lagrangian
13d ago
not with Catholic women. I think the issue is my heterodoxy.
Sounds right to me. Either don't bring it up until date two/three, or pick different women (, or find Jesus).
lagrangian
18d ago
No. I'm a high decoupler - I do in fact value some of her writing, including on dating. And presumably she is too. But, I still know her reputation, and I don't even have twitter. Surely she does too.
lagrangian
21d ago
I mostly agree with the broad point, but on a pedantic note - I think you probably mean "LLM or diffusion model"
lagrangian
2d ago
Why? Writing essays is the most directly applicable skill I learned in school, moreso than AP Computer Science (java) - and I'm a backend java dev. Concise, precise communication is a critical skill. Design docs are super important. (At least to the promotion committee.)
That said, I'd love if we make the essays be on more useful/interesting/self-selected topics, have more persuasive/technical writing, etc.
I agree with the rest of your post, but this I disagree with:
and absolutely no second dates!
What's wrong with that?
It indicates something is wrong here. It'd be one thing to not make it past a few dates ever, but to never get a second date means that after the first time someone actually met you at all, they didn't want to see you again. It suggests needing to aim lower when selecting first dates and/or figure out what you're doing wrong on the date.
The bar for wanting a second date for most people, myself included, seems to not be that high. The bar for wanting a third or fourth - much higher. One data point is not that much, so a first date's not necessarily sufficient to know what you think. And, first dates, especially from apps, are often coffee/etc to minimize the awkwardness if it's no good (which is often the case, and that's fine). So, if there's any promise whatsoever, I think people often give it a second chance.
If you're not even getting that second chance, something's wrong. This is in many ways good news: figure out what it is, and fix it. Throw a spreadsheet at the problem, get a trainer, or a shrink, or a stitchfix subscription. Yes, modernity is a shitshow, but the answer isn't giving up.
Finding your spouse is a numbers game. Get to the 'not the one' quickly to move on to the next. You just haven't found her yet.
This I agree with.
lagrangian
19d ago
Is it even remotely possible that she did not already know her reputation? She is pretty literally an attention whore, in addition to the normal kind, and this is more of the same. She talks extensively about the efficacy of advertising herself, on her substack.
lagrangian
21d ago
to the absurd ("speeding is actually safer because a vehicle that isn't keeping up with traffic causes more accidents when people try to pass').
I have always assumed this is true. The famous graph of it is called the Solomon curve, showing that the lowest rate of accidents occurs slightly over the mean speed of traffic. It's from 1960, so take it with a larger grain of salt than most studies even, but I don't see why it's an "absurd" claim that this is true.
Doing some further research, what I'm seeing is that the rate of accidents is, as per Solomon, lowest at the speed of traffic. But, that the fatality risk and injury severity if you are in an accident increase with speed. This makes it a non-obvious EV-maximization problem to answer what speed to drive at.
It is absolutely plausible that accident rate varies with # of cars passing you (or that you pass). My mental model is that the safe thing is to go the same speed as the cars in your lane. In principle if that were faster than road conditions allow (rainy, curvy, but somehow left lane is still doing 85), it's an unsafe lane - but probably still safer to travel at the speed of those around you.
I'm open to the idea that going at the +10 found in slower lanes is safer than going at the +20 found in the faster lanes. But, I think "going the speed limit is safer, in any lane" is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.
I'm curious, Mottizens: what speed would you drive at in perfect conditions (straight, flat, sunny, minimal traffic), in a 70 mph interstate?
lagrangian
21d ago
non-e bike
lagrangian
19d ago
Call airbnb support, get told to fuck yourself, call credit card company, do a charge back, and go back to booking hotels ever after.
lagrangian
19d ago
any other fair ideas
Fine companies a multiple of the wages paid to illegals. This pays for itself. Do it aggressively. Illegals will not want to be here if there is not work for them to do, so they will self deport.
That is, as always: align incentives. Don't try to make people do what you want. Make people want what you want.
This is what happens when you have a constitutional right that a sufficient number of states simply choose not to recognize as such; look at how many southern states kept passing more and more onerous abortion restrictions to get around Roe
This comparison irritates and mystifies me.
The right to bear arms is quite directly in 2A:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
But the right to abortion is...nowhere. It's inferred from the right to privacy, which is inferred from due process (5/14A):
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
I'll grant that there's some legal history and subtlety around what counts as an "Arm," but that's a much smaller inferential distance than the above.
Why would "abortion, but only up to a certain point in the growth" be part of...I guess "liberty"? But, "drug legalization" somehow isn't?
In classic Mottian fashion, I'm a high decoupler in general, and on this - I'm personally anti-gun and pro abortion. But, that doesn't change that the legal footing of them is exactly opposite in strength: my desires are not constitutionally protected.
DM me if you'd like a (free) practice interview + feedback or just general advice. (I'm a FAANG SWE.)
More options
Context Copy link