@netstack's banner p

netstack

The horse embodies the wings a person feels inside.

9 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

				

User ID: 647

netstack

The horse embodies the wings a person feels inside.

9 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 647

Lots of things have followed us around for just as long. Doesn’t mean asking about them is reasonable.

“Hey, is your daughter a virgin?”

“How do you feel about your foreskin?”

“But can you prove you were born a free man?”

It does.

That said, you don’t have to take the bait.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear.

Do not respond to accusations with personal attacks. Block them, address the substance, I don’t care, but do not take the opportunity to speculate on your interlocutor’s life story. Especially do not respond to a warning about personal attacks by making more guesses about what’s going on in his head.

One day ban.

Single line breaks render as sentences. Like this. To get a proper paragraph, include two spaces after each line.
Like so.
For a little trailing space, it’s double line breaks.

There.


Anyway, I second the Grok critics. It’s kind of like going to the tabloids for primary sources. Even if they cite something, the chances of it panning out are inversely proportional to how exciting the headline was.

I swear to god.

Kindly stop with the melodramatic callouts. Perhaps you missed the last round. If you really think Arjin is missing key information, send him a DM.

And you, @magicalkittycat. I know you were paying attention. Falling back on personal attacks does no one any favors.

Less of this, please.

It’s not even particularly egregious, and might even pass as a joke, but you’ve got something like 8 mod warnings for content-free snark. Raise the filter just a little bit.

You’re right, “know” is probably too strong.

I was reading about the growth of antebellum America and was struck by these self-reinforcing contributions. Industrialization drove women out of cottage industry and into education, which drove religious revivals, which drove temperance, which drove industry. But also they were spending more time and effort on each child, so fertility was tanking. Though actual family size fell more slowly, thanks to repeated revolutions in medicine. The boom in public education also skewed any results we might have collected from early intelligence testing.

So I don’t know that fertility was negatively correlated with IQ, just that it went down as education, investment per child, nutrition, etc. went up.

Why should the rate be .01 SD/generation? Why should it even be linear?

If the one sample set we’ve got today is a somewhat stronger negative correlation, I would expect that to extend backwards. I know that was the case in 1800s America.

I have yet to see a set in my cruises of estate sales. Clearly, that means they’re in high demand.

Though if he brings his kid, there’s an elevated risk of acquiring kitcsh.

I’ve read, possibly on the old SSC comments, an argument that Heinlein covered a ridiculous diversity of societies. No pun intended. Troopers wasn’t the exception so much as another instance of his speculative style. Unfortunately, I’m not familiar enough with his work to give a full inventory. Friday was pretty lib-soc.

Do you have an opinion on John McPhee? Levels of the Game did this for tennis. On the other hand, I’d say it still has magazine-voice. His geology books didn’t come across that way at all, though.

Is that a tip, or is it a threat?

Huh. I’d forgotten all about that.

I maintain that I’ve never seen a zoomer use that reasoning as an excuse. 20somethings who are trying to prolong their childhood rarely act self-aware. I recognize that both you and @ThisIsSin have seen it happen. No idea what kind of filter bubble could separate us on that.

While you’re welcome to express your personal distaste, you still need to be polite.

Or just report it.

It’s Twitter, which started earlier but didn’t fully breach containment until the recession.

Okay, fine, it’s the broader social media paradigm represented by Twitter. Closing the feedback loop between commenting on something and getting responses vastly increased the appeal, and thus supply, of amateur punditry. Status competition ensued.

I’m not sure SW indicates a general theater recession. Aren’t we more or less on par?

I suspect something like what @07mk said. Blockbuster sci-fi is expensive and the space is more saturated than horror. Probably makes it easier to construct a fresh, memorable one.

Either that, or it’s just been too long since the last horror revival. What was that, 2009?

At least it’s not a sex toy?

It vibrates at relativistic speeds.

Fighting for the seat that your party is going to win is more appealing than fighting for one you’re likely to lose, even.

See the relative weakness of California Republicans and Texas Democrats.

Of course it was Gingrich.

The more I learn about 90s politics, the more I feel like the 2010s were overdetermined.

“They hated him because he told the truth” is rarely a good explanation.

Like, if you go online and see someone railing about how you are his class enemy, how you’re part of a conspiracy to keep him from getting pussy…how are you going to feel about that? Is it going to have anything to do with his perceived “raw honesty”?

Uh, all of those things are in the climate-activist portfolio. I couldn’t say what the actual rates are like. But then, lots of people who are sympathetic to that argument do end up having a child eventually. People aren’t always rational.

That’s the baggage train to which I was alluding. It’s an interesting optimization puzzle…which I wasn’t willing to inflict on a small party fresh out of managing their own encumbrance. Not yet.

Yes. Paying the evidence tax is what turns it from an argument into a debate. The more controversial a topic, the more important it is to explain your reasoning.

@sleepyegg added an example. This is an improvement. Now people who disagree have something to address rather than going straight to “nuh-uh.”

It doesn’t even have to be statistics, though. Citing his own experience would have been fine. The important thing is that there is a chain of reasoning which lets people engage without making up a position for him. It’s also why we discourage sarcasm and weakmanning.

You’re making some pretty dramatic claims there. Proactively provide evidence rather than just asserting that “you must” do something. Why do you think that? How have you ruled out other explanations, models? These are the questions people are going to ask you. Preempting them helps to keep things…civil.