@justmotteingaround's banner p

justmotteingaround


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 December 21 06:05:47 UTC

				

User ID: 2002

justmotteingaround


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 December 21 06:05:47 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2002

Who thinks this represents either an improvements or degredation of cultural norms? Its pop art that served its utility at the time and might not work today, but it is an interesting cultural time capsul.

  • Neutral. Maybe some people are asexual. I'll never care either way. If its caused by a medical issue, it sould be treated.

  • Improvment. Probably best not to comment on hot kids at work. Calling someone passing and living as a gender the opposite is hugely unprofessional and a dick move.

  • Improvement. Casual racism at work is a terrible idea.

  • Improvement. Similar to above. Sexual innuendo is dubious in the workplace.

  • Neutral. Euphemism treadmill. Tranny was acceptable enough at the time.

  • Improvement. Dont mock peoples inherant differences, especially at work.

  • Neutral. Its neither bad nor good that society is surprised by bisexuality.

  • Improvement. Revenge porn and hacking are serious actions.

  • Improvement. No need to overly bash the beliefs of most of society.

We should give climate science whatever veneration it earns. AFAIKT, it has produced results and useful predictions, but this is largely immaterial to what I'm talking about.

If there was Blah Science, researched for decades by tens of thousands of smart people who overwhelmingly agree that X is true, I'd bet on X being true.

My point: most people would bet on X being true in normal circumstances. People seem to make an exception for climate science. I'm curious why people make this exception.

I'm also curious if there are any other broad fields where this pattern holds. Things surrounding nutrition come to mind. Perhaps there are many, and what I'm calling special pleading is quite common.

Based on the source you provided it sounds like the outright majority of sexual abuse happens at school.

It does sound that way. And it might be that most sex abuse outside of family (most common iirc) happens in schools. However, my confidence on that proposition is proposition is quite low because of some bayesian reasoning. For example, the established prior is that men commit 80-90% child sex abuse. This is a high confidence, long standing datapoint. Because it's so heavily weighted towards males, any male dominated group should have dramatically more abuse. Like, my heart says the sources we have, but my math side says just default to maleness as a proxy.

Around the time of the Sandusky scandal I recall reading that some abusers spend years inserting themselves into professions which might have the ability to provide access, acting gregarious and helpful. Its all very frightening. The sources we have indicate waaaay to much abuse.

I am optimistic, especially compared to what I gather is the median for themotte. I think institutional bias over fake racism claims is an issue, but Bayesian thinking leads me to think it cannot possibly be a primary concern (ie it cut the other direction for a long time so that is the initial given, and you update towards the current state with examples of it cutting the other direction. Sanity checking my guesswork seems to indicate that outcomes are in line with expectations, and have been for decades (given both the priors, and the explanatory assumptions of HBD). Each individual example of the current bias is infuriating, but I don't yet see dispassionate quantitative reasons to think it has large consequential effects (although I'm open to such reasons).

No I mean using that a explanation as a sorting or policy heuristic. Suboptimal imo. Take the analogy of gender differences and firefighters. Biology explains the difference. All else equal, males will make better firefighters in many circumstances. Is biology the best policy tool are political talking point. I'd argue no. Are there females who could make the cut? Sure. And hiring differences in firefighters has successfully defended against disparate impact (people will argue the test doesn't demonstrate a necessity, but I digress). There is prob a better analogy using evolution (explanatory) to sort or guide something is less optimal than extant sorting or guiding policies. Hope I'm clear enough. But yes, HBD is not a heuristic, but the OP opened that analogy.

If you want to say "HBD not racism or culture explains much of the disparate outcomes", then yeah, fine. I agree. Nevertheless, I'd argue that taking about it in political or policy debates is usually suboptimal imo because the flack (just and unjust), better tools, the fact that society is often sorted that way anyhow. HBD could really illuminate understanding of reality.

depend on either their outcomes being race-neutral

I may be wrong but I think this is explicitly untrue legally. AFAIK, if you can demonstrate a necessity of hiring in a way that causes a disparate impact, and your methods were not arbitrary (standardized tests are usually used as a defense), then it's perfectly legal.

Are there people making ignorant or bad faith cases about the arbitrariness of the standardized tests? Of course. But as far as I can tell, they lose in court.

I think it's me not pulling the slack out of the bar.

I was thinking something like that too, but I'm no expert. The straps are only to theoretically free up concentration on other body parts, and dial those in.

I usually "sit back" just before initiating the movement. My final cues are "big chest, chin neutral, sit back (this takes the slack out too), drive through the heeeeeeeeels". This keeps my hips low, makes for a better hip hinge for me, while accentuating leg drive. For practice I found that breaking up a set of 5ish into a set of "consecutive singles" to near failure (ie quickly re-set and fully re-cue after each rep) really helped me dial in my form and approach failure. My toes are mostly parallel, but I've been told this can come down to personal preference. Enjoy the trip!

Everything is on the table for change, but its not equally wise or good to change any aspect. The US nearly wrecked itself to get rid of slavery. Legal slavery in perpetuity probably wasn't a stable solution, and the US paid dearly to change a fundamental aspect of its operation, deleting the 3/5 compromise and adding new lines to its "code". The Catholic Church moved away from Latin mass because that was probably a sub-optimal configuration. If, in the year 2300, society has determined that being anti gay is as bad as being pro slavery, I'd bet that the Catholic church will bless gay unions, or something similar (its unlikely, but possible). Solutions like "making killing legal to solve murder" are generally unstable solutions to law and order institutions.

Well, just as a quick sanity check, which sects of Christianity are flying the rainbow flag right now?

Oh, I have no idea. I wasn't raised with a religion, and haven't really chosen one.

"progress towards what?"

Kurt Vonnegut would sarcastically argue its to make more plastic. Ellul would argue 'technique' is progressing to separate us from nature for its own ends. Dawkins would argue for the successful propagation of replicators. Steven Pinker would argue its a move towards less violence and loger, healthier lifespans. I'm closest to the latter arguments.

Not all changes are good just because they're changes

Agreed! Chesterton is a very wise part of the conversation. The pride-flying sects are either blowing themselves up, or evolving to a more stable structure. I think the latter, but who knows. The ACLU is blowing itself up imo, but FIRE is filling the void. The reactionary and unwise BLM movement is blowing up racial progress imo, but they seem to be cashing out. There may or may not be some wise findings in the debris (for example, I'm in favor of skepticism to police power, training standards, and attitudes, and I hope these change at the institutional level).

Should Christianity endorse Satan worship, if it increased it's chances for survival? Should progressives endorse white supremacy?

This sounds like should X become not X to survive. Not sure it fits. But say in the rubble of WW3 might progressives become totalitarian to put society back together. Yeah, but they won't claim to be progressives anymore. Have to run, getting increasingly less thoughtful.

Have they confirmed she is stepping down?

The people who say weed is some harmless wonder plant are annoying.

Agreed, but its worth considering that "weed is harmless" is a considerably better approximation of the truth than weeds classification as a schedule 1 nacotric in the US.

This could be said in response to innumerable scientific claims. Climate science is plausibly knowable enough to model well. But I'm not making any claims what climate science says. I'm asking what, at a general level, is unique to climate science that garners a special amount of skepticism?

Right, but this line of reasoning could be used to dismiss as inaccurate anything sufficiently complex and niche. The human body, the universe, and AI are complex, but people don't dismiss medicine, astrophysics, and LLM's because of complexity. What is special or unique about decades of climate science that gives people pause?

I don't want to put words in peoples mouths. If people think decades of climate science is uniquely dubious because they reckon its just too complex, that's fine. Special pleading is an informal fallacy anyhow. OP found climate science to be nonsense, and the idea of climate modeling to be outlandish, and didn't elaborate. But saying this isn't special pleading by pointing out complexity is a non-starter. It's rare that, for decades, 90+% of trained scientists agree on some domain specific thing in a heavily quantitative field, yet popular sentiment demurs without easily explaining why.

Should the state be able to enforce infanticide?

I think you meant ban infanticide, but otherwise all excellent points! Which is why your initial comments just begs all the questions.

rhetorical tricks and misleading turns of phrase

Unless you point out examples, this critique is just misleading rhetoric. AFAIKT, we merely disagree about how powerful a government should be, when, and why. That sort of thing.

It should be able to do whatever the people have given it the power to do.

I totally agree in theory/practice. I aspire to a government limited by its founding ideologies, but I concede that it could later vote in a communist dictatorship, bans on meat eating, renewed bans on abortion, freeing slaves, whatever. Things change.

we only lack consensus regarding some details of the timing of abortion.

Here too I totally agree. For the last several decades, only around 50% think abortion should be legal in most or all cases, which is not an overwhelming consensus, and I'm leaving out a lot of important details. Eyeballing things, I'd guess 10-20M Americans no longer have the freedom to see their beliefs about abortion enacted (ie from your gallup source, the 69% deciding it should be legal to abort in the first trimester X how many people live where this is illegal). More good data below. I don't see anything like a consensus either way, which is why I don't think the government should intervene in principle.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

I'm about 100kg right now, with a goal of 95kg. 250g of weight loss in a week means a net expenditure of some 1900 calories over the week. That alone is quite noticeable to me just from an appetite/ caloric budgeting perspective. In order to end the whole week 1900 calories under maintenance I have to try pretty hard. I don't have room for cheat meals, regular drinking, heavy drinking, peanut butter, empty calorie snacks, etc. I had to make noticeable changes just to get 1900 under per week. I eat so many frozen veggies and chicken breast now! Some weeks I come in 3800 calories under (or theoretically 0.5% bw), but they're the exception. With a calorie tracking app you know exactly where you land. There is random weight variation throughout the day/week, but I habitually weight myself after my morning piss and make a note. The trend is down about 4kg's in 10 weeks. I've got 10-20 weeks left to go. It's the slow and boring route, but time keeps on slippin into the future, and all I have to do is stay the course. At the end, my fitness should be where I want it, and I'll just maintain.

Adding to your comment from a linked article:

  • NYC has 3.8M city income tax payers

  • Average burden to each of the 41k top 1%: $18,000

  • Average burden to each of the 410k 10-1%: $1,141

  • Average burden to each of the 3.3M 0-90%: $180

Those 3 points lay on a graduated curve, but still. Oooof.

The NYC budget for FY 2023 is 37B, so the settlement (probably paid out over time) represents 5% of this years budget.

Also notable: NYC/NYS spent over decade fighting the case. The state was detached at some point. The case originated in the 1996's, and became a class-action. The implied argument was that the test was not designed to be g-loaded, nor was it confirmed to be a predictor of classroom success, which lead to unfair disparate impact. In one item, applicants were asked to explain the meaning of an Andy Warhol painting. 90% of white test takers passed the 80 question test, while 53% of Blacks and 50% of Latinos passed.

This all sounds relatively banal and bog-standard for a protest, no? Its like the far left analogue of some right wing militias: masks, standing against gov't tyranny, large sense of importance, performative desire to get arrested (ie open carry audits), dubious legal and political theories (ie Bundy; The White horse Prophecy, etc), and, of course, their own flags! I think the militia folk go camping alot, and are probably way more fun to hang out with. But when either side actually goes to protest I can do little more than think "well okay, whatever floats your boat, but remember, your freedom ends where someone elses begins, have fun!"

Oh I totally agree with this assessment. This was true when Murray published The Bell Curve, which is milquetoast compared to HBD (ie it was explicitly agnostic to genetic factors). The radioactivity remains. HBD is the path of most resistance, justly or otherwise, so the realpolitik renders it almost useless in practice. Any substitute is already superior. Moreover, I would argue that HBD has plenty of epistemic problems, which get only magnified in individualistic societies.

Drug deaths and related "deaths of despair" have been wildly underappreciated for at least a decade. They tend to kill prime age people, and for reference they dwarf US annual losses in Vietnam (the worst year -1968 - was about 17,000; average over 20 years was about 3,000).

Preventable drug deaths have been compounding YoY since at least 1998, when there were about 11,000 "preventable" deaths. About 80% of deaths are due to opiates. Max statewide variation is almost 10X, with Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Texas near the bottom (approx 14 deaths/100k), and West Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana, Kentucky at the top (about 60 deaths/100k). Cali, NY, Washington, Oregon are middling (about 27 deaths/100k). Large clusters are found in the rust and coal belt. Unsurprisingly, "manufacturing job loss predicts a substantial share of drug and opioid overdose deaths for women and men" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7725949/).

Opioids probably are fantastic

In my experience, there is a threshold for enjoyment depending on the person. I simply didn't find opiates all that interesting (prescription, tincture, inhaled), even at highly inebriating levels. Nevertheless, vs other drugs, the likelihood for life-deranging enjoyment is probably unmatched.

https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/drugoverdoses/data-details/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%2098%2C268%20people%20died,%2C%20homicide%2C%20and%20undetermined%20intents.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/drug_poisoning_mortality/drug_poisoning.htm

I really like Glenn and John but was shocked at their rapid credulity over a partisan documentary. TFOM is important, but my default is skepticism and alarm bells started ringing when (iirc) the doc started impugning a defense attorney for based praise of his (criminal underworld) clients. Also, as a viewer, I had to pause the sections covering the MRT manual and speculate why Chauvin allegedly/technically didn't use it. I guess I've come to expect to good faith steelmanning.

With high confidence, Chauvin meaningfully contributed to Floyd's death.

I'm camped in this epistemic ground but with low confidence because I see plenty of space for reasonable doubt (ie an unhealthy 47 y/o male with heart problems and plenty of drugs on board dying of a heart attack while stressed and recovering form covid is a reasonable explanation), and/or I think it's arguable that Chauvins actions were reasonable enough given the situation.

whether this was a fair ruling

Thats why I'm here, comments or links to well digested think pieces. I'd love to see the steelman of both sides. Ditto the Carroll case. Yet as someone who loathes Trump, I'm skeptical of both decisions after some light perusing of partisan hacks.

Oooof. That's rough. Yeah, I'd say you're at the theorycraft stage. Add some info to your post. I'm still unsure exactly what your symptoms are, how they present, your clinical history, and current status.

I'm stumped, and this is way beyond my pay grade anyhow. I perused the "The Mechanical Basis of ME/CFS" post. Interesting stuff from deep down a rabbit hole. And from your other comments its seems like you know how things work. Best of luck!

After I lift I'm always hungry for a smoothie: 2 scoops whey, 300g frozen fruit, 300ml soymilk, 200g topfen (aka quark, its like yoghurt but even higher proportion of protein). That alone is 80g protein, and its delicious. Im 100kgs, and my appetite is stronger than I'd like, so this only fills me up a little.

For the always preferable whole foods, I know how to make a chicken breast I really like (carbon-steel pan, spice rub, 10 mins a side with light browning (gotta know your stove for this one), rest for 5. Comes out juicy, tender, delicious. For grilling I might flay them, but I usually marinade, and always rest).

Usually 2 breasts come in a 550g package. Eating one of these in a sitting is easy for me. The rest of the plate might be some kind of veggie, a scoop of hummus, possibly potatoes. 80g protein.

For prepared stuff, lately I've been making a semi-asian minced meat, minimal-oil grain and fry medley. Saute 2kg semi-minced chicken breast (its a lot of knife work) in batches with salt/spices, sautee 2kg various chopped veggies in batches (peppers, spring onions, zucchini, etc) with salt/spices, combine in a large bowl with 500g barley (done in stock), 200g can lentils, rinsed). Put in glass containers in the fridge. This makes about 8-10 bowls. 80g protein each. Season with a touch of roasted sesame oil and soy sauce after reheating. I like mine spicy.

Split pea soup with a very lean cut of pork. 50g per bowl. Freezes well.

Pasta "bolognese" with an absurd over-abundance of lean ground beef (anchovies in the sauce really enhances flavor, but not so much I can taste the anchovies as anchovies). I buy handmade pasta/ ravioli because I'm already skimping of flavor by not using veal, but honestly it's delicious once you get the sauce right. 50-60g per bowl; sauces freezes well. The right chili recipe is a protein bomb as well.

Salads with lean cuts of meat. Easy to hit 50g per salad.

I'm always hungry. I love food. I like to cook, but it doesn't take me too much time because after years of learning, I can solve my own personal prep, cook, clean, scale, taste, and macro equation without any overhead in term of thought. Most of what I eat is "leftovers", and I look forward to all of it.

The analogy doesn't fit the premise, so the conclusion is... not even wrong??

Germany is a board of landlords who - rightly or wrongly - signed various contracts (citizenship, residency, asylum). So tough titties to them. They have to live up to the responsibilities they signed up for. If someone can convince the majority of the board to void certain contracts and "evict" people, then they'd run afoul of their responsibilities to various human rights charters aimed at preventing exactly this kind of "eviction". They're free to do that too, as far as I'm concerned, but "landlords remorse" doesn't make comparisons to other dubious evictions unreasonable.

Well, its sounds like a fairly normal story about burgeoning young(ish) love, which tends to arouse strong emotions. But for the sake of all that is good, somebody needs to point out that you painted a textbook picture of insecurity. This is not a pointed insult, but something you need to face head on. I suspect avoiding this label is part of why it lingers because "general thoughts of inadequacy that make me want to receive constant reassurance that I'm the best she's ever had" is practically the definition of insecurity. But at the end of the day... so what? So you feel insecure that you might not be the best lay your girlfriend ever had, and something about this causes you distress. This is not uncommon, but it is no reason to even entertain the idea of ending an intimate relationship with another human being. It is clearly not a 'her' problem. So maybe you are or maybe you aren't; maybe you will be or maybe you will never be the best sex she's ever had. Date her long enough, love her, and make her feel loved, and you probably will be, but that's besides the point. This is not important in the vast majority of long term relationships. As for solutions, the wisdom that comes with age will eventually dissolve your current concerns, but don't let that stop you from getting wiser faster than the rest. Self therapy, google, and philosophy can certainly help. Best of luck.

Small note on happiness surveys. I do they they can be useful in principle. I couldn't get the archived WaPo article to load so I found a 2017 longitudinal Gallup article, with some more granular data.

TLDR: since 1950 roughly 94% of of Americans said they were "very" or "fairly" happy. There was a slump and rebound centered around 1990 +/- 4 years. The final gradual slide to began around 2007, sinking to the 2019 all time low of 86%.

2007/08 seem to be where the interesting things began. People didn't get unhappy everywhere. Basically, post 2007 non-whites became far less happy (-13), HS or lower education (-10), and Democrats/Independents (-6).