@non_radical_centrist's banner p

non_radical_centrist


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 23 15:54:21 UTC

				

User ID: 1327

non_radical_centrist


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 23 15:54:21 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1327

I think it's entirely reasonable to fire someone for having sex with their employee. This is not about abusing the woman, this is about abusing the organization power structure. Often responsibilities at workplaces are flexible, the people in charge assign out tasks in a way that's most fair and most efficient in their opinion. If a employee agrees to sex, it's very easy for the boss to give them lighter duties; if they disagree, they can be given harder duties. If I'm the boss' boss, I want my middle management to be assigning tasks in a way that earn me the most money, not in a way that gets him laid.

I agree 100%

As I understand it, one of the biggest cost drains to public education is providing for mentally and physically disabled children. They're just vastly more expensive to teach than normal kids. And on top of that, if there's a slip in providing them good education, they're potentially able to sue, so even more costs have to be added to ensure that all education meets the legal requirements. If parents of normal children are effectively no longer subsidizing disabled children, educating disabled children will be very difficult.

Mussolini engaged in imperialism against Ethiopia and was generally pretty authoritarian and oppressive himself, even if he wasn't as bad as literally Hitler.

I think Kanye is mentally ill and erratic. Analyzing his decisions as if they were part of a grand plan is a mistake. I know people say that about lots of people like Donald Trump and Putin too, but I think it's very very likely to be true for at least Kanye.

League of Legends does have strategic elements to it, and it takes more than fast reflexes to be a professional player. That said, I'm not sure that it's more strategic than any sport, I don't know much about soccer or basketball but I assume they have strategy involved in who to pass to and when to pass. It's definitely less brain-y competition than actual academic competitions.

Even if the war wasn't the utter disaster for Russia, I don't see any plausible scenario where it ended up net beneficial to Russia. It could've been a perfectly smooth two week conquest, but after that Ukraine would remain a constant simmering pot of rebellion that sucks up money for little gain. And Russia would still end up with massive sanctions.

In my experience, in League of Legends, no game is ever 100% lost until the nexus is destroyed. The enemy team can always throw the game and make dumb ass mistakes. Even more so in recent seasons with come back bounties. You even occasionally see it in professional play, where mistakes are relatively rare compared to low elo play, where mistakes are constant. So ever choosing to aim to make teammates upset instead of trying to win is irrational, assuming your goal is trying to win. If your goal by punishing your teammates is to make them behave better in the future, I think that's also irrational, because if someone's at the point where they're punishing you, punishing them back isn't going to start making them decide to go back to trying to win.

The only thing it makes sense for is saving time instead of trying to maximize victory/loss ratio. If you only have 1 hour of play, and a game can take a maximum of 40 minutes, better to surrender your first game at 20 minutes if you think there's a 90% chance you'll lose, so at least you can get another game in.

If the country has a term limit, and the leader breaks it, it's very likely they're going to move to be a permanent dictator. And most countries without term limits have weaker executives, where most of the power is in how the party votes in parliament, not in the executive themselves.

What do you think motivates Elon Musk to do some of the weird things he does? He has a lot of tweets that feel like /r/iamverysmart material, like saying chess is a simple game and now that we have computers games like Polytopia are way better. Or how he tried to buy twitter, then back out of it after already signing a contract saying he would leading twitter to sue him to force him to buy. Or offering his analysis of the Ukraine-Russian war on twitter, which even if you would agree the broad strokes of his suggestion were good, Twitter's really not a good platform to share nuanced geopolitical analysis to try to encourage peace.

Is he just doing stuff for attention? Does he think he's genuinely making a world a better place with those actions? Does he have some sort of social media manager planning this stuff to keep his name in the news and stock price high? Is he just bored and tweeting/making impulse purchases to pass the time, like what everyone else does just on a much larger scale? For the life of me I don't know why he does what he does.

I use either bookmarks or the Google Keeps extension for websites I want to save. Bookmarks are good but can make a bit disorganized and crowded easily. If you don't like Google, I'm sure there are a billion other extensions out there that will save URLs with a click of a button.

He's was already influencing things more than almost anyone else who's not a major politician or military figure with Starlink. And I'm sure he has the leverage to get in the room to talk to people who can make direct decisions, if nothing else but because he was providing that Starlink to Ukraine. Or even if he didn't, he could've written a more nuanced blog post on a substack instead of a couple short tweets.

Thinking history will prove him right and he just wants to get his prediction in early and publicly is certainly possible. I don't know if it sounds likely to me though.

But it is a solved game at the lower levels. The winner of an amateur match is going to be whoever spent more time studying chess books.

There's a lot more to chess than memorizing openings and specific tactical patterns, practicing and being able to see moves into the future matters a lot too. Also, Polytopia's not different in that the person with the knowledge/practice advantage will probably win.

Musk has better things to spend his time on, but doesn't want a bunch of mediocre people running around bragging that they beat him at chess.

Has that been happening?

SpaceX has never and probably will never make a profit without government contracts

Yeah, it's the government who funds the space industry, they're the biggest costumer. If he got the contracts out of corruption I get criticizing him for this, but he just offered the best product to the buyer. The buyer just happens to be the government.

Him being in charge of space X instead of just writing the checks almost certainly has made the company worse, not better.

There are lots of groups working on space projects, but SpaceX stands out. I don't actually know what exactly his role is, but it could just be finding talented people and putting them in important roles to make decisions for him, and that'd still be a very valuable contribution.

I think Kasparov deserves some respect, taking a stand against Putin isn't clownish.

Give a guy unlimited money , a lot of free time, and the biggest platform in the world. It's like the plot of an Adam Sandler movie but real life sorta.

The only other billionaires who act remotely like this that I know are Kanye and Trump, who I think are both in very different mental states from Elon. I would guess Elon's closer to Bezos and Gates. The others do stuff like philanthropy or partying on yachts, which both seem like much better decisions to do with billions of dollars than tweet dumb stuff.

Yeah this is what gets me. The "drunken boxer" strategy sounds the most likely and elegant, except for the fact that as far as I understand business deals, there's no actual possible advantage to actually be gained here from Musk's behaviour.

I think of all the decisions a parent has over their child's life, circumcision is a relatively small one. Parents have the power to completely fuck over their children without it remotely qualifying as anything illegal or even justifiable to have the child taken away. The only way for the world to function is for society to assume parents have their biological children's best interests at heart, which they do 99% of the time. If parents think, "I predict my child would want to be circumcised as an adult", I think they should be allowed to go through with it, because the evidence is strong that adult circumcision greatly reduces sexually pleasure, where as the evidence that circumcision as a baby reduces sexual pleasure is weak.

There are other benefits to foreskin removal as well, like hygiene and having effects on preventing STD spread. Enough that I don't think not being circumcised is overwhelmingly better, even if on net it's probably better.

In conclusion, I think hospitals should tell parents "Are you sure you want circumcision? Here are a lot of the negative effects", and if the parents say yes anyways, it happens.

This lines up a lot with this article describing being gay in Saudi Arabia that I read a few years ago. The gay community is entirely bottoms, who often dress effeminately, picking up straight men. And it's only being a bottom that's illegal, the top won't be prosecuted.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/05/the-kingdom-in-the-closet/305774/

I really wonder how in the West gay culture got to be how it is, where you have tops who are purely homosexual or homosexuals who have domestic symmetrical pairings where they take turns and live similarly to a heterosexual couple.

That's why I suggested we have hospitals educate parents on the negative effects, because parents are dumb sometimes. But going any further than that would be too far. We don't take children from their parents because their parents let them get fat either.

Because it seems to me like once you understand what the foreskin does and how sex is different without it, how could it not?

It's been a while since I've last done reading on it, but I've been given to understand that there have been studies done where comparing how circumcised at birth and non-circumcised males rate how much they enjoy sex, they give similar results. This is in contrast to female circumcision, where circumcised females rate it lower. If you have some studies, preferably that have been endorsed by professionals as non-BS since I can't determine if studies are BS myself very well, that suggest circumcised males do enjoy sex less, it would change my mind.

Because it seems to me like once you understand what the foreskin does and how sex is different without it, how could it not?

My theory is that the brain is flexible, especially in babies, and can adapt pleasure centers to make up for lack of foreskin so sex is just as good.

I go for long bike rides, in the range of 1-6 hours, and I go for them anywhere between 0 and 5 times a month usually. I notice no particularly mood change afterwards, except for my body being a bit sore after I do them.

I don't think this is a real thing tbh, I don't see anyone who practices censorship saying they actually just want moderation. They all use the three arguments he doesn't have hard counters to.

My guess for Elon's mind state is that he bought into "Twitter would be a better place with free speech and the silent majority want it, it's only a small amount of the crazy censoring left who seem to be running things". And I think that might be true, but what's missing is that making Twitter a better product won't actually make it a more profitable product. And now Elon's realizing that and scrambling as advertisers are pulling out.

The ultra-orthodox are projected to be 25% of the population by 2050, apparently.

How accurate are those predictions necessarily? I feel like they'd be hard to make as the very religious have tons of babies, but then a very sizeable portion of those babies grow up to be much less religious than their parents.