@faceh's banner p

faceh


				

				

				
4 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2022 September 05 04:13:17 UTC

				

User ID: 435

faceh


				
				
				

				
4 followers   follows 2 users   joined 2022 September 05 04:13:17 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 435

Ding ding ding.

If gambling was a "once in a while, for fun" activity, or people smoked weed in their house and NOWHERE else, or people would only eat McDonalds once a week at most, then we absolutely wouldn't need any kind of laws in place, legalize it all.

But our brains didn't evolve that way, we want to gorge on certain things because in the ancestral environment times of true 'abundance' was rare.

My vice is fuckin' sugar. Right now I'm stuffing my face with candy that has 19 grams of it per serving. I work out like crazy to keep it from making me fat, but I'm well aware its just my caveman brain telling me I need to store up fat for the winter or something.

If we could just accept the basic idea that "willpower isn't enough", then perhaps the next discussion is what the appropriate time and place for things are, and how we should intervene to help those who can't control themselves well enough.

I had a reply to something about "progressive women having the most to offer over homemakers; they have degrees in journalism" which illuminates the issue perfectly- they think they have more to offer, but are only useful as an artifact of law- completely useless otherwise.

Yeah.

I really don't know how to get it through to a woman's status-seeking brain that all degrees are not created equal, and indeed some credentials are just fake all the way through. A degree in agricultural science from a state university can genuinely be more useful and impressive than a finance degree from an Ivy league, let alone a political science degree from an Ivy.

And worse, some of the most important roles in society don't come with a fancy piece of paper declaring them such.

Dealing with that will require tackling the education-managerial complex- it's a feedback loop, where the same women who benefited from the initial windfall are now in charge of expanding the problem.

Yep. But it sure looks like the early '90s was the one point in time we had the ability to adjust course as a nation... and most of the adjustments were in the wrong direction, it just wouldn't be clear until 2010 or so.

They add increasingly absurd, uncomfortable and intense scenarios to make them crack, too.

And the audience is able to interact with the contestants directly.

Nope. But its definitely authentic about it, it doesn't hate the contestants.

Hah, I've been pretty convinced that my hair is thinning around the temples for the past 4ish years.

I'd go back and look at photos of me from college and try to guesstimate if I've lost a couple millimeters.

I considered using some kind of marking system to see if there was any retreat. But I'm 36 now, and hair is still pretty thick, so even if I lose a bit on the Temples I doubt its a real concern.

Also, apparently the convergence of techs available now mean that you really can get your hair growing again with some investment of time and money.

Women are more religious than men,

Ironically men are attending church more than women now, the previous trend is just barely inverted.

Which suggests women have indeed found a replacement outlet for their religious tendencies. Things are getting janky.

But yeah, to the extent women are saying this, its ultimately just a shit-test or its them asserting high standards so they can pretend they're more selective.

Where is this all coming from? Is it rejection? I get rejected a lot, who cares? Do a lot of men not share my love of women?

Must've missed my screed about the current state of Western Women a couple weeks back.

Its a terrible shame that wearable exo-suit tech is so far behind the curve compared to quadcopters.

The democrats lost the popular vote for president and pretty clearly don't have the general support of the populace.

Mma is very stale, boring and not worth watching now.

then

As a long time fan, I hope you folks tune in, buy, pirate, watch it at a bar, whatever.

Getting some mixed messages man.

Anyhow, I will be watching it at a bar with a bunch of guy friends, as much an excuse to be social as anything.

Have to agree with the general assessment of UFC logic. At best, I'm ambivalent on Dana White, he's clearly done a lot to get the sport mainstreamed but so many of his basic tactical decisions with regard to the business are hare-brained from my perspective. The commentary on the fights tends to be ass, the officiating has been questionable (a bit better of late?), they won't adopt new gloves to prevent eye pokes, and it is really unclear if they want to market as a brand of semi-family-friendly entertainment (they're on ESPN now, after all) or keep things 'gritty' and amp the bro-ish, violent and unapologetically masculine nature of it. They still have Octagon girls in skimpy outfits, the fighters curse regularly in ring interviews, most of their sponsors are likewise still aimed at the Titties 'n' Beer crowd.

Like, you ask me, the entire point of UFC is to set up the most interesting fights/matchups possible and encourage the top contenders to fight as hard as possible for a win, and generally avoid safe, riskless approaches. Big purses and other monetary incentives are a good method. Bring in the best talent from across the globe and get them to give their best performance.

Yet they sideline or outright oust their most effective, driven fighters half the time. Thinking specifically of Mighty Mouse and Ngannou.

Maybe there is some logic to mitigating the chances of a fighter reaching superstar status, once they're popular and wealthy enough they tend to dictate their own terms on when/if they fight. Like McGregor. If the UFC can keep them on a tighter leash then in theory that means they can arrange and actually deliver good matchups consistently, if the talent is there.

But also the actual fighting is getting to a point where the 'optimal' style is somewhat predetermined. Unless you're a talented kickbox-wrestle-jitsu practitioner, you're going to get stomped by someone who is more well rounded than you, no matter how good you are at your particular niche. Maybe that's how it should be, but its just a fact now that "MMA" is not literally "mixed martial arts" but really it is a style unto itself, it isn't really about pitting different styles against each other anymore.

I wonder if they should start introducing different obstacles to the octagon, or adding in strange conditions. "In round 1 they're covered in cooking grease. In round 2 they'll have an eyepatch over one eye. In round 3, their legs will be tied together with a two foot rope to limit movement and kicks. Round 4, they fight while each gripping a Bandana as hard as they can.

Or just go full Super Smash Bros. and let them opt to have Tasers, baseball bats, and small incendiary devices dropped into the octagon if a fight goes past 3 rounds. Or is that WWE's shtick?

I kid, but if you want to break out of the current local maxima for the current dominant fighting styles, you will have to adjust the parameters somewhere to force new optimizations.

Many people are not sufficiently hard-hearted enough to tell the bastard that there's the door, goodbye, he can go pay a whore if he wants it that badly,

Yes, this is my point here:

There really ISN'T an imbalance in bargaining power here! There's just women who aren't able to state their position and then enforce it, so they don't even attempt to bargain.

Emotional connection has a major impact on how one negotiates with the counterparty (since you implicitly expect an iterated game), yes. But this is not the same as someone being able to set all the terms of the bargain because the other has no power or leverage whatsoever. If your emotional side renders you incapable of stating demands and enforcing boundaries, then you're just bad at negotiating, it's not the same as being coerced.

I'm already granting that sociopaths can exploit emotional connection to extract the benefits they want, mind.

Hence a workable solution was that the woman could go to her parents and get the necessary guidance and confidence to steel herself to stand her ground and demand marriage, with there being at least the implicit threat of patriarchal violence if the BF inflicts unneeded harm on her.

You have described a reality dating show that I might be willing to watch.

Every single contestant has a glove or gauntlet they carry around to throw down a challenge. There should be a board that tracks challenges made, challenges rejected/accepted, and fights won or lost, but yeah, no other consequences than that.

For additional fun have one of the contestants secretly be a trained MMA fighter.

I'd imagine there'd be alliances formed early with the best fighter, but then later some betrayals as they try to get him removed. Maybe you have 4-5 guys each throwing down challenges to the same dude forcing him to decide if he wants to lose some face or actually fight each of them in a row. I'd bet that under almost ANY circumstances, sleeping 5 dudes in a row buys you immense status points.

(Most TV shows or sports could be improved by allowing contestants to fight it out)

At a certain point, this market is not going to clear. We have reached that point.

Yeah.

One thing about the sexual marketplace for women. They're both an inelastic good... AND there's a fixed supply.

The supply can't increase very quickly, and heterosexual men will still have high demand for them even as the price creeps up.

Now we've got a large portion of women who have effectively set a 'price floor' for themselves that is above what many men are able to provide, and in many cases what men are willing to provide, given that many of the options on offer are also 'damaged goods.'

Throw in the evolutionary pressure on men to reproduce and there's just huge amounts of underserved demand.

The market is trying to provide substitute goods like porn, prostitutes, AI girlfriends, but I think the problem is that a good woman is a 'package' or 'bundle' of goods in one.

And most women now want to provide only a couple of those goods/services while still demanding the complete package on the other side.

Football is really interesting on the play-to-play strategic level. Its absolutely the most 'war-like' of the sports out there.

But the sport is also so heavily optimized its like there's no room for anything but like two workable strategies. Team composition doesn't change much. And if your QB sucks then you're probably not going very far.

And while I enjoy MMA, its exactly like you said. IN the cage, there's no team. Sure they're off to the side coaching, but its not quite as beautiful as watching the coordinated ice ballet playing out at high speed.

Actually, that is one 'con' with hockey. Plays happen so goddamn fast that you can't realize how much just happened until its over.

Hockey teams can't rely solely on one strong player like sometimes happens in baskebtall, but you can optimize your team's skill stack in a few different ways for success.

We saw that with the last two Cup finals, Florida fielding a team with tons of grit and a deep roster of talent, Edmonton with some elite scoring talent that can skate circles around everyone, and each side trying to find the best matchups for its lines. Florida seems to have perfected the science of shutting down McDrai by game 3.

I don't just watch for the fights, to be clear, but the fact that fights are an integral part of the sport does elevate it.

Its hard to explain, snobs might say that its just ungenteel and not sportsmanlike, making hockey a 'low class' sport, but I have to agree, the fact that on-ice disputes can be settled by dropping gloves then and there absolutely elevates the sport. Trash talk is cheap. For the low, low price of five minutes in time-out, you can check a dude's ego or remind them to stop messing with the goalie, keeping some of the 'unwritten' rules of the sport intact.

You're absolutely on point that the early 90's was clearly not a stable equilibrium, as it still led us to where we are.

But, no joke, the change that I think screwed us in a few different ways was The Student Loan Reform Act of 1993.

This made it FAR simpler for the average citizen to get student loans regardless of financial situation or the academic path they chose... or the economic viability of their major.

You can flipping SEE THE INFLECTION POINT when student loans became way more common and thus more people attended college on loans.

So I'd suggest this has a number of impacts:

  • Women start attending college more often. Which has them burn more of their most fertile years, and the added debt load makes them less appealing as partners and less able to support kids.

  • Men start accruing more debt too, which stunts their personal wealth acquisition in their 20's and thus makes them less appealing to women... and just less able to support a partner/kids in general.

  • Obviously this allows economically nonviable majors like "Women's studies" to grow, which has some clear downstream impacts.

  • Probably causes women's standards to rise, they wouldn't accept a partner without a degree if they have one.

  • Of course turned College into the 'default' life path rather than hopping into a career and getting married as the best practice for advancing socially.

So putting us back to the status-quo ante of 1990, and NOT expanding access to loans for college, we might be able to avoid the worst excesses of Feminism entering the mainstream. I dunno.

1994 also saw The Gender Equity in Education Act which made it actual policy to push for more education programs geared towards women, and might be attributable to the general decline in male performance in school, which would then play into the college issue.

And the 1994 Violence Against Women Act which I'm definitely not saying was a bad idea, but might have shifted incentives that led to, e.g. the eventual MeToo movement.

Yep.

I've always loved edgy subversive humor... that wasn't entirely built on malicious intent. Check out Doug Stanhope for the purest example.

Early 2010s was a mecca for that, from Newgrounds to early Youtube to 4chan's heyday. Although 4chan went way too malicious, imho. SomethingAwful was never my jam BECAUSE it thrived on the malice.

Sam is like a fucking Coelacanth from that era. Just perfectly preserved and managed to 'come back' from near extinction.

He and Fishtank got mentioned on Rogan recently which probably helped too.

I do think Sam wants to be perceived as this inscrutable, unpredictable character, rather than his true self. I think he lets his true convictions come out and play pretty often (like the Elon vid), but he's made it effectively impossible to know what his 'authentic' personality is. This is what I believe the closest example is, that I've seen.

Then there's the interesting theory that he may literally be a cryptid.

Now I am wondering what the equivalent to the church service is for these folks.

Protest marches, for one, but surely they don't have weekly sermons in the equivalent of a chapel.

At a bare minimum, they can use it as a wedge issue, as with abortion or gun control.

Like they're doing now.

If there was minimal illegal immigration to speak of, what would be their case for increasing it.

I wouldn't use most sites, period, if Ublock Origin stopped working.

Here's a hot tip too, I've been using ChatGPT to help create custom filters to block out other types of content I find annoying. You can use it, for instance, to block a particular youtube channel from ever showing up in your feed or recommendations.

There's no technical reason renewing a prescription requires you to do anything more than log into your pharmacy somehow and click a "renew" button. Any further complexity is because the pharmacy decided to waste your time.

Yes.

YES.

YOU'D THINK THAT.

But you click the 'renew' button and the Pharmacy reports that you have to get a new scrip from your physician. Well okay. You call the physicians office and they say you need to submit proof of your identity sufficient to make sure they're writing it for the right person. E-mail won't do, they need it faxed or you can stop by in person. Then once that's done, they will forward the scrip to the pharmacy. But it turns out the only way to check if the pharmacy got the scrip is to actually call, which means waiting on hold, and once you've done all the intermediate steps, THEN the 'renew' button works. And then add in a layer of fun if you want to get insurance involved.

Maybe other pharmacies do it differently, but I assume a nontrivial part of the process is regulatory compliance and antifraud measures.

Its one of those tasks where it could be a 2-5 minute diversion, or 90 minutes of running around, navigating phone trees and getting various ducks in a row to get the particular outcome you want/need, b/c the parties involved are not motivated to help much, are concerned about fraud/deception, and are not in good communication with each other.

So as the one person properly motivated to complete the task, who isn't worried about fraud, and can act as the intermediary between the parties, I'm now shouldering the organization burden. It is what it is, but I'd sure love to throw AI at the task.

I think the main feature male friends can't provide is being the confidant of deep secrets and more purely emotional revelations from the inner reaches of your psyche. Intimacy, as you say.

For that, you want a partner that has some buy-in and is committed to sticking around for the long term and thus has a greater familiarity with your personal foibles and hangups and struggles, and has accepted you 'in spite' of those. i.e. they make you comfortable enough to be open.

So in that case yeah, you'd want somebody who is emotionally mature and a decent communicator, which would be rarer to find among 18-20 year olds.

But it also doesn't take too much experience to just let someone put their head in your lap and talk about their inner world while providing the occasional constructive response or affirmation, and remember enough of the details that they can build on it as you go.

Seconding this.

And if you have a decent amount of training in some of the disciplines on display, you can actually sort of comprehend what's going on in that tangle of appendages, and understand why landing that particular spinning kick-into-right-cross combo took a lot of skill to unleash, even if it didn't land.

That song is unironically a banger if all you want is a party jam. Should pair well with Ye's recent hit single "Heil Hitler," although the vibes are very different.

Agreed, although its frustrating to do all that prep work and then have some random outside circumstances occur that sours her again.

Building anticipation over text all day then letting her know you're 15 minutes from home and she better be ready is a great way to confirm that it is or isn't happening so as to avoid last second dissappointment.

As with many projects, the last mile is usually the hardest one.