rallycar-jepsen
No bio...
User ID: 694
He/they user here, it just means either pronoun set is fine. "She/they" is just shorthand for "She/her/hers or they/them/theirs", usually in the sense of "She/her/hers or they/them/theirs, dealer's choice."
If they're anything like me, it's probably because they honestly consider themself nonbinary but they aren't visually readable as gender-nonconforming, have a deferential/non-confrontational habit, don't find absolute pronoun correctness a particularly critical part of life, and/or are averse to policing other peoples' language on principle.
That said, there also do exist a (probably small, but memorable) set of people who will see "She/they" in a bio and do their damnedest to rotate between the two mid-sentence like "She felt their day was going exactly as she hoped it would when they walked out of her door" which is absolutely alien to me and I cannot fathom wanting that or wanting to participate in that. I have to wonder whether that's actually what anyone is truly asking for or if it's just misinterpretation all the way down and nobody in-ranks wants to ask or clarify.
Even when people ask for "any pronouns" (which ... I have a personal and probably irrational aversion to) I always assume what they mean is "pick one set, whichever, and then use that one" not "all text and speech referring to me must be indecipherable".
I do think most people who do it just use "She/they" or "He/they" to mean "Use whichever of these causes the least friction for you, neither one bothers me."
It at least definitely never means "She walked they dog in she front yard."
I'm sorry in advance that I don't have anything more interesting to respond with here, but I just wanted to say this is a good reply and I'm glad you replied. I actually think most of your intuitions here are basically directionally correct and I share a lot of your frustrations at a lot of the current conventions surrounding gender identity. As you say, much of it is, at best, not useful for human connection, and at worst, detrimental to it. Maybe I'll write more deeply on it here someday.
rallycar-jepsen
1yr ago
No new information to add here, just thanking you for the helpful response. I think I'm going to dive a little deeper into the world of photogrammetry.
rallycar-jepsen
1yr ago
... You didn't happen to finish the story, did you?
This premise is ... fascinating.
rallycar-jepsen
1yr ago
It's actually reassuring that I'm not the only one confused about that! Not that I'm assigning any particular positive or negative valence to it ... they seem like a lively bunch ... I just wouldn't have guessed.
Does it have to do with us building the site out of their codebase or is the relationship an old one that I've just never noticed?
I don't like it, but I just swallow the little bit of poison. I mostly watch YouTube on mobile, where it's already more trouble than it's worth to try to get around the ads.
The biggest point of friction for me is that the "skip" feature effectively guarantees I have to be constantly ready to interact with the screen while watching long-form content, since there is seemingly no limit on the length of advertised content if it's skippable - I'm routinely served videos 30 minutes or longer. It's inconvenient when I have something on in the background while doing housework and I'm not near the phone, or occasionally if I'm watching or listening to long-form content in bed.
The straightforward solution is just to pay the $9 a month for YouTube Premium. I pay more per month for streaming services that I spend many fewer hours per month watching than YouTube. Like you say, it's an incredibly valuable platform in terms of access to information and breadth of content. The fact that I haven't paid up is all the evidence I need that the inconvenience of the ads is minor, and fleeting.
I just mean edge case in the sense of "statistically, most minority racial groups in the US do have a known country of origin to point to within three or four generations, but this one is not as simple as that."
Thinking about it again, there must also be some percentage of Mexican/Hispanic-identifying people in the western US who are descendants of people who were already living on the land that the US subsumed. I don't know what that percentage is - honestly I don't have a good grasp on the history of Central America in the 1600s-1900s, and I don't know when "Mexican" and later "Hispanic" as identity categories started eclipsing identification with the various indigenous people groups that the Mexican empire itself subsumed. I suppose it could be argued that any such person who identified as Mexican could still be sent back to Mexico, since Mexico still exists.
Of course then there's the case of all the other North American indigenous groups. I suppose you could forcibly rez everyone who's not already rezzed who meets a certain threshold of native ancestry and then demand all the reservations formally secede under threat of force, and then have a bunch of independent, very poor landlocked micronations dotted around your country's interior full of people who you don't like who don't have a very favorable opinion of you now either. That doesn't seem like the kind of simple logistical solution that this expulsion plan is supposed to be able to provide though.
Maybe you can airdrop them all into the Canadian wilderness and just say hey, close enough, take it or leave it.
In all seriousness, though, the problem I'm pointing at is that the population of the US can't be cleanly divided into "people who white nationalists want to share their country with" and "people who you can send back to where their grandfather was from".
At some point you do run into "well, okay, yes, your people have been here as long as my people have or even longer, but we still would rather like you to go away if you don't mind."
rallycar-jepsen
5mo ago
It depends on how intermixed they are, first of all, but anyone who has been ethnically distinct for three generations in America gets little sympathy from me and can be deported to where their grandfathers came from.
Not to tread old ground here, but I once again find myself curious about the tricky edge case of the old-stock American black.
(I'll take the former Georgia colonial territory circa the 1770s if you're offering it though.)
I had this same thing happen to me just now with a reply to a comment of mine in a different thread. It also appeared to have just turned 24h old when I got the notification for it, and I'm also almost certain I could not see it before that.
rallycar-jepsen
1yr ago
Seconding 5434a at not understanding the sublimation bit, but a couple of weeks ago I was driving to work in the morning alone on a dark country road listening to '100 Years' by Five for Fighting (2003) and some flood gate just unlatched in my brain and I spent the remaining 15 minutes of my commute just absolutely emphatically sobbing, laughing, profoundly sad and terribly grateful to be alive, struck by the absurdity of the experience.
This was I think the third time this 19 year old #28 US Billboard Hot 100 Single soft rock ballad has flipped that exact switch for me while driving alone, over the course of the last probably 6 months. Always catches me on normal ass days.
rallycar-jepsen
5mo ago
I expected to fall farther to the right than I actually ended up, although I suspect I'm still farther to the right than most people close to me would figure. I think that's probably common. I went on to take her actual survey, I found it interesting. I also read several of her write-ups about her insights about the data on her substack.
I do think you should probably look at the "past 4" section before being confident about telling people you're in there.
An opportunity to be a datapoint? Let me at it!
Extraversion - 29th p.
Emotional Stability - 81st p.
Agreeableness - 40th p.
Conscientiousness - 18th p.
Intellect/Imagination - 80th p.
It pretty much comports exactly with how I understand myself and so isn't offering me any fresh or striking insights, unfortunately, but what can I really expect from a 50-question personality test?
(I do think 'Openness to Experience' is a better label for their Factor V though - I don't know that I would consider myself in the 80th percentile of 'intellect', or if I were to, it wouldn't be based on anything this test asked me.)
That makes me curious though, has anybody here ever gotten a result from a test like this that's very surprising or counterintuitive, in a way that offered you some grain of insight or cause for reflection?
edit: Oh cool, several responders here did get such a result. Interesting!
I've been very loosely intrigued by the advent of phone-based lidar systems like the one that's apparently now included in modern iPhones. Do you (or anyone else) have experience using these lower-end lidar systems? How big is the gap between that system and the next highest price tier of specialized lidar equipment for a casual user who is not surveying professionally?
We have a small (2-3 acre) rural property that's very non-uniform in shape, elevation, orientation of structures, etc ... is it within the realm of possibility that I could use one of the lower-end iPhone systems, paired with e.g. a smaller DJI flight-programmable quad drone, and wind up with a scan that, if not inch-accurate, would be broadly useful for planning or visualizing new constructions or modifications to existing ones? (I have the 3D/CAD experience to get the rest of the way once I have a point cloud.)
I have the impression that even the low-end lidar might be more dimensionally accurate than doing a traditional, camera-based photogrammetry session with, say, the same iPhone + drone setup. Is this correct?
A reasonably-accurate scan of our property and the ability to do it for others would be helpful and fascinating, but not five-figures helpful or fascinating. Maybe four figures if the first figure is a 1 and if it's also equipment I can do aerial photography with. Depending on how usable the scans are at what scales, I could see myself getting into scanning for all types of projects of smaller scope once I've got the equipment.
For something as large as a scan of the property, though, would I be better off trying to find someone locally who I could hire to do it once with very good equipment?
I'm neutral on the current image being the favicon or not, but I will say I do like it as the site's header image, especially with the current header font and style.
(It's a subjective aesthetic feeling so I'd be hard-pressed to explain why. To me it's a nice look. It feels stately and sharp but modest and grounded. 100% subjective here.)
A lot of coverage has made it seem like the IDF is simply choosing to starve everyone in the hospital of supplies under the assumption that Hamas has a position within it, but has been extremely light on details.
This NY Times article from within the hour describes IDF troops 'battling Hamas fighters nearby' the hospital, but otherwise simply paints a picture of the terrible situation the people in the hospital are in, and reproduces a statement from the hospital's director, Dr. Salmiya, where he says that there is no truth to the idea that Hamas is operating beneath the hospital.
Apparently Netanyahu personally told CNN directly yesterday that:
"There’s no reason why we just can’t take the patients out of there, instead of letting Hamas use it as a command center for terrorism, for the rockets that they fire against Israel, for the terror tunnels that they use to kill Israeli civilians."
According to this Nov 14 article from the Jerusalem Post, make of that what you will, the IDF is going out of its way to offer assistance in evacuating patients from the hospital, which apparently a publicly released phone conversation shows the hospital leadership is eager to accept. The article also prominently mentions and provides footage of incubators being loaded into vans that the IDF is apparently rushing to get to the hospital as fast as possible. (Isn't the problem that there is no power for their incubators, not that they didn't have enough incubators? How are these new IDF incubators meant to be powered? Or delivered?)
The article reminds readers:
Previously, however, Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have said that Al–Shifa has refused Israeli assistance.
"We just offered Shifa hospital the fuel; they refused it," Netanyahu claimed on Sunday.
Earlier this month, a Gaza health official stated in a phone call intercepted by the IDF that Hamas takes fuel provided to Al-Shifa.
Another intercepted call recorded a health official saying that the director general of Gaza's Hamas-run Health Ministry, Yusef Abu Rish, had prevented a delivery of fuel from getting to the hospital.
The linked reporting there, from Reuters, Nov 12:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday his country offered fuel to Gaza's Al Shifa hospital, which has suspended operations amid fierce fighting with Hamas, but that the militant group refused to receive it.
"We just offered Shifa hospital the fuel, they refused it," Netanyahu said, without providing details.
The fuel was offered to the hospital, but "the militant group [Hamas]" refused to receive it. How was it "offered" and how was it "refused"? Physically, verbally? Why wouldn't Hamas have accepted the fuel in this situation, and just taken some or all of it for themselves, as the IDF has made clear many times is what it would expect them to do?
liveuamap.com reporting from 4 hours ago has the IDF still surrounding the hospital complex, with heavy gunfire and artillery shelling taking place there.
So ... yeah, it's a little hard to build in my mind's eye what the situation is on the ground. The IDF's messaging here seems to want me to believe that it is fully capable, ready and willing not only to provide supplies directly to the hospital in person, but also to begin evacuating patients, and they could and would immediately do this if only they could get close, which Hamas is preventing. If Hamas is fighting the IDF around the hospital perimeter and not letting them give the hospital anything or take anyone out of it, how are the hospital staff still able to insist that Hamas is not meaningfully present at the hospital? Are they just being held more or less at gunpoint by Hamas and forced to keep saying Hamas isn't at the hospital even when they plainly are?
But also, if Hamas is deeply entrenched in and around the hospital, to the point that it has maintained enough perimeter control around it that the IDF can't or won't enter it and evacuees can't or won't leave it, have the IDF only been surrounding it for days because they simply don't think they could take the hospital by force at this time? Or that they shouldn't for optical reasons, or something?
I'm not a combat strategist and I also can't claim to be able to model the minds of any of the actors here, but yes, I am also confused by the situation.
Well, I ended up taking the test three times.
The first run through was entirely vibes-based and I tried to really weigh out what felt like a triple-immoral vs. a double-immoral vs. a single-immoral, and vice-versa, usually trying to pick a direction one way or the other. This one was also probably the most influenced by the order I got served the questions in, because I think I got less decisive over the course of it.
That run matched me to Left-Liberal:
- Care - 83%
- Fairness - 67%
- Loyalty - 36%
- Authority - 28%
- Purity - 17%
- Liberty - 64%
The second run through I tried to keep with a strong preference for "neutral/not applicable" and only give any affirmative push either way if something about the situation particularly moved me strongly.
That run also matched me to Left-Liberal:
- Care - 63%
- Fairness - 58%
- Loyalty - 31%
- Authority - 28%
- Purity - 31%
- Liberty - 58%
For the third run I went maximalist and selected (three thumbs up) if I would fight for someone's right to not face legal consequences for the action, (three thumbs down) if I would fight for the threat of legal consequences to be imposed on someone for the action, and (neutral) in all other cases.
That run matched me to Libertarian:
- Care - 33%
- Fairness - 50%
- Loyalty - 8%
- Authority - 0%
- Purity - 0%
- Liberty - 83%
To me the scale itself is a little confusing. I can get an intuitive sense of what three different levels of morally wrong should feel like. But, I had trouble imagining what it means for something to be a little morally okay, quite a bit morally okay but not fully, or extremely morally okay.
I didn't interpret any of the options as communicating "this is a morally good action" so I wasn't really confident about my choices on that side of the scale.
In all three attempts I ended up giving a lot of "this is morally okay" answers to a lot of actions that would absolutely negatively impact the way I thought about a friend, colleague or stranger if I knew that they had done the action. I don't know if that means I've missed the point of the exercise or not.
(Sorry for the deletion of the previous iteration of this comment, I'm on mobile and replied as a top level instead of a comment accidentally.)
I think there's a lot of weight in just the fact that most internationally-visible Israelis (officials, reporters, etc) are fluent English speakers and often give press conferences in (pretty good) English. I expect the trifecta of "fluent in English", "white-appearing" and "culturally western/European-coded" is enough on its own to make the average American red-triber (maybe the average American in general?) start off somewhat sympathetic to you.
Incidentally, I learned just now (while double-checking my kneejerk "it seems like most Israelis speak decent English" assumption) that 20% of Israelis are fluent in Russian, and Russian is by a good margin the most popular non-official language spoken in Israel, not English. (Arabic and Hebrew are official.) Apparently that's entirely because of Jewish exodus from the USSR from the 1970s to the late 90s. Not being familiar with that demographic history, I don't even think I would've expected Russian to be in the top 10.
rallycar-jepsen
5mo ago
It's nice to feel included! Thanks @some.
I've been pretty checked out as far as the day-to-day happenings are concerned, and I don't know how the site looks for someone who has an account, but the thing I'm most curious about as an occasional clicker of links to Twitter is when (if at all) they're going to fully commit to the X branding and start getting "twitter" out of their urls. When will twitter.com redirect me to x.com, rather than vice-versa?
The rebrand only started being rolled out this summer, so we're really only a few months into it. I understand they're probably hesitant to break a whole internet's worth of twitter.com urls and embed systems, but you have to rip the band-aid off at some point, right? If it's not going to be Twitter anymore, at some point it has to not be Twitter anymore.
I didn't weigh in in the original thread, but I'll count myself as having been slightly surprised that the site didn't suffer more critical functionality loss after the possibly-overzealous initial mass layoffs. Some people I was paying attention to on the matter last year were really emphasizing how many critical roles they thought were being naively cast aside as unnecessary. I haven't had a Twitter account in years so I can't speak on the user experience during the transition, but presumably the lights are still on and the site still works, so I guess I'll give that W to Elon. An impression I had was that there were some significant number of people who were let go in the initial wave who ended up having their position offered back to them. There are plenty of people in my information sphere who seem happy to get a dunk in on Musk whenever they can, though, so that might not have been an honest and nuanced appraisal of the situation.
I don't know if it makes you feel better or not, but my life is very much a product of, and continues to be oriented around, the same rugged individualism, family structure (to some extent), emphasis on the scientific method, work ethic, written tradition, etc that you are pointing toward here. Those are strong values that I hold and respect, and I am grateful to those before me who established them.
(I'm not a Christian in any real sense but I share both your edgy atheist history and your coming-around to view it as a net positive.)
This does not really factor into the equation for me in terms of my racial identity.
There have been people in my life who have told me that I "act white" in a pejorative way because of how I speak or write or what kinds of things I like or don't like, especially other young people growing up, but I never really gave that too much weight, and those people were few and far between. I always wrote it off as inconsequential.
It's unfortunate that it seems like there is in fact a growing current of thought that really does seem to resent and push back against those values as inherently suspect and unwanted. I think it's a real problem and I worry that a lot of young people are growing up right now being told that it's racist for people to want you to do well on standardized tests or to ask you to be polite. That was not happening while I was growing up at all, it would've been borderline if not completely offensive, but I think it's clear that the kind of kids who would've told me I "acted white" pejoratively have in fact not grown up to be inconsequential at all and apparently have captured the messaging of institutions like the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture.
But this type of mentality is not what I mean when I say that the world has made it clear to me that 'white' is not a word that's accurate for me to use about myself. My impression of what whiteness means as a racial identity, and what the boundaries of it are, mostly come from people who assign a positive or neutral value to whiteness.
The values you consider 'benefits of whiteness' here, I would maybe describe as 'benefits of western civilization'? I have no problem thinking of myself as a beneficiary of, product of, and cultural heir to, western civilization. (That terminology is complicated by the fact that I can point to non-western cultures who also can claim many or all of these virtues as a people, but I still think 'western' is at least a better proxy for what you're pointing at than 'white' to me.)
To reiterate, I don't think any of the virtues that you associate with 'white' here are in any way not available to me, and I hold and value the majority of them exactly as I suspect I would if I had two white parents or two black parents. It's the specific racial category 'white' that I don't seem to fall within the accepted bounding conditions of, not any of the values I (or the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture) might associate with whiteness.
Update: they raided the hospital earlier today.
UN agencies, the WHO, and the Red Cross have all strongly condemned the raid.
Meanwhile the IDF is releasing plenty of photos and pretty extensive walkthrough footage showing all of Hamas's stuff that they're pulling out of hallway closets and out from behind MRI machines, as they walk down corridors that have had their security cameras disabled or obscured.
All the reporting I'm reading ... describes the hospital staff being very afraid during the raid, "because of all the fighting", but ... again, written like the hospital staff and patients are having to take cover while the IDF comes in and fights no one.
Al-Jazeera also helpfully relays a witness' statement that the IDF "have tried to kill anyone moving inside - no one has done anything, we don't have any kind of resistance inside the hospital", and also reports, in a bullet point immediately prior, that the IDF evacuated people from inside into the outdoor courtyard to be interrogated - even though it was raining.
I notice what you're noticing, but apart from some extreme outliers, it never actually affects my ability to understand what the person writing is saying.
I think I have a different opinion on this depending on the day or the direction of the wind - one day I'm cringing to myself because a friend keeps using "than" when she means "then" in private text messages between the two of us that no one else will ever read, the next day I'm defending on principle that "ain't" as a replacement for both "isn't" and "am not" is perfectly reasonable, comprehensible, has long-since achieved its legitimacy, and that anyone who would judge someone negatively for using it is a nitpicking pedant.
At the edges of this, my instinct is to say that lots of the examples you brought up, on their own, seem minor to me and don't seem like signals of a linguistic descent into madness and incomprehensibility. I do the question mark thing sometimes, for example. There's a certain threshold for variation that I can tolerate just fine if the actual intent remains clear. But, like I said, I come from the viewpoint of someone who's almost always able to understand imperfect English writing without any fuss. Maybe a lot of these deviations would make the intent much less clear to someone who speaks English as a second language.
At the core of it though ... I'm with you. I wish people considered it more important to try to write well. I wish more people wanted to write well in text messages, facebook posts, youtube comments, magazine articles, newspaper columns, job cover letters, classified ads, yelp reviews, and birthday cards. I wish more young people, middle-aged people and older people wanted to write well, and I wish they wanted to do it without other people telling them they should want to. I think my standards for "writing well" are probably much lower than yours. I don't even write particularly well, from an objective standpoint. But I do have standards, and they do mean something to me.
At the end of the day, maybe it doesn't amount to more than just a strong aesthetic preference. I feel like I'll be able to easily comprehend any writing shifts, trends, degradation, or shortcuts for efficiency that may lie ahead. But is it enough to just be able to literally understand people?
rallycar-jepsen
6mo ago
Your comment made me face the truth that while I don't have objections on principle to people calling for public monuments of general Lee to be torn down and removed, the mere thought of someone vandalizing or destroying a General Lee for political reasons pierces right into my classic-American-car-respecting soul.
Personally I expect the views of a lot of people on the far left to have shifted about specifically, narrowly, Palestinian culture and its current capacity for peaceful statehood. I expect it to become somewhat less fashionable on the left to justify brutality by Palestinian militants against Israel and the general sympathy toward it among the Palestinian populace, even for people who consider Israel an obviously bad settler colonialist apartheid state on the wrong side of history.
Do I expect that shift to translate into a proportional priors update on related issues domestically? Not really. I think it's too easy to rationalize away as, no, that's them, that's unique, it's a regrettable but isolated case, the situation over here isn't like the situation over there, and the people we're talking about over here aren't like the people over there.
I'm an American thinking about the response from the American far left about American immigration policy and culture issues, though. The needle movement elsewhere on domestic issues may be more dramatic.
More options
Context Copy link