lagrangian
3mo ago
Texas is currently being forced to accept more people showing up at their borders than are actually being born in the entire United States
While I agree with the spirit of your point, I don't think the above specifically is accurate. I see 3.7M births/year for the country, vs 1.8 M total population of illegal immigrants. The rate of "border encounters" appears to be 150-250k/month = 1.8-3M/year, but that's for the whole country.
And, while "border encounters" is technically in line with your phrase of "people showing up at their borders," the more reasonable comparison is to people actually net staying here. That must must be far lower, unless the illegal immigrant population was zero until about six months ago, which it wasn't, which makes the point feel weaker.
lagrangian
1mo ago
No, but I don't think the analogy tells us much. They are certainly both destruction of property, even if only one is arson-y; similarly in the rape side of the analogy both are rape, even if only one is violent-y.
(There's a weaker argument I could add that both forms of rape are violent, but that's sufficiently far into repurposing words that I won't stand by it real strongly.)
lagrangian
9mo ago
$1.8B/5200 teachers = 350k/ea on average. $1.8B/8M people in NYC = $250/ea. Not nothing, but not that much really. Certainly less than the amount from one year's income tax that goes to education.
lagrangian
15d ago
99% IQ? I know we are supposed to be kind in this particular thread. But...are you sure you're in the top 1%?
Yes. I'd guess 140-145 IQ, based on various standardized tests/competitions/comparison to peers. I'd wager she's smarter. (Insert some standard disclaimers about IQ being stupid, especially out at the tails; I mean all of the above more about intelligence than IQ, let alone IQ as measured by any particular test.)
What is going on with this filter setting?
It's possible that it's a pure coincidence that the strongest connections I've felt to people, platonic or romantic, male or female, have all been to people this bright. But, I doubt it, and the causality isn't difficult to imagine. Shared life experiences and interests, and a sense that they can see more of me than "that smart guy." Somehow this all matters even when we're not talking about anything that requires being smart
That being said, on an unrelated note, I did appreciate your arguments against sexual intercourse with black out drunk women and I agree that is a bad thing. Unlike a lot of people in that thread.
Thank you, shit, that was not the proudest of themotte I've ever been. OTOH, it's nice to know I don't quite fit every stereotype here, and to have something to point to as foil to when I explain to someone "look I'm really not that conservative, it just sounds that way sometimes".
lagrangian
1mo ago
I think the disconnect is somewhere in which sets are equal vs subsets of "consented" "said yes but was much drunker" "was much drunker but I didn't realize", but have lost the thread of exactly what.
lagrangian
2mo ago
So does this just end up in the supreme court, then get reversed? I think we should just make it ~impossible to prosecute presidents, past or present, and skip all the theatre.
lagrangian
1mo ago
I mean I can imagine the framework, insomuchas axioms are axioms, but are you saying you think the 30/9 case is, or can reasonably be argued to be, closer to fraud than rape? If so, I disagree, but it's just marginally within the realm of things I could imagine reasonable people thinking.
lagrangian
1mo ago
That all seems reasonable. What is the current status of French law?
lagrangian
5mo ago
Fuck mice, install Vimmium. It lets you do ~anything in a browser without a mouse.
lagrangian
15d ago
See the thing is, I get real tired of hearing stupid people talk, and there's an awful (or delightful) lot of that in dating. It's great being able to talk about things in my life and know she has context on them. I hear this point about overvaluing a woman's intelligence/career frequently (e.g. here), but strenuously disagree. At some point I'd try proving myself wrong on that again, but I am not there.
Lower IQ filter down to >120 (80thp) as opposed to ~135(99p).
I really don't think so. It's easy living in a bubble of smart people to forget what p80 intelligence looks like. The least smart person I've ever dated was a first grade teacher, and presumably she was at least above average, leaving not a ton of room, if any, from her to p80. I really wanted to believe it wouldn't matter, but it just did. My real preference is probably steeper than p99, and Ms. Definitely clearly is past there. I'm fairly sure she's smarter than me, and I know I'm comfortably past p99. It doesn't hurt that often, and in this case, IQ correlated with gainful employment.
Attractive.. okay keep this one, but don't be a k-drama protagonist about this
I'm really not trying to be, with my factor of 3 on that. Note that I didn't put "top 1/3" attractiveness - the intention is to filter out some at the top, filter out more at the bottom, and aim for some objective notion of at least modestly above average. She easily is, and fits a number of my specific preferences that are neutral to most people. She could be a fair amount less attractive and it wouldn't have changed my reaction.
Note also that by "attracted" (factor of 3), I meant "attracted to me" not "I'm attracted to her". I'm alright looking, but appearance certainly isn't my top selling point.
All that said, I think there may be some redundancy between these two factors, and between them and everything else. I.e. women who are smart, age appropriate, personality match etc are more likely than random women to be attractive/attracted to me.
Politics - For the most part, drop this.
I put a light factor here (2) intentionally. I don't need her to be a Mottizan, just not to hate me for having weird opinions on things from time to time. This also filters out e.g. strongly religious people.
Also I doubt this woman meets all these filters. I mean what are the odds right? You have rose tinted glasses on.
Rose tinted glasses in general, entirely possible. As to the specific factors, I think they're all there, but it's possible she misses on "attracted to me" (I don't think so, but hard to say, and these things take time especially for women sometimes), "politics" (we've gotten into it some, but not that much - the lack of it coming up is in itself actually almost enough to check this box) and "personality" (I don't think so at all, but don't know her that well just yet). There's zero doubt that she's within an hour drive, human, female, age appropriate, highly intelligent, attractive, and single.
lagrangian
1mo ago
If you have to ask, the answer is no. I.e., I think the moral thing is to view the default as "no consent" and require positive evidence to move to "consent." If you can't count to ten, you can't give that evidence. I don't even think that's overdone liberal nonsense, of which there's a lot on this subject.
Concretely, if she's so much drunker than me and hotter than me that I can not picture her feeling less than grossly violated tomorrow, then the sex feels very rapey. If I think we're both buzzed and we might both feel a little gross about it tomorrow, then shrug, she made her choices.
I in practice solve these complex moral dilemmas by being old, boring and sober. It's remarkable how much complex modern feminist 'BUT WHAT IS CONSENT EXACTLY' goes away if you allow the answer to be even as serious as "a thing two people who are multiple dates do while sober".
lagrangian
1mo ago
getting taken advantage of
I think a key detail here is that alcohol is a helluva drug. It's quite easy, especially as a smaller, younger woman to overestimate your tolerance. Either of you also might not know what's in the punch exactly, or how long you hit the keg.
So, the ethical thing is to look at the person as you're getting to bed and ask "ok, but really, is it OK to have sex here?" I think if she'd never in a million years have sex with you after a moderate amount of alcohol, no. If in the heat of the moment and a bit buzzed, she'd probably have said yes, you're at least in grey territory, potentially fine, depending on the details.
lagrangian
1mo ago
I have at no point intended my comments to be gendered, although I have almost certainly said man (by which I meant less drunk/larger) and woman (by which I meant more drunk/smaller). Heck, apply it to nonbinary dragonkin.
So, we may agree on ~everything.
lagrangian
1mo ago
Plus, of course, the guy in this situation has probably also been drinking.
The hypothetical as I am thinking about it is that the man is knowingly much less drunk. If everyone is very drunk, I think that's less of rape and more of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" all around.
There's a word for a guy who consistently engages in that sort of reasoning (not just in this particular case, but in general) and that word is "virgin"
I think your point stands for a smallish group of those you're describing, "white knight" types, who should yes in fact move in the drunker/less-rigidly-consent-requiring direction.
But, in general, I prefer the word "adult." I found dating got exponentially easier as I started advertising being a ~sober, boring, responsible adult instead of being maximally able to consume booze/etc.
lagrangian
1mo ago
controversial
I don't think the moral importance of age of consent in general is controversial even on here. Don't get me wrong, I'd welcome any interesting discussion you'd like to have here.
But, I think the fact on the ground is that while posters would disagree on exact ages, allowances across cultures, etc, most people think there should be some age and/or age-gap that makes it definitionally impossible to consent.
lagrangian
1mo ago
If she's "too drunk to count to ten" let alone passed out, it strikes me as very similarly morally to rape-at-knifepoint. Not quite as bad, but not "obnoxious liberal word expansion" levels of different.
I'm curious, to any older commenters especially: does usage like this of "rape" strike you as euphemism treadmill, or is this just the natural range of the word? I suspect it's the latter, but maybe I'm young(ish). I'd think to use "rape" for the above and knife-point when that detail isn't central, and say "violent rape" when the knife (/threat/etc) is central to the discussion.
lagrangian
1yr ago
Instead of 10k * 6.5M people, I think 100k * .65M people would work much better. 6.5M is 2% of the country, which might be rather destabilizing, especially if (likely) concentrated geographically.
Given the cost per capita of citizens in low income brackets, even if they're not involved in crime, you could bump that up greatly while still net spending the same. Back of the envelope, five trillion in US income taxes is 17k/person, or 170k/decade/person. Assuming half of people generate twice their share and half generate none and consume the other half's, you then double the per-person savings: 340k/decade.
Either my math is terrible, or you could give real near half a million bucks per person (100+340)!
lagrangian
15d ago
E.g. here, although in fairness 1) "sexual intercourse with black out drunk women" isn't quite what was being advocated for by others, and 2) I freely admit (as I did then) that my (extremely sleep deprived) prose on the subject was not super well organized. Still, yeah, shocking to me to see how the votes settled.
Consider places ~an hour from LA or San Diego. This takes you down a notch on cost of living, at the primary cost of being farther from exciting things to do, which some of your suggestions about more remote places tell me you might not super prioritize. Still not cheap, but home ownership is plausible at 250k/yr if you prioritize it. At the same time, you're close enough that if you build a life but decide you need to be more central (e.g. for special schools), it's not the end of the world to commute or make a small move.
Beautiful, great weather, lots of hiking, active rat community, plenty of smart young people (albeit not SF/NY/Boston levels).
E.g. Fallbrook/Julian/Camarillo.
Feel free to PM if you want more details on my similar search a couple years back.
lagrangian
1mo ago
The people aspect is huge. This is why I want to work at Jane Street. Also because OCaml is amazing and HFT is challenging and because of the pay, but the people this attracts is why it's I think the only place for which I'd be willing to deal with snow and commuting instead of remote work from paradise.
Rust? Good luck getting business logic done over the din of nerds playing with a type system. Java? You're gonna get a culture of boring adults. Javascript? Scrappy startup types who may not write tests, they ran it like twice.
lagrangian
1mo ago
Meta: the overall negative scores on most of my participation on this topic is fascinating. The categories are very fuzzy and my arguments were clearly not perfect, but I would have guessed mild positive. Thoroughly enjoyed the back and forth, all, even having "lost."
Double meta: downvotes are not supposed to be disagree buttons, in theory, but I think we use them mostly that way...and I like it.
lagrangian
1mo ago
It's interesting to me that you seem to have better luck than me at first (likes/matches/conversations), but worse after that. I get some likes/matches/conversations (certainly not more than makes sense), but once we agree on a time and place, I can't remember the last time it didn't work out.
Wildly speculative theory: you're more attractive than I am (hence, more matches) but doing something offputting after that. Rather than do the confrontational thing and say no to you, or even unmatch, rather than be decent enough to be decisive at all, they just flake etc. Typical female behavior, and understandable enough, given the fear of anger from anything more direct.
lagrangian
1mo ago
One result of this is that Google is kind of screwed
GOOG is up 40% YoY, compared to 25% for SPY (SP500) - the market strongly disagrees with you.
I like LLMs quite a lot, for certain things, but almost orthogonal to what I like search for. If I want reliable docs, or to find reddit posts: Google. If I want a particular passage in a book explained: LLM...but then usually Google to confirm things.
Old people are super not into LLMs, or change of any variety. LLMs are also going to take a big ol' reputational hit if they start being monetized to suggest you have a delicious Slurm. The search results model of paid results is a much cleaner separation of ad vs not. LLM responses are so much longer that it'd be hard to separate out the ad and organic responses, decreasing trust, adoption, and monetizability.
The key difference is that only in the rape story has anything been done to her by someone else.
When driving, the damage is to the pole. Heck, let's say she ("S") kills someone else ("E"). S has violated E's rights, so S should be prosecuted for murder (or property damage to the pole). No one did anything to S, except insomuch as S did it to herself, so no one should be prosecuted (or held morally responsible) for anything that happened to S.
When S is raped, the damage is entirely to S. This was done to her by someone ("R"[apist]), who should be prosecuted. Debateably, S did something to herself too, but undebateably (well, it is themotte, but I feel pretty good about this one), there is the key difference that something was done to S in this one.
Further, in my version of the setup, she really hasn't decided to sleep with the nerd ("can't count to ten"). Past some level of drunk, you're on autopilot, and anyone who steers you transgresses. So yes, I absolutely do deny people agency once they are blackout drunk. I put that agency in the hands of society/morality to protect them. Enormously practical? No, so go be monogamous and sober, but still better than a free-for-all on drunk coeds.
More options
Context Copy link