cuwurious_strag_CA
No bio...
User ID: 190
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
Not a great answer, and not what OP was referring to most likely, but from here
While his biggest spending has been on Democratic primaries, he has also contributed directly to Democratic and Republican campaigns alike.
“There have been a lot of times when I have been a bigger supporter of Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. That’s not — that’s not an immovable fact about the world,” [...] “I am legitimately worried about doing things that will make people view me as partisan when it’s not how I feel
The evidence that Bankman-Fried truly wants to be a bipartisan donor is thin — at least in his publicly disclosed spending. Although Bankman-Fried donated directly to a half-dozen Republicans and gave $105,000 to a super PAC that backed Katie Britt, the Republican Senate nominee who won a contested primary in Alabama, it still pales in comparison to the many tens of millions he’s disclosed giving to Democratic candidates and groups
Guarding Against Pandemic has endorsed 22 Democrats and 15 Republicans, a mix of incumbents and first-time candidates.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
so you've heard ... vague improvement from many people. But feeling / vibes / personal health regularly changes, so a substantial number of people who take ivermectin (when they're sick or not) reporting they felt better afterwards, in a variety of ways that aren't really related, should be taken similarly to how people on TheMotte reported feeling better days after taking fisetin (which wasn't even supposed to do that, it was a long term anti-aging thing) - as a bunch of people looking too hard at nothing at all.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
But as I said, if he was returning to a different topic, that would ... also be internal, like, neurons, or maybe a soul or something, so the external/internal dichotomy isn't useful here? Presumably he returns to the topic [in this theoretical example because I still have no idea what the topic is, or what ymeskhout is alleged to be doing here, this is just a tangent about some psychological argument] for some specific reason. And that reason would be about external things - he's trying to inform us, the topic is interesting, etc - just like the reason would be if he was talking about something else instead! So I don't really see how it's external or internal, but just incorrect vs correct.
Also, can you just say what the "topic" is, and give an example of "prior engagement" being ignored, or something? I genuinely have no idea what you or dean meant.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
As for Meshkout, it was rather typical, given his established fixations for returning to certain topics every few months with the same refrain regardless of prior engagement
Unrelated comment: I don't think it makes sense to describe a "communication fixation" as "internally wired" when, well, the topic of said communication is always 'the external world' and the mechanisms underlying all communications and ideas are, you'd think, biologically, internal. It seems to be trying to convey something like 'he has a neurosis where he says X over and over and the neurosis is internal' - but doing the correct thing where you say Y instead would ... also be an internal property, so the internal vs external dichotomy doesn't seem to help.
I have no idea what that has to do with meskhout though.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
The reason why Black Lives Matter activism doesn’t seem to actually save any black lives - quite the opposite, in fact - is that their actual goal is something else
what specifically is their actual goal? Not to defend BLM, but I have no idea what you're hinting at.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
This seems right, phonics 'working' [might i will read more] come out of the same body of knowledge that produced learning styles, growth mindset, etc. The comparison to learning spoken language seems obvious - there isn't a "phonics" for spoken language, you just learn it via immersion!
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
I think the issue here is - even if people are driven to do algebraic topology "because being curious and smart got ancestors food and other ancestors iron weapons" - algebraic topology has complexities, effects that aren't really related to "status" or "hunger". Same for vaush and art. What does it even mean to 'reduce' a desire or action to a primal drive? What does it tell us about that action? If a society can electrify itself solely because of "status drives" and "hunger" and "horny" ... maybe it doesn't tell us much about an action or desire if it's built from "primal drives".
My argument is, essentially, that "abusive" has no more content than "bad", and attempts to smuggle in unproven connotations.
Taking a child to a strip club is not 'abusive' in any sense aside from the extent to which a child going to a strip club is bad. If I had, at age 9, gone to a strip club - I'd expect that not to matter at all. Same for drag shows!
Also, the average 12yo will have seen several dozen naked women on the internet, so something drag queens is an ineffective way to prevent children seeing sexualized stuff.
but does anyone want to argue this is an appropriate activity for a child?
This is just argument-by-appeal-to-social-taboo. Nobody wants to argue it, because the very concept is disgusting. Why don't you make the argument against it instead? And why do many arguments in this area sound like this - vague references to badness?
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
Uh, weinstein/epsein/maxwell being jewish isn't at all surprising, and proves nothing about how common sexual abuse is among jews with power, if the OP's claim about so many politics people being jews is true. Then you'd expect there to be a lot of jew sexual abusers even with no relation to jewishness. While the 50% clearly isn't true for politics overall, the same applies, and there are plenty of non-epstein cases of sex weirdness in politics.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
that person, and the conservative anti-woke people in general, manage to be significantly more misleading and less useful than even CNN.
There's some people who would "go for substack" if they could. Yarvin, bari weiss, whatever. But they can't. Substack is a large venture-backed company with connections, as opposed to a nazi with a box in a datacenter somewhere, making pressuring people to drop them much, much, much harder even given similar offenses. Substack hosts at worst people 'questioning the trans/covid narratives' and, for some reason, yarvin's coup-posts, although nobody seems to care about those. There aren't any doxxings, no harassment, no swatting, no suicides, not even close. So ... how would they come for substack?
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
Eh. googling 'flask RCE' shows a few.
And web servers regularly get owned by leaving API keys open, configuring something wrong, too. Maybe you use azure, and the part of azure you're using is broken. maybe your web server is perfect but your cloudflare password is 'marseeeeeey2' without 2fa and you get owned that way.
But it seems unlikely enough that there's anything serious that I'm not actively worrying about it.
I guarantee someone sufficiently motivated could be inside rdrama in a week or two. But I highly doubt anyone is.
I dont wanna leak too much but we got some guys specifically for security shit and they legitimately could be from some 3 letter agency, its pretty crazy
Imagine you're talking to someone and they say - "my homie's a cop, he's like from CSI with all their gadgets and shit, he knows what's up". That ... probably doesn't indicate the homie's a good cop, at all, more that the speaker doesn't really know what they're talking about. Same for "could be from some 3 letter agency", that just isn't a sign of good security at all, on the part of the speaker. obviously it doesn't say anything negative about the security team, just that you wouldnt know either way.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
I mean, this is a guy who flat out admitted that he would risk the entire planet, you, everyone you love, everything you value, and himself, on a 51:49 bet to win a planet that nobody on Earth would ever interact with..
People are misinterpreting this - a sentence before that, he says:
BANKMAN-FRIED: With one caveat. Let me give the caveat first, just to be a party pooper, which is, I'm assuming these are noninteracting universes. Is that right? Because to the extent they're in the same universe, then maybe duplicating doesn't actually double the value because maybe they would have colonized the other one anyway, eventually.
Notably, that caveat is true of any actual decision - i.e. he likely wouldn't take the 51:49 doubling bet on any on-this-planet institution because said institutions do interact with the surrounding environment, because the institution could grow in a way that doesn't involve taking that bet.
The bigger problem is just - what is valuable in the first place? A thousand humans are better than a million squirrels, so doubling the squirrels may be useless. Also, a thousand humans can, given enough time (see: history), kill and take land from any feasible number of squirrels, i.e. his first objection does in theory cover that. So I'd argue the question just doesn't mean anything.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
I intended the "in the 'they usually grow out group'" to be the focus there - i.e. how do you know that both are "things they usually grow out of"? 'sociogenic' is not a useful category either, IMO - 'epidemeologically', iron forging, belief in general relativity, self-identification of homosexuality, and "eating potatoes" are all epidemiologically sociogenic, in the sense that they're all behaviors that spread from person to person. It doesn't tell us anything useful about the behavior, almost all good human behaviors are partially learned, as are almost all bad ones.
Not relying on academia
I agree entirely. My only disagreement is that - even if the surveys weren't ideologically captured, they'd still be very unreliable.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
That really does not make sense. I use twitter a lot, and most of the people I follow do not have checkmarks, and none of them are going to buy it because they are just people who use twitter for fun or on breaks from work or w/e. Random repliers in comments sections still aren't gonna buy the checkmark. And there are already parts of twitter where most people are verified and have a lot of followers ... and they still get piled with scams replying to their comments.
I believe the theory is that once bluechecks are common, anyone without them will be more suspicious
Can you draw out a specific scenario here - what part of twitter, in reply to what accounts, where the scammers are currently using unverified accounts successfully but won't be able to anymore because most users will have bluechecks, as they are more common, so the scammers will stand out? I can't think of a single section of twitter where that will happen. Either all the big people already have checkmarks and their followers do not (and that will either not change or nobody will have checkmarks because people won't pay 100/year for it), or none of the posters or repliers have checkmarks, and that will not change.
Like, "8/mo bluecheck prevents spam" doesn't make sense, at all. Do people just believe it because musk says it will? Do they assume he figured it out?
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
Nothing worse than walking a trail and seeing trash all along the sides. Some people drive along roads through forests and throw trash out their windows...
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
You didn't answer the question. How does making blue checkmarks cost money raise the cost of scams? You can still run scams with nonverified accounts exactly like you do now. Some people, but a small fraction, run scams with stolen verified accounts - those people will just switch to fresh paid verified accounts. But most scams weren't run with verified accounts before this change, and still won't be run with verified accounts after this change. If there's some separate change that makes scamming-without-checkmark much harder, that's fine, but you can do that without $8/mo verification, and $8/mo verification doesn't make that any easier or harder
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
Otherwise every organization (including unions!) should follow the same logic
Well, the corporations that organize and deliver the work and economic output do follow that model - one leader (ceo).
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
The more obvious (and moldbug) example is startups / large companies and their CEOs - they can more or less direct company operations as they will, with only advisory input from the board, and these run the entire modern economy. You can deny the US military is relatively effective, but apple? google? semiconductors?
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
Why can normal accounts suddenly not spam people? That'd require better spam prevention for non-verified accounts, which you can implement without this change. Doesn't seem related.
Either you think it's good or you don't
I've said multiple times today that nobody should ever be trans, it's a crime against nature, confused, degeneracy, et cetera.
You're just doing a moral purity spiral, and have no interest in engaging in the details of why trans exist, what's happening with the people who are trans, etc. And certainly nothing about, like, conversational norms or meta-debate, which is what OP was mostly about.
Let's say I brought up being raped as a child in a discussion about abortion or parents' rights or something. Any individual should be able to have precise intellectual conversations about that, one with strong disagreement, clear claims, and details - in principle, right? But unless you frequent 4chan or WPD, that's just not gonna happen - it's a taboo topic and saying anything other than "that, and 6 degrees of kevin bacon from it, are cursed ground and must be righteously condemned lest we harm the victim" is just not okay.
In order to discuss the topic, we need to consider how the your teacher telling you to wear girls' underwear might, actually, be good. (note the immense cringe it takes to type that out - i'm basically a pedophile for saying it!). Sure, it isn't, but there are multiple ways something can be bad! And not being able to consider that it might be good means, essentially, you can't discriminate between the ways that it's bad - because "realizing it's not bad in one way" and "realizing it's good" are, in the moment, rather hard to tell apart. After all, if the reasons you previously believed it's bad are mostly wrong ... And there isn't any "uh, it's still actually bad though" you can fall back on to ensure you're safe from "dangerous questions", because that's just an empty claim that prevents you from finding the real reasons.
Notably, that teacher doesn't actually want to have sex with you. At all. Which makes it ... not ... grooming. And not pedophilic. At all!
It can still be bad for being sexually degenerate or anti-nature or a simulacra of appearances or something, there's lots of approaches. But it's not pedophilia. And if it's not pedophilia, why is it grooming?
But if you think it's a serious issue worth being emotional about, why can't you come out against teachers doing it?
And this is just a struggle session. You need to personally condemn the outgroup, or you're as bad as them! What? What does this have to do with ... figuring out why something is happening, what its causes are, why it matters? Why does any person need to "come out against" anything? This is a discussion forum, not a cult.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
Several people have told us that they think a clear case of grooming a kid into weird sex shit doesn't actually count as grooming to them, which tells us all we need to know about the whole conversation.
If you're not referencing any particular post, what did you mean by "Several people have told us"? If there's someone who told 'us' (themotte) this ... who? There's only one set here, and the set is finite, so you can't claim ~AC or anything.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
Who has HBD fallen out of favor for on the far right? They may be posting detailed IQ analyses less, but not because of any disbelief that blacks are lower iq or do more crime bc genes
What? Is it part of your 'true identity', for instance, the value of the wavefunction (ik that's not really how that works) at each planck volume of your body - 65 liters times (planck's constant 1 / 1.616255×10⁻³⁵ m) ^ 3 (that's ... a lot of values, 10^100 float32s)! Except you specified 'assocations' - those have something to do with the outside world, so do we need to include, say, the volume of the earth, too? How do you distill all those atoms down into an 'objective list'? (the problem of knowledge-as-a-list-of-facts is extensively discussed by western philosophy, and is at any rate mostly nonsensical - which facts?). And - there isn't really anything else in the sense of 'qualities' or 'lists' ("materialism" is separate - if people have souls or experiences distinct from atoms somehow, it isn't a static list of associations and experiences). So I don't think this really means anything. Anyway, "true identity" here just seems to mean ... physically everything, every fact or idea that could possibly exist in the universe in total. If you're a physicist, and you're 20, and at age 40 you discover general relativity ... i guess that's part of your true identity? It's an association, after all.
Do they, though? Let's say you're about to eat a new kind of meat. You don't know, in one sense, that the meat is gonna taste good - yet in another sense, the potential to know it (i.e. the configuration of taste buds, experiences, etc to taste it) is already there. Is that part of your identity yet? And - does it even make sense to say that every association and quality is an 'identity'? I probably had some kind of cereal for breakfast 5723 days ago. Is that part of my identity? It is part of my 'experiences, associations'. This can't really be what we mean. Similarly, the fact that my 'perspective on' eating that cereal is 'flawed', in that I don't remember it - seems fine? And since an 'identity' covers ... every relation and association I have, is it an "imperfection in my self-conception" that I can't quite prove a particularly complicated theorem without looking in a textbook right now, despite doing it before? ... I don't think 'self-conception' or 'identity' really mean anything at all. Anything that are either of them are just complex relations people have to things that exist, that they're trying to understand or accomplish, and have precisely as much to do with a 'self' or 'identity' with what I had for breakfast today.
What exactly is aggregating them? If Joe thinks i'm an evil fascist nazi and Tom thinks i'm cute and valid, what precisely is my social identity?
More options
Context Copy link