netstack
The horse embodies the wings a person feels inside.
No bio...
User ID: 647
I see where you’re coming from, and I guess I’m just not convinced that the average voter decouples those two things.
Look, as unimpressive as I find the accusations…I’m really surprised to see this framing from you. We’ve got a lot of users who have said similar things in the past, and I could have sworn you’d blown up at them.
If the accuser is telling the truth, then it’s rape, plain and simple. That just happens to be a big “if.”
sexual warcrimes
Is this metal band name taken?
Maybe I was unclear.
The accusation represents new information unavailable to primary voters.
If that’s not enough to lose the general, they don’t need to drop him like this.
If it is enough, then his endorsement is worth less than nothing.
Therefore, they have no reason to drop him but keep asking him for input.
Man, that’s bizarre.
Hold on.
I agree that Russia feared NATO expansion into Ukraine. I would say that is adequately explained by the “five-minute adventure” model: if Russia thought the cost would be really low, the benefit of a puppet buffer would be easily worth it. Now that the cost is sunk, Russia doesn’t want to back down, because now it definitely gets a hostile neighbor.
What it doesn’t offer is any reason to prefer the cultural trauma theory. I don’t find it reasonable to say having Ukraine as a neighbor was comparable to having the Nazis on the border. That sounds like a post-facto justification, and a pretty silly one.
military wargame type considerations
What do you mean?
What? If it’s genuine, why would they do that? He can only drag down his replacement.
And so long as he denies it, what incentive would he have to help out?
That sounds awfully…charitable.
What advantage does the cultural trauma theory have?
Accusing your enemies of Nazism is a proud tradition in and out of Russia, so you’d expect to see it whether or not the leadership were motivated by such.
Moving your borders closer to NATO does not suggest a fear of invasion. Neither does draining your manpower and weapon stockpiles. Both of those things are more compatible with the five-minute adventure theory, though.
Play DS with DSFix but don’t use M&K. It’s just not worth it.
The advice for a shield is because a lot of the early Souls experience is about learning curves. Going glass cannon, or even just armor tanking, will send you back to the bonfire more often, slowing the learning. A shield gives you more opportunities to observe.
Once you have some system familiarity, it doesn’t really matter what you use because you will recognize the design patterns more easily. “That enemy looks like he has a window to attack.” “That would be a good place for a spike trap.” “I should kill the dogs first.”
Edit; I see you’ve had some experience already. Disregard me.
There’s hardly any shields with such bonuses. But he should keep it in mind if he wants to recreate The Build.
I suspect the Kuleshov effect.
Big if true.
I’m not going to jump on the hate train, since it’s firmly “too good to check” for a lot of people. Plus, you know, completely unverifiable. But assuming it’s true, this guy ought to be unelectable.
For those suggesting a ratfuck: do they actually have time to pivot, or is this basically tanking the whole party’s chances for Maine? Would that really be worth keeping a center-left populist out of office?
Have you ever seen anyone hold him up as such? Like, “I want to be like that,” or even “he had such an amazing life”?
Maybe this is generational, and I’m just not exposed to the Bourdain fan club, but it was easy for me to slot him into the tortured-aesthete archetype.
“Well, in 200 years Sam and Sam are going to need a Second Foundation. Guess we better get a head start.”
So I started reading this when Gwern posted it. Closed out partway through. Something about this sort of retrospective feels like a real…guilty pleasure? Voyeurism? Like I’m engaging in the kind of behavior that annoys me about Kiwifarms. Point and laugh at the bizarro cult.
Sometimes I’ll get sucked in to watching bodycam channels. Random police officers shooting violent criminals, that sort of thing. Usually censored—I’m not looking for gore—but still pretty macabre, no? Hence, guilty pleasure. If I had a real habit of it I think it would seriously skew my model of how policing or crime actually work.
So when I got that feeling reading this, I felt like I should stop giving it attention. Maybe that makes me a bad rationalist. “That weird cult which can be destroyed by the truth should be.” Guess I need to go do some reiki about it.
I’m not even sure I can find the extremist Christian scandals. There was YFZ ranch back in 2008/2014, but that was a weird branch Mormon cult compound. Also, it was raided by Texas; I can’t imagine they’d be any more lenient towards a comparable Islamic cult.
I assume you mean Child Protective Services?
I don’t get the impression that Muslims are getting extra slack when raising children, but it’s really hard to tell. Search results are fixated on England. What exactly do you have in mind?
I know one white guy who converted to Islam to marry his former grad student. No idea if they have kids.
I would make a distinction between representation in media versus around media.
Within media, I think it’s close to the second. I would not call it a “virtue” signal, implying insincerity; if writing a plot that flatters one’s beliefs is insincere, we might as well throw out most of the canon.
Authorship or creative control of media is more complicated.
Consider the historical “well-rounded” education, which often involved reading a bunch of classics in the original Greek or Latin. Experiencing unfamiliar literature is expected to have inherent value. Tapping into an entire world’s worth of traditions, rather than the most visible ones, should work at least as well. I personally find this argument very persuasive.
Now extend it to familiar traditions, but unfamiliar situations. Reading a memoir about an event 80 years ago. Reading a retrospective of somebody’s niche interest. Reading a reaction to recent events from someone who grew up in your country, went through all the same schools, but is of the opposite sex. All of these are giving you something that you can’t access on your own. Diverse authorship offers diverse experiences offers the modern well-rounded education.
Now apply Goodhart’s Law, accounting for all the people who would like to claim their work is unique and enriching, and Sturgeon’s law, accounting for all those who really, really aren’t. There we have it: the modern commodification of diversity. It’s a shame, but it’s not at all unique to this particular subject. Anything that signals novelty will get picked up as a signal, because novelty is the most important thing in (monetizing) art.
Shadow of the Torturer, Gene Wolfe. Excellent atmosphere. Remarkably likable characters, all things considered, and constantly reminds you that things are going to get weirder.
Moving on to Banks’ Inversions before I have to take it back to the library. I feel like I can see the greater structure he’s going for, but I’m not quite sure how it comes together. I think I’m benefiting from reading it right after another novel of sci-fantasy torture politics.
I have seen MAGA defined by putting Trump over the party; if that’s accurate, you’ll have a hard time finding Trump-agnostic MAGA Republicans. I think that definition is probably a little uncharitable, and there is some constituency who have picked up the slogan without any strong feelings about the man.
The principled MAGA perspective derives from national self-interest. Defense, trade, foreign aid: Americans as a people are selling ourselves too cheap, and should act as a people to get a better deal.
For obvious reasons, this will not be very appealing to random Europeans.
No, I don’t know this guy.
I don’t think nukes are likely, either. This is more likely a strong filter bubble.
“DLC” took off in the Xbox Live era, once consoles all had Internet connections. It was suddenly much more practical to sell things for prices which would never merit a physical printing. The term was perfectly reasonable until digital distribution of entire games became common.
I’m not sure I believe that.
Every foundation that has a press release about the cuts claims they pursued substitute funding. Here is a summary of some of the big players’ actions. Those make up a big fraction of philanthropy.
I know individual giving is up, as might be expected from a year with reasonable economic growth. I don’t know where that increase is going; it’s hard to find granular stats. If somebody here has access to the full Giving USA Report which just came out, maybe they can give more details. In lieu of that, the best I can offer are pieces applauding some of the efforts to minimize the damage.
There are a lot of people out there who really, truly believe what they’re saying. I don’t think you can dismiss them out of hand.
Americans started having smaller families in the antebellum period. From McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom:
The economic transformation coincided with—and in part caused—a change in the quality of family life as well as the quantity of children. As the family became less an economic unit it ripened into a covenant of love and nurturance of children. The ideal of romantic love increasingly governed the choice of a marriage partner, a choice made more and more by young people themselves rather than by their parents. And if wives now had a lesser economic role, they enjoyed a larger familial one. Patriarchal domination of wife and children eroded in urban areas as fathers went away from home for most waking hours and mothers assumed responsibility for socializing and educating the children. Affection and encouragement of self-discipline replaced repression and corporal punishment as the preferred means of socialization in middle-class families. These families became more child-centered—a phenomenon much noted by European visitors. Childhood emerged as a separate stage of life. And as parents lavished more love on their children, they had fewer of them and devoted more resources to their education by sending them to school in greater numbers for longer periods of time.
Now, I think that’s probably a romanticized view. More importantly, it’s focused on the urban population, where factories pull men out of the home and undercut women’s traditional industries. Families start buying a lot more textile and soap and whatnot rather than making it all day. I would expect the frontier to maintain higher family sizes, because they have much less access to those markets. But it’s not like they were low-status in this era of romanticizing the frontier. My point is that the urban middle class started to have fewer children during a time when large families were still pretty high-status. The trend reflected demand for young, unskilled labor.
My impression is that those same fundamentals held in America’s postwar transition. As our economy pushed towards service and knowledge-work instead of manual or factory labor, the value of an untrained child tanked. Hence the education treadmill, hence the general hollowing-out of factory towns and heavy industry. The marginal kid is going to cost more for longer.

Judge Judy ran from 1996 to 2021. I’m sure a lot of people approve of her…sass, or whatever. Does that qualify her as an inspiring hero?
I dunno, I’m sure someone would say it. But there’s definitely more than one kind of celebrity, and I didn’t realize Bourdain had that much admiration.
More options
Context Copy link