@hashMap's banner p

hashMap


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 18 10:48:25 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 1251

hashMap


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 18 10:48:25 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1251

Verified Email

The American right doesn't believe in its own ideology of individualism and therefore is stuck in a losing spiral of hypocrisy.

The US was largely founded when groups, not individuals, moved to north america to build their own communities. The US was not a free hippie-town when it was founded, it consisted of strong communities with strong levels of collectivism. A puritan community was in many ways highly collectivist with clearly enforced social norms, values and expectations. The idea of keeping the state out of people's business wasn't about freeing the individual as much as it was about freeing the congregation or town from the King. Towns and communities who didn't like the British king moved to the US to build towns with their values. However, in these communities norms were enforced and the individualism that is common in the American right wasn't really represented. Taxes were low, there was little government regulation and people could bear arms. However, men were men and women were women, my body my choice views on abortion would not have been accepted. People may have legally been able to dress like they wanted and pray to whatever god they wanted but in practice this wouldn't have been tolerated in a Puritan town. These towns were not morally relativistic and policed behaviour of their members.

The ideology was formulated in individualist terms yet was practiced in collectives. This worked since there were homogeneous communities that stuck together naturally and people didn't really use their right to identify as whatever they wanted and engage in moral relativism.

However, in the past couple of decades, the people have started to practice the law as written in the sense that they are engaging in true individualism. Gay marriage, feminism, multiculturalism, transgenderism etc do in many ways follow from true individualism. The American right have had a difficult time arguing for social conservatism from a truly individualist standpoint. If the legal system is built around the freedoms and rights of the individual it becomes difficult to enforce social norms and values that are cultural. If the US is a country of individuals doing as they wish multiculturalism is more difficult to object to and in a more multicultural society it becomes harder to enforce social norms implicitly.

What many conservatives actually want is to enforce their values, norms, and culture on society. They may say they want a separation between church and state and that they think that religion is up to the individual. However, many of them do not want to live in an atheistic state in a society in which Hinduism and Islam have the same standing as Christianity. Most conservatives want to live in a society that enforces traditional christian/European American values, culture and norms. Much of the conservative movement has had an incredibly difficult time defending what they want and getting what they want since their ideology isn't in line with what they want. Instead, they end up being hypocritical, making unnecessarily convoluted arguments and not promoting what they want since they are bound by an ideology that isn't inline with their goals. When people make arguments that aren't inline with their intentions or true beliefs they often face great difficulty in debates.

One winning strategy I can see is to stake out a piece of land and establish a zone in which norms are enforced. A common way of handling diverse countries is to allow different groups to have their own autonomy. In India, much of the middle east even in Indian reservations there are local governments that enforce the norms of the people who live there. Russia is an atheist state, however, Islam is enforced at a local level in Chechnya and the federal government in Moscow isn't really involving itself in their internal affairs. Without imposing Christian European American values in a geographic area it is going to be difficult for conservatives to get what they actually want. In order to do so they need to realign their ideology with their actual desires.

Conservatives have on the one hand almost uplifted a constitution and political system built around the state as a neutral arbitrator between individuals to a third testament while at the same time often showing a desire to live in a state with a clear culture, religion and moral foundation.

This is meant to be taken as a thesis, and as a start of a discussion of what conservatives actually want to achieve rather than soap-boxing.

Traditional cities have functioned and existed for millennia and still function and exist with tens of millions of people living in pre car developments across the western world. What hasn't been able to function well is the complete break with tradition after WWII when cities were entirely redesigned and we ended up with long range commuting, massive environmental damage, low social cohesion, extreme blandness and the sheer ugliness of urban sprawl. Looking at what has actually worked and created cities like Barcelona, Budapest, Boston before WWII or Copenhagen is a much better route than continuing with one of the biggest failures of progressivism in the 20th century. Suburbia was a progressive project, and it doesn't make sense for conservatives to take the blame for it.

Because Putin doesn't believe that Zelensky who is a jewish comedian is an honest nazi. The Ukrainian elite is heavily influenced by neoliberal institutions and their end goal is to join NATO and the EU. The EU + NATO isn't exacly going to allow a nazi Ukraine. I am sure there are some Ukrainian nazis who think they are going to get a NATO backed fourth reich but they were mainly cannon fodder in Mariupol. The Ukrainian state's existance hangs on the support of the US government. They will not be having a white ethnostate for long.

The big issue here isn't Ukraine, it is neoliberal dominance of the world. Break free from neoliberalism and get the treatment that Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria or Yemen got. The US backs coups, bombs countries and financially blocks countries it doesn't like. No country in Europe is going to stray far from neoliberalism unless the power of the global neoliberal order is weakened. I support China, North Korea, communist Cuba and islamist Iran for the simple reason that they represent an alternative to the dominance of Washington. China just launched their C919 passenger jet giving us a path to a future in which a country doesn't have to bow to Washington in order to buy jets. I support Russia because I don't want a world completely dominated by Atlanticist elites but a multipolar world in which different countries and civilizations exists and can make deals with each other.

As for Ukraine, which part do you think will have the most third world migrants and gender studies in thirty years, the Keiv or Moscow controlled parts.

As a white nationalist and traditionalist who is more likely to undermine the ethnic homogeneity of my country and the traditions of my people, the Chinese, Putin or the people at Davos? Why would I feel loyalty to the same people who push critical race theory, want to deconstruct my culture and openly push migrants into my country while having killed millions of people in wars in the middle east? I am not a traitor when I support China since the group I would supposedly be betraying are people who want me banned off the internet, fired from my job and who want to force my future children to go to woke schools. China isn't my friend but I don't see how they or Iran are hostile to me.

I have lived through two constitutions, and my grandfather through three. I don't live in the same country as my grandfather was born in, yet I live in the same city. Institutions come and go, they are nothing but tools to organize a society. If a tool is extremely destructive and no longer serves a purpose, it should be tossed. I am loyal to the people, the nature, the culture and the traditions. Bad leaders and governments have been tossed out plenty of times throughout history. I can feel a strong loyalty to leaders that are good, I see no reason to follow destructive ones because of sentimentalism.

I don't see why defending bland, generic car based urban sprawl at all makes sense for conservatives. They are soulless, placeless expanses originally envisioned by liberals. The traditional city is walkable, has a strong sense of community, is unique and has a sense of belonging. There needs to be places for people to meet, small businesses and room for local culture. A stroad with endless generic housing with some big box stores selling the same products that can be found on the other side of the planet is essentially the anti thesis to the traditional city. The urbanist walkable city with cafes and restaurants at least has the aesthetic of a real city. My main critic of liberal urbanism is that it focuses purely on the aesthetic and not the function. There is no focus on having a common culture, a sense of belonging, an architectural style unique to the town and its geography etc. It is a disney-world version of a city. I would still much rather have that then the completely atomized suburban sprawl that has been built since WWII. Suburbia has isolated people from their communities, made people fat, ruined the environment and created a boring society. Instead of a public square which is a public space there is a mall which is nothing but a commercial space controlled by someone who has no connection to the town.

Cars are a massive waste of space, force kids to sit in their houses while their mom has to drive them to their friends, and replaces the bakery with bland factory bread. The best thing that could happen to conservatism is 150 dollar per barrel oil.

Jack didn't own twitter and needed to do what the owners told him. Just because he was running twitter doesn't mean that he agreed with everything twitter did.

AI has now understanding. It is like letting a person who grew up in a village in the amazon observe a nucit lear power plant operator push buttons and then giving the villagers the controls. They might be able to mimic the behaviour but there is no understanding. AI doesn't understand and it doesn't reason, Just guessing the next chess move by observing what elite players have played is one thing. Interacting with the real world without any actual understanding will never work. There is a reason why dentists learn chemistry, engineers learn math and why education has hands on labs. Without real world experience and intuition one can never become proficient.

Actual understanding and context are AI problems that haven't really progressed at all and until they do AI is going to be stuck in the realm of tools used in specific circumstances.

A surgeon can't do surgery at home, but they are probably thinking about it, reading about it or spending more time at work.

I would say it is an age old battle between two fundamental desires. On the one hand we want to belong to a strong group and therefore want to act in a way that benefits the group, on the other hand we want to get ahead ourselves even if it hurts the group. Religion and tradition is a way to push people towards group oriented behaviours, aka have children, don't sleep around instead marry young, don't divorce your wife even if she is less hot at age 50 and your secretary wants to bang, what counts is how good you are for the afterlife and not how well you have it currently.

The ideologies that have sprung up in the last centuries have largely been individualist from capitalism claiming that there is no bond between elite and the rest apart from purely contractual agreements, to genderstudies that want to abolish virtues for women while arguing that women should get special privledges. In WWI lots of Barons, millionaires and other high status people died in the trenches, today the individualist elites would flee and would focus on their personal survival. China is building twice as many warships as NATO since the elite in the west tossed their workers under a buss and moved ship production to China, so they could mistreat workers, thereby providing China with the world's premier shipbuilding industry while the west has to build ships by hand as prototypes.

As we have more and more fossil fuels and cheap natural resources harsh group oriented values have been replaced by individualism. For example instead of family first because if you get sick you need your family to provide for you we get genderstudies that promotes personal interests over family with the argument that if you get sick the state or an insurance company will care for you.

The issue is that a society that is entirely individually oriented will be highly corrupt and increasingly dysfunctional, thereby recreating the need for group oriented values.

America spent 2 trillion dollars on Afghanistan that has a GDP a fraction of the size of what it cost to put troops there. America signs trade deals that aren't even that lucrative, as long as it gets to crusade with its ideology. American NGOs have been pushing diversity hard in Eastern Europe, and Hungary is being sanctioned by the EU for not cooperating with liberalism. As for power the US wants diverse, atheistic, low trust societies that are easy to rule. A fat person twerking on instagram living by themselves and buying stuff off amazon is easier to rule than someone belonging to an actual society.

It seems like the UK and much of the rest of the west is run by the type of people who lived at Versailles. For them, politics is the debate, not the reality. A war with Russia isn't about tanks and bombs, it is about positioning oneself within the debate and what makes sense within the internal palace politics. Energy politics isn't about watts and power, it is about what works on twitter and what image is projected. The electrical grid is failing not because of Russia but because energy policies have been run by people who know more about PR than energy. They aren't really looking at inflation as an economic issue, they are looking at it as a PR issue.

The background of the people running a lot of the west isn't exactly hope inspiring, they come from media, think tanks and universities with little connection to reality. Politics lacks people who have served in the military, run a company, done engineering or worked in a hospital.

People like people like themselves, it is natural and normal. Most animals have difficulty being around members of the same species who are further than second cousins or a partner. Getting people to cooperate, work together, understand each other and creating a sense of community is hard. Go to a restaurant and look at the people who join a table, you will do a much better than random job at guessing which table people belong to. It isn't just race, two white people don't have much in common. People want to be friends with someone the same age, income bracket, level of education, personality type, political orientation, family situation etc. Friends even look the same.

When I have hired people, I have absolutely looked for people who are more similar to me. I don't just need someone who can preform tasks, I want to build a team, build friendships, have good communication and have someone who has similar experiences and worldview. When I have looked for people to join a team, I imagine the team doing something on a Friday night and I try to picture the candidate in that group of friends. The degree to which the candidate would naturally be a part of the team is imho an important recruiting criteria.

Most jobs are more of a team effort than individuals making extraordinary individual efforts. A PhD candidate that builds a great relationship with the research team and the lab in which people know each other's grandmother's names is going to preform better than rockstar individuals.

I see it as a cope rather than an identity. The people who I have met who have called themselves non binary have been people who have failed out of their gender rather than adopted something else. Women who simply don't preform as women call themselves non binary instead of just admitting that they have few female secondary sexual characteristics and are far from any man's fantasy wife. The men who become non binary are often physically weak men who are lacking in male capabilities and virtues. Instead of admitting that they lack the attributes of their gender, they claim that they both male and female. Apart from certain superficial attributes, this is rarely the case. They are not doing lobster fishing on Saturday and dancing on Sunday. In reality, they are probably laying on their sofa scrolling tiktok.

We have a society obsessed with gender, yet we have less gender than ever. The same goes for asexuals, I have yet to meet one that I found highly attractive. I have never met an asexual man that gives an aura of having ravaged a women. My suspicion is that this is just a nicer way for incels to label themselves.

Continuous release is if anything better for innovation. It allows for constant updates meaning continuous innovation. Long development cycles lead to slow feedback, and updates have to be planned long in advance which means it takes years for innovation to reach production and that taking risks with the next big development is scarrier. It is easier to roll back a release when continuously delivering, rolling back a product that has been in development for 18 months is harder. Hardware is more natural to do in larger cycles than software but software doesn't really have any benefits from long dev cycles.

I think we are partially seeing diminishing returns on investment. It is simply much harder to make a freezer 10% more energy efficient today compared to in 1970. Expecting a radically new toaster every year isn't really feasible.

As for the big banks they have so much legacy code and so many entrenched interests that I think it is hard for them to make big changes. The fin-tech scene is moving fast and I think that consumers are going to be using other services soon.

How often did they interfere with Israelis twittering about American politics?

How many pro-Biden accounts were run by non-Americans and band?

Are non-Americans allowed to tweet about American politics? Does it depend on if they openly state that they aren't American? Can a British person have a pro-Biden twitter account? What if 100%. 50% oor 10%? of Tweets are about American politics?

It would be impossible to come up with an objective set of rules or goals that was imposed by the FBI and it fairly clear that the FBI was actively campaigning for a side in an election.

There is an easier solution to this, AIs can be trained by anyone with enough computing power and training AI isn't that expensive. AI is actually fairly democratic as everyone can make their own. Once the cat is out of the box it isn't hard for everyone to get it. Information spreads naturally. The big risk is big corporations and governments access to data to use the AI on. That can give them a tremendous advantage.

The risk of China steamrolling through Western Europe is exceedingly low, and I live in a city that is a quarter muslim far away from Russia. The muslim population has a higher birthrate than the natives and brings in more of their relatives through migration. Russia isn't going to steamroll Europe and occupy us. If we are going to be taken by foreigners, those foreigners will be let in by the same people who blasted the migrant's homelands through wars and then wanted to take the refugees.

Even if worse comes to worst almost all parts of Europe have been occupied at some point and recovered. Finland is finish even though it was occupied for 800 years. Poland is fairly polish, most of the Balkan retains its culture despite the various ethnic groups seldomly having a country of their own. If Russia through some miracle managed to take western Europe they wouldn't be able to hold it and after a while it would go down in history as one of many wars in Europe that ultimately didn't destroy it.

If we end up like the Greeks in Turkey or the Greeks in Lebanon, there is no recovering.

(1) Chinese invasion or full-scale blockade of Taiwan.

Not going to happen. China is building its military at an incredible rate, western militaries havent ramped up their anti China programs such as B21 and are in an awkward position maintaining cold war era tech, dismantling the low end war legacy in the middle east and trying to start new programs. The amount of munitions going to Ukraine is astounding. It is better for China to push a potential war well into the future. This includes their domestic market. They are building new nuclear power, trying to build their own supply chains etc. A war in 2023 would be horribly premature.

(3) Major housing price collapse (>25% YOY fall) in any G7 economy

This isn't that dramatic and probably more likely.

(5) At least one nuclear weapon used in Ukraine.

The threshold for nukes is very high and i is unlikely that they would be used outside an all out war between NATO and China/Russia.

(11) Western-made jets supplied to Ukraine

More likely MIGs supplied by someone else. Building an Airforce of Gripens/F16s is a big job.

(17) Joe Biden still President of USA at end of 2023

The death rate for people at his age is roughly 5%. That doesnt count people becoming vegetables after a stroke. The chances of him not making it through the year are more like 10%.

(20) SpaceX has first successful orbital flight of Starship.

We overestimate what will happen in the next 3 years and underestimate what will happen in 10-30 years. A year in a massive rocket program is nothing, these projects easily stretch well over a decade. Spacex is fast but falcon 1/9 were not speedy programs. If they are in commercial service 2027 it would be fast. Their rocket is incredibly ambitious and test-cycles will be long as a new rocket is expensive and slow to replace. I give them a 40% chance of reaching orbit next year and I would be mightily impressed by their speed if they succeed in 2024.

Church ladies enforce the values and morals of the civilization they are in. The biggest slutshamers are often women, they are usually less tolerant of bad manners and people breaking the consensus. In Saudi Arabia women are probably policing their kids who are skipping going to the Mosque more than fathers and women were bigger Hitler fans than the men in the third reich. Your girlfriend probably can freely talk about issues that aren't really enforced in Russia but try bringing up issues that are out of bounds in Russia and you will probably have an easier time with a Russian man.

Generally policing the values and norms of a society is a positive thing and bad behaviour should generally be checked. The issue is when the values being enforced are almost the anti-thesis of traditional values.

Did he even want to run twitter? Musk doesn't really seem to be the type who wants to run the mundane daily operations of a company that is established. He bought it, he made his changes and now someone else can manage employees and emails all day long while he builds rockets.

I actually don't see the woke side winning here at all. Contrary to what some people think CNN journalists having a public group chat on twitter is a small part of twitter. Football (Soccer) is huge on twitter and the La liga and Premier premier league fans seem to care less about the twitter drama. Looking at what is trending right now in Sweden, hockey and football are 4/5 things trending right now. Twitter is huge in the middle east and Japan. Music is big on twitter, porn is big on twitter, day traders use it, it is one of the best ways to follow the war in Ukraine. Even reality TV seems to do at least as well as politics on twitter.

The journalist-class thinks twitter dies without them since their filter-bubble dies without them. Thats like saying facebook is dead without your facebook group since that is most of what you see on Facebook. However, most others don't see or care about your facebook group. Youtube stopped its annual rewind because people were angry that none of the big youtubers were on it. In reality the big youtubers you follow have 0.1% of users following them and there are huge phenomena on youtube that you have never heard of.

Elon hasn̈́'t impacted the user experience of F1 fans, people who want to follow concert tours, get live updates on the oilmarket, watch stuff explode in Ukraine, find out what is happening on a Friday night in Dubai, or view their favorite tiktoker's new video. If anything transactivists are more dependent on twitter than twitter is dependent on transactivists. The woke are powerful because of their voice and their voice is mainly social media. I highly doubt the userbase will follow them to alt-twitter that is twitter from 2021.

What is the most efficient way to get a date if tinder doesn't work?

I am in my early thirties, and I have recently sold my startup and moved to a new city to work in finance as a developer. I am above average height, I am below average body fat and I can do ten strict chin-ups and I have a graduate degree from a good university. There is nothing particular about my looks in either direction, I am not stunningly beautiful, but there is nothing particularly bad about it either. In a crowd, I wouldn't stick out. I am realizing this is my biggest issue, it doesn't matter that I have had an interesting life when I am being judged for a fraction of a second on tinder.

This is starting to weigh me down a lot recently. I am not rejected by women, of the two dates I have gotten in the past year both women wanted to continue dating. The problem is that I am too bland to get a date out of a crowd of a thousand matches. Just looking average, having a good job and having my life together isn't cutting it on a hyper elitist platform dominated by men. Literally every employee at the company I work for is a man, and there is no way I am going to meet someone through my work friends. I play chess, ride motorcycles and serve in an army reserve unit. These hobbies are good for friends, but not places to meet women.

I know online dating is largely a scam and that I shouldn't be undateable. On the other hand, I am not getting dates. If I keep going down the same path, I will continue to be single. Not basing my self-worth on tinder doesn't really make sense when that is the market on which my future is determined. What is a concrete plan that I can start following here and now that can realistically land me a long term relationship with a sensible partner? My plan has been focused on self-improvement, but I am realizing that much of this improvement has zero impact on my dating as no woman ever sees it.

People who have excellent careers do have their career as a lifestyle. You don't become a star lawyer by doing your 9 to 5 and going home. You don't become a star surgeon by working regular hours. If you want to do accounting for a municipal office, you don't have to worry about accounting in your spare time. If you want to manage the finances of a hedge fund, your world is centred around your career.

If you want to have a fairly regular job as a coder you don't have to center your life around it. If you want to be skilled enough to be the tech lead of a graphics engine or writing the coolest new thing in fin tech you are going to have to work very hard to develop a high proficiency. Programming is very much a skill based profession and those who really want to master it will be better at it. You don't become a star musician, tennis player, chess player, coder or surgeon unless really make it your life's mission.

With that said many lawyers write wills for middle class people and many surgeons are removing tonsils while working regular hours.

I find it most interesting that Qatar is being treated like Russia in 2018. The west fought a war against Iraq in 1991 to save the Gulf states. If anything the west has ignored the anti-woke nature of the Gulf states and seen it as cool place for finance, tourism and futurism. It seems like the view of these countries have massively swung in a few years to becoming fairly hostile.

Is it their cozying up to China? Is it that these countries are becoming big and influential enough to have too much free will? Is it that the hypocrisy of being liberal in the west yet doing business in Dubai has become too much?

Then you are either with us or against us attitude of elite class westerners is increasingly putting more of the world in the against us category. They aren't going to give half the world the Iran/Russia treatment and if they do the other half of the world is going to do fairly fine under an alternative system.

The issue for visa and banks is that they are becoming activist against countries. Apparently a war is enough to deplattform Russia and Russian companies. There are many armed conflicts around the world and the US wasn't deplattformed for invadring Iraq. The number of sanctions the US is placing on countries has grown significantly and the sanction system is becoming less based on laws and rules and more simply tools for geopolitics. If the US doesn't like your government then all contracts are nullified over night with no real due process or formal rules regulating it.

Any businessman in Latinamerica, the middle east or Africa should have realized at this point that contracts with the US aren't binding agreements but can be cancled over night if the twitter mob decides it doesn't like your government.

We are probably going to see a major shift away from American banking and financial infrastructure to a system that is less feasible to deplattform from and it won't be Japanese porn or political dissidents leading the way. It is going to be countries moving away when they realize that their financial infrastructure is being built on a legal framework that is increasingly functioning like the youtube terms and services.

I suspect we will see increasing pushes towards technical sovereignty, open source and open standards, countries being hooked up to dual systems such as an Ericsson telecom system + a Huawei telecom system