@sarker's banner p

sarker

It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:50:08 UTC

				

User ID: 636

sarker

It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:50:08 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 636

How much of the change in family premiums is due to more elderly dependents?

Absolutely not. Hospitals are happy to negotiate down payments to zero or very little. I've known many people who aren't penniless gangbangers who've done this.

A fancy computer program in a fancy robot might, though.

Well, the fancy robots already exist and are already doing productive labor, the only question is how much productive labor they can do.

"society" is to some extent a fiction. There's a range of fertilities in Korea with a long tail. The people who aren't having any kids aren't going to be represented in the future, so their inability to raise kids doesn't matter.

The competitive pressures that cause South Koreans to not have any children may well be destroyed by a 50% drop in population or fully automated luxury capitalism.

Any Seoulologists want to chime in about whether this was somehow telegraphed? Seems out of left field to this casual observer, although I am dimly aware of the parade of high level political scandals in Korea recently.

Wait til you hear about real estate agents.

However, he got in a bit of an X spat with Cremieux over one aspect of the essay, and in the back and the forth

Come on, let's have the link!

Who cares about dragons that don't even breathe fire? 😴

"male role model" is probably the big one.

Most people (I know) don't view the purpose of marriage to be producing kids, and therefore don't think it's weird to get married without any intention of producing kids.

I have the misfortune of professionally (well, it's not in my job description, but still) being on the receiving end of products of the DEI consultant industry such as mandatory trainings and style guides with verboten phrases and focus group approved substitutes.

This goes too far - "tribal knowledge" is considered verboten in the most PC firms (ask me how i know).

It really has nothing to do with cultural power just as it's rarely black people pushing for "blacklist" to be blackballed.

On top of being American built, the ships must also be crewed by Americans.

You didn't say anything about any D victory.

Take a leaf from the book of the barbarians on the southern border.

The loudness war refers to dynamic range within a song rather than across songs, so it's not really relevant here. I've never seen e.g. an analysis of range of maximum loudness across all songs in a given year.

Yeah, looks like I missed the mark. The guy who coined the term simply made up a new meaning for "critical":

He described a theory as critical insofar as it seeks "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them"

Simply redefine "Nazi" to refer only to people who were members of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

I'm pretty sure the "critical" in "critical theory" refers to "consisting of or involving criticism" i.e. "the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature, also : writings expressing such evaluation or analysis"

unless you listen to Spotify in hopes of discovering new stuff

This is indeed the point, for me at least. On Spotify I listen to:

  • Discover weekly
  • Release radar
  • My previously liked songs

Every week Spotify surfaces maybe 5-10 songs I actually like in the first two (which is really not bad IMO). Every now and again I buy something from the third on Bandcamp to support the artist more directly. I'm blissfully unaware of holiday playlists, black playlists, gay playlists, Asian playlists, or any other kind of playlist you can imagine besides the three I just mentioned.

Assume that technological progress will not gift us Pareto-optimal replacements for anything that we need more of.

That's kind of assuming the conclusion. The fact is that high prices incentivize finding substitutes for lower value applications of expensive commodities.

The big thing that the environmentalists got wrong is that it's basically impossible to run out of a resource. Nothing that we extract gets annihilated.

The resource simply gets more and more expensive, in the worst case, or you find new ways to extract it more efficiently, in the best case (as what happened to oil). And in the worst case, the higher prices lead to development of substitutes and more efficient usages - as always, high prices are the cure to high prices.

The predictions for which I give probabilities are the predictions.... The long elaborate descriptions of scenarios to be prepared for NECESSARILY CANNOT BE, because everytime you describe something additional happening the overall likelihood of all of it happening lowers.

It's a little confusing to say that it's not a prediction when you say that sometimes is going to happen. It did not seem to me that this part of the essay was hedged as one possibility, rather, you seemed fairly confident that it would happen.

I described about 20 different possible dynamics and scenarios in that piece as preparedness exercise.

Indeed, but there were two plausible scenarios listed for the outcome of the election based on who won, so I think it's fair to evaluate one conditional now that we know the outcome. After all, one of the two cases should have come true, if they are so confidently stated.

Specifically the mass rioting if Trump won, I expect that would have 100% happened if he had won the electoral college but lost the popular vote

I don't believe this was hedged like this in the original article, although I may have missed it. If not, this seems like post-hoc cope to me.