Yes.
My point is he records everything and has a clear counterparty rather than just spitting predictions with no skin in the game and crowing that he was right when a few of them land.
But Fuentes ain't predicting black swans either. "Israel and Iran will try to hurt each other" is a generally reliable prediction at its base.
And once you've been given the information "Hamas just killed a bunch of Israeli Civilians, in Israel" there's a few straightforward guesses from there RE: Israeli response.
I'll say there's zero chance I would have correctly predicted the Pager operation, even in the broad "Mossad wipes out Hezbollah's entire command in a single attack" strokes.
But "Hezbollah gets decimated by Israeli espionage" is not a wild, out there guess by any means.
If Fuentes was specific enough to say "The U.S. drops bunker busters on Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities" as a likely outcome I'd start to give him credit.
faceh
10d ago
I'm wondering if this sort of approach only 'recently' became possible by the advent of, say, AI-enhanced guidance systems that can recognize a target via visual cues alone so doesn't need a human in the loop to, say, lase the target or steer it in.
At the risk of sounding, I dunno, petty? Did Fuentes put any money on the line, did he find someone to take the other side of his position, reduce the bet to fairly specific terms, and have someone willing to judge who won by a given deadline?
Bryan Caplan puts money on all of the bets he makes and chronicles them in a wiki he maintains. He's got a great record against some very smart people.
There's specific lose conditions, plus incentives to be accurate/not bullshit.
Fuentes also didn't put any specific confidence estimates on those bets, so he can always walk back the ones that were off base if he wants "oh that was a long shot anyway." Well you never said if you thought it was a 10% chance of a 90% chance, so I guess you can retroactively change that belief.
This is how pundits operate. Throwing a bunch of vague predictions against a wall, phrased to feel specific and of course they never let someone take up the other side of the position who can then call them out later.
Like when I was talking about how Tariffs would play out I really tried to be specific enough that I can be judged wrong and lay out a strict 'I was wrong' scenario.
Speaking of, looks like the time is ticking down for some more 'permanent' deals to be worked out in the next month or I'll have missed the mark on the most recent extension.
Edit: And I'm still confident (80% to be specific) that they get it done soon. 20% is reserved b/c we're in a time where crazy events can happen in short time frames.
EU is allegedly pretty close:
As is India:
faceh
10d ago
(~260 feet vs max disclosed bunker depth of 200, though that figure might be misdirection)
Chatter on twitter is that they targeted some existing ventilation shafts (Yes, straight up Star Wars/Top Gun style) to increase the effective depth on the bombs.
Some more speculative chatter is noticing that we allegedly dropped 6 bombs on Fordow... but there are only three (3) visible entry holes. So it is also possible that they dropped a second set of bombs through the first set's entry holes specifically to ensure the kill.
faceh
10d ago
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.
faceh
10d ago
Can't lie. At least part of my animus is from getting stuck behind people buying like 12 scratch-off tickets at a time, and oftentimes trying to claim winnings at the same time.
In my state you don't even have to scratch them off, the cashier has a machine they can scan the ticket on and tell you if you won or not.
At that point, where's any of the fun?
I know these folks would probably just find a way to get their jollies elsewhere, but seeing how gambling has penetrated every aspect of society now, I really do want to put this genie back in its bottle.
faceh
11d ago
I feel pretty similar about Gambling.
Adults should be allowed to gamble.
But there should be some friction in order to participate, so I'd like to remove e.g. scratch-off cards at convenience stores and force all casinos into specifically designated areas.
faceh
11d ago
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.
faceh
11d ago
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.
I'm old enough to remember the chest-thumping that happened when Trump dropped a MOAB on ISIS (we do love our acronyms, don't we folks?).
Also when he iced Soleimani.
And when they spent like a week celebrating that dog that helped kill an ISIS leader.
He damn well knows that inflicting a black eye on international opponents without getting your own people killed plays well.
Even OBAMA knew this, hence the fanfare around taking out Bin Laden.
And he's also making a number of his opponents run cover for Iran directly.
faceh
11d ago
I've been a Panthers fan since literally day one. I grew up going to games at least, eh, once a month? 30 years of waiting, a few false hopes, and now we're cruising along as THE team to beat. Surreal. Last year felt like a dream I could wake up from any minute. This year finally makes it all feel real. Can't lie, I would like us to pull off the three-peat and then maybe ease off a bit to let some other teams (not from Canada) have a shot once again.
I'm not really a fan of the 'dirty play' side of things... but at the same time, hockey traditionally gets way more rough than virtually any other sport out there, so you have to let things play out a bit. One guy roughs up your guy, you rough him back. Your star player(s) are targets, so there is a strategic element of protecting them from aggression. As you noted, players get injuries that would get them pulled in most sports, but they slap some bandages on and get back to it.
The one thing I do wish were more honored was "Don't screw with the goalie." Personally I think they should increase the size of the crease by 50% and generally forbid players who don't have puck possession from entering. Or give the goalie a gun.
I would have gone over to the Parade today, but got stuff to do as an adult. Most of my family is out there, though. Its truly great how the league is generally not very stodgy about (non-illegal) player conduct during the off-season, and they let the cup (well, the copy of it that is designated for this purpose) just go with them to celebrate everything.
The sport has truly spoiled me, I can't really get into any other league. I like College Football for sheer chaos, but where else do you get THIS mix of constrained brutality, teamwork, camaraderie, international rivalry, generally gentlemanly behavior during the off-season, and sheer spectacle?
Greatest spectator sport imaginable. It is barely even close.
faceh
11d ago
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.
faceh
11d ago
Dependsssss because in some of those environments, the wealthy men just stack up as many wives as they can afford and the less wealthy guys have go out and steal their brides from abroad or something.
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.
faceh
11d ago
Economic incentives shift the paradigm for men, too.
Simple example, if you owned a family farm, popping out a ton of kids was helpful IF ONLY for the cheap labor that couldn't easily unionize.
But if you have a job as a doctor, lawyer, finance bro, whatever, ESPECIALLY if you're living in a small, expensive apartment in a high COL area, the prospect seems irrational up front. No need for extra hands, and definitely have to worry about feeding those extra mouths.
You may want kids, eventually, but you want sex NOW, so hey, why not shack up with as many women as possible then find 'the one' when you're economically established.
faceh
11d ago
Yeah, sending the bombers, training the pilots, providing support services and maintenance and okaying their use, but denying any role in the outcome because "well WE didn't fly the planes" is patently silly.
If there are two guys having a shootout and you go over to one of them, hand him a gun, hand him the bullets, help him load the magazine, give him a few tips on marksmanship, and point out where the other guy is hiding, the other guy could pretty rightfully consider you an enemy combatant at that point.
But I dunno how many layers of obsfuscation are required before it becomes a wash.
"We sold the bombers and training to this other country, who then lent them to the belligerent country, and it just so happened that this other country has access to our satellite network to help with targeting, but we didn't tell 'em to do anything with that" is probably the furthest you can get without being obviously culpable.
And that's only because the intermediary country does have the option to just not do the thing you're hoping they do.
faceh
11d ago
My 'deep dive' into the question shows that it is multifactor, although there's some overlap/common causes behind certain factors.
Like, its almost ridiculous how many disparate pressures appear to make women less prone to producing kids (that's a slightly unfair way to put it, but it captures the problem, I think).
Chemicals they randomly encounter in the modern environment, chemicals they intentionally put in their body, social expectations shifting, economic incentives shifting, the (short term) opportunity cost of kids, the increase in immigration rates, the advent of social media, increasing concentration of people in urban areas, and yeah, the fact that women are now solely responsible for choosing their mates and there are zero restrictions left on their decision process... so they decide to not decide.
I don't think all of these factors are downstream of female liberation.
And many of these pressures are only possible thanks to technological developments of the last century. Which is also true of female liberation itself.
As I put it:
Please guys, I said right at the outset that its multifactor and I'm really uncertain about the major causes! I'm just proposing the policies I think most directly target the issue at hand. I really wish I had better things to do with my time than think about this at length and type long screeds to the internet. Better things like raising kids! That'd be really nice! BUT APPARENTLY I HAVE TO SOLVE ALL THE REST OF THIS to bring my chances up.
Its interesting how the past approximately 10 years of diplomacy in that arena has led to this being possible.
There was some Salami-slicing going on during Trump 1 thanks to the Abraham accords, a number of major Arab countries brought into the Western orbit and shown the benefits of being onside and chilling out about Israel. I have my misgivings about their reliability as 'allies' (something something scorpion and frog) but clearly they have the ability to sit on their hands when told to.
Then Russia got itself entangled in a conflict that keeps it from offering much in the way of support/deterrence.
Then Syria's government fell.
Probably a few other things I'm forgetting, but it all ultimately left Iran with no major buddies to lean on (China, I suppose) and thus the immediate consequences of going it 'alone' against its western adversaries.
Which is what made it safe enough for Israel to pulverize their defense systems from several angles.
Which made it safe enough for the U.S. to commit a huge portion of its strategic stealth bombers to the operation with assurances they'd all make it back, and presuming they had the firepower needed to do the job, could expect to actually cripple Iran this time.
I dunno how far in advance this stuff was planned and anticipated but I think this pretty much answers the "why didn't we do this 40/30/10 years ago" question. Too many uncontrolled variables, much higher risk.
Nothing's ever over. If I were Iran and I had some breathing room I'd probably be offering China near Carte-Blanche to give me some nuke tech. That strategy doesn't usually work in, say, Civilization VI but hey, the U.S. is vastly far ahead on the Science Victory, Cultural Victory, and Space Race Victory tracks, so options for both me and China are limited.
I'd vaguely fear Iran deciding to go full 'blaze of glory' mode and activate any and all contingencies and proxy parties it has abroad and just fire off 90% of its remaining missile stockpiles into Israel and daring the U.S. to put boots on the ground again.
But I don't see that as being the rational response and even if they don't come to the bargaining table, they're probably better off waiting to see if any other conflagration points pop off that might distract U.S. attention.
Yeah.
Any argument based on "TFR is going down, which clearly shows that X is the cause" is trivially defeated by the fact that every country has this same outcome regardless of the cultural starting point.
Its almost legitimately bad faith to deploy that argument.
faceh
11d ago
Kinda has to be, if every single country involved in manufacturing any bullet used to fire at your troops is now at war with you, things would escalate very rapidly.
All the more so in the current age of globalized industry.
That said, yeah, if your country is selling fully manufactured high end weaponry to another country with the basic knowledge that its going to be used in an extant conflict, you're clearly tapdancing on a somewhat blurry line.
Selling gasoline to a belligerent country is at least plausibly deniable, since it has civilian uses.
faceh
12d ago
They add increasingly absurd, uncomfortable and intense scenarios to make them crack, too.
And the audience is able to interact with the contestants directly.
Gambling is very tricky for me because it doesn't usually create obvious externalities.
Other than being stuck in line while someone buys scratchoffs.
Its unclear what interest I have in whether someone is spending their money 'wisely' or not. There's an argument that someone who would gamble money away would probably do something else stupid with it, like play with options on Robinhood or fall for some crypto rugpulls, so really they might be better off giving up control of their money entirely.
But its increasingly clear to me that I don't WANT to live in a society where gambling is everywhere. I don't like the ads, I hate having the odds splayed across the screen constantly, I'm old enough to remember the time before this was ubiquitous, and sports gambling indeed had a sheen of shame on it.
The one time I went gambling in a Casino was a rush. I see why people get really into it, I felt an urge to return and try my luck for months afterwards.
The optimal amount of gambling in a society is (probably) not zero.
The compromise that seemed to mitigate the harms is to keep legal gambling relegated to certain geographical areas. This makes it easier to keep things restrained or dare I say 'regulated.'
Otherwise, every single business out there tries to inject some gambling aspect into their products and services to capture some of those sweet addict dollars.
And all THAT said, I'm also not in favor of having police raids on grandma for running a BINGO game out of her backyard.
More options
Context Copy link