iprayiam3
4mo ago
To be clear, the spinelessness (perhaps the wrong word) I speak of is strictly that he's too tempted by the upside of Trump losing on lawfare that he dances around outright condemnation of what's happening and won't put any skin into fighting with 'Trump' against this.
Like in a recent interview responding to Vivek pledging to remove himself from Colorados ballot, he made a comment to the effect of ' hey I'm going to compete on every ballot I can, whether or not Trump makes it on. That's the name of the game'
This is effectively admitting to 'playing' the rigged game. Ron appearing on a ballot that Trump doesn't is literally the name of the Democrats' game. It's not the name of the fair primaries game.
I loathe Trump, but Ron's refusal to do more to stand in solidarity against the Democrat bullshit reveals him as a flake, if his Ukraine flip-flop hadn't already.
I would still vote Ron over Trump all day on abortion conviction alone and for every other reason. But I'm now backing Vivek. (Not that it matters anyway.)
iprayiam3
4mo ago
In real life, I don't know anyone who has said anything positive out loud about Haley. Though in real life, people around me barely talk about the primaries. Of the people I know the opinions of, I'd say about 1/2 are in the tank for Trump and the other half went from really liking DeSantis to simply favoring him.
I've personally moved from strong support to DeSantis to planning to vote Vivek. Vivek says outrageous stuff and it didn't work on me until I couldn't avoid any longer contrasting it with Ron's complete spinelessness and clear hopefulness that D shenanigans will give him an unearned victory over Trump, consequences be famned
iprayiam3
4mo ago
This guy did not only risk 50k. He invested several thousand a month throughout. 8k/month in 2022 and 12k/month in 2023
iprayiam3
4mo ago
for example, take $50k and park it into 3x tech funds and make $500k as one guy on Reddit did[ 1]
That's not exactly what happened there. Guy kept investing throughout: 8k/month in 2022 and 12k/ month in 2023 (and by implication, several thousand amonth before that as well). He did not just park 50k.
So if the guy started the 2022 with more than 113k (and we have no clue how much investment it took to get here, except that this is down from a high) He could have piled in 200k from 2019 to get to 113. For the next half a year, he kept losing money, WHILE piling in 8k/ month for half a year. But from 2022 to the end of 2023, he's contributed 240k plus his >113k starting point. So over 2 years he invested 353k+ to get to 537k. Still a FANTASTIC gain in 2 years, but not remotely parking 50k as you suggest.
iprayiam3
4mo ago
I don't disagree but what are some examples outside of engineering? Boring legal work?
iprayiam3
4mo ago
I very strongly feel that he should be unbanned until after the Hock. It's less than two months, and while he was pretty one note, it's not like he was trolling or wrecking havoc at large. In this one weird scenario, he's put enough real world skin in the game to be given a bit of leniency for a month and a half.
iprayiam3
4mo ago
Well, I mean the former two adjectives. I didn't describe it correctly in one word. She still liked him, but in a completely changed way. The doting disappeared.
iprayiam3
4mo ago
This is pretty wild, but from my own experience a woman's pet love really ramps up when she starts getting 'ready for kids' and diminishes when the kids arrive.
My wife needed a dog when we got married (we had never even discussed it before). That dog was the world to her up to the day we came home from the hospital with a baby. Then it was just a nuisance to her.
My feelings towars the dog meanwhile never changed: he was always my bud and never a surrogate kid.
But in your case yeah shes going overboard, it's not normal and so I'm hesitant to tell you to shrug it off. But I'd also put money on the probability that it's related to her biological clock firing in weird ways.
iprayiam3
4mo ago
What made you decide to delay giving notice? Not that you're obligated to, either legally or morally, but with the human interests that you're describing, I would think it's the best approach unless you feared retaliation or early termination. Thinking about that a bit, I think my own feeling would be that if I didn't believe the company would engage in good-faith end-date timing with me, I wouldn't feel all that bad about them getting screwed over a bit and wasting everyone's time.
It's a bit of this, and a bit of wasn't sure on the exact timing of the next opportunity. I knew that it was time to leave, and planned to be out by a given time, but there was uncertaintly on both sides of the equation.
In terms of fear of retaliation, yeah. There's been a lot of instability in my current org right now, which is part of why I started making plans to leave. I already had one teammate who was clearly pushed out so they could reclaim her headcound. My fear was that if I had said, Hey I'll be out at the end of the year, they could have (reasonably) come back with, "No, why don't you finish up what you can in the next two weeks."
Then I would have been out ~2 months of pay this year.
I'm planning to leave my job at the start of the year for a new opportunity. I had been planning to make this move for a while, and over the past few months, I had been neatly winding up my projects. I hardly interact with my boss anyway, and I was glad to tie it all up.
Unfortunately, rather recently my boss drove by and dropped two new projects on my lap. I found myself in an awkward position, where I wasn't ready to announce my impending departure, and would also feel dishonest turning down work when I had availability.
But it has been very hard to get invested in it. One of these projects is realtively minor, but has a late January delivery, and nobody to back me up. It will require me to now put in a lot of holiday hours to get it to a passable state. The other one is a major intiative that would realistically require most of my time next year. I've basically (unintentionally) slow-walked it over the past two months, and I guess I will just drop it altogether in the new year, and leave the stakeholders with essentially 2 months wasted delays.
It's something I feel really bad about mishandling, not for the "company's" sake, but for the humans left hanging, the weird, but necessary duplicity when discussion things January and beyond, and the general failure in doing an good job I can be proud of.
Every other role I've ever left, I put in my notice pretty much immediately after being sure of my next role, and left within 3 weeks. This has been a new experience for me, and I feel weird and like I mishandled it. On the one hand, I wish I had told them 2 months ago, I'd be out at the end of December and to plan accordingly. On the other hand, it would have been a real financial hit to my family if I had been let go immediately in response.
Perhaps this is my Hock.
iprayiam3
4mo ago
I suspect it's parents and general public perception more than advertisers. There's a very thin line, that if you fall over, you're just a porn site. I read the flip flopping as uncertaintly about the right mix combined with futher uncertainty due to AI coming crashing into all content platforms.
Imagine you're a convenience store that decides to start selling drugs. Hey these drugs are a huge cash cow, more consistently profitable than anything else in the store. You end up selling a lot of drugs to people who otherwise came looking for groceries or groceries and drugs.
But if you follow this to conclusion and 90% of your transactions become drugs, then you're not a grocery store, you're a drug dealer, and your entire marketpresence might fall apart.
iprayiam3
5mo ago
iprayiam3
5mo ago
So, anyway, despite the fact that I'm feeling pretty well, I won't be running a full marathon in 2023 because I don't feel that I've done the relevant training to put in a legitimate effort at the distance. Instead, I'll settle for a small half marathon to close out the year, try for one more personal best, and see what happens.
I ran at a D1 university. after getting out of college, I took a break from running, then planned to get back into it and really train for a full marathon. Any time an opportunity came up, I passed on it because I wasn't prepared to run my best possible marathon. A wife and kids later, I'm in my mid 30s and have never run a full marathon, and will never run my best marathon.
iprayiam3
5mo ago
I can certainly identify with the 'having an idealize girl' feeling, and the 'adjusting to an actual girl not meeting those ideals', and that led in my dating life to a lot of introspection about whether I needed to adjust my perception or find a better girl. But never anything like
I no longer cared much about them after replacing my idealized version of these ideas with versions based on my experiences.
Any grappling with comparisons to idealized fantasy girls was part of a deep desire to find real girls that fit the bill, never anything like disillusionment with dating girls generally.
All that to say, I can't really help ya. I hope you work through what you need to and decide what is best for you.
iprayiam3
5mo ago
I thought the DK effect had been debunked (at least in it's common pop framing) for quite a while? I thought the idea that good people under-estimate and bad people over-estimate, was known to be kind of a mythical tack-on to the central more boring claim that self-assessment isn't super reliable.
And, I thought the tack-on came from misunderstanding the one-directional limiting effects on mis-assessment at the top and bottom of a performace scale.
That is the better you are, the harder it objectively to overstate your competence. and vice versa. being good doesn't cause you to understate your ability, it reduces the error in overstating it.
Imagine 3 people who all take a 3-point basketball shot. All three are likely to correctly estimate their ability. A airballs, B hits the backboard, C makes it. they still respectively rank themselves correctly.
3 more people all take the shot. All three are likely to over-estimate their ability. D airballs, E hits the backboard, F makes it. D guesses he tied for second, E guesses he did the best, F also guesses he did the best.
3 more people all take the shot. All three are likely to under-estimate their ability. G airballs, H hits the backboard, I makes it. G guesses he did the worst, H also guesses he did the worst, I guesses he tied for first.
In these three groups of performance tiers: air-ballers, backboarders, and shot-makers, you have an even mix of estimation ability in each. Yet:
A,D,G collectively slightly over-estimated their ability B,E,H collectively got their average ability correct C,F,I collectively slightly underestimated their abiliy
Traditional Pop-understanding of DK effect, misinterprets this result that ADGs think they're better than they are and CFI thikn they're worse, when that's really kind of inverted. It's rather that ADG has less room to err down and CFI less room to err up.
You could run this again with many more groups and even give ADG a stronger propensity to underestimate and CFI a stronger propensity to overestimate, and you'd still get the DK effect.
Compare:
ADDGGGGGG -> still slightly over estimates their ability on average CFFFFFFFFII -> still slightly under estimates their ability on average
Even though the individuals in the group actually have the opposite propensity.
iprayiam3
5mo ago
I never really cared about getting a girlfriend, I just wanted social approval from my peers.
Back when I was single and lonely I could have been at risk of tell myself something exactly backwards from that:
I never really cared about social approval from my peers, I just wanted a girlfriend
That is to say, the desire for female companionship was far stronger and deeper and more substantial than any possibility that it was invented. On the other hand, the longing for social approval, while it objectively was also very real, was somewhat ephimeral and certainly displacable (and especially displacable by romantic approval of a single woman), to the point that I can kind of imagine that if I was slightly different, I could have falsely convinced myself that I didn't really care about social approval at all, it was just a dimension of my romantic loneliness. (and to be fair, once in a serious relationship, non-romantic social contexts do change tremendously and diminish in importance. )
So, what's my point? N=1, but if you can convince yourself that maybe you don't even really want a girlfriend, you're certainly outside of what my experience with normal romantic longing was. Far enough that it's true that you never really cared? I can't tell you that. But if you're looking for an outside measurement check - the ability to hold that thought doesn't resonate with my experience of authentically wanting a romantic partner.
There's so many possible directions to go that without any data to work off, it's hard to know where to even look.
My first question would be are gay people actually overrepresented? What is the base rate comparison?
Secondly, given an affirmative to the first questions, I'd ask whether its actually gay representation or out gay overrepresentation. Especially looking at any data prior to say 2010.
You would assume that being publically homosexual in a society where it's disapproved of would come at a significant cost. So it would follow that those most likely to pay it are those able to pay it.
Lets say you have 100 rich men and 100 middle class men in 1960. In each of those 6 are gay and another 10 are bisexual. In the middle class group 4 of those gay men and 9 of the bisexual men are not openly gay for fear of their livelihood and employment. Of the rich, say only 3 of the gays and 7 of the bisexual are closeted.
It would appear that the gays were overrepresnted in the rich. In actuality, rich people have more options.
The next thing I would think would be, as you suggest, among smart and conscientious people, homosexuals would historically be less occupied with supporting their families and minimizing that risk. So of the pool of gay people capable of being a celebrity intellect and proportional straight men, yeah I would assume enough of the straight men would have already invested the critical resources and time and attention toward family formation. Even a small difference would result in overrepresented gays in high status tournament style recognition.
You know, it's really a shame because with a little more effort, the guy could have taken this in so many interesting directions and still kept up posting. e.g. an earnest training log, or better discussion starters about what makes a 'Hock' or a literature review to look for any precedence, etc.
But it's clear at this point, these posts are just a lazy masterbatory exercise. I do feel for the dude. I suspect these posts had become a parasocial avenue for emotional engagement, to be cared about to some degree and evoke some sense of desire for his well-being.
Might I request that you only ban him until the end of the year? He (supposedly) takes off in mid-February, and as roped into his exhibitionist sympathy bait as we are, it's worth knowing whether he went out and his state of preparation and mental fitness. I think many of us would rather suffer a few January posts from him and provide him some last human empathy and discouragement, rather than go on wondering whether that one guy from that forum ended up killing himself.
iprayiam3
5mo ago
You've already gotten explicit answer to this question every time you've brought this up. At this point you're clearly getting off on the attention and using the board to milk it. I find it off putting and exhibitionist. Kindly cease.
iprayiam3
5mo ago
I have a few friends for whom the only activity is "drink a few", which unfortunately has dwindled as I drink much less often. On the other hand, grabbing a drink is something that can happen somewhat impromptu. I've rarely had a last minute itch to get out of the house and successfully leveraged that into some kind of organized activity.
iprayiam3
5mo ago
Why fear being rejected or making a fool of yourself, when you've just stared death by avalanche or hypothermia or wild animals in the face day after day?
Because it won't make you fearless, it will make you resentful that it didn't work.
Notice in your "presentation Hock" comparison, the thing that made you not fear public speaking was practicing for public speaking? There is no analogy skill transfer between wilderness survival -> improving social awkwardness. You are comparing practicing something that directly improves the thing it applies to, to doing something completely unrelated in hopes that it will reframe you into being better at it. IT WON'T WORK the way you are hoping.
I do beleive that if you went and worked as a mission in a 3rd world scenario, surrounded by others, it would, in fact improve your socialization.
iprayiam3
5mo ago
Therefore it seems self-evident that a thing has value because someone is willing to die for it: that person, even if he's a deranged lunatic, has staked his life on that thing. The value of it has been upped to "one deranged lunatic" from whatever it was before.
You're just wrong here. Compare: I love my dog, therefore, I would risk my life for him. to I don't love this dog, but I wish I did. If I risk my life for him, it will make it so. you have causality backwards. In the latter scenario, you are de-valuing your life down to what you value your dog. Not the other way around.
Human life has value: the economists put it at around $10 million per head, if we're talking about Americans.
This bit is a nonsequitor. Risking your life for something without value, doesn't give it $10m in value.
It will potentially make me more conscientious: the attitude that lets me survive the Hock might let me pay a shitload of attention in social situations so I don't miss anything.
There is no reason to think it will do anything like this. if you want to become more conscientious, go do something extremely social for 3 months. Go be a missionary in Uganda.
If not net 0, the Hock will make you more detached and withdrawn in social situations. Consider the soldier who comes home from war, and has trouble adjusting back into civilian life. If not nothing at all, you're going to mostly experience a wall between you and others.
Imagine you're at some social event, say some meet-up at a bar. You're standing there, drink in hand, watching everyone else, seemingly mingling effortlessly. Why not you, dammit. You're hyper-conscientious about your own milling around, you try to stand next to others talking to eachother, but feel unsure where and how to jump in naturally. Damn you feel awkward. Still! What's more, now you feel resentful, angry even at the frivolty of it.
3 months ago, you were struggling to get a match lit with your half-frost bitten hands. It was a race against the cold and wind, and you were losing. Once that fire was roaring, your body was still in freezing agony sore all over, but hell, the relief and triumph was simultaneously better and worse than anything you'd ever known.
Back to the room. Fuck these people. You survived that night, and so many other after it. Something significant, something none of these people will ever know. What are they talking about now, some twitter drama? So shallow, they have no idea. Your triumph would humble them if only, anyone cared to ask. If only there was a way into the conversation... fuck it, these people have nothing in common with you. You've been through so much.
This is the optimistic way of it playing out.
Survivormanning alone in the woods will not address social competence in any kind of a positive way or provide any useful frame for engaging social scenarios more healthfully.
Yes. The Hock is going to freeze most or all of the hypocrisy off of me,
I don't know what this means, so I'll reiterate. In small, very temperate doses, it will make you slightly more attractive to women, but not anywhere near proportional to the effort you are putting in.
I'll end by granting you that on some deep level, it's quite possible this will improve your self-possesion and perspective in a way that will manifest much deeper into a relationship in a much more nuanced way. But these effects will not appear (and may appear counterproductively) on a group-level or in initial and high level interactions.
Again to the soldier analogy. The things he learned and survived in the hellishness of war may make him a demonstrably better father, with deeper values and worldly detachment. But those are mostly going to come at the cost of social grease and 'gracefullness' and connectedness to the people around him.
I'll try to respond to more of your post later, but this definition is just nonsensical to the point that I can only assume it intentionally throws mud in the water.
Defining an orientation or proclivity based on non-nullifcation of your partner's activity is such an unintuitive and messy way to approach it. If you're not defining polyamory by what you like/do, you're not offering an honest definition. Aella is obfucating and virtue signalling, by trying to frame the core of polyamory about generosity toward others' preferences, not one's own.
Imagine if I said that the cleanest definition of being a fan of action movies is not vetoing your partner/friends from choosing an action movie on movie night. It doesn't matter if they like action movies or not, it doesn't matter if you don't feel like picking action movies when it's your turn to decide, as long as your partner could pick an action movie if they wanted, then to me, that's being a fan of action movies.
Does that defintion make any fucking sense? it's hard to be interested in engagement past such a goofy and self-serving opener.
More options
Context Copy link