lollol
1mo ago
And the smaller number of ships making the passage often belies that these ships are carrying more than previous ships did before them
Yes pretty much. I just couldn't find the youtube link to get the transcript of a shipping analyst working through the math (I think it was a bloomberg podcast) but I will try to recreate it here:
- Strait of Hormuz has about 21 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum liquids transported through it per day for 2020–1H25 (according to data updated/published March 2026 by US Energy Information Administration)
- Very large crude carrier (VLCC): "A VLCC can carry between 1.9 million and 2.2 million barrels of a WTI type crude oil" (article from the US EIA in 2014)
- Ultra-Large Crude Carrier (ULCC): "These massive vessels can carry around 2 million barrels to 3.7 million barrels of crude oil" (same article above)
So we really only need about 9-10 VLCC or 5-6 ULCC to replace Hormuz levels. But we know that oil suppliers found alternative bypasses to get around Hormuz like other ports or pipelines, so the actual number of VLCC or ULCC can be significantly lower than that. So when it comes to oil specifically and the movement of it through the Strait of Hormuz, it's important to report on "barrels of oil/tonnage passing through" not "number of ships passing through".
Caveat though is that there are other goods transported through the strait, not just oil, for example other products like plastics and fertilizer (more on fertilizer), which have different economics and transport cost that I don't know about.
Nearly two years ago, I wrote:
Being pro-immigrant does not mean pro-immigration
After listening to a recent interview of Carlos Odio, a pollster focused on Latino voters, I truly do believe that the stance above represents the message the broadest number of Americans can agree to and/or might tolerate. American politicians, leaders, and statesmen ignore this and they will make mistakes in one of the ever salient topic of US electoral politics. What was really clarifying for me though is the terminology, which unlocks my thinking of what it means to "support immigrants" and "not support immigration", bolded mine:
But I think the best way to simplify to take all these dimensions and narrow it down. It's a framework that comes from a pair of academics is stock versus flow. [Stock] is how people think about immigrants who are in this country, established in this country, already arrived. Versus flow, those who want to come or are coming.
And attitudes across lots of national contexts towards stock versus flow are very different. People tend to be much more sympathetic to people who are already in the country versus allowing large numbers to come in into the future. Those attitudes are very different. Latinos are not unique in that regard. Latino attitudes, [regarding] the border, are, can, or can be, very different from the ones that they have about something like a pathway to citizenship.
So what you have is big big immigration fights in a uh 2008 and uhh 2012, to some extent in 2016 because the conversation Hillary Clinton wanted to have, were really about stock: "What do we do about immigrants who are already here?" you know. In the second Bush term, the focus had been on workplace raids, deporting people who had been working here for a very long time. The fights of this whole period of time tended to be about stock. And on stock, Latinos are very very much on the pro-immigrant side of things. It is a place on which they tend to be more distinctive from the rest of the electorate.
In fact, even amidst everything else we're going to talk about, Latinos have remained very pro pathway to citizenship. Even Trump voters have remained very pathway to citizenship favorable, toward pathway citizenship. That has not changed. They have stayed pro-immigrant when it comes to the stock conversation.
The pair of academics mentioned, based on my research, are Yotam Margalit and Omer Solodoch who wrote on Against the Flow: Differentiating Between Public Opposition to the Immigration Stock and Flow. They are among the first to really separate people's attitudes towards stock vs flow. What Odio mentions about Latino Trump voters supporting pathway to citizenship I think is referring to this poll.
What is especially important, I think, is by looking through the lens of stock vs flow, we can very quickly figure out the problems and mistakes that both the left and right makes on immigration.
Biden's and the left's failure with immigration is because they confused supporting immigration as also supporting immigrants. There was a perception after 2012 and 2016 and 2018 that Latinos was on the side of the Democrats and are a loyal and committed base. And by handwaving the national debate on immigration as a Latino issue, Democrats, especially under Biden, made moves that they think Latino voters would like. But we can see those moves are actually pro-flow instead of pro-stock and that's not what the people wants, bolded mine:
And in fact, a lot of the resentment in the in the Biden era, as people were crossing the border, was saying here are people who are coming today, who are in the perception of these voters receiving permits, work permits, might be getting other additional benefits beyond that. In New York, you get housing benefits. Some other people were getting some sort of cash benefit if you were an asylum seeker. And [voters] saying, "Well, hold on. Not only is my family struggling, but even my undocumented family, right, my undocumented aunt who's been here for decades, hasn't gotten anything and she's been waiting her turn in line". Which by the way, there's actually no line if you've been undocumented for 20 years. There's no way to regularize it at this point. And so there's a resentment towards that actually is not just about like, oh, I'm just anti-immigrant, but is about a feeling of unfairness that's not about where you stand overall in immigration, but rather what's the sequence in which of events in which these [things] should happen. The fight that we then have in 2024 was about the large numbers who were coming into the country.
If the above sounds familiar to you then it's because it echoes the chump effect that has been linked before on this forum.
On the other hand, Trump's and the right's failure with the ongoing deportation campaign is because they're confusing attacking immigrants with attacking immigration. Trump best issue is with regards to immigration and securing the border. Trump even went on Univision and talk about immigration in 2024 and laid out his case about criminals and illegals. Latinos shifted for Trump in 2024. Yet once in office, one can see how the mistake Trump makes is the reverse of Biden, where anti-stock moves are being confused as anti-flow, which is also not what people want, bolded mine:
There was a way that the Trump administration could have done immigration that would have retained incredibly high support. If they if they had very narrowly focused in on criminals and they had been trotting out criminals that they were deporting, support would have stayed very high for those policies. It has remained high for the border, right? I mean, it's remained high for the border generally viewed by [people], even despite literally every single area of Trump's presidency policy area falling off a cliff. You ask people: "what about the border?", he still gets either neutral or approval. And when you ask Trump versus Democrats, it's like not even close. If you want to see the stock versus flow in effect, you could see that among Latinos, Trump's best issue area is the border. And one of his worst is when you just ask about immigration that people when they're asked about immigration today are thinking in terms of stock of people in the country now, but when they're thinking about the border, they're thinking about it in a very different plane. Just the border is not very salient.
I think Odio was referring to this poll back in April 2026, where Latinos (and All Voters) highest approval is on Trump's handling of "Border Security" (versus "Crime and Public Safety", "Immigration", "ICE in American Cities", "The Economy"). But anyway, what Trump is running afoul of what's called "Ethics of Proximity" or "Moral Distance" (couldn't find a good link for this). These concepts overlap, and one could imagine there is a spectrum in which one can put individuals closer to stock or close to flow, with higher in stock means closer in moral distance, and therefore rules that might seemed harsh but fair from a distance becomes cruel and unjust up close.
In summary: if the thesis of the Biden era is "pro-flow is pro-stock, we are pro-stock, therefore we must be pro-flow", and the anti-thesis of the Trump era is "anti-stock is anti-flow, we are anti-flow, therefore we must be anti-stock", then hopefully the future (successful) synthesis on the immigration debate is one who is able to say and do "stock is not flow, we are pro-stock but anti-flow, therefore we will do just that".
lollol
1mo ago
Let me try to think through this while I write this comment.
The issue at hand is Medical assistance in dying (MAID). Which is not just in Canada but in other countries too. Supporters of this would argue for the freedom of individuals to make their own choice. Opponents of this would argue on the sanctity of life (usually in a religious sense), of how the death would affect others, of never giving up. There might be a narrow group of opponents that doesn't want goverment mandate, fearing overreach or callous decision making.
- My immediate stance is to support MAID. I think suicide is stupid, but in the end it's an individual choice that affects the to-be-dead the most.
- I am not religious so I don't have the same axiom to make life holy, even if I think life is very important and is the foundation for even experiencing.
- I am not convinced of the argument of how suicide would affect others. We allow people to do all kinds of "stupid" things that affect others. People can be stupid drunk or stupid smoker, and now in certain localities even be stupid stoners. People can be stupid gambler. People can sign up for the military (though I am more inclined to say there is a base level of honor and public good and others for joining the military, yet I do think some would consider joining the military, any military, is stupid). People can be a stupid debtor with bills up to the eyeball. And so on. We certainly do our best to limit people's ability to do that but we don't stop people from making their own decisions.
- I am not convinced of never giving up. This just reminds me of the digging for diamond meme. Honestly sometimes it just feels like chance whether not giving up will or not lead to a "better" life. What's the difference to the Jews when they killed themselves on the trains vs at the gas chambers. And if nothing in the world is for free, what has to be traded for instead?
- I am a little unclear of any particular argument against the fear of government mandate. I suppose being forced to die against your will is different from asking to die and it's just a different situation altogether. I do think slippery slope is a thing, but I also believe in the slippery slope fallacy.
- Honestly I was ok with just the argument of individuals should be able to make their own choice (with the usual caveat of not "harming" other individuals, see 3) so I didn't really think too hard about any other arguments in support of MAID.
lollol
1mo ago
Yes, it's fair that I am no longer defending @atelier viewpoint. Theirs sounds like "rules got stricter over time and costs increases" while mine is more "rules didn't change but the costs to follow the rule increases". I was thinking about your examples again and maybe the reason is essentially what moved what.
In the suburb example, the supply stayed the same but demand increased. Obviously demand increases prices, but because it's perfectly inelastic supply prices can go as high as long as demand can meet it. We could, theoretically, calculate the economic rent which is the "excess" purely because of the supply constraint of red tape.
In the oil example, the market is already in equilibrium where supply is very flexible to demand, allowing prices to stay stable as supply is turned on and off (essentially the reverse of "if [oil] prices are going lower, why drill more?"). The war reduced supply and that's the biggest or initial constraint, demand has still remained the same, red tape didn't create the situation because without the war there would be no price shock, so that's why arguments for red tape here is meaningless and/or misleading.
lollol
1mo ago
What is the meaning of life in at most 3 sentences?
what you decide the meaning of life to be. it doesn't really matter. But it will really matter to you.
I think the more interesting question for mottizens would be: What is your meaning of life?
Indeed, it's worth pointing out that your interpretation could be applied to just about every increase in price of any good or service anywhere in the United States.
Yes. let's take the hypothetical example that somehow there is a law that the US President must wait X numbers of days before the release of the petroleum reserve. Or let's take your example and add on: the President can't "relax various regulations regarding the production and distribution of gasoline" until Congress has been notified for X number of days. I can reasonably say Trump would have truthed on day 2: "We have got it all worked out and FUEL PRICES WOULD HAVE STAYED LOW, but it's CONGRESS fault for BLOCKING the PRESIDENT with all this RED TAPE. CONGRESS FAILED TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS".
It's why decrying about "red tape" is a really good line to throw in any political election. And honestly, there is a lot of bad laws on the books. Much has already been said about Jones Act or how Jefferson foresaw this and had a letter to Madison discussing having laws that expire every 19 years.
lollol
1mo ago
Hmmmm, I will take the example of your suburb to illuminate my point.
To me, looks like there is increased housing demand in your area. Yet, the same rule for minimum lot size being unchanged means supply can't keep up. Like let's take the viewpoint of the builder. They have to buy a lot at more expensive prices. Only one house is allowed to be put on it. Thankfully there is a lot of demand so there must be at least one big catch in the sea. But those big catches won't buy older houses, so you gotta build. So the builder makes that one house more expensive (bigger house/better amenities/more expensive construction details/HOA/etc.).
The red tape hasn't changed, but the cost of the red tape certainly increased. Nothing here says that "more red tape has been added throughout the years leading to higher costs", but merely "existing red tape going unchanged and not responding to new dynamics of the given locality leading to higher costs".
lollol
1mo ago
Around this time last year (maybe June 2025), my dad started telling me about how Xi Jinping was actually losing power/influence and that the party elders were going to depose him. My dad told me that I should look into the Beidaihe meeting and then he says "mark my words, by this time next year Xi Jinping won't be in power". I did look into this Beidaihe thing and found it less impressive than what I've been told, I gave my dad the link, but essentially had a mental note on it since. Well it's been a year and Xi Jinping is still in power. I think Xi Jinping will dominate the 21st Congress (in 2027) as well. But who knows, maybe my dad is getting the vibes from somewhere and I am holding myself back from saying "heheheh, remember when...." in the miniscule chance that he is right and only off by 1 year.
Your thread reminds me of my dad.
I think there is a lot here to be convinced by, yet I am not sure the story has yet played out for us to come to a conclusion. History takes a long time. Democracy was tried in Athens and Rome, yet it slumbered for millennia before it was attempted again in the West with the US. Even more convincingly won wars, like let's say the American Civil War still has echoes way past the surrender (Jim Crow, Civil Rights, etc.).
I hope America wins, and I hope America wins convincingly, and the regime in Iran dies its deserved death. Yet there is a lot to fear as well, and all I see is the fog of war.
lollol
1mo ago
Of course, whether this is good public policy is a separate question
Well yes, this is a value judgment. Young people might appreciate the ability to buy these cheaper (but smaller houses). Older homeowners might not appreciate the riff raffs. But maybe in a few years they will appreciate the economic boom from the population growth. For what it's worth, I do think Austin politicians are saying they are one of the few that has successfully tackle housing affordability in the country.
And it doesn't seem like an efficient cause of the explosion in prices for single family houses.
Well, I did want to point out that when Austin had the old (larger) minimum lot size, that is an example of red tape increasing cost of house. If 3x houses can be sold from the same square footage, it goes to show that before only 1 house can be sold, and the developer would have to make it a pretty expensive house (I don't know if it would have been 3x but certainly 1.5x to 2.5x).
lollol
1mo ago
One thing Austin did was cut the minimum lot size for single family home. Less lawn but you can build 3 times the number of homes. Makes sense that supply increases and prices decreases.
- https://austinmonitor.com/stories/2024/05/austin-cuts-minimum-lot-size-by-more-than-a-third-requiring-less-land-to-build-a-home/
- I first learnt about it when the mayor talked to Bloomberg news: https://youtube.com/watch?v=gNwx1Z_8vHw?is=Qpk96aObhARYtV63
lollol
1mo ago
The loss of the sheer breadth and depth of beauty that could and would have been created by the immense amounts of resources and talent in the video game industry but for the choices we're talking about is hard to fathom. What truly are the limits of beauty that we could have created in this medium if the standard were such that the minimum acceptable standard for the least-attractive female character was "man walking into traffic while distracted by woman" level of beauty, then what would the median female protagonist of a AAA game look like right now? What about the most beautiful one? Like, we can appreciate the Eves and 2Bs of the industry for being beautiful, but we don't know what we're missing out on compared to a world where a character with Eve's looks is considered the "kinda homely NPC that hands you the occasional side quest" instead of "outlier sex symbol." All not for any good purpose, but only to feed some ideological delusions that were never on solid ground to begin with and which has been utterly discredited by reality.
...
That these are the video games to point to, and that the standard is "top 5% pretty" for a medium aren't constrained by human biology or human existence (i.e. neither the theoretical genetic limits of human beauty nor the true real limit of real adult women who really came into existence IRL apply here) is what I think reflects the negative direction the video game industry went towards. If the basic minimum had been "top 5% pretty" with the median protagonist being "literally no human on Earth has ever looked this pretty," the world would have been a much more beautiful place.
I'm not sure if this is not also just an ideological commitment to "beauty" that goes the other way and therefore also kinda extreme.
Also, I'm not sure if the general perception of beauty in video game is skewed. I started getting ads for video games recently and I thought to myself if these female characters were transported to the real world and made more "real" a bit, they would instantly become the most attractive person around. Like even Aloy from Horizon Zero Dawn who I think is the poster child for the outcry, she's fit, redhead, bright demeanor, instant top 10-5% if transported inside a train carriage in NYC during commute time.
There's gritty and there's gritty. Video games, until recently (and arguably still now) couldn't do true photorealism, so "gritty" tended to mean "more photorealistic." But we have an example of a photorealistic medium where people tend(ed) to have top 5% beauty - Hollywood. Often, even grittier films like, e.g. Oldboy or No Country for Old Men tend to feature actresses (and actors) who are at the very top end of the beauty spectrum. A video game like TLOU or Horizon Zero Dawn could easily feel quite believable while still having characters with, e.g. Eve-level beauty. They'd just have to also be dirtied-up, with appropriately messy clothes and such.
Actors and actresses bring more than just to fill in a character. They bring their own fan base, they do press tours, they had to get hired, TV/Movies are a particular experience where it's asked that viewers don't do anything, can't interact, just fed. And in fact, even in the movies you mentioned there are critical characters that are not top end in beauty. I didn't see Oldboy (both versions) but in No Country for Old Man, I can think of the old man at the gas station with Chigurh and the coin flip, and all the way the end where the wife of Llewelyn was killed by Chigurh, there is definitely an attempt at dressing them down to be more homey, realistic level of beauty/non-beauty. Chigurh himself, yes played by the attractive Javier Bardem, but with a deliberately ugly and terrifying haircut ("When he first saw the offending cut, Bardem is said to have complained that he wouldn't get laid for two months"). There are other movies where beautifully attractive actors transform themselves into being ugly to play a role (Charlize Theron in Monster, Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder) and are beloved for it.
Games are more than just a plot and some characters, there is gameplay, there is emergent properties from game mechanics and player interactions. Not many says Minecraft characters are sexy and that's why they play it. Maybe we can think of it that attractiveness of characters is, like other aspects of any work of a video game, can also be a bar and once cleared, it's good enough and can move on to other things. TLOU definitely didn't need the characters to be top 5% pretty to sell itself in video games. TBF, I don't know, Joel is probably top 10% in terms of attractiveness as a man yeah? but his attractiveness doesn't come from just his physical appearance. I suppose attractiveness is fluid and anime/catgirl/2B "shape" is not the only way for someone to be "attractive".
The author answered some questions to journalists here: https://www.timesofisrael.com/italy-publishes-first-critical-edition-of-mein-kampf/
You can keep going down the list, but one thing that’s clear if you dive into the history is that these guys were not hashtag intellectuals. They had a very solid and scholarly worked out foundation for that time that they were fanatically committed to.
This reminds me of Stephen Kotkin's answer to someone's question about what they will find if the archives of the Chinese Communist Party ever becomes open to historians, he said (I paraphrased): "The same thing we found when the Russian archives were opened, they all thought they were Communists".
lollol
1mo ago
Hmmmm, I think your argument differs from @Botond173 in that so far they seem to imply a normie-women-demand-driven-policing of cultural output, while you are saying that ideologically-driven-supply-policing is going on. Sure I can buy that, but can you go into a little more detail on why this is a travesty? Seems to me like it's more an irritation than some kind of societal harm. I suppose in contrast, arguments can be made that OnlyFans leads to financial exploitation of lonely men, and Andrew Tate is....also financial exploitation of lonely men.
And there is a charitable take where many of these games (TLOU, Horizon Zero Dawn, etc.) have a particular aesthetic (more photorealistic, more gritty, etc.) that benefits more from NOT having supernatural-level of beauty. When there are games that benefit from having characters that are supposed to be pretty look pretty they still look quite top 5% pretty (Dispatch, Tomb Raider, Clair Obscur, Witcher, etc.)
lollol
1mo ago
Your points about me not knowing enough about Burgum and Pirro to able to judge someone is both correct and not correct. Yes, it's true that the best way to judge and form an opinion of a political figure is to take the grand totality of what they do. But just like every other political figure, the way they are judged are usually by a few thing that defines them. Could be Biden and not stepping down from running, could be Harris and her no regrets defending Biden on national TV, could be Hillary and her non-secure email servers, could be Obama and his arrogance (Iran, dealing with Republican congress), could be Tim Walz and the Somali fraud cases.
Notice how I used Democratic figures to satisfy your complaint how I don't give examples of incompetence to your "other side"?
For me, Burgum and Pirro are defined by the events of the Reflecting Pool and the National Mall. I'll be perfectly happy to read what you have to say about their records elsewhere. Like I said:
You have to win, and win so decisively (like let's say gay people in present America) so that you can't be persecuted on whatever it is you're fighting for.
Thank you for going through the arguments. I find that your reading of them differ from mine quite a bit. I will endeavor to go through your arguments as well
I think Trump is incompetent at enlarging his group of supporters
Trump was the first Republican to win the popular vote in a generation. You almost surely mean something more specific by this, maybe that Trump doesn't attract more high-quality people to his movement. But I'm sure that no matter who Trump attracted, you would come up with a definition for why they were a priori incompetent.
If there were more MAGA-aligned attorneys, he would have a better pick of the litter instead of Jeanine Pirro.
Again, Pirro was not Trump's first pick because the Senate constrained him.
If there were more MAGA-aligned attorneys, maybe they can convict vandals even when the city sides 95-5 with the vandals (remember John Adams defending the murderers?)
Yeah, Trump just needs super lawyers with super law who are so good they can convince even Democrats who hate them to support them. > Why hasn't Trump done this?
Maybe it's easier to point to examples of competence as a contrast. The reason why FDR is competent is because he's able to get people to keep voting for him and his party so that FDR can keep doing things he wanted and drive his enemies into political footnotes, one could say FDR got and maintained a large group of supporters.
Another example is Reagan, who went up in vote percentage from 50.7% in 1980 to 58.8% in 1984. Reagan is a good example of enlarging his group of supporters (with the standout example being the quips made between him and the Democrat surgeon for his assassination).
Trump definitely has an upward trajectory, from 46.1% in 2016, to 46.8% in 2020, to 49.8% in 2024. And yes, Obama has a downward trajectory, from 52.9% in 2008 down to 51.1% in 2012. But if we pit Obama vs Trump, is Trump likely to win? I think not.
And yes, I do think Trump isn't attracting the higher quality people to his movement. And I disagree with your argument that I am so uncharitable to not recognize competence in Trump picks. I never said it before on this forum but I do think and know that Tom Homan is more competent at his job of deporting people without controversy than Greg Bovino.
Your argument about the Senate, don't you feel the counter argument lurking right behind the corner: "If there was a large bench of good lawyers for MAGA, then even if Thom Tillis blocked Ed Martin due to Jan 6th ties then another Ed-Martin-esque person can be found."
And also importantly, I see you didn't respond to: "If there were more MAGA-aligned people, maybe there won't be any vandals even."
Which I want to also mention that just as much as you think I haven't proved "there are no vandals of the reflecting pool", you haven't proved "there are vandals of the reflecting pool". Incompetence of the contractor is definitely proven based on the dismissal though. In fact, it's probably better to focus on the National Mall because that's obviously vandalism.
You can say all you want about Trump being a good builder and he makes good buildings, but that's not the same as being a good president. No, the point is that in your rush to declare that Trump is "incompetent" you've hastily elided obvious domains in which Trump is very capably competent. Instead of constraining your broad strokes at all, by e.g. saying that Trump is good at building but bad at [something else], you've locked yourself into the very silly argument that Trump isn't good at anything. Now you're doubling down on that strange premise.
I can certainly think of places where Trump is competent, but if you do ask me in general then I do think his presidency is more incompetent (Greg Bovino style) than competent (Tom Homan style). Yes, it is a reflection of my value judgment as a member of the public. Now I didn't count your "Trump is competent at building stuff" because that wasn't about the reflecting pool.
To showcase something I did find that shows Trump's competence somewhere in this reflecting pool thing, I was going to leave this for a future thread reflecting on the pool (pun intended) but I think Trump's "pool guy" is probably a good pick. Initial reporting has Trump saying this:
"I said, I have an idea. I'm going to send my contractor over and take a look. He looked at it ... he said it's really decaying and it's a terrible condition, but if you would, I'd like to work two weeks on cleaning it up ... and he said 'it'd take me two weeks,'" he said.
"Our job will take one week. It will cost about a million and a half dollars."
Now the article didn't know who this pool guy is but it sounds to me like the later reported John Cafaro and Greenwater Services who got a $1.7 million contract to install “nano bubble” device that clean the pool. And look, the problem with the algae arrived because they turned off and moved those devices for Trump's UFC/birthday activities as the devices are large and eyesores.
Did it take a week? probably. Did it cost about a million and a half? 1.7 is pretty close to me. Did most media conflate Greenwater Services and Atlantic Industrial Coatings (who does a different job and got a much bigger contract)? Yeah, looks like it to me. So in fact, there were actually two "pool guys" (multiple guys I'm sure), though I don't think Trump knew Atlantic Industrial Coatings so he is another layer removed from that incompetence (and yet more on Burgum/DOI and how did that come about)(but then again Trump did pick Burgum).
There, I gave you a pretty valuable piece of information, I think you can stop drawing me as a Trump-hating-obsessive person who is just jumping to conclusions seeing that I do my research and cite my sources and go into detail on things and am careful with my words.
If the homeless numbers are down, where are they going? I don't see much news about low cost housing being built in DC.
Your argument now is that Trump is incompetent because he didn't fix everything everywhere all at once. Trump can't actually solve low cost housing in DC, at least, not without Congress or DC authorizing more housing within DC.
Maybe those homeless people you see "congregating on the bridges just within the Virginia boundaries" are exactly the former-DC-homeless. That's certainly one way to fudge the numbers.
Yeah that was my point. Trump can do everything in his power clean the city up, but he can't do everything in libs' power. One half of the political spectrum wants to kick the homeless out of parks, one half doesn't, the half that doesn't will shelter the homeless and say, "see, you can't kick the homeless out of parks, you must be incompetent!"
But there are criticism, and yeah, it's nothing to do with the incompetency regarding the Reflecting Pool.
Yeah, right, my argument (my observation really) is that there are a lot of people emotionally attached to Trump being wrong, therefore they will invent a reason why what he is doing is wrong, no matter what he actually does. It's in fact what you're doing in this very argument.
Why did you gloss over me saying this: "In fact, I honestly think Trump would be doing a good job of making DC beautiful (though I haven't been there recently)." I literally says that I expect Trump to be doing a good job doing the things you praised him for (cleaning up DC). Ok, let me state in even more detail then: it can be both and many things, competent at making things beautiful or beautiful things, incompetence at picking people who should be making beautiful things, competence at directing military force to cleanup homeless encampment, incompetence at actually reducing number of homeless people by passing legislation, reduce red tape, increase funding, whatever. Maybe you should recognize that my frustration is the reflecting pool incompetence and how that indicates to me on where and what domain Trump is good or bad at and whether that makes him a good Federal executive. You can point out the other things that Trump does well, and I might as well and did concede on that, but that doesn't take away the incompetence with regards to the pool.
I'm going to skip your next few paragraphs, I read it though and thought I don't think anything I say here is going to change anything because I don't know when "you" means me or "you" means the greater rhetorical you that you're rebutting to.
You believe, a priori, that Donald Trump is incompetent. You would find any flaw Trump makes and use that to justify your criticism. It doesn't matter what the flaw is. If the pool breaks, it can't be from sabotage or vandalism, no matter how many people are cheering for that exact outcome. If the pool doesn't break, it must be too expensive. Or the contract was corrupt. Or it was a bad use of money. But you would never extend this criticism to your own group: I don't see any forthcoming mea culpa about how Obama was also incompetent, or how all presidents are incompetent and Trump is just the latest, or how many leftists criticizing the pool explicitly want to destroy it. No, you want to claim the neutrality of just calling balls and strikes as you see it, but that neutrality will never reach any conclusion that isn't what you wanted.
"The Buck Stops Here"? Trump is already having the pool fixed. But I don't think you're really interested in having the pool fixed. I think you're interested in being right.
I already said this: "I do hope that this time the pool is fixed for good so that there is no need for multi-million dollar renovations in the future."
Yes, I reserve my right to criticize Trump and his administration. Yes, I can make criticisms of other presidents, just because I didn't do it in this thread doesn't mean I don't have any. Yes I reserve my right to praise Trump and his administration. Yes, I can make praises of other presidents, just because I didn't do it in this thread doesn't mean I don't have any. I don't believe that "arguments as soldiers" is good for society. I believe that there are things that are "both sides", and also there are things that are not "both sides". You can confuse me with the sometimes my remarks are aimed at "you" and sometimes at the imaginary rhetorical "you," but I know do my best that I don't and didn't do that to you.
Also besides, maybe you should turn around and do that then, you should think about where Trump has failed as a president, and not in the "he failed because he didn't do enough kinda thing", more of the "he failed because he went too far/overlooked/made a terrible decision". And maybe you did, and I don't know that, but in this thread you seem like a pure glazer to me.
lollol
1mo ago
I think this is only true in the most vapid of ways, where we can say that someone being selected to feature in a major media product at all is almost definitely in the top 50% of attractiveness (probably top 20%), male or female. But this doesn't really touch on the phenomenon, where stars who headlined major works would often be in the top 5% of attractiveness, and this has expanded to something closer to top 20%, if not top 50%, and the gap between 95th and 80th - to say nothing of 50th - is absolutely ginormous.
I think @Botond173 is going beyond that, I think they're arguing that "feminist-adjacent normie women" is policing US/Western media output so that the top 5% in attractiveness can't headline major works in fear of triggering "antics of the church ladies of the old days". I posit this is untrue because sex sells. Or maybe all the top 5% are having a great time being OnlyFans and influencers and don't need to slave themselves to the media industry.
Your argument of expansion of attractiveness representation is fair and I understand that, though I don't see that really being a problem that normie woman exercise their preferences. With enough economic cycles, an equilibrium will be found and like you summed it, I'm sure "someone being selected to feature in a major media product" will still land north of the median attractive person for the rest of time.
And there's the phenomenon in video games, where, technologically, there's no technological reason why every female character can't have attractiveness that matches that of Eve from Stellar Blade or 2B from Nier: Automata, and yet devs insist on modeling many major ones after real-life actresses and capturing their looks in a rugged, gritty, realistic way like in recent God of War or Halo games, instead of sexifying them like with Eve and her (IIRC) 3 human models in Stellar Blade. Or just overtly choosing norm-defying types of characters like many of the woman characters from Sony's $100MM+ failure (as you write, sex sells; and some devs sometimes seem to have decided that not selling is worth the not sex) Concord or one of the protagonists of The Last of Us 2.
I will concede on this one. I do think that economic pressures (maybe it's cheaper to just take the real life mocap actresses and don't touch them up? idk) or economic demands (female audience don't get jealous, female audience sees more representation of their level of attractiveness, etc. means more people buy the game or at least don't disparage it) leads to video games having an expansion in allowable female character attractiveness.
But then is it really that bad? it's not "man walking into traffic while distracted by woman" level of beauty but only "man would be down to bed her no alcohol required" level of beauty. Is this some danger to society?
lollol
1mo ago
The sign "The Buck Stops Here" that was on President Truman's desk in his White House office was made in the Federal Reformatory at El Reno, Oklahoma. Fred A. Canfil, then United States Marshal for the Western District of Missouri and a friend of Mr. Truman, saw a similar sign while visiting the Reformatory and asked the Warden if a sign like it could be made for President Truman. The sign was made and mailed to the President on October 2, 1945.
...
On more than one occasion President Truman referred to the desk sign in public statements. For example, in an address at the National War College on December 19, 1952 Mr. Truman said, "You know, it's easy for the Monday morning quarterback to say what the coach should have done, after the game is over. But when the decision is up before you -- and on my desk I have a motto which says The Buck Stops Here' -- the decision has to be made." In his farewell address to the American people given in January 1953, President Truman referred to this concept very specifically in asserting that, "The President--whoever he is--has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job.
"The Buck Stops Here" Desk sign - Harry S. Truman Library & Museum
I personally think your argument can be summed down to:
- "Have you looked at the other things he did?"
- "Trump tried, you can't blame him for the results of others"
- "They are terrible people who would have persecuted him anyway"
I think those are fair points and can be discussed at length, but I think you didn't address the incompetence of this Reflecting Pool debacle which was my main point. I noticed I didn't detail Trump's incompetence in my thread starter so I'll do here so you can have a chance to respond.
I think Trump picked an incompetent Secretary of the Interior in Doug Burgum
Earlier you said:
Trump will hire contractors to fix the Pool again. If the first contractors are found to be at fault, the Federal Government will win back money, and liberals will say this proves Trump is incompetent.
Your flow chart is very incomplete, the same contractors (Atlantic Industrial Coatings) that was hired for the initial renovation was hired to repair it. I find it unlikely that the Federal Government will get any money back.
The renovation project was rushed, as stated from the dismissal:
An employee with Brown Construction Services, Inc., a contractor responsible for monitoring AIC’s progress, noted in a May 7, 2026, email that “it appears AIC is significantly behind schedule.” This email was sent to several DOI employees, and revealed a sense of urgency and rushing.
The handling of evidence of supposed vandals was bungled. No videos, no pictures, only witness testimony by the NPS which we have no evidence whether they are reasonable and truthful people or raging liars. (Body cams would be great here).
Claims about other kinds of vandalism like knife cuts or dumping of phosphate with again no evidence.
The National Mall with the emblazoned 8647, there's no chasing that?
Now all the above can be argued is Burgum's fault, but then I would point to the quote up top. I've mentioned before but I find it very strange that Burgum can keep bungling and there's nothing to be done.
I think Trump picked an incompetent District Attorney in Jeanine Pirro
Let's work backwards from the possible futures that are already lost to us.
- Hearn went to trial and lost his case. Pirro is an idiot for dismissal now.
- Hearn went to trial and won his case. Pirro is an idiot in prosecuting in the first place. Possibly leading to more discovery that could embarrass the administration.
- Pirro office waited to get more information and evidence from DOI before deciding to get grand jury indictment (maybe under a different charge?). ding ding ding, we have a winner.
I don't even know why Pirro has to be DA for DC, what makes her more special than the other MAGA-aligned attorneys out there that Trump picked her. (I can also wax on about how Trump is incompetent at enlarging his circle so that he has more MAGA-aligned attorneys out there to pick from).
I think Trump was incompetent and set a deadline in retrospect couldn't be achieved
Once the pool is fixed, if it stays fixed, we will all basically move on forever. Liberals will never give credit for fixing the Pool, because the first time he fixed it it didn’t work.
Yes, that's how it works. Just like how people can still point to the 2012 renovations that Obama did and failed. I do hope that this time the pool is fixed for good so that there is no need for multi-million dollar renovations in the future. But did it have to be done before? Can't it be done after? Just need some marketing "Today is the 250th anniversary of this great nation, look around enjoy this, because tomorrow we will start the renovations of special landmarks in this great city that has been left unfunded by all the previous guys".
Yes, I know, at this point it's veering into Monday morning quarterback, but agian, I point to the quote above.
I think Trump is incompetent at enlarging his group of supporters
If there were more MAGA-aligned attorneys, he would have a better pick of the litter instead of Jeanine Pirro.
If the pool is fixed and gets broken again, this is double proof that Trump is incompetent. In no way would this ever possibly suggest that anybody is trying to break it. If that were possibly true, Trump should be able to indict the vandals in a city that sides 95-5 with the vandals.
If there were more MAGA-aligned attorneys, maybe they can convict vandals even when the city sides 95-5 with the vandals (remember John Adams defending the murderers?)
If there were more MAGA-aligned people, maybe there won't be any vandals even.
This is veering into non-Reflecting-Pool reasons on how Trump is not enlarging his group of supporters so I'll stop here.
Now one thing that really irked me about your comment.
I am now receiving a lecture in incompetence from those people.
...
You probably see that as a failure because you’re not used to setbacks because you’ve never built anything.
You just made a bunch of assumptions about me then attacked that. You didn't even address my arguments, just attacked this imaginary me you have in your head. You've already lumped me into all the people that you detest and assumed the worst.
Ok, let's go back to your arguments
1. "Have you looked at the other things he did?"
Yeah, at this point after over a decade of Trump in the spotlight, I do have a general understanding of the things that Trump did. You can say all you want about Trump being a good builder and he makes good buildings, but that's not the same as being a good president. I put more worth on your arguments about how Trump drives down homelessness in DC. But that can be criticized too.
If the homeless numbers are down, where are they going? I don't see much news about low cost housing being built in DC. Maybe those homeless people you see "congregating on the bridges just within the Virginia boundaries" are exactly the former-DC-homeless. That's certainly one way to fudge the numbers.
I found this article from 2025 July that shows how the homeless numbers dropped and has its own critiques:
“It does not count people who are in Rapid Rehousing, which is really a tactic that we feel the administration is using to kind of shuffle people out of the shelter into Rapid Rehousing and then not have to count those people as homeless,” ... “In our meals program, we’re still serving lots of meals, more than we have in previous years, and on outreach, we’re still seeing a lot of people and serving a lot of people,” ... Additionally, increasing encampment closures can both force people out of the city and between different jurisdictions and make it more difficult to find people living outside, which could also lead to an undercount.
And maybe we shouldn't celebrate too early seeing as in 2026 the homelessness numbers increased slightly.
In fact, I honestly think Trump would be doing a good job of making DC beautiful (though I haven't been there recently). But there are criticism, and yeah, it's nothing to do with the incompetency regarding the Reflecting Pool.
2. "Trump tried, you can't blame him for the results of others"
I do agree with the general sentiment of applauding someone for trying, it's very much in the spirit of one of the best quotes from Teddy Roosevelt. But just as much we can praise someone for trying, it is not mutually exclusive of how we can't criticize the incompetence with which it was carried out.
And as pointed out way way above, "the buck stops here". Fairly or not, Trump will be judged in the court of opinions and history for his AND his administration actions.
3. "They are terrible people who would have persecuted him anyway"
Yes, they would, that's just competition. That's the eternal game of politics and culture warring. You have to win, and win so decisively (like let's say gay people in present America) so that you can't be persecuted on whatever it is you're fighting for. Trump could have been "he's a fascist but at least he keeps the pool clean" Mussolini-style (even if in fact Mussolini never did get trains to run on time really), but he didn't, and so therefore the narrative was made and he will be podunked on it. So yes. Incompetence.
lollol
1mo ago
There is not a lot of shoplifting prevention motive at other stores either.
You are lucky I suppose. And I don't know how good is Whole Foods but Target is known to be good at preventing shoplifting: https://slate.com/life/2026/07/shoplifting-walmart-target-amazon-retail-florida.html
lollol
1mo ago
I would like to point out that maybe the only aspect of female representation in Western/US male-oriented products that went down in numbers would be the "non-girlboss" part. Most female representation in Western/US male-oriented products are still "conventionally attractive" and "sexually alluring". Sex sells after all.
Which kinda begs the question as what is "non-girlboss" in your eyes?
lollol
1mo ago
Younger Woman
- Love Island demographic as of May 2026 is 77% female, age distribution is that 54% are 16-19 and 23% are 20-29 (so 67% between 16-29).
- Too Hot To Handle demographic as of May 2026 is 55% female, age distribution is that 31% are 16-19 and 19% are 20-29 (so 50% between 16-29).
- Love is Blind demographic as of May 2026 is 55% female, age distribution is that 33% are 16-19 and 19% are 20-29 (so 52% between 16-29).
- The Bachelor demographic as of May 2026 is 76% female, age distribution is that 29% are 16-19 and 23% are 20-29 (so 52% between 16-29).
Take these numbers with grain of salt though, the median numbers don't make sense with the age distribution as presented.
Anyway, I only hear about these shows because the normie and liberal women I know (30 and below) talk about them and so I can assure you these are not consumed just by Boomer/GenX women.
products that are mainly male-oriented
I'm not really sure what you're saying, are you saying that recent Western/US male-oriented products are made with less "conventionally attractive, sexually alluring, non-girlboss female characters"? I think this is going to depend on your definition of "non-girlboss" and "male-oriented products". Maybe can you present an example that you can think of? I can, on the top of my head, think of Penelope (Anne Hathaway) in The Odyssey, Aunt May (Marisa Tomei) in the Spiderman movies, Nikki (Inde Navarrette) in Obsession from the movies just this year.
lollol
1mo ago
unironic* depictions of conventionally attractive, sexually alluring, non-girlboss female characters have become taboo in the eyes of normie women**
I'm just scrolling through the recent female contestants on female-coded shows like Love Island, The Bachelor, Too Hot To Handle, Love is Blind, etc. and I'm not sure what kind of normie women TV you are watching.
lollol
1mo ago
You mean "whether David Hearn is a vandal guilty of damages more than a $1000, that's a question for the jury". Just as much as the worst possible case against Hearn can be waged, the best most charitable interpretation of Hearn's actions can be offered. And if we follow that broken window analogy, to me it was the Trump administration that led to the broken window in the first place, seems like that is more worthy of investigation and prosecution.
Anyway, Pirro made the mistake of backing down and admitting defeat. Trump would never.
In the Small-Scale Sunday of June 21, 2026, there was this thread talking about the possibility of vandals being the cause of the debacle with the Reflecting Pool and its 2026 renovations. To summarize the various positions of mottizens:
- Some think there was vandalism by people who are against the Trump administration.
- Some thinks this isn’t vandalism but just the typical problem that would already typically plagues the Reflecting Pool
- I assume the implication is that public media is just having TDS
- Some thinks this is incompetence at preventing vandalism
- I personally thought it was incompetence driven by corruption though concede there are other clear cut case of vandalism (“8647” on the National Mall).
The only person that was ever indicted is former olympian David Hearn, with the grand jury indictment announced by Jeanine Pirro on July 2:
Today, a grand jury has returned a felony indictment against a defendant, David Hearn, for felony destruction of property for which he faces 10 years in prison. The indictment is in response to an incident that occurred on June 19th of 2026 in which the defendant Hearn ripped a piece of recently installed sealant on the bottom of the reflecting pool at the Lincoln Memorial. The evidence shows will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hearn willfully destroyed property at the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool. This was a deliberate act to damage the reflecting pool at the National Mall that members of the National Park Service actually have worked hard to restore and have witnessed. By Hearn's own admission on June 19th, he reached down into the pool. Our evidence further shows that the National Park Service employees observed Hearn actually forcefully and violently pulling up and removing the bottom liner with both hands. According to witnesses, Hearn damaged approximately two square feet of sealant from the bottom of the pool. A parks employee actually told Hearn to stop to stop his behavior and stop what he was doing. Hearn reacted by shouting at that park's employee, saying that she cared too much about the reflecting pool. And why did she even care since it wasn't her pool? Now, Mr. Hearn's behavior was characterized by witnesses as belligerent, rude, and disrespectful according to National Park Service employees that witnessed the event.
In the same press conference Pirro had this to say when pressed:
Question: Was this part of the pool, you know, there has been some damage. Was this part of the pool specifically if some of the was the uhsealant already partially removed? Can you [garbled] it back and just describe in detail? Because he [garbled] that it looks the same as it did before he arrived. That's his position.
Pirro: You know, I'm not going to get into the evidence, but what I told you is what our witnesses saw and experienced. There was an effort, a violent effort to rip up the sealant from the bottom of the pool. And irrespective of whether or not you know we think that you know there there is some situation needed it we can state and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he caused damage and that damage is over $1,000.
Well, on Friday, DOJ has moved to dismissed the indictment:
Based upon the initial reports provided by the Department of the Interior (“DOI”) and the USS. Park Police (“USPP”), the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (“USAO-DC’) presented the grand jury with evidence that damage to the Reflecting Pool was caused by vandals, including the defendant in this case, David Hearn. However, it was not until after the return of the indictment, that the DOI provided additional documents to the USAO-DC indicating that damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in June 2026 was the result of flawed installation by the contractor, Atlantic Industrial Coatings (“AIC”), and the rush to complete the project prior to events associated with the America 250 celebration in the weeks surrounding Independence Day 2026. It was not until after these documents were produced that USAO-DC first became aware of information showing that the damage was the result of a botched installation and not vandalism as initially represented by DOI. Indeed, USAO-DC could only rely (on the information provided by DOI that the damage was entirely caused by vandals, including the defendant in this case, David Hearn. Because these recently-produced materials significantly undermine the evidentiary basis for the indictment initially supplied by the DOI and U.S. Park Police, the USAO-DC respectfully moves to dismiss the indictment without prejudice.
I highly recommend reading the motion to dismiss, it’s hilarious to see how Pirro’s office is trying to cover their ass by repeatedly pointing fingers at Doug Burgum’s DOI for giving them incomplete information.
My takeaway from this is that my position is correct regarding incompetence. Incompetence at planning the renovations. Incompetence by the contractor and overspraying. Incompetence by DOI officials and personnel in protecting the Reflecting Pool (or at the very least chase down the vandals if they exist). Incompetence by DOI officials in not giving Pirro’s attorney office complete evidentiary information. In fact, I give points to Pirro and her office for approving this dismissal, she must have known that Trump wouldn’t like it:
I disagree 100% with Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, on the Reflecting Pool. I don’t know what she was thinking? To me, it was a pure case of VANDALISM, that included the grass, which had a big 86 47 emblazoned in giant letters on it, and other elements of the surrounding area. There may have been some contractor difficulty, but the major damage was caused by VANDALS! President DJT
[attached image of the 8647 on the national mall]
As for corruption, well I think it’s very likely but it’s also unlikely that Trump’s government or the Republicans would investigate themselves.
I also had the following few thoughts:
- Pirro is another female member of the Trump administration that is floating into his crosshairs. Burgum doesn’t when it should be said both the Reflecting Pool and the National Mall are on his watch.
- My personal theory is that all the corruption (the government-doled contracts) would be under Burgum so why attack your personal money-maker.
- I was researching on no-bid contracts under Obama and Democrats are the one who investigated him. This is reinforcing my thoughts that even if “there is corruption on both side”, the magnitude is different.
- Current republicans in Congress are spineless.
- Republican voters don’t mind corruption as long as their cultural objectives are satisfied.
- Regarding the above, I personally think they’re willing chumps.
- Regarding above, I suppose Republicans would call it acceptable tradeoffs.
- I still have yet to see video and images of the cuts in the reflecting pool. I’m sure Trump would have loved to “truth” it out.
- If there is Trump Derangement Syndrome, there is growing evidence of Reverse Trump Derangement Syndrome where genuinely bad things done by Trump and his administration is downplayed and excused by his supporters.
- Which I suppose is what we do for our tribe.
Edit 1: Looks like Trump got some more words today about how much Pirro "folded like an umbrella" and "choked" on this case.
Edit 2: David Hearn was the only one indicted, there were at least 3 others also charged and publicly named but their cases were also dropped. Earlier I said David Hearn was the only one charged.
lollol
1mo ago
work less, live longer and have higher median wealth.
Sounds pretty good to me actually.
lollol
1mo ago
The older I am, the more I realize everyone is not normal in their own way. It's like how "the world's most typical person is male, Han Chinese, speaks Mandarin, is right handed and is 28 years old". But how many of us are like that really (the article says only 9 million people are like that). I suppose yes there is some kind of overton window of behavior, but how big does this overton window cover? If we pick the "middle 50%" there are still 50% of the people outside of this overton window. "I am large, I contain multitudes", many anime fans are "normal" people, you might not even realize they are anime fans, I personally was surprised at how many guys on the sales team watch anime (the dev team I wasn't surprised, I would be surprised if a dev isn't into anime).
I think we can start from here and expand on what it means to have a regime of "pro-stock and anti-flow", and also examining the 2nd and 3rd order effects of certain policies. As I delve into this topic and reading other discussion here, I'm also seeing that we need to differentiate inflow and outflow because with "anti-flow" what I think most really mean is "anti-inflow and pro-outflow". I'm also seeing a need to differentiate "pro-stock" is not to mean growing the stock, but rather as in develop and pathway to legalization so that they don't remain "stock".
Take this paper published in 2016 which tackles the effect of border enforcement:
Here is an interview, bolded mine:
Reading that, what I get are:
Other things that I thought about:
I think this is a good exercise to think about regarding any immigration policy.
More options
Context Copy link