@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

Even if that take is outdated, liking anime and video games isn't something that women are going to find attractive.

As stated by @MathWizard up there, if you want someone with similar interests to you, you gotta put it out there somehow.

And as per usual, if you're hot, you could straight up say you're into lolicon and hentai and you'd still get likes.

So are you optimizing for hookups, or something resembling a soulmate?

In the grand scheme, its probably not changing your odds much in aggregate, but somewhat increasing the chances of finding someone who likes what you like.

Its not so much that.

But as with rules 1 and 2, attractive people have a lot more options to pursue in life, so it is just inherently less likely they'll pursue white identitarianism.

And slightly MORE likely that a less attractive person, who wants to feel some sense of belonging and superiority, might pursue white identitarianism.

i.e., if they have nothing going for them in life other than being white, it is not too surprising they might lean into that factor. Not that their internal hatred warps their physical appearance.

Exceptions will abound, but I'll take a bet as to the aggregates.

I still would avoid obvious icky hobbies on a dating profile. Anime has a very strong association with porn, child porn, and childishness.

This take is so heavily out of date I'm wondering if it was frozen in about 2011 and just recently thawed out and revived.

Anime fans aren't relegated to 4chan these days.

One of the most popular series on Netflix in 2022 was an anime series tied into the Cyberpunk:2077 universe.

Netflix has been producing a TON of original anime series themselves. They literally revived a series from 2001 to help fill out their roster.

Which should tell you they're finding viewership for this stuff, and not just among loli enthusiasts.

Now, you might be correct as to how the older generations view anime, but there's probably a similar number of female weebs as male weebs about in the younger gens. Now, if you're looking for someone who is NOT a weeb, then yeah, maybe exclude it.

Sounds like Detachment 2702 has been busy.

I do often wonder if some nontrivial amount of incompetence is tolerated by large organizations, since that makes it a tad easier to hide certain intentional actions and pass them off as accidents or coincidences.

Kind of like how "falling from a window at great height" is apparently either very popular as a suicide method in Russia or just happens accidentally a lot.

Yeah.

Even if you assume there's a large contingent of white people who actively would prefer to live away from most minorities... the ones who are in a position to openly state and act on that preference are probably not the high-quality human capital that most would want to live around, either.

Or they've made their white identity the entire basis of their personality and those folks tend to be tedious.

Rich countries tend to suffer from Cost Disease and overregulation which stops a lot of things that ought to be easy to do from happening.

I agree that after you get this many wildfires, there should be incentives to throw money at the problem until it stops. But if people are willing to throw money without limit, someone will be willing to soak all those funds up and deliver as little as possible.

Its kinda funny (not in the 'haha' way) that government and citizens alike ignore this market signal of "IF YOU BUILD HERE, YOUR HOUSE WILL LIKELY BE DESTROYED, (AND YOU MAY DIE) ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY SURE?

That said, I also note that we just build things way more densely than ever before, in terms of how much expensive infrastructure we pack into each acre in some places.

I sincerely assume that there is no chance that Insurance Cos. and their underwriters can stay solvent if a serious earthquake hits the Los Angeles area, or a Cat 5. Hurricane rips through Miami.

If the insurance was charged at the actual market rate, I would also guess that many places would only be inhabited by the uberrich who can self-insure, or by the poorer folks who go without insurance, build cheap, and don't quite understand the risk they're assuming.

I live in Coastal Florida so I've seen a mix of both happening.

Guess that depends on whether you consider plagues or pandemics in that category.

And I'd specifically point out that WWII took a long time to kill that many people, whereas most natural disasters happen over minutes, to hours, to days at most.

In 2004, an earthquake/Tsunami combo killed like 225,000 people in a day.

So on a simple deaths/hour calculation, I'm not certain your point would hold.

A single hurricane allegedly releases almost as much energy as the entirety of humanity's nuclear bomb stockpile. And there's 5-15 of those per year.

Weather is very complex but new AI methods are useful here, plus more sensors would be useful.

That's the, I dunno, "scary" part.

Quelling weather in one place might make it harsher somewhere else. How do you dissipate the energy of this system without it bursting out all at once somewhere?

That said, I would be all for engineering the paths of major hurricanes so they don't intersect with land at all. Simple enough approach.

Note, I'm huge on eventually rendering weather a nonissue. Become a Kardashev II Civ ASAP.

Or build O'Neill colonies where the weather can be precisely controlled at all times.

And if you're prepared to pay for that, you can!

That's about the reality if you're buying waterfront property on the coastline of Florida.

Naturally, only really wealthy people can buy such property.

End of day you really can't account for every variable, or conditions that are far outside the 'expected' normal range.

Weather in particular is a chaotic system. Some days the conditions just happen to coincide to make things more severe than expected.

Remember just about a month ago a Swiss village got swept away by an avalanche. What are we to do about this risk? Engineer every mountain to be stable?

Or Volcanic eruptions. We don't HAVE an engineering solution to those!

The arguably better solution in many cases is to build the houses and infrastructure as cheaply as can reasonably be done so they can be more easily rebuilt, and spend the extra money on early warning and evacuation efforts.

Interestingly, women’s reply rate is highest for bios which are only slightly negative, whereas men’s reply rate is highest for very negative bios.

Cursed stat. They complain about the men with the nasty bios and the disparaging comments yet reward that with extra attention.

Although I'd be very surprised if that was what led to actual dates and even MORE surprised if it led to relationships.

What are you optimizing for.

Also no, nobody has a strategy that works consistently and the dating apps themselves are very motivated to shut one down if it arose.

They're gamified to all hell so its really like asking someone for tips on roulette or slots.

Flash floods and earthquakes are probably my most feared natural disasters, since they give very little warning and there's no real workable contingency for their occurrence.

But as far as disaster preparedness, we humans simply aren't (yet) capable of holding back the forces of nature when they run amok.

Occasionally we get reminded that even our most destructive wars barely hold a candle to a single "act of God."

There's almost nowhere on the planet you can keep your kids that won't be vulnerable to some natural disaster or other.

Civilization has mitigated so many threats that it is easy to feel safe and sound, but every single year there's a set of dice rolls that determine if a particular human settlement gets obliterated or not.

Unless we're willing to spend the entirety of global GDP attempting to disaster-proof every single town and city, we are to left with the option of praying to whatever higher power we believe in.

Might be.

But you'd expect low performers to end up on the receiving end of the oppression more often than not.

I know you're tongue in cheek with this, but man I don't like that the lesson being taught internationally right now is: "If even a single member of a particular ethnic group survives, and your ancestors did something oppressive to their ancestors hundreds of years ago, they will use this to extract reparations from you in perpetuity and will never let you forget what happened."

Similar logic for why, if you depose a monarch, you have to kill off their entire extended family, lest some loyalists later track down their teenage second cousin thrice removed and try to restore them to the throne.

We have a few social techs for allowing non-genocidal acclimation of oppressed populations but when they can all be trivially overridden by the logic that "any observed inequality in outcomes is proof positive of ongoing oppression which must be rectified" then guess what comes back on the menu.

Perhaps we can counter that logic by pointing out that whatever mechanism allows guilt to flow forward in time should also allow credit and pride to flow forward. So sure, maybe my great great great grandpappy beat some villagers that one time, but my family saved an awful lot of drowning children over the years too, so maybe it balances out.

I mean, yes, but the hallucination problem of putting in wrong cases and statutes is utterly disqualifying in advanced legal writing. Citing to a nonexistent case or statute compromises the entire brief or argument. A decent first year associate might misinterpret a statute or case, or miss that the case was overturned, but they wouldn't make up cases from whole cloth and build their arguments off those.

For a lot of tasks, you just need to go through and proofread or fix up the places where it filled in basic info that it obviously didn't have.

But citing a case that doesn't exist to build an argument is like asking it to design a bridge and it get the tensile strength of steel completely wrong, or perhaps it makes up a type of material that doesn't exist and hallucinates its properties as part of the specifications.

And maybe it does that, I don't know. But there's literally no reason for it to be doing that, either, when there is definitive information, easily available for reference. Its information it should never get wrong, in practice.

And it really shouldn't be hard to fix, the caselaw and statutes are already simple to look up. Just teach the thing to use WestLaw.

So I do expect them to solve that particular class of hallucinations pretty handily, even if it will still completely fudge its outputs when it doesn't have an easy way to check.

I'm sure. But thats barely 10% of the work lawyers do.

That pushes it back a step, since I can generally guess at what she believes is 'pretty' when she dresses up.

Tooting my own horn. December 1, 2022 I predicted:

My honest bet is that any student currently in their first year of Law School will be unable to compete with AI legal services by the time they graduate. Certainly not on cost. The AI didn't incur 5-6 figure loans for it's legal training.

Put another way, the AI will be as competent/capable as a first-year associate at a law firm inside 3 years.

This was before GPT4 was on the scene. Reiterated it 3 months ago

And then today I read this nice little headline:

Artificial Intelligence is now an A+ law student, study finds

If they can stop the damn thing from hallucinating caselaw and statutes, it might already be there.

But, let me admit, that if we don't see downward pressure on first-year wages or staffing reductions this year, I missed the meatiest part of the prediction.

There's the counter-argument that AI lawyers will actually stimulate demand for attorneys by making contracts way more complex. I don't buy it, but I see it.