netstack
The horse embodies the wings a person feels inside.
No bio...
User ID: 647
You’ve done a lot of venting in the past couple days. More in the past couple years. You keep showing up to bitch about the minority du jour and you demonstrate zero interest in the intended purpose of this community. We should have banned you the last few times.
Goodbye and good riddance.
Sarcasm is unbecoming.
It’s possible to build a good post around a rhetorical turn, but when the rest of your comment consists of quotes, you need to speak plainly.
how rude is it to ask
I figured we were talking about the gap between curiosity and need-to-know. I’m not going to begrudge anyone the former.
Lots of things have followed us around for just as long. Doesn’t mean asking about them is reasonable.
“Hey, is your daughter a virgin?”
“How do you feel about your foreskin?”
“But can you prove you were born a free man?”
It does.
That said, you don’t have to take the bait.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear.
Do not respond to accusations with personal attacks. Block them, address the substance, I don’t care, but do not take the opportunity to speculate on your interlocutor’s life story. Especially do not respond to a warning about personal attacks by making more guesses about what’s going on in his head.
One day ban.
Single line breaks render as sentences.
Like this.
To get a proper paragraph, include two spaces after each line.
Like so.
For a little trailing space, it’s double line breaks.
There.
Anyway, I second the Grok critics. It’s kind of like going to the tabloids for primary sources. Even if they cite something, the chances of it panning out are inversely proportional to how exciting the headline was.
I swear to god.
Kindly stop with the melodramatic callouts. Perhaps you missed the last round. If you really think Arjin is missing key information, send him a DM.
And you, @magicalkittycat. I know you were paying attention. Falling back on personal attacks does no one any favors.
Less of this, please.
It’s not even particularly egregious, and might even pass as a joke, but you’ve got something like 8 mod warnings for content-free snark. Raise the filter just a little bit.
You’re right, “know” is probably too strong.
I was reading about the growth of antebellum America and was struck by these self-reinforcing contributions. Industrialization drove women out of cottage industry and into education, which drove religious revivals, which drove temperance, which drove industry. But also they were spending more time and effort on each child, so fertility was tanking. Though actual family size fell more slowly, thanks to repeated revolutions in medicine. The boom in public education also skewed any results we might have collected from early intelligence testing.
So I don’t know that fertility was negatively correlated with IQ, just that it went down as education, investment per child, nutrition, etc. went up.
Why should the rate be .01 SD/generation? Why should it even be linear?
If the one sample set we’ve got today is a somewhat stronger negative correlation, I would expect that to extend backwards. I know that was the case in 1800s America.
I have yet to see a set in my cruises of estate sales. Clearly, that means they’re in high demand.
Though if he brings his kid, there’s an elevated risk of acquiring kitcsh.
I’ve read, possibly on the old SSC comments, an argument that Heinlein covered a ridiculous diversity of societies. No pun intended. Troopers wasn’t the exception so much as another instance of his speculative style. Unfortunately, I’m not familiar enough with his work to give a full inventory. Friday was pretty lib-soc.
Do you have an opinion on John McPhee? Levels of the Game did this for tennis. On the other hand, I’d say it still has magazine-voice. His geology books didn’t come across that way at all, though.
- Prev
- Next

Upsetting people doesn't make something unethical, though.
I realize I'm probably preaching to the choir, but the most ethical billionaires would have to be those who did the most good* without trampling any particular rights. Given how hard business can incentivize one or another form of such trampling, then, it would be really hard to find a billionaire with clean hands. At some point they'd have signed off on a sketchy deal, or exploited labor laws, or just hired people who did. How much of that responsibility should transfer?
You could probably get a pretty good proxy of political affiliation by asking a series of comparison questions. Ask whether a person is culpable for X, Y, Z, with decreasing levels of personal involvement. Someone who believes in holding a CEO responsible for his bottom-level managers' hiring decisions is much, much more likely to subscribe to various left-wing policy planks. Collectivism is not limited to redistribution.
Assuming OP and his buddy could agree on a standard, they could in theory go down the Forbes list and rule people out accordingly.
*Yes, yes, we also probably disagree on some key points of the "good". Not going there right now.
More options
Context Copy link