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
1d 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
2d 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
3d 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
4d 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
5d 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.
omw_68
7d ago
Newly constructed homes are also quite a bit bigger than they used to be, particularly in the Northeast.
I agree with this based on my general observations.
The higher cost of red tape means the fixed costs of development are higher and push builders into building larger, more costly homes to cover the higher fixed costs
Well suppose you buy a lot in a fancy suburb for $1.5 million; build some monstrous house for another $1.5 million, and sell the whole thing for $3.5 million, netting you a $500k profit (less the interest on your financing). How much of the money involved went into red tape? And how much would have been spent on the equivalent deal from 30 years ago?
omw_68
7d ago
Take housing out of it for instance. How many people do you think have ever actually tried to build a new business in NYC? Not that I have, but there’s a good body of literature people can read on this and it’s clear that from the people that have, the problem of the business side of things looks very similar to the problem ordinary citizens have of it.
I'm not an economist, but assuming that NYC is hostile to new businesses, it seems to me that this would help ameliorate the housing issue I mentioned. Because it means that more people will start businesses in Stamford, Morristown, White Plains, Garden City, and so on. All cities which are far more easily accessible from distant suburbs.
So I would argue that the problem is not so much that NYC is a bad place to start a business, but actually the opposite -- that it's too great a place to start a business. That notwithstanding the extra taxes, the regulatory hurdles, the crime, and so on, NYC offers a huge array of advantages.
omw_68
8d ago
Yes, because the places closer in are already occupied. It's worse in places with Urban Growth Boundaries; you can't build closer in because it's occupied and you can't build further out because that's to be left as a playground for the planners. Then YIMBYs come in and want to replace single-family homes with apartments.
Ok, well anyway you slice it, I think it's a significant part of the reason young people today often feel poorer than their parents. Economic activity and job growth has concentrated in 5 or 10 big cities while at the same time, there's basically the same number of single family houses in locations convenient to those cities. So it's become much more expensive for a young family to get a basic 3-bedroom house in a nice suburb. Anyway, that's my personal theory, I have no data to back it up.
omw_68
8d ago
One thing I've mentioned repeatedly above is the cost of housing
Yeah, my sense is that that is a big factor. I have no statistics to back this up, but I live in the Northeast United States and my sense is that a lot of the new single family houses being built in the suburbs are very very far from the cities with the jobs. So that the average price of a house is misleading. And in fact, one of the results of building more housing far away from the city is that road congestion increases, arguably raising the premium for housing which is more convenient to the city.
I would have predicted that work from home would fix this problem, but at least for now, the situation seems pretty lousy.
Anyway, I think it's also worth noting that this is a factor which seems to have changed considerably over time. In the 1970s, notwithstanding the high interest rates, it was possible to buy a single family residence in the inner suburbs of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, etc. on a much lower income than what is required today, relatively speaking. Since then, it seems like things have really gone downhill. (Or uphill, if you happen to have bought a house decades ago.)
omw_68
8d ago
I live in the same zipcode I grew up in
By any chance is it a suburb of a large city? My sense is that there has been an explosion in the price of housing which is convenient to large cities.
I'm not sure what to say about food, except that I think people tend to eat a lot more prepared foods and restaurant foods than they did back in the 1970s.
omw_68
8d ago
But this is downstream of the first mandate though, the non-negotiable racial inclusion. LOTR is objectively not made any better by including blacks, no matter how stellar their performances purportedly are.
For the most part, I agree. But here's an example of what I mean: The Northman (which came out in 2022) did not have any blacks as best I can recall. There wasn't really a freakout about it. (Although it didn't receive any Oscar nominations -- possibly if the director had shoehorned in a black character, it would have done better.) Similarly, Ford versus Ferrari had basically no black characters but received a few Oscar nominations.
By contrast, imagine what would have happened if these movies had included black characters but presented them as unintelligent, or incompetent, or lazy, or otherwise contemptible.
The point is that failing to include blacks is a misdemeanor; including blacks but portraying them in a way which is politically incorrect is a felony.
Okay, so the grievance hierarchy places black representation above male gaze and penalises it harder. So what?
So nothing. You brought up the issue of casting of blacks, I think it was interesting enough to respond to but that's about it.
Sure, access to online porn may reduce the pure commercial incentive to include softcore fanservice, but it does not explain the active moralisation of female sex appeal.
Not directly, anyway. Here's a thought experiment:
Suppose that the Internet didn't exist so there was no way to conveniently access pornography. Would movie directors include more fan service knowing that it would improve their bottom line, notwithstanding the complaints of feminists? And if so, how would feminists react?
Here's an analogy: As you know, during the American Civil War, for the most part the northern states were against slavery and the southern states were in favor. Was this because liberalism was more prevalent in the north (just like it's still more prevalent today) or because the northern economy was far less dependent on slavery than that of the south? One can certainly argue that both were factors. And that economic considerations have a lot of influence (but not necessarily decisive influence) over peoples' views of morality.
And there's a corresponding rise in male nudity even in male media, like Thor. What is the commercial incentive here?
Very little, I would guess. In fact, a lot of female viewers would prefer to look at female bodies over male bodies. Just look at the covers of women's magazines. I would guess that a bigger factor in that kind of male nudity is just woke flag-planting, as opposed to appealing to the female gaze, so to speak.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link