omw_68
5hr ago
It speaks to the inordinate amount of social and political capital that black people have today. There wouldn't be a shred of sympathy from either aisle if Arday was Israeli or Indian
Is it their social and political capital? Or is it that people subconsciously see them as lacking agency? With Arday, it's hard not to see him as a child who was in way over his head, being used as a pawn in someone's status game.
omw_68
5hr ago
Presuming he killed himself, it was likely because his sins were so egregious that even his own tribe could not overlook or excuse them. Nasty and vicious jeers from the outgroup are merely badges of honor, but the disappointed glances from the ingroup hit like a freight train
Yes, I think this is a good point. I'm speculating a bit, but my guess is that his university had one or two high level people who served as his "advisors" or "mentors" or whatever you want to call them. Any time he had a problem, he just had to call them up and they would use their considerable power to help fix the problem. (Kind of like the parent of a spoiled child.) I would guess that his mentors told him they couldn't help him and it would be best if he resigned.
omw_68
5hr ago
Uh, Domino was well-cast, that actress has good physical presence and doesn't, to my knowledge, race-bait.
To an extent I agree, but it doesn't change the fact that almost certainly she was cast because of her race. It reminds me of when Billy Dee Williams was cast in "The Empire Strikes Back" back in 1980 in response to criticism that the Star Wars universe was too white. Unlike a lot of DEI movie characters, Lando Calrissian had a lot going for him: He was an interesting character, he wasn't a race-swap; he didn't follow the usual tropes of being wiser and/or more brilliant than any of the white characters around him. But the problem is that these sorts of casting choices normalize and legitimize diversity casting. And suddenly producers are inserting so-called "magical negro" characters everywhere, even in productions which are set in medieval Europe type settings.
In my view, accepting a race swap of this Domino character is accepting the camel's nose a little bit into the tent.
omw_68
5hr ago
I was especially amused by this doubling down:
“If the movie’s producers had to go outside of the normal stunt community to find someone who was both qualified and resembles the actress, that speaks to a problem of lack of diversity of stunt performers,” says Darnell Hunt, the dean of Social Sciences at UCLA who helps produce the annual “Hollywood Diversity Report,” which comes out before the Oscars every year.
It costs something like $100k to get a commercial pilot's license. Once you have that you generally become a flight instructor, which lets you log hours on the dime of one of those flight students while they spend their own $100k to get their own commercial pilot's license. After 1250 hours of that, plus a few other side quests, you qualify for an airline transport pilot certificate and can finally work for an airline.
On a side note I've always found it funny that virtually every civilian flight student is taught not by a highly experienced pilot with a genuine interest in developing the next generation of pilots, but rather by someone barely out of flight school themselves who is only doing it to tick the box they need to go after the job they really want.
Only in the military do people become instructors at the tail instead of the start of their careers, and that's why I have a lot more faith and trust in pilots who joined the airlines from the military than from the civilian path.
So I was curious about this, not curious enough to look at lots of sources, but curious enough to ask the AI "are there student loans available for flight school" Here was the response:
Yes, you can get student loans for flight school, but availability depends entirely on whether the program is an accredited, degree-granting college course or an independent vocational flight school.
Federal vs. Private LoansFederal Student Loans: Available only if you attend an accredited college or university offering an aviation degree (such as an associate or bachelor's in professional flight) that qualifies for Title IV federal aid. You must fill out the FAFSA form to see if you qualify.
Independent, non-accredited flight schools do not qualify for federal aid.Private Career Training Loans: If you attend an independent vocational flight school (like ATP Flight School) or a non-degree program, you must use private lenders. Lenders like [Sallie Mae](https://www.salliemae.com/student-loans/career-training-loan/flight-school-loans/` or Ascent offer specialized career training or airline career loans that cover up to 100% of flight hours, ground school, and gear.
Alternative Aviation FinancingAOPA Finance: Organizations like the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association offer specialized aviation lines of credit and loans targeted at distinct licenses (like a private pilot or instrument rating) rather than a massive upfront lump sum.
Airline-Sponsored Programs: Some major airlines and partner academies offer deferred tuition, career pathways, or tuition reimbursement once you commit to flying for them post-graduation.
Flight Training Scholarships: Numerous independent aviation grants and scholarships exist through groups like Women in Aviation International and the AOPA.
I then asked "what are the downsides to using private loans for flight school" and received this answer:
Using private loans for flight school carries major financial risks, including high interest rates (often 12% to 17%), large monthly payments that clash with low starting pilot salaries, and strict repayment obligations even if you lose your medical clearance or fail to find a job.
Finally I asked "is it common for flight school graduates to fail to find pilot jobs" and received this answer:
Yes, it is common for some flight school graduates—especially those with low flight hours—to struggle to find immediate airline jobs. Most entry-level jobs require at least 250 hours, while major airlines require 1,500 hours, leaving graduates to compete for scarce time-building positions like flight instructing.
Why Finding a Job is Hard The 1,500-Hour Rule: Pilots need 1,500 flight hours for an Airline Transport Pilot certificate in the US.
Low Hour Pool: Fresh graduates usually have only 250 hours.
Fewer Instructor Openings: Flight schools can get full, leaving new graduates with no way to build hours.
Hiring Waves: Airline hiring goes up and down based on the economy and travel demand
This contradicts the optimistic idea that there is a straightforward path for any young person to obtain a high status good paying job. Obviously I am skeptical of AI, but this answer is consistent with common sense. The idea that there is a large and perennial shortage of pilots and most people can become one by taking out $100,000 in loans and paying their dues over a few years is like saying that there is a stack of $20 bills on the sidewalk waiting for anyone to pick up.
Moreover, it's easy to see how the deck could be stacked against white men: Admission to accredited schools which offer aviation degrees; scholarships; opportunities to accumulate the necessary hours; airline hiring during the inevitable lulls; etc. are all areas where institutions have the opportunity to put a big heavy thumb on the scales in favor of women and non-whites. Based on my general observations in life, I'm pretty confident that this sort of bias is present.
I think that over the last few decades, basically any job which is (1) high status / cool; (2) is gate-kept by large institutions, has undergone DEIification.
There is no peaceful solution. You have two groups of people that have a multi-generational blood feud going.
Although I agree with your conclusion, I disagree with your reasoning. There is a saying which goes along the lines of "If the Arabs lay down their weapons, there will be peace; if Israel lays down its weapons, there will be no more Israel." Is that saying true? The experience with Jordan and Egypt suggests that the answer is "yes." Israel has not attacked Jordan or Egypt even though it has more than enough military strength to do so. Almost certainly Gaza could have gone in a similar direction after the Israeli pullout 20 years ago, but Gaza's leadership instead chose a different direction.
That being said, I agree that a peaceful solution to the current conflict is very unlikely. The key point is that the main goal of the Palestinian Arabs is to destroy Jewish Israel. As long as they have some hope of achieving that goal, the conflict will continue, unless of course they succeed. Thus, there are basically two ways for the conflict to end: First, Israel gets destroyed (obviously violent). Second, the Palestinian Arabs are completely subdued, their hopes and dreams of destroying Israel getting crushed in the process. It's difficult to see how this could be accomplished without violence.
This distinction matters. Putting pressure on Israel feeds the hopes and dreams of the Palestinian Arabs, leading to more intense conflict.
Israel is in deep trouble. The original framework of support for Israel was US/Western World in favor (out of a combination of guilt and wanting to spread democracy), communist world against (mainly for reasons of optics/opposing western imperialism
I disagree with this analysis for a couple reasons. First, the US gave Israel very little support before the 1970s and Israel did okay. In fact it was the USSR that was a big weapon supplier to Israel in the 1940s. Second, there has still been a tremendous amount of support for Israel in the United States notwithstanding the end of the cold war. Third, even without Western support, Israel could defend itself pretty well against Arab attacks just like it did in 1967.
Its secular population is declining at the same rate as the rest of the developed world.
In absolute terms, I would probably disagree with this. Secular Israelis (the type who drive on Saturdays; who eat shrimp; etc. but who go to the local synagogue for funerals, weddings, bar mitzvahs, etc.) are holding their own pretty well compared to other secular groups in the world. But in relative terms? Yes, the religious populations in Israel are outpacing the seculars by a wide margin.
But in general, the conditions that the Palestinians have been subject to has made them into a vengeful and violent people, and I don’t know what country would be willing to risk taking them in.
I agree that they are a problem population, but I don't think I would blame it on their conditions. Not those of the last 100 years, anyway.
given the horrific deaths the Israelis would likely meet at the hands of an invading Arab army,
That was tried back in 1967 and it didn't work out for the Arabs. And it was more because the Israelis were more determined and better organized than anything else. At this point, the Israeli military is far stronger than it was in 1967, so I think it's unlikely that such an invasion would be attempted, let alone having a reasonable chance of success.
omw_68
1d ago
I have to endure conversations with people who inexplicably make this core to their identity.
As has been pointed out before, people use beliefs not only to model the universe but also to signal group membership. In coalition politics, this can be tricky because some beliefs can alienate members (or potential members) or potential supporters of the coalition. That's what went wrong with using gender ideology and defund the police as identifying beliefs.
This does not concern us.
That's probably a big part of the reason that progressives have seized on this issue. They are hoping to find something they can all agree on; which can be used to support the need to feel morally superior; but which won't alienate too many people. Thus one can witness situations like that of "Queers for Palestine," in which gay people side against a nation which is relatively tolerant of homosexuality compared to the ferocious hostility found among the group they support.
It's difficult to predict these things, but I think progressives are about to find out that the anti-Israel position is like their support of gun control, in that they are going against a small group of very passionate advocates who are willing to oppose them very aggressively due to that one issue. I remember back in the 90s, the liberals made gun control a big issue and later got killed in the elections.
In terms of public policy in general I tend to agree with you, except that the US really can't ignore Iran. Keep in mind that Iran is hostile to Israel for basically the same reason as progressives - they believe they can use it as a unifying issue in their quest to gain power in the Muslim world.
omw_68
2d ago
I first saw her in Nice Guys around when it came out and thought she was gorgeous in that so I have watched a lot of what she has been in, and I have to say she is one of those Nepo Babies with real talent. That dance is one of the least attractive things I have seen her in. She was prettier in Maid where she was dressed all the way down as a poor single mother.
FWIW I really liked her flower-child/hippie look in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
omw_68
2d ago
FWIW (1) In general I find Margaret Qualley to be very attractive; and (2) to me, that dance routine was not attractive at all. If she were my girlfriend, I would try to avoid thinking about that dance number.
In any event, my wild-ass guess is that if a woman is willing to violate certain social norms, some men perceive it as a signal that she might be down for a quickie.
Why don't women use this superweapon?
Women have an even stronger super-weapon to generate attraction, which is to wear clothing which is significantly more revealing than the average women around them. A shorter skirt; a more low-cut top; a skimpier bikini; and so on. So why aren't there lots of women walking around naked? (Actually sometimes it seems we are headed in that direction). There are a few answers to that, but a big one is, again, social norms. Most women don't want to be perceived as trashy. Besides, as another poster pointed out, most women want better suitors, not more suitors.
In the same way, there's a social norm against doing the sort of goofy dance she is doing in that video. In fact that's kind of the point of the video -- she is doing something unconventional.
omw_68
3d ago
There is a huge shortage of people qualified to be commercial pilots,
I would say that this is not quite an extraordinary claim, but still a claim that requires a lot of evidence. Being a commercial pilot is a high status, good-paying job, one that's perceived as cool by a lot of people.
So it's kind of like you are saying that there is a nice stack of $20 bills sitting on the sidewalk right this moment waiting to be picked up. Perhaps the word "qualified" is hiding something here, I don't know.
for the simple reason that the qualification is very very expensive, and if he’d acquired it he was almost guaranteed to be able to climb the ranks assuming he doesn’t screw up. It’s plausible that if he was a black woman with an identical resume he’d climb the ranks much faster, but still. If he’d gone to flight school and somehow acquired the minimum flying hours he’d be working as a pilot- possibly for fedex rather than American at first, but that’s normal career progression.
How expensive is the qualification? How long does it take to obtain? Is this shortage you speak of a perennial thing or does it come and go?
omw_68
3d ago
How was he actually discriminated against? You don't just apply to be a pilot and get put into company training. You need to get a pilot's license before you can even consider getting a job, and you have to start doing private jobs and work your way up to being an airline pilot. There is no evidence that this guy had a pilot's license, or indeed ever tried to take the first steps in becoming a pilot.
If he had filed a lawsuit, it would surely would have been dismissed. Still, it's common knowledge that when it comes to most high status jobs in the United States, large institutions discriminate aggressively against whites in favor of blacks, Hispanics, etc.; and against men in favor of women.
Proponents of DEI frequently claim that this discrimination is just a very gentle nudge; a tie breaker when all other things are equal, but based on my experience I would say that this is a lie.
I certainly would agree that there's no way to know what would have happened in the hypothetical worlds where (1) this guy goes to flight school, does everything right, and applies for jobs in the face of anti-white discrimination; and (2) this guy goes to flight school, does everything right, and faces no discrimination at all.
But even so, knowing that DEI exists tends to be very demoralizing for large numbers of young white men. The simple knowledge that your group is the victim of a general injustice is painful, even if you yourself haven't been victimized at an individual level.
omw_68
4d ago
Defense might be harder in individual encounters, but the defenders can still have the ultimate advantage over time and at scale.
Sure, and that's been true for some time, for example there are weapons from the 19th century which easily allow 1 person to kill dozens or even hundreds of other people before they can be stopped. But they do get stopped.
So perhaps the real way to frame the question is to ask whether technologies might arise which make offense sufficiently easy as to overwhelm defenders even with the advantage of time and scale.
I am very wary of the X-risks that can be triggered by a small group or even an individual with sufficient resources.
Right.
My solution is simply maximal decentralization of humanity's genetic footprint. Mars colonies, O'Neill cylinders, asteroid outposts, where-ever we can survive.
I agree that's a step in the right direction. Still, it seems to me that it will take at least a few years before humanity can start dispersing. Hopefully nothing terrible happens in the meantime.
omw_68
4d ago
I have a portion of my portfolio that I would like to be highly liquid and effectively zero risk. Currently, my approach is to buy Blackrock money market ETFs, but these present a problem in that a) my broker does not have good tools for daily cash sweeps, so getting compounding interest requires too much micro-managing and b) the gains are subject to income tax.
Do you guys have approaches to the risk-free parts of your portfolios that are brainless and optimized? I'd strongly, strongly prefer for it to be accessible through Merrill so I can keep high status.
I don't know a thing about Merrill Lynch, but I keep a portion of my portfolio in VMSXX which is the Vanguard Municipal Bond Money Market Fund. From what I understand, they invest only in municipal bonds which are close to maturity. So that the price per share won't change even if interest rates fluctuate. And in fact, if I understand things correctly, VMSXX has traded at $1 per share for many years. I use VMSXX for (1) money I am putting aside for tax payments; (2) an emergency fund of a few hundred thousand dollars.
I am not an expert on taxes, but from what I understand the interest payments are exempt from federal tax. I also read somewhere that if you live in a high tax state like California or New York, there are similar funds which invest only in the municipal bonds of that state, getting you out of state taxes as well.
Also, when I buy into VMSXX, the system asks me if I want to automatically reinvest dividends. Even if your platform doesn't do this, I'm pretty sure the dividends are paid out once a month so it may not be too cumbersome to reinvest manually.
Last, I am able to buy into VMSXX even from other trading platforms. So perhaps it's available from Merrill. Or perhaps Merrill has something similar.
So if you are looking for something which is (1) highly liquid; (2) very low risk; (3) largely tax exempt; and (4) automatically reinvests, I would consider a municipal bond money market fund.
omw_68
4d ago
Is anyone actually going to grapple with the problem that if there is even one domain where offense is imbalanced with defense for mass death then we're all definitely going to die in this world?
There is actually a discussion of this issue down-thread. FWIW here is what I said:
Perhaps, but (in my opinion) the key question is whether offense or defense is easier. If it turns out that offense is significantly easier (for example, it's far easier to manufacture a lethal and virulent virus than it is to avoid getting infected), then we are arguably in big trouble as a species. It seems to me we would have to choose between (1) authoritarian levels of control and surveillance over the population; or (2) extinction.
All it takes is for someone to ask their AI how best to do a rods from god attack and accelerate a meteor at earth and it's game over. Please don't waste time critiquing exactly that example
Ok, I will take your "rods" example as a metaphor for any method of causing mass death and destruction where offense is far easier than defense. And I would certainly concede the possibility that such a thing exists. As I mentioned in my post, my instinct is that in such a scenario, the choice is between (1) authoritarian levels of control and surveillance over the population; and (2) extinction.
Anyway, the metaphor I would use for the Guardian Angel AI; or the E-butler; or whatever you want to call it, is that of an idealized attorney. You tell your attorney what you want to accomplish in general terms; he helps you focus what you are doing or trying to do; and he helps you achieve those goals. Except that the ethical codes constrain his behavior. If you ask an attorney to help you hire a hitman, the ethical rules won't let him help you. Moreover, what you tell the attorney is supposed to be confidential, unless it involves a future plan to commit a serious crime.
At a more basic level, I think it's worth noting that in general terms, these issues (balancing the rights of an individual and society when it comes to engaging a powerful agent) have already been kicking around for a while.
omw_68
4d ago
It seems quite clear that the number of people who are merely diligent is greater than the number of people who are both diligent and have expertise in means of killing lots of people.
Agreed. (Although a lot of the time, expertise can be acquired through diligence.)
How much expertise is required to create poison gas? I really have no idea, but I would be pretty surprised if some basic recipes weren't publicly available. And if the basic chemistry skills were not covered in various YouTube videos.
Anyway, I think we agree on the main point, which is that giving people access to this E-Butler has a lot of potential danger.
omw_68
4d ago
I think the argument there is that for every 1 guy who would want to do a Sarin gas attack, there are 100,000 people whose GAs would be devoting their efforts to not letting their user get killed in a Sarin gas attack.
Perhaps, but (in my opinion) the key question is whether offense or defense is easier. If it turns out that offense is significantly easier (for example, it's far easier to manufacture a lethal and virulent virus than it is to avoid getting infected), then we are arguably in big trouble as a species. It seems to me we would have to choose between (1) authoritarian levels of control and surveillance over the population; or (2) extinction.
omw_68
4d ago
What does the world look like when anyone has the expertise necessary to carry out a sarin attack on the subway?
I agree this is an important question, but I think you are leaving out the concept of diligence. Most people couldn't carry out a sarin attack for the same reason most people stop going to the gym (and resume eating junk food) long before February 1. In my experience, it's pretty shocking what can be accomplished if you can work on something every day, day after day, for a long period of time. If GAI helps people to be diligent, heaven help us.
omw_68
4d ago
And honestly, there is a lot of bad laws on the books.
It seems to me that's a different issue. If you want to argue that the rise of housing prices could be ameliorated by reforming some "bad law," fine, but claiming that the rise is the result of the "higher cost of red tape" is meaningless at best and misleading at worst.
omw_68
5d ago
One big recent increase in costs is driven by subdivisional development having a water runoff abatement infastructure.
That may very well be, but I would like to see documentation showing (1) the breakdown of how that $250,000 figure is reached; and (2) how those components have changed over the years.
I would also like to see a plausible explanation for the situation with single lot developments.
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".
I see your point, but I think that's a strained interpretation of the following statement:
The higher cost of red tape means the fixed costs of development are higher
Most people would understand the phrase "higher cost of red tape" to mean that regulatory requirements have gotten stricter. NOT that regulatory requires have not been sufficiently relaxed.
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.
For example, suppose the war with Iran heats up and shortly thereafter the price of crude oil (predictably) goes up and shortly after that the price of gasoline (predictably) goes up by some amount. In theory, in response, the United States and various states could relax various regulations regarding the production and distribution of gasoline, which would (predictably) result in gasoline prices going down.
Therefore, under your interpretation, it would be reasonable to attribute the rise in gas prices to "the higher cost of red tape." It would be reasonable to state that the rise in price is due to the government "not responding to new dynamics leading to higher costs." When in reality, most people would state that this hypothetical rise in gas prices was due to the war heating up.
omw_68
6d ago
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.
There are other factors as well. Perhaps the increased density of housing will lead to increased congestion on city streets; overcrowded schools; etc.
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.
Well the claim being made was that single family houses have become more expensive over the years, in part because they are being built larger, and a big factor in this is that increases in "red tape" have incentivized developers to build larger houses. So it seems like example you point to is not really relevant to this claim.
I can tell you that in my suburb, there is no more land to be subdivided; if someone wants to build a new house, they have to buy an existing house; tear it down; and construct a new one. Thus, there has been essentially no change in minimum lot size requirements. Nevertheless, developers are frantically tearing down houses from the 50s and 60s which were in the range of 1500-2000 square feet and replacing them with new houses roughly double the size. Moreover, this phenomenon is pretty common throughout the big city suburbs in the Northeast. This suggests that the "red tape" of minimum lot sizes is not what is driving this change.
omw_68
6d 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.
I agree that this would make sense, in the sense that permitting more units of housing to be built would be expected to result in a reduction in price per unit. Of course, whether this is good public policy is a separate question. And it doesn't seem like an efficient cause of the explosion in prices for single family houses.
omw_68
6d ago
Yes, they were including all of those costs.
In that case, I would disagree with attributing $250,000 to "red tape." When you build a house you need to have a sewer hookup; water; electricity; and so on. I suppose one could argue that these things are legal requirements and therefore count as "red tape," but realistically who is going to buy a new house in a subdivision if there is no water, sewer, electricity, or road access?
Also, I am pretty sure that these things have been required for decades in new subdivisions.
omw_68
7d ago
The last time I saw any anecdotes about this was at leasr 6 years ago. From builders, it cost about $250k per lot after buying to buy a large parcel to have the legal right to build a subdivision.
That sounds high to me. Perhaps they are including the cost of building access roads; sewer connections; municipal water connections; etc.
If you buy a lot, the price likely already includes most of the cost.
And yet single lot developers are building much bigger houses nowadays than in the past. Which makes me think that there is much more in play than just the cost of red tape.
Well here are a few scenarios I thought of:
Alan Dershowitz, a well respected attorney and law professor who (1) was caught up with Jeffrey Epstein to some extent and accused of having relations with Virginia Giuffre (probably a false accusation, but still potentially damaging); and (2) was accused of plagiarizing parts of a book (as I recall, he blamed his research assistant);
Bernie Sanders, well respected among progressives, socialists, etc. despite having a substantial personal fortune;
Richard Posner, a well respected judge whose writings arguably contain a lot of political incorrectness.
My sense is that the social and political capital possessed by these men helped protect them. But what's interesting to me is that for the most part, people didn't take the position that the problems these men got into were the result of them being victims of circumstance, being innocent pawns who were manipulated by larger forces, etc. It seems they were all treated as having agency.
By contrast, it seems that this Jason Arday is thought of as lacking agency by both his supporters and his detractors.
More options
Context Copy link