Well, maybe. But here's how they might know:
- They could have entered rooms where men use urinals, whether to change their baby boys, or if it's gender neutral, or if there's no other restroom
- They could have a sense of physics, based on knowing how flys work, and envisioning how far men's penises need to stick out of the fly to pee, and picturing the angles you'd need to be at in order to get a glimpse
- They could know that many (most?) men have a certain homophobia, and wouldn't use urinals if they felt like they and other men were mutually exposed
haroldbkny
5d ago
Yuppies, probably all between 25 and 38. Maybe it's something different about being a kid on a college campus vs being a yuppie in a professional environment.
haroldbkny
6d ago
In non-Trump news, I have some new data on revealed preferences. I live in a pretty leftist place, and my employer recently made a switch for about half of the non-single occupancy bathrooms on each floor to be gender neutral. What's interesting is that this has resulted in women completely abandoning those bathrooms. Shortly after the switch, I even saw a number of women about to go in the former women's rooms, realize that they're now gender neutral, and reverse course to presumably go find an actual women's room. Some female coworkers mentioned to me that they like trans people and "have trans friends", but don't like the bathroom change. I guess I like this change, because it's effectively increased the number of men's rooms, since no women want to use the former women's rooms. So make of this revealed preference data what you will.
One bad aspect of this is that they've covered over the urinals in the former men's rooms. I asked my wife if she would care if there's a urinal in a bathroom she was using, and she said that she wouldn't like it, because she doesn't want to see a guy's dick. I guess women don't know that you can't really see dicks of someone using a urinal unless you specifically look around their body to try to see it.
haroldbkny
1mo ago
Would you agree that the simplest, most obvious solution to the wage gap and indeed every other politically significant, statistically-measured gender gap in existence is for all men to say they are women?
Hah, this immediately made me think of Dr Seuss's The Sneetches. That'd be an interesting state of affairs to live in.
haroldbkny
1mo ago
I'm asking because I'd love to be in an industry that's more normal than tech: what are normal jobs that have that hiring routine, in your experience? Are we talking like working in a construction site, being a teacher, being a librarian, working as an accountant, all of the above?
haroldbkny
1mo ago
If there were a covid sized pandemic during another presidency, like a Democrat, would that president get the blame? Does the president automatically deserve some blame for a covid sized pandemic? My guess is no for both of those questions, but I think they deserve to be asked.
haroldbkny
1mo ago
You know, I've always wanted to learn how hackers do what they do. I don't think I would be able to actually use those skills for material ends, because I consider myself a moral person, but I just love learning about how things are done, and I love amassing "super power" skills. Maybe even save the skill for one day, if I wanted to exact revenge on a company or person that I feel had wronged me or something.
But I don't even know where to go to learn how to do this kind of thing. I'm probably just naive. I have learned all about how to prevent hacking attacks, but I've never found a course or instruction manual that says "here's how you can spy on someone else's email" or "use this program to access files on someone else's machine". I suspect one problem is that a lot of hacking is actually just social engineering, which I find super boring and a non-starter for learning to hack.
So, is it possible that there aren't enough hackers because it's not the sort of thing that you can learn easily, and you have to roll your own everything in order to do it?
You might be right. I in no way think that it's evident that DOGE is taking good steps that will bring about positive change with certainty. But I'm just sick (as I have been since 2016) of people ascribing evil or stupid motives to Trump that he probably doesn't actually have.
Also, sort of a nitpick, but having been in companies that have taken the break stuff and downsize approach, losing money isn't the only, and certainly not the earliest, feedback signal leadership looks for in deciding what to reinstate. Applying pressure downwards by defunding stuff causes your reports to take the initiative to make a good case to you what is actually important, which does a lot of the legwork for the "serious investigations", and lets you apply your best judgement more easily.
I hope that information can flow to them somehow and the things which train up the scientific workforce get repaired sooner rather than later.
Yeah, me too. It is a scary time, no question.
Part of me wants to say, "it's been a scary time for the past 5 years due to the government destroying the economy with their stupid covid responses, and now they're just trying to take unprecedented drastic measures to fix it", but I don't know if I fully believe that.
It's a dilemma in my beliefs vs my hopes. I don't really believe that tearing down the system, or even coming close to doing so, is ever really a good idea. But I always hope that something can make things better. I would have said in the past that technological advancement was basically always that force that makes things better and saves us from economic depression, but this time, the technological advancement that's on the horizon may be just as dangerous. So it makes me want to hope that an attempt to fix the system will actually save us instead, despite my rational judgement. But really, that's just emotions, and it's not something to be trusted, just as I tell leftists who want to tear down the system.
haroldbkny
1mo ago
I may be naive or simply out of the loop and not following what's going on with DOGE this month vs last, but is the point to actually defund science? Or is the point to "break stuff", in order to stress-test the system and find out what's actually important, so that we can then focus on just the important stuff, while cutting out the stuff that was previously being funded but not likely to help anything? Basically, by downscaling, the stuff that's actually important will come forward and be made apparent, so we can continue to fund it. That's at least what I thought they were trying to achieve.
I'm not saying what DOGE is doing is correct, or that they're actually managing to successfully achieve the goal of cutting out only the waste. But I see a lot of people saying that DOGE no longer wants the US to do science research, and I guess I just doubt that that is actually true.
haroldbkny
1mo ago
That might be the case. That'd make me happy if my kids grew up in a high school where they didn't have to act like they don't care about anything.
But also, having lived in several different areas, even recently, I think the people in my particular area are more rude than in other places.
Social conversation in the UK sometimes feels like its 50% a competition about how cleverly you can insult the other person. This is really distracting if you ever want to talk about something substantive. Despite it being mostly in good humor, the constant negativity is really draining.
Hah, this is interesting. I've felt drained recently because specifically where I live, social conversation is about how little you give a fuck about anything, and how blatantly and non-cleverly you can be about insulting the other person, but still have them take it. And I remember in high school that to have any interests at all made you a loser. All of life is about seeming like you don't give a fuck, here. But this is very specific to my region.
For 1, I also want to ask what costs of living are like in each place, because that is as relevant as your salary. I feel like costs of living here are astronomical near cities, which is where most people want to live. But I don't know what it's like in the UK. I would have assumed that the socialized structure makes things cheaper to match the lower pay, so I'm curious to hear your take on it.
For 3, I think the climate sucks here too. But I've always lived in the northeast. Here the skies are gray 3/4 of the year.
6 is interesting. I feel the opposite, but maybe it's because I've lived here my whole life.
Oh, I guess that makes sense. Do doctors work their asses off in the UK like they do in the US? Whenever I talk to my doctor friends, their lives sound miserable, almost like they're being hazed by a fraternity for years on end. I don't personally know anyone who became a doctor who wasn't pushed into it by strong family expectations.
haroldbkny
1mo ago
Just curious: why do you want to be in America instead of the UK? If I had no family or friends in America (maybe you do, I'm just assuming you don't), I think I'd be equally happy here or in the UK. I might even prefer to UK for some reasons.
haroldbkny
2mo ago
I don't think it's conclusive that nothing has passed the test before, because I don't think the test is necessarily set in stone. There are variations, and I think it's been romanticized enough that people have moved the goalposts for the test as we progress. I mean some people could be fooled while others are not. Eugene Goostman is another one from 2014 that is said to have passed the test.
I agree with your main premise, but a nitpick:
For a long time, people considered the Turing Test the gold standard for AI. Later, better benchmarks were developed, but for most laypeople with a passing familiarity with AI, the Turing Test meant something.
I'm not really sure that's true. The Turing Test has been passed in some form or another since 1966, with ELIZA, and I also remember various chat bots on AOL instant messenger doing the same back in the early 2000s. I think that people realized quickly that the Turing test is just a novelty, something thought up by Turing in the early days of computer science that seemed relevant but was quickly proven not to be, and that various technologies could beat it.
haroldbkny
2mo ago
I've spent the last 15 years telling leftists who want to "tear down the system" how much that's a terrible idea, because when the system is torn down, tens of thousands of people die. I think there was some SSC post about this but I can't find it. I think it's beneficial to remember that tearing down the system is bad when the right wants to do it, just as when the left wants to do it. Now, defining what constitutes tearing down the system vs cleaning house and getting rid of waste and cruft may be the next place this argument would go, and I don't know any really good answers for that.
I really don't know if what Trump and Musk are doing is good or right, and I'm far from Trump's ardent defender and fan, but I also don't think it's that ridiculous what they're doing. They're using the big tech playbook, which is what Musk is used to. Slash budgets, break stuff, and the stuff that's really needed will become apparent as a result. It's what people who want to actually make change and make their companies better will do, not what people who want to preserve the status quo at any cost. (Read: it's what actual businesses do, not governments, because businesses care about cutting out waste, and governments don't really).
Maybe it's completely the wrong tactic to take. Maybe that playbook should never be employed for government because the programs are too important to have even a temporary gap. I don't know what the right answer is. But it's certainly interesting that they're trying something so unique. Where every other politician has claimed to want to make changes and failed to do so, this strategy might succeed, because it's never been tried before in government.
haroldbkny
2mo ago
People have roughly alluded to related concepts, but I'm surprised no one explicitly mentioned the Chinese Robber Fallacy. That's what I think it is.
Edit: I see someone posted that 30 minutes ago, between when I loaded the thread and commented.
haroldbkny
2mo ago
One thing that really irritates me and makes me have less regard for economics as a study is that no one can agree on the cause of the great depression. Some people say FDR saved us, some people say he made it worse and was the real reason it went on so long. There are so many theories that completely contradict each other. If economists can't figure that out, I have no faith in their ability to make predictions in our time.
haroldbkny
2mo ago
Libs did try to resist Trump after his first election, believing he was illegitimate, didn't win the popular vote, needed tk be impeached over Russia, Stormy Daniels, etc.
It is refreshing that I no longer hear this stuff anymore. Leftists have now accepted that Trump won legitimately for his second term, and no one seems to be doubting that he is the rightful president. Instead it's a lot of "I can't believe people voted for this". But I consider that a lot better then the constant refusal that he is the rightful president, because all of the investigations and doubts really did prevent Trump from fully having the power last time. It was one witch hunt after another, causing everyone left of Jeb Bush to really internalize that it's a virtue to resist Trump on every level. I think the lack of question to his legitimacy this time will make things different this time around, for what it's worth.
haroldbkny
2mo ago
Yeah, I guess it was in his original post. I was thinking of the motte and bailey more being argument-based, for example “reality is socially constructed” or "God is just another name for the beauty and order in the Universe", and less about identifying with an ideology directly.
haroldbkny
2mo ago
This is a small question, not a huge discussion topic.
Is there a term for groups or factions hiding behind their name as a shield, as opposed to what their group actually does? As an example, feminists will say that all women should be in favor of feminism, because feminism just means "supporting women's choices" or something benign. But in actuality, feminism really means supporting specific women in specific ways - many women don't like abortion advocacy, sexual liberation, and all of the things that actually goes along with feminism. I used to joke that I am a "goodist", which is in support of things that are good. And when people donate to goodism, we'd use it to fund very specific libertarian or anti feminist causes, or something.
I remember thinking about this concept back in my anti-sjw heyday of 2014 a lot, but I can't remember if there is a term for it. This is related to, but not entirely described by "motte and bailey", such that I think it should have it's own name, if it doesn't.
This is coming up for me now, because I'm seeing people post things like a meme that says "do you realize how insane it is to publicly announce that you don't want diversity, equity, and inclusion?" in response to Trump
I do. Or rather, I don't let there only being a women's room available stop me if need to change my daughter.
More options
Context Copy link