@wlxd's banner p

wlxd


				

				

				
2 followers   follows 4 users  
joined 2022 September 08 21:10:17 UTC

				

User ID: 1039

wlxd


				
				
				

				
2 followers   follows 4 users   joined 2022 September 08 21:10:17 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1039

To a childless young adults, very well might not.

Wait, that spike in the white homicide graph in 2001... It can't be that they threw 9/11 under "homicides by whites," surely?

Why wouldn't they? It was, indeed, homicide, and it was, as a matter of fact, performed by people whom the official government racial classification scheme classifies as whites. Sure, this is a huge outlier, but I don't see why should this require us to treat it specially.

I suspect that these might have gotten a ride and an overnight stay, but are there people who actually serving jail sentence for less than a gram of weed right now? How many of them?

This doesn’t seem to be true. See eg. https://www.laattorney.com/amp/what-if-i-get-caught-with-weed-while-flying.html which claims that it basically never happens in California. Does it happen anywhere else?

I am really interested in actual figures. Are we talking about 10 000 people currently being imprisoned for possessing less than a gram of weed? 1000? 10? 2 unlucky guys in Kentucky?

She disappeared as soon as she was discovered, and then reappeared a couple of years later, said she is sorry about the whole thing, but refused to discuss it any more. Others didn’t pry, because after a few years has passed, people didn’t care so much.

Not really, twins raised apart are rather too rare to be practically useful. Instead, one typically compares identical twins vs fraternal twins or non-twin siblings, or biological siblings vs adopted siblings.

I guess then if you obviously make it not real, why not just use the same quotes?

I am pretty certain that you will be unable to provide even a single example where the activists, before accusing someone of victim blaming, check if the person alleged to do so, does nothing else to address the problem.

I suppose this is the sort of cultural ability that is non-recoverable once it's been lost.

I am not sure about that. It is true that for past few generations, women were progressively more and more socialized into thinking that they can have it all. For so long as the societies drove on the fumes of old norms and habits, the fundamental falsehood of the notion was not obvious, but ultimately the reality will reassert itself. It might take one more generation, but already among millennials the failure to form families is extremely widespread. As these millennial women enter their 40s, and huge, double digit percentage of them never managed to form a family, they will become a huge cultural force, a massive living testament to the lie their generation was fed and eagerly believed.

For the generation after zoomers, these millennial women will serve as a clear, explicit warning sign of the peril that threatens them. The millennial mothers will know many other women of their generation who missed their chance to procreate, chasing the career goals, while overestimating their chances of snatching the top man and then failing to adjust to their increasingly precarious situation on the sexual marketplace. They will warn their daughters of this very real phenomenon, despite not being warned by their own mothers, as by that point it will be impossible to ignore, and impossible to pretend that they can expect to settle down into stable family with a high status man after a decade of whoring around and girlbossing.

...and before anyone tries to paint this as an uncharitable weakman I must ask "what is a woman?".

No need to reach so far, we in fact literally had disputes on whether 2+2 = 4.

Did Kavanaugh?

The study…is that really the fully study, or just the abstract…has a total of 48 infants.

And with this small sample, they nevertheless got massively significant p-value of 0.0001. Small sample size makes it harder for p-values to reach significance.

And the primary criteria is quite subjective—besides blink rate, it was all unquantified “oh the baby struggled more quickly”.

That's why the discuss the reliability:

Four arbitrarily selected infants formed reliability sample, and of the 160 items involved, the authors were over 1 point apart in only three instances; all scales reported below yielded reliability coefficients of 0.912 or better, with an average reliability of 0.969.

So, they are quite subjective, but the authors subjective judgements were in very high agreement.

Germany is not even able to keep their existing power plants open during energy crisis in the face of opposition from the greens. I don’t think reopening a mine closed for more than a decade is going to be any easier.

If I were to speculate, it probably has something to do with Americans who think of themselves German or Italian, because they have one immigrant parent, but cannot even speak their language. Many such cases. They think that they are part of one of those European ethnicities, which is why they are confused what “ethnicity” is.

It is much clearer in Europe: people of different countries are, by and large, of different ethnicity, and some countries even have multiple ethnic groups within the country (e.g. Belgium or Russia). An Italian living in Italy would find the idea that Italian-American with Italian parent who doesn’t even speak Italian, to be his fellow Italian, rather ludicrous.

I am quite sure that if you take investor’s money, claiming that you’ll use it for building a shipping business, but then lose it all in Vegas, that counts as a breach of fiduciary duty.

My point was, in case you actually missed it (which I doubt), was that

the difference (…) is between individual-level advice and society-levels policies

is an entirely post-hoc justification, invented to excuse the activists who just want to attack anyone who ascribed any degree of agency to a victim of one particular kind of crime. Your whole post makes an argument that’s simply entirely irrelevant in any instance of alleged victim blaming and their denouncing.

Literally nobody is starving to death on the streets, so to put is as the only available alternative to renting your womb and selling your baby is fundamentally dishonest.

Except, of course, the ones who were evicted to have their homes razed to build those lanes.

First, this is not something that routinely happens for traffic mitigation projects. Second, people who get eminent domained are compensated for this, typically more than their house is actually worth. Third, this is just as much of an argument against densification, upzoning, and public transit: those also displace people.

infrastructure that the suburbs can't afford and need subsidies for.

Somehow I knew without clicking that this will be a link to Strongtowns. I knew it, because nobody else is making this argument, and this is because their entire argument is completely bogus. I wrote about it years ago, see also this more detailed one.

Here's one more reason why it's entirely wrong: observe that every year, dozens of new master planned communities crop up. The development of these is basically entirely funded by the sale of the properties. The developers can't just come to some adjacent or local government and ask them to just build roads, water mains, electricity lines etc. This is not paid for by "someone else", it's the homeowners themselves who cover all of this cost, when they initially buy their new construction houses, and then later when they pay property taxes and/or HOA fees. Local governments do not build stuff for the developers, typically they actually ask developers to pay extra taxes and fees, labelled as "impact fees" and such.

At some point the harm from the externalities starts to outweigh the benefit of people living "where they want to live"

What externalities, exactly? On whom they fall? Where is the assessment that honestly tries to measure these, balance positive vs negative externalities, and compares to the balance of externalities of any alternatives? I've never seen anything of this sort, at best I see tendentious, motivated reasoning of the StrongTowns variety, one sided assessments that only calculate costs, do little to actually determine who pays these costs, and does not even attempt to assess the benefits.

What about most normal suburbs, which were built way after streetcars left the living memory, and still allow kids to bike to a store?

This conversation is revolving around some archetypes, but why don’t we focus on a specific example? For example, let’s focus on DC metro mentioned by /u/ResoluteRaven. How far do we have to go from the White House to find a place that’s more than 15 minute bicycle ride to closest supermarket?

Rural South has a lot more shootings and murders than rural Washington, Vermont, or Idaho. There are indeed pockets of extreme crime, but it is by all means false that all “crime problem” is concentrated there.

I am pointing out that the example provided to support the argument is clearly false and does not support it in any way. Not sure what you are getting at here.

And I'm not trying to be dismissive. It doesn't have to be your own analysis - do you have a pundit who can do better? An organization? A MIT professor?

Cochrane, whom I linked, has been predicting inflation way back in 2020 and early 2021, purely as a result of massive fiscal stimulus. Lawrence Summers did the same at the time, and was widely ridiculed. I mean, shit, I did it myself, and I benefited from this prediction.

The problem here is that if I point to people who predicted inflation at this time and turned out to be correct, you'll say "yes, but they predicted 8 out of last 2 inflation spurts", and, indeed, you'll be correct. Nevertheless, this attitude:

The question is not "is this prediction correct", the question is "can you do better".

is just terrible. Just because I can't do better doesn't mean that I somehow logically have to accept shit predictions.

Just as Nate Silver can predict elections "wrongly", the market can get predictions "wrong" - but that doesn't mean I have a better source of future predictions or that a better source even exists.

Of course, but you know what's the lesson here? Just ignore Nate Silver. I cannot predict who will win the Super Bowl any better than my crazy uncle, but that doesn't mean that I have to listen to my crazy uncle, if he has terrible track record.

Yes, as the parent said, Taiwan can win only if US wages war.

A Memory Called Empire (…) [isn’t] awful, (…)

Is it not? I heard similar sentiment from someone whom I respect, and I started reading it without prejudice (I don’t follow who wins Hugo anymore, so I didn’t know who the author is). Wow was I disappointed. Constant mulling on the protagonist’s emotional state really made me queasy, but when the main character casually shared the most important secret of her culture to some freshly, randomly met guys, it was too stupid to continue.

The point is to make the childless bear the burden. Basically, tax childlessness heavily. It can be structured as heavy child tax credits to make it more politically palatable. It would immediately give childless incentive to join the other group: unaffordability makes for a weak argument when it is childlessness that makes you poor.