curious_straight_ca
No bio...
User ID: 1845
Interesting article. Let's read it.
The big picture: The Trump administration fought a lower court order to return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadorian national who the government erroneously deported, arguing the judge's order imposes on the president's foreign policy powers.
Okay. "Erroneously deported". Maybe this is liberal media slander. Let's see where the link goes.
A Salvadorian national living in Maryland legally was wrongly deported to El Salvador, the Department of Justice has admitted in court papers filed Monday.
They admitted it? Maybe this is spin from the ... biased reporters at ... Axios? Well, let's click.
It's a filing by the government, defending their position. From the "Statement of Facts"
Plaintiff Abrego Garcia is a citizen and native of El Salvador, and his coplaintiffs are his U.S. citizen wife and five-year-old child, who reside in Maryland. Compl. ¶¶ 4–6, 42. Both Abrego Garcia and his wife work full-time to support their family.
During a bond hearing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) stated that a confidential informant had advised that Abrego Garcia was an active member of the criminal gang MS-13.
Although Abrego Garcia was found removable, the immigration judge granted him withholding of removal to El Salvador in an order dated October 10, 2019.
On March 15, although ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador because of an administrative error. Cerna Decl. ¶¶ 12–15. On March 16, a news article contained a photograph of individuals entering intake at CECOT.
Okay ... so he was protected from removal, and ICE should not have removed him and admits so, but did so anyway due to an error.
And he was not merely "removed" to another country, but sent to a notorious prison for gang members, where it's unclear if he'll ever be able to leave. Due to an "administrative error". Without any due process to determine, for instance, whether he was actually a member of MS-13, whether this confidential informant's claims were true. When previously he was married to a US citizen and raising a five year old.
Let's read your second paragraph again:
Not to blackpill too much, but the country is basically doomed. When judges can override issues of national sovereignty - literally there is NOTHING more important than a country deciding for itself who to let in and who to expel - the illegal immigration issue in the US will never be solved. It's over, there's just no way to solve it. The millions who came in will never leave.
What?
How did this sequence of thoughts occur to you?
Most illegal immigrants are not protected from removal. For those that are protected, there are ways to remove the protection, whether that be via executive orders (as trump has revoked TPS for many groups of illegal immigrants), laws (Republicans, in theory, have a trifecta, and could nuke the filibuster at any time for something of such great importance) or proceedings in courts. Even then, if the administration simply wanted him gone, they could have expelled this person to freedom in a foreign country, instead of a prison that El Salvador advertises as a hellish place you can never leave, and perhaps gotten a friendlier ruling.
The Trump Administration is not getting similar orders to return the over 275 other people sent to CECOT, because they weren't sent because of an "administrative error" like this one.
How does an order demanding this man return have anything at all to do with the ability of the Trump administration to deport illegal immigrants in general?
curious_straight_ca
2mo ago
Universal tariffs are words that fail the antagonism rule not a good policy fit for any reasonable goal. If you want a muscular government to intervene in the economy, actually do that. if you want to encourage manufacturing and defense production, if you want to downsize the parasitic financial economy, if you want good jobs for poor white Americans, if you want America to produce steel and ships (for shipping or the navy) and toasters and drones and nuclear power plants ... then actually do that. Subsidize specific industries. Do huge advance market commitments. Partner with a red state, eminent domain some land, rubber-stamp all the regulatory hurdles, and build those nuclear plants. Pick some startup CEO and replace the slow defense procurement process with "that guy decides". Ban imported Chinese products that infringe on domestic IP. Implement a 50% tax on hedge fund profits. Do the Yarvin where you just ban mass-produced shoes and clothing. Whatever. Those are the kind of policies that could, in principle, do the thing you want them to. One of them might even actually be a good idea. But there's an actual connection between the goal and the action, unlike with universal tariffs.
The fundamental principle behind universal tariffs is "We need to do something. This is something [we can do]. Therefore, we need do this". Way in the past, when we didn't have computers or even telegraphs and governments were less powerful, tax collection was just a lot harder, and trade with foreign countries necessarily occurred at borders and especially ports, so tariffs were the government's biggest source of revenue, so the concept of tariffs got a lot of mindshare. Later, US Congress delegated tariff power to the President as a way to negotiate trade agreements after they passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and caused a trade war. So the right's thinking about it because we did it in the based old days, and Trump's thinking about it because it's a thing he can do without needing Congress. And, if you think about it a little, there are arguments for why it'd bring manufacturing back and increase lower class wages and such, it doesn't sound that implausible. (There are arguments for a lot of things.) So, in an intellectual environment where ideas aren't exactly rigorously scrutinized, "tariff everything" does very well.
(Or, Trump got a big beautiful red button that makes everyone, especially the libs, mad when he presses it. Of course he'll press it. Why reach for a more complicated explanation?)
The thing is, the 100 year old rusty tool you found in your grandfather's toolbox isn't the best choice to fix your Tesla, or your modern economy. If you're hoping the 50% tariffs on Vietnam will bring back those jobs for working class Americans, wages and gdp per capita there are less than a tenth of America's, and 1.5 is a lot less than 10. It'll make a difference on the margin, but it won't make Americans start buying clothing made of American cloth and put together by American hands. Universal tariffs are too blunt an instrument - tariffs large enough to actually bring all the jobs back would crush the economy, because it's currently deeply integrated with the outside world. And bringing back manufacturing wouldn't even bring back manufacturing employment. Americans don't want to work for Vietnam wages, but American robots will happily work at a total cost above Vietnam wages but below American wages.
"Yes-chad", I might say to all that. Yes, I want to destroy the degenerate, consumerist, metastasized economy. Yes, I don't want cheap garbage from foreign countries. America needs harsh medicine.
Even in that case, universal tariffs still aren't the right tool. If you want such radical change, you either need buy-in from the population because of the "democracy" thing, or something like regime change. In the former case, crashing the stock market and raising prices for the garbage everyone loves just doesn't sell! Peoples' jobs depend on particular economic arrangements, companies with specific suppliers and specific markets, and in current_year many of those suppliers and markets are in foreign countries, so huge universal tariffs that last for years means a lot of people will lose their jobs. People generally don't like that. Maybe with careful state management of a transition to something closer to autarky, people could be convinced. But universal tariffs don't do that, they're a sudden shock.
So, regime change. The thing about regime change is you need a lot more support than you do to do things through the normal democratic process. Often but not necessarily from the masses, but certainly from some people. Universal tariffs destroys elite buy-in, because you're nuking their stocks and businesses. It's the kind of thing you need to do after the coup, not before it. And once you get to absolute public policy, you can hopefully more directly pursue your desired outcome.
Targeted tariffs aren't as dumb as universal tariffs. America really should make chips, and ships, in America. But if even the Jones Act isn't enough to make America build American ships, moderate tariffs probably won't be either.
The Conspiracy of Silence to Protect Joe Biden
The president’s mental decline was like a dark family secret for many elite supporters.
By Olivia Nuzzi
Just read the whole article. If not, the best parts:
Obsessive efforts to control Biden were not a new phenomenon. But whereas in the last campaign, the incredible stagecraft surrounding even the smallest Biden event — speaking to a few people at a union hall in rural Iowa, say, or in a barn in New Hampshire — seemed to be about avoiding the so-called gaffes that had become for him inevitable, the stagecraft of the 2024 campaign seems now to be about something else. The worry is not that Biden will say something overly candid, or say something he didn’t mean to say, but that he will communicate through his appearance that he is not really there.
...
In January, I began hearing similar stories from Democratic officials, activists, and donors. All people who supported the president and were working to help reelect him to a second term in office. Following encounters with the president, they had arrived at the same concern: Could he really do this for another four years? Could he even make it to Election Day?
When they discussed what they knew, what they had seen, what they had heard, they literally whispered. They were scared and horrified. But they were also burdened. They needed to talk about it (though not on the record). They needed to know that they were not alone and not crazy. Things were bad, and they knew things were bad, and they knew others must also know things were bad, and yet they would need to pretend, outwardly, that things were fine. The president was fine. The election would be fine. They would be fine. To admit otherwise would mean jeopardizing the future of the country and, well, nobody wanted to be responsible personally or socially for that. Their disclosures often followed innocent questions: Have you seen the president lately? How does he seem? Often, they would answer with only silence, their eyes widening cartoonishly, their heads shaking back and forth. Or with disapproving sounds. “Phhhhwwwaahhh.” “Uggghhhhhhhhh.” “Bbbwwhhheeuuw.” Or with a simple, “Not good! Not good!” Or with an accusatory question of their own: “Have you seen him?!”
Who was actually in charge? Nobody knew. But surely someone was in charge? And surely there must be a plan, since surely this situation could not endure? I heard these questions posed at cocktail parties on the coasts but also at MAGA rallies in Middle America. There emerged a comical overlap between the beliefs of the nation’s most elite liberal Biden supporters and the beliefs of the most rabid and conspiratorial supporters of former President Trump. Resistance or QAnon, they shared a grand theory of America in 2024: There has to be a secret group of high-level government leaders who control Biden and who will soon set into motion their plan to replace Biden as the Democratic presidential nominee. Nothing else made sense. They were in full agreement.
...
[April 2024] The first person I saw upon entering the subterranean space was the First Lady...
In the basement, I smiled and said hello. She looked back at me with a confused, panicked expression. It was as if she had just received horrible news and was about to run out of the room and into some kind of a family emergency. “Uh, hi,” she said. Then she glanced over to her right. Oh …
I had not seen the president up close in some time. I had skipped this season’s holiday parties, and, preoccupied with covering Trump’s legal and political dramas, I hadn’t been showing up at his White House. Unlike Trump, he wasn’t very accessible to the press, anyway. Why bother? Biden had done few interviews. He wasn’t prone to interrupting his schedule with a surprise media circus in the Oval Office. He kept a tight circle of the same close advisers who had been advising him for more than 30 years, so unlike with his predecessor, you didn’t need to hang around in West Wing hallways to figure out who was speaking to him. It was all pretty locked down and predictable in terms of the reality you could access as a member of the press with a White House hard pass.
I followed the First Lady’s gaze and found the president. Now I understood her panicked expression.
Up close, the president does not look quite plausible. It’s not that he’s old. We all know what old looks like. Bernie Sanders is old. Mitch McConnell is old. Most of the ruling class is old. The president was something stranger, something not of this earth. This was true even in 2020. His face had then an uncanny valley quality that injectable aficionados call “low trust” — if only by millimeters, his cosmetically altered proportions knocked his overall facial harmony into the realm of the improbable. His thin skin, long a figurative problem and now a literal one, was pulled tightly over cheeks that seemed to vary month to month in volume. Under artificial light and in the sunshine, he took on an unnatural gleam. He looked, well, inflated. His eyes were half-shut or open very wide. They appeared darker than they once had, his pupils dilated. He did not blink at regular intervals. The White House often did not engage when questioned about the president’s stare, which sometimes raised alarm on social media when documented in official videos produced by the White House. The administration was above conspiratorial chitchat that entertained seriously scenarios in which the president was suffering from a shocking decline most Americans were not seeing. If the president was being portrayed that way, it was by his political enemies on the right, who promoted through what the press office termed “cheap fakes” a caricature of an addled creature unfit to serve. They would not dignify those people, or people doing the bidding of those people, with a response.
My heart stopped as I extended my hand to greet the president. I tried to make eye contact, but it was like his eyes, though open, were not on. His face had a waxy quality. He smiled. It was a sweet smile. It made me sad in a way I can’t fully convey. I always thought — and I wrote — that he was a decent man. If ambition was his only sin, and it seemed to be, he had committed no sin at all by the standards of most politicians I had covered. He took my hand in his, and I was startled by how it felt. Not cold but cool. The basement was so warm that people were sweating and complaining that they were sweating. This was a silly black-tie affair. I said “hello.” His sweet smile stayed frozen. He spoke very slowly and in a very soft voice. “And what’s your name?” he asked.
Exiting the room after the photo, the group of reporters — not instigated by me, I should note — made guesses about how dead he appeared to be, percentage wise. “Forty percent?” one of them asked.
“It was a bad night.” That’s the spin from the White House and its allies about Thursday’s debate. But when I watched the president amble stiffly across the stage, my first thought was: He doesn’t look so bad. For months, everything I had heard, plus some of what I had seen, led me to brace for something much more dire.
As context, Nuzzi's writing was critical of Biden's age in 2020, and Biden people have had a grudge against her ever since.
And from a tweet, when asked why she's reporting this now and not earlier:
I work on most of my stories for months. This piece is about a conspiracy of silence that made people reluctant to talk. I’ve been chasing down what I heard since January. That’s how long reporting takes. Debate changed people’s calculations about how candid they would be, and even then not on the record.
Not a great look, and especially bad to only publish it now. All that work covering it up, and it accomplished nothing for the Democratic Party, just significantly increased the chance of Trump winning. Few could put together the bravery to speak out about the age issues of the eighty year old, despite this being The Most Important Election Of Our Lifetime v3. Sadly, no competent elites in smoke-filled rooms pulling the strings. At best Ezra Klein with a column and podcast or two saying maybe we should replace him.
I think my earlier comment that this was a surprisingly bad Biden debate performance was true, and that this wasn't a problem for him in 2020 (and Nuzzi agrees), but I was definitely underestimating his decline.
Our immigrant pool is ... fine, certainly not awesome. It could be so much better than it already is if US immigration was intentionally administered in the interest of good immigrants. IQ tests, demonstrations of technical skill, unlimited in number but very expensive paid sponsorships, maybe with a culture exam or something if you care about that. Instead, there's generic administrative stasis and a political tug of war between 'poor mexican immigrants :(' and 'And Some, I Assume, Are Good People', and only minor improvements get done by pro skilled immigration interest groups.
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
Scott Adams has a history of dramatic claims. From wiki:
Adams received further attention in 2021 based on the anniversary of his 2020 prediction that if Biden were to win the 2020 presidential election, then Republicans would be hunted and there's a "good chance" they'll be "dead within a year" and "Police will stand down" — none of which ultimately occurred
He also wrote a book entitled "Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter", praising Trump's persuasion skills and ability to get attention by making and repeating outrageous claims, even if they aren't backed up by facts. He also claims to be a skilled hypnotist who uses the same techniques on his fans (for good, of course)! So I wouldn't take it all particularly seriously.
Donald Trump launched a shitcoin!. Trump Memes - $TRUMP - on Solana. It has a market cap of $5B, comparable to actual company $DJT, and a fully diluted value of $29B. For those who are unfamiliar, a 'shitcoin' or 'memecoin' is a term for a tradeable token that lives on a blockchain, like Ethereum or Solana, that doesn't make a claim to have value or future profits, and whose price relies on a large number of retail traders who think it'll go even higher, or that it's funny. Trump Memes joins coins like Shiba Inu, Fartcoin, Pepe, and Dogwifhat, and is now #4 for market cap. They function to redistribute huge amounts of wealth from gullible crypto enthusiasts to the token developers, smart traders, and people who happen to see it first. And, of course, 80% of all Trump tokens that exist were allocated to the coin's developers, locked up for some time period.
FT: The president-elect of the US is promoting a shitcoin?
Is this good for crypto? It doesn't hurt to have a friendly President - Trump and his team were embracing crypto, planning crypto-friendly executive orders, designating it as a 'national priority', and even seriously considering a 'strategic bitcoin reserve'. It might be bad, in the long run, though - it's the perfect setup for the next Dem administration to crack down on crypto. Or even a bipartisan crackdown, especially once Trump is too old to be politically relevant, or just dead from old age, and the grip of his personality over the Republican party is gone.
And, what a thing to do a few days before your inauguration. As much has people do irrationally hate Trump, I kind of buy the liberal claim that, because we all know Trump is corrupt and depraved, and the way in which he is so is incredibly funny, people don't hold him to the same standards they'd hold their political enemies, or anyone else. Joe Biden's done a lot of bad things, but if he blatantly scammed his supporters for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, the response from his allies would be a lot stronger!
I don't like the impersonal process-oriented bureaucracy, the expert elite, the oligarchy behind democracy, whatever you call it. They are hypocritical, corrupt, dysfunctional, whatever else. But they're not infinitely that. Society still more or less works. If the alternative (whether that's just more MAGA candidates winning elections, or a moldbuggian new regime) is concentrating power in strong individuals, and this is the kind of individual that smart right-wingers - empirically - chose to concentrate power in, is that really better?
[unnecessarily long, unoriginal, we've discussed this many times before, tldr jews good genes why so hard to notice this]
It is - in a literal sense - true that many minority groups are, sometimes, overrepresented. Again in a literal sense - it's true that having an unusual upbringing sometimes pushes someone towards success.
Say I have $200k in gold bars stashed under my mattress. I'm suspected for corruption, the cops raid my house and find it. Have I done anything wrong? Well, there's nothing wrong with keeping private property in your house. And it's a gift from a friend. Who doesn't get gifts from friends, a bit of money here and there? Again, both - literally - true. You can squint and imagine there's a syllogism there - taking gifts from friends is fine, the gold bars were gifts from friends, so...
The dose makes the poison. If the laundromat's getting a few thousand extra bucks every year, that's usual variation, maybe he's good at advertising. A few million extra bucks ... something needs explaining.
How overrepresented are Jews, exactly? Are they represented about as much as Muslims? What about Hispanics, Blacks, or Native Americans? There's a lot of diversity and unique life experience to go around. Does this help all of them?
But, like, Jews make up 25%-50% of all Nobel prizes, aside from Peace, awarded to US citizens. (note that some of those are half-jewish, but this isn't that important.) They're also 2% of the US population. That's quite the difference! What about Hispanics, Muslims, Indians?
It's not just Nobels. I, like everyone, just click links around Wikipedia sometimes. Especially in math, science, technology. And enough of the names are jewish that you can't help but to notice! In the arts, journalism, or politics - there are fewer jews than in math, but still a lot more than you'd naively expect.
I also spend a lot of the time on the internet, in various places. I'm quite intelligent, as other people are here, so I select for communities of smart and driven people. And in each community, there's an obvious hierarchy of competence and smarts. And, as I spend more time in a community and get to know the smarter people - a lot of them end up being Jewish. Even here, the person whose writing I (currently) appreciate the most happens to be Jewish... This happens in real life too!
But my impression is that this is surprisingly true of many minority ethnicities and religious groups--almost as though having a mainstream upbringing results in a milquetoast adulthood. Or, alternatively, that being heterogeneous to the modal citizen of your country is quite naturally going to result in placement at one of the bell's tails
Does this really, when we take another look at it, even come close to explaining overrepresentation? A lot of Hispanic immigrants, and Muslims, have fascinating cultures and home lives. And gives them a boost in niche, well-known fields. I guess that's why our community sprung from the blog of Scott al-Iskandar, in turn inspired by the rationality writings of E. Y. Khowsjee, and don't forget the reactionary critic Carlos Yarvin.
There is something to explain here. Looking away isn't virtuous, and telling the 100k who liked that tweet to pretend this is just like every other ethnic minority won't help. The usual rationalist explanation is just 'jews have high IQ because genes'. Which seems to fit fine, here, although our friend SS would disagree.
The claim that jewish achievement isn't remarkable, or isn't unique, or something, is something I hear sometimes. Or, it's claimed that said achievement is remarkable, but is, like, cultural, because of the Torah or just trying really hard at school. I don't think these are plausible, when compared to the average non-Jewish example of a white family that really pushes for success at school, or immigrant family with some niche ethnic tradition.
Sometimes one makes an intellectual mistake and it's just - okay, I forgot something important, I did the math wrong - but other times you're just not looking. I think to explain away Jewish achievement in politics or elsewhere with 'every minority is like this' can only explained by not looking.
In the case of politics specifically, that infographic seems to be about the cabinet. So, how Jewish is the Biden cabinet? Let's completely ignore the 4chan graphic, which ... even if it's accurate, it's still not worth looking at as a source of real information, because it's a 4chan graphic. Let's go with Wikipedia. Jews: Blinken Yellen Garland Mayorkas Hanes (half) Bernstein Lander Klain Zients. And then twenty more of other backgrounds. So a little under third are jewish, which is a ton relative to 2%. And then two Asians, two Indians, one Hispanic. (Also five Black) I don't see muslims. Non-jewish whites are are about where they should be by % of population. *1
This is ... significant. And a lot more so than Asians and Indians, or even Hispanics. It's reasonable to notice, and wonder why. It's reasonable to notice that people don't want you to notice that. It's especially reasonable to notice that if White people were 2% of the population and 30% of appointments, the standards that you'd expect to be applied would declare this to be an extreme case of racism. And then it's ... of less obvious reasonableness to start Heiling the Furher, but it clearly does lead there.
Cardiologists aren't worse people than the average doctor. But people think they are if they aren't subtle thinkers and are disproportionately exposed to anecdotes of them acting poorly, leading them to create and share those anecdotes in a cycle. But before you accuse someone of Chinese Robbering, you should check to make sure the claimed pattern isn't there! Before explaining a claim away as motivated reasoning, it's good to check if it's actually true!
And when you miss something like this, as I did in the not-so-recent past - it's worth asking, why? When I think about something, I'm trying to understand it, not just rationalize whatever the common beliefs and taboos are. And that was as true in the past as it is today. But the explanation that Jews just have good culture, or it's just pattern recognition out of control, came easily to past-me too. Just as easily as the 'rational arguments for God' came to Christian apologists. It's unpleasant to realize you are (ie past-me was) just lazily making up arguments for an assumption you aren't questioning because it's just, like, true, and also it's be terrible if it wasn't true. But it's true! And I got into many arguments about this, and made several very competent defenses of "there's nothing going on here" before, after I bumped into the wall for the fifth time, I noticed the wall.
And if you're bumping around the intellectual plain, guided by invisible walls you aren't even aware of, you might be led to the wrong places.
Now, you're right that minorities often specialize in specific occupations. Patel Hotels, etc. But market-dominant minorities are, usually, high IQ minorities. Indians are well-represented as tech company CEOs. But we've also had a billion of them to pick from by immigration.
And, yeah, when you relate to the elite jews by seeing them on TV and in the news, rather than being in their social circles, that easily leads to conspiracies based on resentment. And the Anna-Marie Loupis from the tweet is a well known covid conspiracist, with claims like lasers caused the hawaii fire because blue color didnt burn. I'm not sure what the right rhetorical move here is if you want to fight antisemitism, but being honest about the cause of elite jews might be better than keeping up the current incorrect norms and creating conditions where people on the alt-right notice the lies!
*1 I'm just including everyone the page lists, not bothering about some people joining late and others leaving early, I don't think that matters here.
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
We've all seen "man arrested for having his dog give hitler salute" or "man arrested for calling a player on his football team a slur after they miss a kick" coming out of MiniTrue in Oceania. The pattern is clear, but I wonder what led to this? How common are these arrests (obviously they're much less frequent than slur use or offensive speech generally), what classes of people support and oppose them, what social or intellectual trends led to the implementation of these laws there while America retains support for and enforcement of the first amendment? Any insight from locals?
curious_straight_ca
7mo ago
If you're making a post about a link, please actually link it.
Scott clearly still has some of the progressive aversion to harming criminals even when it's positive sum. However, he's still right (reality is complicated, you can be wrong about one thing and right about a different more important thing).
This is his final, bolded conclusion: "Prison is less cost-effective than other methods of decreasing crime at most current margins. If people weren’t attracted by the emotional punch of how “tough-on-crime” it feels, they would probably want to divert justice system resources away from prisons into other things like police and courts."
This is, IMO, just true. Consider a hypothetical: Prison sentences are capped at a week, max. But, within a minute of attempting to shoplift or steal a car, the police arrest you, take back the stuff you stole, and send you to jail. What do you think would happen to crime? Conversely, consider another hypothetical: Life sentences for stealing at all, but you'll be arrested and put to jail sometime around five years after you steal. What do you think happens to crime, given how bad at planning for the future low IQ criminals are? I think crime in the first scenario would be much lower than today, and crime in the second scenario much higher.
The biggest problem with fighting crime isn't that prison sentences are too low, it's that the police and justice system - in large part due to progressive activists, but in even larger part due to general government stasis and lack of ambition - has gotten worse at policing. They should'v gotten better at policing at a pace matching the advance of technology! Crime could be so much lower than it is today with just a bit more proactive policing, use of computers, and shaping of culture.
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
I don't think it's a coincidence at all those who were pushing DEI back during the Bush administration have transitioned to pushing HBD now
This just isn't true. Most bush-era democrats or academic leftists, or any way you can interpret 'pushing DEI' back then are not now pushing the idea that blacks have lower average IQ and that this has significant policy implications. Where do you get these ideas?
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
The inevitable winner of a war still loses a third of the battles, and the tide going out doesn't mean it'll stay out. The center has fought back against the farther-left many times over the past centuries - yet both move left.
And what has the NYT won, exactly? A commitment to allowing opinion pieces investigating harm to a small subset (youth) of trans people by overzealous medical approvals. This isn't an end to trans. Trans acceptance, generally, continues to grow, and the reaction to it by the NYT is much less harsh than it would've been in 2000. Gay marriage used to be a bridge too far, too!
curious_straight_ca
6mo ago
Enforcement changes habits. Right now 'everyone' does it, so everyone does it. If 'everyone' stopped doing it, it'd feel weird to do it, and many fewer people would do it, and enforcement costs go down. It's like smoking, or littering, or drunk driving. https://worksinprogress.co/issue/how-the-war-on-drunk-driving-was-won/
Two underappreciated ideas stick out from this experience. First, deterrence works: incentives matter to offenders much more than many scholars found initially plausible. Second, the long-run impact that successful criminal justice interventions have is not primarily in rehabilitation, incapacitation, or even deterrence, but in altering the social norms around acceptable behavior.
Social sciences are, in principle, obviously worth funding. Philosophy (Nietzsche was actually a professor of philology), archeology, digging texts out of archives and writing history rank the highest for me, but there's valuable work in a lot of fields. A lot of the best work in economics has directly affected the way we organize the economy and the way businesses do business.
90% of publicly funded 'social science' is not that. It's hundreds of millions of words of repetitive, uninspired analysis of history or literature, like the work of that Ally Louks who blew up on twitter. The thing wrong with her, contra all of RW twitter, isn't that she's too woke or too communist or anything. Michel Foucault was woke for his time, but is obviously worth reading, and thousands of leftist academics have written things worth reading across many different fields. Her work, and 90% of modern humanities academic work, just isn't. And not in the "only 10 experts could appreciate or even understand it" sense, like in research math, but in the sense that there's no interesting content in it at all. There are a hundred thousand academics at various colleges and universities who either aren't smart enough or aren't independent-minded enough to develop good taste about what to research, and are paid (although not paid very much) to write ... really anything, so long as it's topical and isn't too embarassing, and can get published in a junk journal or turned into a book chapter or something.
Now the most valuable work is very valuable, and if you had to choose all or nothing (which you don't!), the best history and economics is still worth funding the garbage. (The money isn't counterfactually going to whatever you think is valuable, it's probably going to more welfare.) Or that's what I'd say in America, but New Zealand probably has a lot less than 5% of the global top 5%, so whatever.
The last time we discussed UFOs was here in response to Tucker positively mentioning UFO speculation, and my critical response was here and in subthreads.
What's happening here is, essentially - there are several million people employed in, or as contractors for, the US military and intelligence community. The number who hold positions like 'generational officer of the United States Intelligence Community with a Top-Secret Clearance who currently works for the National Air and Space Intelligence Center' are smaller, but (if we're allowed to lump together all kinds of quackery, instead of just aliens) at least 1 in 100. And any time you have ten thousand people, a few dozen of them are going to be, variously - gullible, insane, stupid, have committed to several important intellectual mistakes, intentionally lying for media attention, or are just of average intelligence when actually understanding whether a radar signature shows aliens or noise requires being above average + got sucked into 'exposing aliens' because they genuinely believe it's important. This is how you get things like "the CIA investigated astral projection" or "nobel prize-winning scientist believes in homeopathy" or the fake "bomb detector" that was just a dowsing rod used by 20 different countries' militaries (but, again, that doesn't mean their whole militaries endorsed/used them, just some people in them). It's not surprising that one in a thousand military people believes in aliens if one in a hundred 'normal' people believe in aliens. Yet 999 in 1000 don't believe in aliens. (edit: it's probably significantly above 1 in 1k even among those who are high iq / work in technical fields)
Additionally - there have been dozens of supposed firsthand accounts of interactions with aliens like this one, and all of their details are both incompatible with verifiable history and incompatible with each other. E.g. "arms race occurring sub-rosa over the past eighty years focused on reverse engineering technologies of unknown origin is fundamentally" - which technologies? All of the biggest scientific and engineering discoveries have very legible and sensible histories. The progress of science and engineering over the past hundred years hasn't been a secret thing, it occurs in public. Maybe everyone's been tricked, but that should require more evidence than one guy asserting it.
That's not what's happening here. "Bussy", in the literal sense, refers to a man's ass/asshole in the context of gay men. It then became a queer meme, and then ussy became a broader quirky teenger-taboo sex meme. It's not anti-trans in any way.
Your posts often have an effect where they play fast and loose with facts in service to some vibe or message. The message is often good, but there's a sense of being intentionally averse to things like 'analysis of opposing viewpoints' or 'ways in which I might be wrong' because that's not with the vibe. That, generally, weakens your position, because the vibe you're trying to give off may be wrong, or confused, in meaningful ways, and contradictory facts illuminate those.
It's arguable that oratory has declined not due to a loss of "vital spirits", but due to ... modern media. The speech connects the politician's visceral voice and, often, appearance to his constituents, which is very appealing when the alternative is the telephone game or pamphlets. But when one can produce videos splicing your words with weak moments of your opponents, animations, videos of real-world events, the medium of a clearly-delineated 'oration' will declin simply because it has competition.
Politicians today still give speeches - some people even cried at ... Adam Kinzinger's ... moving words. Obama's "well spoken" and, i guess, reasonably competent speeches were often praised as moving, compelling, causing goosebumps or tears! obama speeches.
There's also the obvious - you're comparing the best of the past to the mediocrity of the present. You note how most politicians are unsurprising, and stick to common themes, ... while Hitler and Napoleon broke new ground? Did Hitler and Napoleon's thousands of political contemporaries, a few decades past and future, all do the same? Is mathematics in decline because professors at community colleges aren't as accomplished as Einstein or Erdos?
It makes sense the American education system, state and media have set about trying to destroy oratory
And here's the usual equivocation between 'complex dynamics and confusions lead to bad things, in ways entangled with existing power structures and media' and 'the all-powerful enemy is intentionally destroying truth, beauty, and love because they hate you'.
I think there's something significant to the decline of oration - both the text, and vocal intonation. I'm not sure your post really gets at what, or why, it did though.
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
The trouble is, impressing people with no skin in the game is easy. Convincing people to rely on it is a whole different animal
Beating a dead horse, but people already get tremendous value out of GPT-3.5/4. Random examples include 2rafa's post a while back, or terry tao, but it's everywhere, across all disciplines. It's not just impressive, it's incredibly useful. I don't think there's a parallel here - a lot of human activity isn't in realms where minor mistakes 1 in 10k times means running over preschoolers. And self-driving cars would probably be a lot better if they could use massive LLMs in cloud GPU clusters, but safety (connection goes out?) and latency requirements prevent that.
curious_straight_ca
4mo ago
We can use observed evidence to distinguish between the two scenarios. Did OPM have the authority, either formal or practical, to ask for this? Is this normal or unusual?
Well:
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) staff were initially told to reply but then received a Sunday evening email asking them to "pause" responses pending additional guidance. Late Monday, a third email told employees, "There is no HHS expectation that HHS employees respond to OPM and there is no impact to your employment with the agency if you choose not to respond."
That includes the State Department, where a senior official told staff that the department would respond on its own behalf, according to a screenshot of the communication obtained by NPR. "No employee is obligated to report their activities outside their Department chain of command," the official's email said.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright also asserted his department's authority to manage his staff in a message to employees on Sunday that NPR has seen. "The Department of Energy is responsible for reviewing the performance of its personnel and will conduct any review in accordance with its own procedures," Wright wrote. "When and if required, the Department will provide a coordinated response to the OPM email." His email used identical language to a message sent by the Defense Department the same day and also seen by NPR.
Some of the most high-profile federal agencies ended up bucking Musk’s demands, with the Justice Department, State Department, Pentagon, FBI, Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Energy all telling staff not to respond to the email.
Elon Musk, who recently threatened federal workers with termination if they did not respond to an email asking what work they completed in the last week, said Monday workers who did not reply will get another chance to do so at President Donald Trump’s “discretion”—the latest development over the emails after a growing number of agency heads, including Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard, told their employees not to respond.
I don't think you'd see this if this wasn't unusual and strange.
Also, the thing where Elon tweeted people would be fired for not responding (and the recent second chance), but that wasn't actually in the e-mail - and the combination of Elon's threat of firing, the ambiguity about his power to do that as the leader of DOGE, and the shifting and differing guidance in replying between agencies - is terrible management, and I think demonstrates that Elon does not have a careful plan and is not acting with a huge amount of competence in this case. He's not acting like a strong leader, he's not establishing that his orders are followed - he's creating an image of someone who's a bit unstable, who's lashing out, claiming more power than he actually has. If you actually want Elon to control the government, stuff like this doesn't help!
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
Anonymity with respect to other internet users and anonymity with respect to law enforcement after you've just killed someone, who'll physically possess your electronic devices and subpoena your ISP and every internet service you've ever used are different! I doubt he, or many here, have it in the second sense.
It's clearly a real pattern in open source. It's not just Rust and Go. And it's a stronger pattern than even being a FAANG engineer. I think it's because women are much less likely to take independent action solely on their own ideas and interests than men, and more likely to go with a socially-endorsed role. 'Spend a year making something that's open source, anonymously, just because you think the idea is good' isn't something there's a clear path you can 'follow a social gradient' towards to like 'having X job' does, and most open source projects just don't get interest. And (of course) explicit discrimination of any sort is a poor explanation, seeing as open source projects are anonymous - and both the overrepresentation of males and transes remains when you only look at 'open source projects made by people without employment or formal training in programming'
Said more clearly: The rate of being trans among techies (pretty high, but still <10%) isn't low enough that it outweighs the 'women don't do entirely independent self-driven activity' effect.
These measures would be extremely, two orders of magnitude, too harsh for a well-run social media site responding to scraping. Twitter doesn't have it any worse than every other site, and they accept some scraping and can identify bots and ratelimit excessive load. Limiting most of twitter's real users to just half an hour of use per day is absurd, I can't think of any situation that would call for it.
(roughly) For scraping to really harm twitter this much, it'd have to be significantly higher-load than twitter's real users as a whole. And requests = (requests/users) * users, so if all requests are from authenticated users (after login wall but before this) and scrape_requests >> real_requests, either the scrapers are making many more requests than real users per user (in which case a much less strict limit works), or there are many more scraping users than real users - very unlikely because creating accounts is hard (maybe requiring unique phone numbers), because it wasn't 'no ratelimit for accounts created before 2020', and because that many bot accounts would be noticed and could be distinguished from real users.
If it's just covering for an outage ... that'd be a 12-hour long outage at this point. When Facebook has an outage, let alone a 12-hour long one, they don't lie about the cause and only communicate it via the totally-not-CEO's personal account on the site with the outage. Twitter's status page is still green.
What must Tucker on Twitter be thinking now, or anyone else in or contemplating a professional relationship with twitter? The advertisers they're trying to court? The $1000/mo gold checkmark holders?
I have no good explanation for this decision. (edit: to be clear - if the real reason is scraping, the poor technical decisionmaking - otherwise, the decision to cover for an internal issue by pretending the issue is scraping). Maybe Elon's really on drugs? He put someone incompetent in charge who's feeding him bad information? The deadline for the Google Cloud bill they weren't paying was June 30, i.e. yesterday - supposedly they restarted payments, but maybe they didn't really? Maybe firing so much of Twitter plus all the changes he's made led to a buildup of problems, and this is what he had to do to keep twitter up for now? Idk. Either way, this is a much more significant failure than any of Twitter 2's previous missteps, which still could be explained as part of a high-variance strategy. Burning the credibility of verified, boosting shitty paid replies ... eh, it's bringing in money. Not paying bills ... aggressive approach dealmaking. This is just gross incompetence no matter the explanation.
And, "put any Fortune 500 CEO in charge of America and it'll immediately improve" ... feeling even worse than it did a year ago
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
... haven't traditional societies been "shaming male promiscuity" in various forms for millennia, successfully? Not eliminating, but significantly reducing. Mormon men aren't fucking every modern woman they come across.
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
You keep posting the same thing. The fact is, there are many happy couples with very below-average looks. The wife of an ugly man is not, on average, 'deeply disgusted' with him. (I'm not sure what effect this has on e.g. cheating, any observations will be very confounded by the association of unattractiveness with other things).
You're a decent writer, you seem capable of having interesting ideas. Do you have anything else you might be moved to write about? Why not try that? Maybe just vignettes from your life like george_e_hale, maybe some interesting technicality from your job, perhaps a commentary on ancient philosophy. Just anything else.
David Friedman (son of Milton and ACX commenter) has several blog posts (second) on the topic.
He claims that climate change makes yields lower in some areas, and higher in other areas, as there are many areas that are colder than optimal for agriculture, and climate change helps those areas as much as it hurts optimal or warm areas. This would require human adaptation - moving farming to different parts of the world - to respond to - but the modern economy adapts to new situations or technologies rather well. There's also the direct effect of CO2 - increased concentrations increases the efficiency of photosynthesis, increasing crop yields. There's a negative effect on nutrition per gram because the extra carbon bulks up a more fixed amount of minerals, but this is smaller than the yield effect and probably doesn't matter. All of this means the sign of the effect on the food supply isn't obvious.
The post doesn't, like, say anything? I went in expecting to see some argument that some nameable factions, groups, or at least twitter usernames hold some incorrect views, in ways related to nameable outside influences. Instead he just say that the current right are mouthpieces, and have been neutered, by interests. It's all fake. All a psyop to suppress the real right wing. Whatever that is. He links a few substacks, none of which appear to address this.
It's the kind of thing anyone can agree with. All the other guys are captured, and that's why they disagree with me. And in exactly the same sense it's uninformative and useless. Even if this was true, you couldn't do anything with it, without naming what tendencies are bad and who's funding who. 375 likes is a lot for substack though!
Also, if you're gonna ban evade, can you at least make more interesting posts?
More options
Context Copy link