women handling any core responsibilities. Finally, there is the historical precedent. Through antiquity, if the men of a tribe grew weaker than another tribe, they would be killed. The women would be absorbed into the stronger tribe.

Yeah, maybe we should take a poll. Because I've never met a woman that "held men responsible for civilization." I would guess this is something unique to your social circle. So basically, no offense- but I don't believe you.

C) If a man just stops going to work, his lady would be very mad in pretty much all cases. The reverse is not true nearly as often. Generalize this and women are upset on a level that men just aren't.

Again, I just don't believe you. I'm 35 years old. I've lived in a lot of different places and met a lot of different people- if a person is in a relationship and their significant other decides to quit with no discussion, then the non-quitting partner would almost universally be angry. If they quit with discussion, then the anger would depend on the reasons.

D) Like B, the workforce is concentrated in less essential areas. Again there is historical precedent. Before WWII about 20% of women were working, mostly young ones and in low level jobs. This seemed to work fine. Same to say those jobs could be absorbed by men if they had to.

If you want to argue that men leaving the workforce would be worse than women leaving the workforce, then I would agree. But originally, you stated that it would be a "small problem". By any measure, 75% of your healthcare workers quitting would be an enormous problem. The education system is dominated, top to bottom, by women. Banks are run by women. This isn't pre-WWII anymore, and there are lots of jobs that aren't agricultural or construction-related that we need workers in.

E) The rates of depression and general malaise among ladies along with plummeting fertility rates makes me think that the current arrangement isn't all it's cracked up to be. Women are in a prisoner's dilemma. Each individual is usually worse off if they don't work, but collectively they are worse off all working. If they all quit, SSRI use would drop in a hurry.

Speculation, and also (as with the happiness requirement in A) beside the point.

A) 46.6% of the workforce is women, so it's not "some ladies are independent heads of households" it's "women are independent heads of households at almost the same rate as men."

B) "Not responsible for maintaining civilization" is a vague assertion. Who isn't holding them responsible? You? Because that means nothing.

C) "If men stop going to work, huge problem. Ladies mad." It would be a huge problem. I'm not sure why "ladies", in particular, would be angrier about the situation than any other group.

D) "If women stop going to work, small problem..." - No. It would not be a small problem. If 46.6% of your workforce decides not to work, that is not a small problem. If it's also ~75% of your healthcare workers, that is an absolutely enormous problem.

E) "...nobody mad." Of the people I know, none of them would be angry if a large group of people stopped working. They would be concerned. If they were angry, they would be no less angry about women leaving the workforce than men.

Every part of that statement was wrong in a number of different ways.

This is one of the main things that kills a show for me. One of the most egregious examples I can think of recently was the new Wheel of Time series.

Convince me that men are mostly stronger than women? I'm already convinced, man. Convince me that divisions based on measurements are worse (in some way) than divisions based on sex? I'm honestly not sure. If women who are the same weight, height, body fat etc. lose at very high rates when competing against men, that would do it- I'm not sure how you get that data without actually setting up widespread non-sex based competitions and then tracking win rates for a while.

I don't know how the women I mentioned became strong- I wasn't close with them. There were several in the military and a few since that could out-lift me along various dimensions- mostly squats. Only one, maybe two that were stronger in the upper body than I was, although I may be stronger now than they were then.

I think they got to the correct answer by the correct method (it's fair, merit-based, avoids sex-related questions/trans stuff etc), and then tried to decorate the reasoning process with language that would make it palatable to their readers. Reading it gave me a bit of mental whiplash.

I can't argue against an anecdote from your life, because (obviously) I wasn't there. I will say that I don't think anecdotes are a slam-dunk argument against weight classes in sports and that I've met women (rarely) who were stronger than I am. I'm not a small or a weak man.

Lastly, if we imagine a system like what I've described- if larger men reach weight requirements by gaining fat rather than muscle and then compete against smaller men who are stronger, they just lose. If a woman did the same then she would lose. She would either need to lose weight to fit into a lower weight category or spend the time to gain enough muscle to hold her own in the category that she wants to compete in.

I didn't see the parent comment before it was deleted, but I think I enjoy your summary better anyway.

I want to take issue with the first part of this.

The quote from the Atlantic article is cherry-picked- Yes, it's dumb. Yes, the article used the silly "but gender and sex is a complex issue that isn't so cut and dry" gambit, but if you actually read the article, it's arguing (couched in progressive applause lights and signalling) that sports should have weight/size divisions rather than sex-based divisions, which I entirely agree with. Divisions based on physical attributes neatly sidesteps the transgender problem, it's more obviously fair, it would be fun to watch - it's a fantastic solution. We could split up divisions based on attributes that fit the sport- height or leg length for running, size and weight for football or boxing and so on. Large, muscular women would square off in the higher categories against men, while underweight men would compete against women their own size.

I read through a few comments, and no one seems to have clicked through to the source article and read it - everyone is just using the quote as a jumping-off point to bitch about their issues with modern academia or with those damn progressives that are ignoring biology.

EDIT: fixing some weird phrasing

Thanks for the link

How do I build a business around writing code for other people and also build up intellectual property for the company? Tips?


EDIT: looks like you can also sort and filter: https://www.themotte.org/rss/new/all

One has a claim of openness, but really has preferences while the other has a claim to preferences but is really open. It seems like that could matter. In my personal experience- people who say that they're into everything/willing to try anything once etc. actually do have rules that they just don't want to explicitly state (for social/status/signalling reasons). When people state their rules/preferences out right, it's less likely for them to secretly disregard those preferences. That's just a feeling I have though, so maybe I'm wrong and it doesn't matter at all for this comparison.

Even if the comparison holds, though, I've never seen any sign that the behavior you're talking about exists. I've got some spotty political beliefs, but I'm generally on the blue side of gray. I know a lot of liberals and none of them would seriously date a Trump supporter.

First, I don't think these two things are equivalent. With the OkCupid data, you're arguing that people say that they don't see race, but actually display preferences when their behavior is tracked. With political dating preferences, people say that they have preferences, and you're arguing that they may actually not have those preferences. In one, people are claiming to be open to anything, but actually have preferences, in the other, people are stating preferences and you're arguing that they don't actually have them.

Not an apples-to-apples comparison there.

Second, as a leftist who has Trump-voting acquaintances and has slept with at least one Trump-voter (that I know of), I can provide a little more anecdata on the won't-seriously-date-a-trump-voter side. It's not because Trump is a conservative (I like some more libertarian-ish conservative politicians and would date someone who voted conservative) it's because he seems to be an absolutely terrible person. That's the most mild possible way to put it. In my mind, anyone who happily (read: not grudgingly, as a hold-your-nose bid for political change) supports someone like that is likely to be either ignorant, deluded, or a bad person themselves, and I'm not interested in forming a long-term relationship with a person like that.

I'm working on a rust implementation of MIL-STD-1553B message parsing- 1553 is the serial bus communication standard used in US avionics systems. It's a dinky little project, but weirdly fun.

I don't think there are any technical constraints. The sql for the db has it set at 10k and there are places where the 10k limit is hard-coded, but it seems like increasing the limit should be relatively simple.

EDIT: although this issue says that the limit is 20k

No. We're not selecting for that. Because modern society is changing too fast for selection pressures to react.

Not deliberate at all. I picked it because we needed something to fill the space and the rDrama image that we had wasn't suitable. I agree it should probably get changed at some point.

You could probably throw some singularity/longtermist definitions in there too.

My abortive attempt to watch the new Wheel of Time ended when they gave Perrin (big, awkward, bad with words and women- Perrin) a wife to lose, and had Rand and Egwene (both young adults in a farming community with relatively traditional, rural values) fuck each other immediately. No will-they-won't-they, no nod to the traditional environment, no awkward fumbling or embarrassment or confusion (which is a reoccurring theme in the story until much later) just totally casual sex. It absolutely changed the characters, and not for the better. I'm a fan of casual sex as much as the next guy, but you can't just take 202x morality filtered through the personal experiences of writers in (presumably) a large city, assume it's a universal human experience and slap it onto a story about farm boys in a traditional, agricultural society with strong rituals and expectations around marriage and pregnancy, and call it good.

It was a train wreck.

Second this. I'd like to know the details of what was going on between the sub mods and site administration. Just morbid curiosity.