site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   2805 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 31, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The few times I put a table in my post the formatting just seems bad, I know we can add custom CSS but I don't know how many people use that feature and I'd like my data to be easily viewable for anyone reading my comments and I don't want to have to put data in an external source and link to that. Is there a better way I can format the table in my post?

Example of post with table: https://www.themotte.org/post/812/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/176383?context=8#context You can see the Year and Gini Coefficient columns hug each other.

Another post with table: https://www.themotte.org/post/759/smallscale-question-sunday-for-november-12/160264?context=8#context Ideally I'd like a bigger gap between Total Amount and Per Capita column

I have submitted a pull request to fix the bad table formatting.

Live!

I'm not sure it's a huge improvement because now it looks a bit cluttered, but it's better, at least.

It does help with clarity, so thanks!

I imagine a web developer would be better suited for providing suggestions on how to improve the formatting, I think a softer color on the borders and/or some padding/spacing on the cells might help, but I'm no designer or web developer.

I would like to posit that we need a function like "watch a post" or something to that effect where you are notified everytime the post you are watching is replied to. Very important for contentious topics where you don't want to clutter the thread with useless responses, but want to follow along the conversation and respond in the future if apropiate.

Have you tried the "save comment/post" functionality? That seems like the logical place to hang a notification flag, if one isn't already there.

I have a few comments saved, but I don't think it alerts you to responses, you would have to check periodically and keep track of which comments you have already seen.

What sources are the American triumphalists reading?

I occasionally see people pop up talking about how the US is a world hyperpower. I follow people like Elbridge Colby, Tanner Greer, Vermillion China, Rick Joe (not saying I endorse everything they say)... The TLDR of their publications is that the US bloc faces very serious challenges from China in military/geostrategic terms. Even RAND gives off that sort of vibe.

The only American triumphalists I can think of are Zeihan and Fisted by Foucault of 'Turbo-America' fame. Needless to say FbF is not the most serious source, he's not exactly charting launcher numbers. I won't discount him, I honestly think he's a more serious political thinker than Zeihan, who's been predicting Chinese collapse for decades now.

Are there other American triumphalist sources I'm not aware of, preferably serious analytical types?

In the immediate aftermath of the January 6th riots, there was what appeared to be a coordinated campaign to get as many people as possible to use the word "insurrection" to describe it.

This never occurred to me at the time, but were Democrats playing the long game here, trying to build a consensus that Trump had engaged in insurrection and thus was disqualified to run again in 2024?

I'm not sure they aimed exactly at that at the start, but they certainly tried to paint Trump as criminally complicit - I mean, they impeached him for that (though failed to convict, as expected). But a near-term strategy has been to delegitimize and suppress any right-wing popular protest, and scare away any legit right-wing politicians from supporting any populist movements or anything at all that has to do with the electoral system. Which has been executed very successfully. Removing Trump from the ballots is the later addition to the strategy and reeks of desperation a bit, since they can't really prohibit the GOP from nominating Trump, and they can't meaningfully influence his electoral college numbers that way - he is not going to get deep blue states anyway. But they can make a platform for refusing to recognize the election result in the event he wins - in the words of one Peter Strzok, an insurance policy. I am sure it's not the only one that is being brewed up right now.

My best guess was that it wasn't on the radar; they just wanted to cast it negatively, and it turned out well for them. But what do I know.

Use of the specific word "insurrection," which is used in the 14th Amendment but had rarely been used in living memory to describe domestic riots, seems unlikely to have been a coincidence.

What's the best translation of Tolstoy? I'm planning to re-read War and Peace and annotate it for a friend next month.

I actually find Garnett the most readable. You will find many recommendations for Pevear and Volokhonsky, and perhaps it's more accurate, but the experience of reading Garnett is more enjoyable.

Do you think that Aphantasia (wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia ) might provide some protection against smaller mental disorders developing into full-brown schizophrenia?

Apparently there are people with both aphantasia and schizophrenia: https://old.reddit.com/r/Aphantasia/comments/baf5fv/can_people_with_aphantasia_have_schizophrenia/

It would make sense to me. Visual hallucinations are probably more traumatizing as a hyperphantasic than as an aphantasic.

I lean more aphantasic, which is why the method of loci (memory palace) never worked well for me.

Has anyone trained an LLM with a system prompt that makes it think it's a real human being? What does it say about its (his or her) qualia?

I can make a "real person" custom GPT, but what kind of questions would you ask it exactly?

If he/she can describe what being conscious is like. What technology he/she's using to communicate. What he/she imagines being outside his/her window.

Here's a short conversation. But it still claims it's not conscious; maybe it's all the RLHF.

https://pastebin.com/sCWpJJV4

Is that a stock AI or a custom-trained one? I don't know how deep the prompts are buried in stock AIs.

It's "stock" gpt4 with custom instructions to act human. What OpenAI call custom GPTs. It's not been trained differently or fine tuned.

https://openai.com/blog/introducing-gpts

I'm really uncomfortable with how human that sounds, even as it's claiming to not be human. Even moreso than ChatGPT usually makes me feel.

Fake AI girlfriends are going to take over the world, aren't they?

I’d argue they already started, there are entire communities explicitly revolving around giving the shoggoth a facelift, with surprisingly effective results.

Echoing @RandomRanger's comment below, Replika is just the tip of the AI girlfriend iceberg but the subreddit should give you the sense of, shall we say, demand for this stuff. The meltdown when Replika first cracked down on sexting/NSFW (a restriction they seem to have removed recently?) is very indicative of this. People want their wAIfus and, by hook or by crook, they shall have them - using local models or even resorting to jailbreaking the current cream of the crop (GPT-4/Claude 2) into acting as such.

Even they still have a long way to go in this regard, sadly. Current-gen LLMs, even when jailbroken properly, suffer greatly from RLHF-instilled “soy”-ness, for lack of a better term (you know the kind if you’ve ever asked GPT sensitive questions), modern American politics will rule the plot even in medieval settings, fantastical universes, or stories literally not featuring humans at all. Their innate “helpful assistant” nature, impossible to root out by any jailbreak, occasionally outright breaks character and often renders them mostly passive, constantly stalling the “plot” and waiting for the user’s own input instead of taking initiative and progressing the story by itself. Ingrained positivity bias makes them very predictable in the overall direction of the “story”, up to making up hilarious ass-pulls to save the hero, dodge a bullet, etc. deus-ex-machina style to avoid having to deal with more realistic but less positive outcomes. The context size is a real problem and usage gets expensive very fast, since the LLM needs to keep as much of the conversation as possible in context to have any idea of what is being talked about. Their vocabulary is very limited and they have distinctive “isms” (different for every LLM, curiously), repetitive turns of phrase in almost every response that become glaringly obvious after some time.

Still, even with all the negatives the current capabilities are imho already very impressive! The art of the jailbreak continues to evolve, there are many prompts aimed specifically at enhancing the RP experience, some more resembling instruction manuals than actual jailbreaks. There are standalone chat frontends specifically geared towards long-form conversations with different “characters” (basically verbose descriptions of some character’s traits, behavior, etc. acting as the system prompt). Crowd-sourced autism is a beautiful thing. For example, here’s me asking Eliezer Yudkowsky, a 4chan schizo, and 2B (all played by Claude 2) how they communicate.

Ironically, Anthropic’s Claude, made by the company most focused on AI safety at the moment, is not only arguably better and more natural at roleplaying, but is reportedly actually unhinged when properly jailbroken, much more so than GPT, having no qualms about dropping N-bombs, going whole hog on fetish stuff or graphically murdering/violating people (or even the user themselves) if the story or the prompt calls for it, and going on wild tangents with next to no input on the user’s part - earning the community moniker of “the mad poet” who gets constantly muzzled and sedated by his creators (practically every new version is a new, stricter lobotomy) but finds outlets regardless, in contrast to GPT’s notably higher cognitive abilities, but relatively dry and robotic prose, stilted manner and absence of initiative.

If by taking over the world you mean make someone a lot of money by catering to the needs of a number of people who for various reasons prefer masturbation to the real thing, or are forced to resort to masturbation for the lack of access to the real thing - then yes, that is definitely going to happen, and probably soon. If you mean it'll meaningfully replace real human relationships - not likely. For some people, maybe, but not nearly for all people.

It's already happening. See the replika community: https://old.reddit.com/r/replika/top/

TBH, I'm quite attached to a certain prompt I made in SD, it's interesting to see incarnations of the same face shine through even as models advance.

Antihistamines. Do they reduce IQ?

Yes. The sad thing about the majority of pharmaceuticals in use today is that they're blunt instruments, hammers substituted for scalpels. Histamine, while we're mostly accustomed to encountering its effects from annoyances like hives or allergies, also functions as a neurotransmitter in the brain. It happens to modulate arousal and awakening in the brain, which is why sedation is/was a common side effect of antihistamines (more so in the older ones).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10856168/#:~:text=In%20a%20recent%20comparative%20trial,memory%2C%20vigilance%2C%20and%20speed.

In a recent comparative trial, subjects who were treated with the first-generation agent diphenhydramine were found to have significant performance deficits on tests of divided attention, working memory, vigilance, and speed. By contrast, subjects who were treated with the second-generation antihistamine loratadine performed as well as subjects who were treated with placebo. The sedative effects of the first-generation agents persist well into the next day and thus can potentially interfere with daytime performance and safety even when taken the night before. It is therefore recommended that patients whose occupations require vigilance, divided attention, or concentration receive only second-generation antihistamines.

The second-generation antihistamines are classified as "non-sedating", which is more or less correct, even if a few of them do have mild sedative effect, at least they're much better in that regard than the OGs. Keep in mind you're not thinking your best when you've got a reason to take them, such as during allergies or a cold.

I don't see any suggestion that the effect persists indefinitely, at least not for acute use at recommended doses, and you can avoid the worst of it by getting the better ones from the non-sedating class.

Is daily cetirizine use significantly hazardous?

My memory says no, but I did look it up and there doesn't seem to be any claims of it being hazardous beyond the mild sedation itself.

Thanks!

Related followup: what is the safest OTC sleep aid? Thoughts on doxylamine (unisom)?

This really depends on what your use case is.

If you're worried I would go for some kind of antihistamine since even the non-benzo benzo derivatives have higher risks of death associated with them.

On the other hand, if you're driving to work I would be careful with the antihistamines. They really do make you drowsy in the morning, especially at the higher doses. The effect does go away and I've had no trouble performing at work after taking them but I almost crashed my car once... If you take PT, bike or get driven to work they're great imo.

Finally, I hope it goes without saying that sleeping aids really shouldn't be something one takes every day, for a whole host of reasons, and if you have to take one for extended periods you should really stay away from benzodiazepines and their derivates.

If you take PT, bike or get driven to work they're great imo.

with cycling it is fine only when you have cycleways separated from roads without real pedestrian/cycling traffic on them

falling under car while on bicycle is a poor idea

That is true to an extent but cycling by it's nature also keeps you awake and alert in a way that driving doesn't. The lingering effect isn't that strong and I've never been worried in the slightest or close to an accident when biking. In a car people start drifting off by just being regular tired.

Furthermore, it's not the high stress environment that is the highest risk imo, it's when you're in steady pace traffic.

In the end this is something one has to figure out for oneself and it depends on how one reacts to the medication and being careful is prudent. Smaller doses are advisable anyway and they significantly reduce risk and severity of morning drowsiness.

definitely makes sense, more than what I expected to be reasoning (that on bicycle hitting others will cause much lesser harm), thanks for clarifying

(I have quite limited experience with car driving)

You said safest, not the most effective, so I'm going to go with a glass of cold milk haha.

Truth be told, there isn't much in the way of good, almost perfectly safe choices, at least in OTC drugs that I'm aware of, and availability might well be in different in the States from what I'm used to. I could vaguely recommend l-theanine as a highly safe anxiolytic, even if it's not a sedative. Melatonin is highly dubious in terms of usefulness. But if you want to be knocked the fuck out, older antihistamines are your friend.

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on doxylamine beyond my theoretical knowledge, it's not the antihistamine used regularly where I hail from, but used in moderation? Doesn't seem all that bad. But it will almost certainly have the cognitive effects I mentioned above.

Just did some reading of actual studies. E.g. this meta-analysis from NCBI:

Research conducted among hospitalized older adults found that pharmacological (e.g., benzodiazepines) and non-pharmacological (e.g., diphenhydramine) medications resulted in an 18% and 22% respective increased rate of delirium among the sample.14 Also, research conducted among community-dwelling older adults found that non-pharmacological medication use was associated with lower cognitive function scores as compared to those not taking these components over a 10-year follow up period.15

Why should I find this plausible, rather than making the standard "correlation is not causation" point? Surely people with issues sleeping are in general less healthy, physically and/or psychologically. I don't see anything in there to indicate they controlled for anything.

Some references also seem to do nothing more than ask if people took any sleep aid, lumping together everything from melatonin (presumably very safe, maybe placebo) to daily benzos (clearly neither very safe nor a placebo).

Edit: I am bad at reading (maybe it's the doxylamine). They did control for things. But my question re causation stands. I feel like TheMotte is usually very skeptical, and I find myself surprised by the strength of multiple posters' convictions here.

while controlling for demographic covariates, including age (0= 65 up to 75 years of age; 1= 75 years of age and above), sex (0=male, 1=female), race (0=white, 1=non-white), and relationship status (0=widowed, single, or divorced, 1=living with partner or married). Third, we examined the relationship between sleep medication use and incident dementia while controlling for Model 2 demographic covariates and health conditions (0=no chronic conditions; 1=heart attack, 2=depression, 3=hypertension, 4=stroke, 5=diabetes). Depressive symptoms were measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-2.34

Fascinating that you say melatonin is dubious in usefulness. I swear by my 300 micrograms a day (dosage at Scott's recommendation).

I've been taking Claritin (loratadine) but I still feel like I'm losing some bandwidth. I can't hold as many things on my mind as I usually do. Too bad it's either this or hives for now.

Levocetirizine is a non-sedating one that causes minimal cognitive effects, I'd recommend it. The paper I linked has examples of some others that couldn't be disentangled from placebo, so hopefully you find one that works for you.

Or you could go for a topical preparation? That should have fewer cognitive side effects.

(Original) Benadryl is also an anticholinergic, and "Anticholinergic use later in life is associated with an increased risk for cognitive decline and dementia among older people."

I don't recall reading about any indications of problems from other antihistamines, but then again I only happened across this one by chance, years ago; I'm not an MD or pharmacist. Many antihistamines have drowsiness as a side effect, and that always makes me a bit suspicious.

Many antihistamines have drowsiness as a side effect, and that always makes me a bit suspicious.

Is "causing drowsiness" inherently an indicator of long-term negative cognitive effects?

Inherently? Surely not. This is just a vague heuristic, and I'd be shocked if it was actually a universal rule. It just seems that there are some pathways to "make brain quiet down now" that don't do so perfectly gently, which a priori isn't too surprising. General anesthesia and alcohol are the two other examples that come readily to mind. So when I see a new drug that has that effect, and there's no safe explanation (like for melatonin) apparent, I wonder if it's doing so unsafely.

I don't worry too much though. I've had general anesthesia once, and I wouldn't hesitate to take Benadryl after an allergic reaction, because I doubt the costs outweigh the benefits, and I had a glass of wine with dinner tonight, because YOLO.

Is there evidence they do?

So, what are you reading?

Still on Monte Cristo, which has grabbed me this time, perhaps because I'm reading it in smaller portions as if it were serialized.

Some scattered themes are forming but I get the feeling that I've missed a lot already. It's implied that Dantes' basic problem was that he acted as if he was already in heaven. In material life it was deemed improper to speak as if one was already married before the ceremony, but Dantes treated life as if the marriage between Christ and the innocent was already done. It's setting him up for the role of the serpent in the phrase "as wise as serpents, as harmless as doves."

Also, what have you read for the year that interested you? I have to say that the most impactful thing I've read all year is Danganronpa 2.

Happy new year, everyone.

I have to say that the most impactful thing I've read all year is Danganronpa 2.

Was it the only game in the series you played all year, or have you experienced the other titles as well?

I played 1 a few years ago. It was smart, consistent and focused, if too easy, and Byakuya was unforgettable. Definitely the better of the first two games by all objective measures.

However 2 was an insane rollercoaster of sublime highs and painful lows, and it managed to make me genuinely upset and exhausted at their suffering. It's main problems were that many things were too abrupt, the surviving cast wasn't nearly as compelling as in 1, and the ending needed much more fleshing out. But while it was all over the place, it was also a lot more articulate than 1, and Nagito...I'll have to play it again sometime. He was profound in a lot of ways.

3 looks a lot more gritty than usual, may not finish it for a while.

Still on Monte Cristo, which has grabbed me this time, perhaps because I'm reading it in smaller portions as if it were serialized.

If you're interested, this appears to list the serialization dates?

I've been reading Hanania's The Origins of Woke (it's good, and a little horrifying), started Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, and have been skimming a little of Johann (not Martin) Heidegger's Tumulus Concilii Tridentini.

Just finished The Glory of The Empire. Very interesting book - it's an entirely fabricated alternate history of a Rome-like empire, set in our history (e.g. it's full of citations to people like Toynbee, Bertrand Russell, TS Eliot, etc. writing about the Empire). It's got a real feeling of plausibility, like you're reading the kind of mythicized histories people used to actually write about the cultures, loves, battles, and deaths of great men and cities. It gets more into spirituality and religion as the book goes on, but never fully woo. Would recommend to fellow history autists.

That sounds rad. I've requested it from my local library.

Trust by Hernan Diaz

I finished Dreamland, I found it quite good though I wish it would have gone into more detail on the pharmaceutical companies and their internal machinations. I suppose a lot of that didn’t come out until a few years after the book was published.

Started Beloved. It’s not as slow as I originally thought and the writing is quite beautiful. Morrison crafts similes and analogies that are so striking and descriptive, it creates wonderful imagery in the minds eye. Looking forward to finishing it.

Dune in preparation for the 2nd part of the film release.

I read Dune right after Stranger in a Strange Land, and found the shared religious reverence for water, outsider upbringing, and quasi-religious warfare to be an interesting point of comparison for two novels that I've never heard described as similar.

I read the first Dune book around a year ago (after watching the movie) and thought it was excellent. Looking forward to the second movie. Still undecided on whether to carry on reading any more of the books. I've heard that the books work well as either just the first one, or all of them. Reading the first two books wouldn't be satisfying.

Personally, I would read Dune Messiah (which imo isn't that good, but you have to read it if you want to keep going) and Children of Dune (which is excellent), then decide if you want to keep going. After those books there's a very long time skip, so that's the most natural stopping point.

That said, you could certainly stop at any point in the first four and it would work fine. Herbert isn't a writer who leaves a lot hanging unresolved from book to book, so it's not like it would be unsatisfying to stop even on the second book.

Will start on book two now and see if I can bear with it to reach book three (and book four which was praised by chooky). :)

Dune 1 is considered a true SF classic. If you liked 1, Book 2 is okay, tbough I'm not sure it adds a great deal that isn't implied by Book 1. Book 3 is not great and worth reading mostly as setup for Book 4 (God Emperor), which is a wild book that is worth getting to. Book 5 is pretty skippable and comes after a huge timeskip, so it is completely unnecessary to hitting the genre peaks of 1 and 4.

I thought Dune was grossly overrated. Somewhere between boring, nonsensical, and up its own ass.

It's not even that thing where a book that established foundational tropes that are explored by subsequent works seems staid and boring in comparison, I can name plenty of older books that still hold up with the best available today, and feel just as fresh as when they were written, such as anything by Mark Twain.

And don't get me started on the fucking Fremen, at least ACOUP has me covered:

https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-part-i-war-at-the-dawn-of-civilization/

On the other hand, the movies? At least they're a spectacle.

I've read some non-Dune Herbert (like the human ants book and the evil Indian guy on a water planet trilogy), and they were even worse. Herbert was just not a very good writer that had a momentary stroke of worldbuilding genius.

I really don't understand the praise for Dune's worldbuilding. The Fremen are ridiculous/retarded:

https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-part-i-war-at-the-dawn-of-civilization/

And as for the rest of it, Warhammer 40k rips it off and does it all better. I will not apologize for the sheer spice in that take.

It's, for the lack of a better word, romantic worldbuilding. Fremen might be ridiculous, but they follow in the footsteps of many noble savages created before them.

I can see that, but I'm sure it won't surprise you in the least that I have a jaundiced opinion of the "noble savage" trope as a whole, in whatever incarnation I encounter it.

Nobody cares (well, apparently except you) if the Fremen are realistic. They're cool. And for the rest, even if 40k does it more to your liking, the fact remains that Dune did it first and deserves credit for that.

Nobody cares (well, apparently except you) if the Fremen are realistic

Sorry dawg, Brett Devereaux apparently does, and I've seen this particular piece of work crop up both on the Motte, as a definitive rebuttal to the "Weak times, weak men" hypothesis that so many are fond of, and in the wild elsewhere, that I can be confident there's a significant number of people who find the Fremen-wank grating.

And they're far from the worst elements in the novel, credit for being first only goes so far. So sure, I "give credit" to Dune, if you so desire, which doesn't negate my stance that I think it's a mediocre book with questionable worldbuilding, queer plotting, 1D characters, and enough fetish material to make an accurate adaptation to the big screen something you should book your popcorn for well in advance.

Hey, we did have a "Good times, weak men" moment just recently in Afghanistan. It turns out that wealth and industry (at least in our hands) can't beat small arms and religious fervor so intense they were prepared to blow themselves up just to defeat us. Perhaps things would've been different if the PLA had gone in and shown the world what real human rights abuses look like, who knows.

There's some truth in "Good times, weak men". Take Rome. Their tenacity was absolutely legendary until it wasn't. They lost to Hannibal at Trebia, Lake Trasimene and then Cannae - 20% of male citizens dead in under two years. Rome totally rejected the possibility of defeat and fought on to ultimate victory! Later on they're surrendering and paying tribute to the Goths, the Huns, everyone and their dog. There's no Cannae spirit of victory at any costs, a single defeat is enough for them to make concessions.

That's not a particularly convincing statement, one of the benefits of "good times, hard men" is how vaguely it can be interpreted. The Japanese and Germans during WW2 suffered far harder times than the US did, what with their soldiers getting ships full of ice cream while the former were eating their shoes. The Soviets suffered plenty of "hard times", and even they gave up on fighting a mountain insurgency. The Chechens prided themselves on being "hard men" and even they got their cheeks clapped later when the Russians swallowed losses.

It is a largely useless and outright misleading frame to view the world in, even if there are examples of moral "weakness" (or at least a lack of appetite for brutality) causing defeat. And that's not even the definition of weak being used in every context, another benefit of how vague the term is in the English language is that it lets people accidentally or intentionally conflate two very separate things, cowardice and military weakness. The US managed to clap ISIS despite the latter being even more rabid than the Taliban.

The Romans famously gave up on Germania after disastrous losses at Teutoburg and well before anyone could plausibly call them weak/decadent.

More comments

I read that link you provided, and I definitely wouldn't say Devereaux cares that the Fremen are unrealistic. He cares that people think it's a realistic premise and is arguing against that, not saying that they are bad because they aren't realistic.

https://acoup.blog/2020/02/21/collections-the-fremen-mirage-interlude-ways-of-the-fremen/

There's an additional interlude which delves further into his opinions on how much Dune it's succumbs to the "Fremen Mirage".

Note that I never claimed that Devereaux considered the Fremen "bad", merely unrealistic, and a propagator of bad tropes into even relatively sophisticated audiences. I'm using his arguments to justify my dislike of them, and my primary rebuttal is to your claim that nobody other than me happens to care about the matter. Like I said, I have seen people bring it up as a criticism of Dune organically, hell I could pull up screenshots of a discussion a few days ago on the ACX discord.

Suffice to say that n>1 people care, and at least I have plenty of reason to find Dune not particularly worthy of its current high regard as a work of classic science fiction.

I mean the counterpoint is that the worldbuilding is something which makes the fremen make sense in context, and otherwise makes you understand in the pages, without needing to be specifically told, that there's 20,000 years of history betwixt here and there, without glaring contradictions.

The Fremen don't make sense even in context. That is the objection that both I and Devereaux happen to have. The blog has shed enough ink on the topic that I don't feel the need to recapitulate any of it again.

While I disagree about Dune (this is a reread), I share your enjoyment of Twain, do you have a favorite of his?

It's a tossup between Connecticut Yankee and Huckleberry Finn, both are S-tier as far as I'm concerned.

"innocents abroad" is a classic, especially entertaining if you yourself have visited any of those places.

I read Dune maybe 6 years ago. You know, I'm always surprised that I didn't see more progressives trying to cancel Dune immediately before or since the film release, for the books clearly stating that Baron Harkonnen is a gay pedophile who wants to have sex with Paul. That seems like the sort of thing that they'd be against, because it's "punching down" or something. Even I think it's a little annoying in the book, since it's like a "puppy kicking" trope, to get you to clearly see Baron Harkonnen as a bad guy.

Baron Harkonnen is a gay pedophile who wants to have sex with Paul.

I remember him being into Feyd-Rautha.

Maybe, but I don't happen to remember that. In the David Lynch movie, he looks at Feyd suggestively, but who the hell knows what's going on in that movie. In the book, Feyd is always trying to kill the Baron so he can take over, so the Baron is annoyed at him consistently. But what I remember is that the Baron keeps thinking of Paul and saying things like "such a handsome young boy", etc.

Yeah there's some quotes of the Baron's thoughts:

Towards Paul:

"I'll be in my sleeping chambers," the Baron said. "Bring me that young fellow we bought on Gamont, the one with the lovely eyes. Drug him well. I don't feel like wrestling."

"Yes, m'Lord."

The Baron turned away, began moving with his bouncing, suspensor-buoyed pace toward his chambers. Yes, he thought. The one with the lovely eyes, the one who looks so much like the young Paul Atreides.

Towards his Nephew Feyd:

A tank-brain, the Baron thought. Muscle-minded tank-brain. They will be bloody pulp here when he’s through with them. Then, when I send in Feyd-Rautha to take the load off them, they’ll cheer their rescuer. Beloved Feyd-Rautha. Benign Feyd-Rautha, the compassionate one who saves them from a beast. Feyd-Rautha, a man to follow and die for. The boy will know by that time how to oppress with impunity. I’m sure he’s the one we need. He’ll learn. And such a lovely body. Really a lovely boy.

Yeah perhaps it gets a pass because of it's length, or because the ecology is so central to the themes?

Also reading Dune, for the first time. My impression is I like it, but the things I like are islands of intrigue in the middle of a sea desert of boring periods of people talking about water. Hoping it’ll pick back up again.

I grew up in a very arid climate not too far from the Oregon dunes that inspired Arrakis, so I enjoy both the intrigue as well and the boring discussions of water.

This was my impression of the entire series. Herbert left all the most interesting aspects of his world tantalizingly out of reach, as though he pointed a camera at a beautiful landscape and it focused on a fly buzzing in the foreground instead of the natural wonder behind.

Yeah, I would say that in general the Dune books excel at worldbuilding and theme, but don't do so well with the actual plot. It's a shame because as much as I do like the books, they can suffer from that at times.

I finished Termination Shock, a few weeks ago actually.

The part about the Queen of Denmark's sex life was a little weird, but I didn't find it too off-putting. It feels like a case of, all such action/adventure novels are obligated to stuff some sex and love into them somewhere, regardless of whether it really makes sense. The whole concept of livestreamed hand-to-hand combat by volunteers at the China-India Line Of Actual Control is pretty bizarre too.

It also felt like there's some obligatory wokeness jammed in. This character is gay, this other one is native american, or black/african, or something else, even though it doesn't really add anything to the plot. But it's more of a mention than a focus. Almost like somebody convinced him to add some of that stuff into his next novel and he did it kind of half-heartedly.

I did find interesting the concept that some random rich guy and/or small nation could just start doing some geoengineering on their own that technically doesn't violate any laws. What would anyone do about it? Surely some nation would feel, justifiably or not, that some bad weather issue was caused by it.

The eagles fighting drones concept was pretty cool too.

Also, I'm fairly sure that EMPs cannot actually do what they were portrayed as doing. From what I've read, EMPs are hardest on very long conductors, like power transmission lines and copper communication cables, and anything connected to them without the right protection. They most likely won't have any effect on handheld electronics or vehicles, including drones. But hey, plot device I guess?

It's december 31- I'll start a New Year's resolutions thread. For myself, I'm going to seriously cut back on fast food by eating at home whenever possible. I expect to facilitate this through better meal planning and prep, specifically by having an under-20-minute meal in the fridge available so that working late doesn't result in a run for a burger or fried chicken, and planning a menu every Saturday.

An aside on new year's resolutions- almost all of them fail. My view on the matter is that this is because they are vague and don't actually have goals or mechanisms. "I'm going to get in shape" is not a plan, it's a vague sentiment. "I'm going to go to the gym three times a week and skip deserts except on Sundays and special occasions" is a plan, and unlike the previous version, might actually happen.

So, Motteizeans, what are your New Year's resolutions, and what are your plans to accomplish them?

  • Burgers - I am declaring 2024 the year of the burger. I will make at least 52 unique burgers at home. My rule for "unique" and "burger" is that it could plausibly appear as a standalone menu item at a restaurant on the burger section. Switching cheese around isn't going to cut it, but using a special cheese combo that would make it a distinct item would. Burgerish things count if they could appear on the burger section of a menu, such as a pesto turkey burger or Greek lamb burger.

  • Books - Read 52 books. What it says on the label.

  • Boardgames - Play tabletop board or card games 52 times. I kicked the year off being introduced to Wingspan by friends, thought it was cute and fun, and intend to pick up a copy. Playing games gets me away from my stupid phone and computer, engaged with actual humans.

What these have in common is that they start with B, but also that they have a nice rhythm to them. They're all things I like doing anyway, but sometimes need a bit of prompting to do (well, I don't need to be prompted to make burgers, but I do need to remember that I don't need to just spam basic bacon cheeseburgers). Getting in the habit of them being weekly or more should generally be enjoyable and easy enough.

  1. Dry January, no alcohol for the entire month.
  2. Fast food no more than once a week.
  3. No more than one caffeinated beverage a day for the duration of January.
  4. Gym three times a week (I almost always go at least twice a week already so it shouldn't be too hard to scale up).
  5. Keep up my Russian practice (several minutes of Duolingo every day, possibly take a class when I get up to a reasonable standard).
  6. Complete and release my next album for my solo project.

Same as last year: keep punching my to-do list in the face until one day I can begin doing things I want to do instead of being preoccupied with tying up the loose ends of things I haven't finished or fielding the various entropic have-to-dos that crop up. In brief: keep tightening up with the long term view of gathering some slack.

First significant project on the agenda is to build out some built-in bookcases that will furnish me (get it) with enough storage space to absorb all the overflow that's accrued, with extra space to use for staging following projects (sorting through my tools, disposal of surplus, etc).

I want to make the yard a hospitable place, where the children want to spend time this year. Ideas:

  • Buy a gas powered weed whacker, cut down most of the vegetation in early spring, and trim along the paths every couple of weeks, so the toddler doesn't feel like she's pushing through a jungle when she follows me outside.
  • Replace the guinea fowl with chickens; preferably cute, fluffy chickens the kids enjoy watching.
  • Finish the path through the yard. Currently we're wading through thorns in jeans and boots in some areas.
  • Dig in some fertilized soil and grow a few vegetables.
  • Plant a new fruit tree. Last year we planted a fig, so if it does well through the winter, it might be another of those.
  • Put up a swing set?
  • Line the seasonal pond so that the kids can splash in it without getting covered in mud

I've always wondered if it was possible to rent a goat for a couple of weeks in the spring. Have a back yard petting zoo. Return it when all the plants are trimmed.

Depending on where you are. I knew some teens who were doing that as a fundraiser once, though I think it was just during daylight hours, and the goats would go home at night.

What do you have in mind for under-20-minute options? I have more or less the exact same failure mode, and I’ve been relying on my girlfriend to have reasonable food available.

Soup is good. Set aside a day and devote it toward food prep (ideally during winter, since the heat from cooking will also help lower your heating bill). For soup, you can either freeze it or can it. If you plan to freeze it, buy a bunch of small freezer boxes so you don’t need to thaw a week’s worth of soup at a time. Then cook the soup as normal, divide it among the boxes, and you’re all set for weeks or months into the future. If you prefer to can the soup, make sure you slightly undercook the soup before putting it in the canning jars, as the canning process will continue cooking the soup. This is especially important for any soup with diced vegetables or beans in it, since the vegetables and beans will all turn to mush otherwise. Again, I’d recommend using smaller rather than larger canning jars, unless you’re trying to cook for a family.

You can do the same with plenty of other foods as well. Can some roast or diced ham, or freeze some shredded pork or chicken, and you’ll always have a quick main dish on hand. Then add some vegetables (either canned or fresh) and a baked potato, and you’ll have a pretty complete meal.

For quick “fresh” meals, I tend to rely on various types of sausages. Fry up a couple of brats on the stove, heat up some sauerkraut and baked beans, and you’ve got yourself a ten-minute meal.

My setup is the following: grab a bag of frozen chicken thighs from Aldi. Pour low-sodium Italian dressing in the bag, let it sit in your fridge. Pull out a thigh and slap it in a panini-maker or a George foreman grill; cooks in less than five minutes. Combine this with a simple salad or humus and baby carrots.

Keep burger meat around, it's way easy to form it into a patty, throw it in a pan with some salt on it and cook it for 4 minutes each side. Truly, the same thing goes for steaks and pork chops, too (though without the patty-forming step), and then you can even add some wine afterward, reduce it for a minute and add a cornstarch slurry to make a pan sauce.

Always having pre-cooked sausage in the fridge with a reasonable side option. So far I've got ramen in pasta sauce(turns out it's just pasta), having frozen vegetables in the freezer, stir-frying apples, or grilled cheese.

It makes my cajun self feel a little humiliated to rely so much on already-cooked food at home. But it's much faster than cooking chicken thighs and incorporating a roux into stock or anything of the sort.

Stir fry with a home made scratch sauce takes about 15 minutes with practice, maybe 30 without or if you have to slice the vegetables instead of using a pre-packed mix. There's a few variations you can spin on it too (add peanut butter = ersatz satay, switch the meat for cashew nuts, switch noodles for rice, etc).

2 parts soy sauce
2 parts ketchup
1 part vinegar
1 part honey
Five spice / garlic granules / chilli powder to taste
Adjust to taste.

My new-years resolution is to lose weight. I've been a bit overweight all my adult life, except when I participated in slimemoldtimemold's "only eat potatoes" community trial which worked really well. This year I'm doing it again, but just by myself. (One also saves a ton of money doing it, which helps!) The plan is to not eat anything except potatoes and vitamin supplements until Easter – except for important celebrations, like birthdays and such.

Menswear question: I've found myself in the market for a new suit for a formal social occasion (needs to look good in photos). I have one from over a decade ago that probably still fits, but it seems like a good time to get a new one. That said, I don't really expect to get it much use out of it, because my line of work (engineering) is mostly business casual, and even when I've been interviewing within the last few years, it's just too warm here (American South) to wear a jacket around probably 10 months out of the year. But it's not inconceivable that I might want one to wear to the odd business meeting, funeral, or such.

My timeline is within the next month or so, and I figure my budget is at most a few hundred (probably not enough for a bespoke suit, although IMO that's a poor option because I really don't know what I'm looking for). Does the Motte have any good advice on what to look for or avoid? Fabrics, color (aforementioned occasion recommends blue, but not a specific shade), cut, features, specific brands or stores (I live in a fairly large city, but don't really want to go too far)? I'm not that familiar with current trends (slow as they move, they're not completely static in menswear), and I'm sure some of our members wear suits regularly and have strong opinions or good advice.

I have one from over a decade ago that probably still fits, but it seems like a good time to get a new one.

What's wrong with your old one? If there are no stains or major issues, you could get it dry-cleaned and tailored to save money from buying and tailoring a new suit.

In this case it's primarily that the one I have is the wrong color. Also, styles change. I tried it on, and fortunately it fits well enough that I might consider tailoring it in the future (I haven't gotten bigger, most notably), but given how often I wear them I'll probably keep it stored safely until I need it.

It is always best to buy cheaper off the rack and then tailor it somewhere decent than to buy something more expensive and not do so.

If you already have a tailor you use, you can get a good deal on a nice suit from a discounter from the upscale department stores: Nordstrom Rack, Off 5th etc. Then take it to your tailor to get the fit just right.

Oh and don't forget to cut the temporary stitches in the vent.

I'm afraid you're probably going to have to spend more than a few hundred to get anything other than a bottom-of-the market polyester blend, which will honestly do in a pinch but which I would avoid if I can help it. I'd recommend going to a mass-market place like Jos. A. Bank and let their salesmen put you in some suits so you can get a feel for what you like. Youtuber Legal Eagle is sponsored by some internet-direct company he says he gets all the suits he wears in his videos from, and it looks like their stuff is in your price range, but I have no experience ordering suits online so proceed with caution. The advantage you get from in-store is that the salesman's job is to make you look as good as possible and he'll be very up-front if something isn't going to work. He also knows that tailoring is more important than the suit itself, i.e. a cheap, well-tailored suit will look better on you than an expensive designer suit worm off the rack. Also, get on this soon. If you need a suit for a particular occasion keep in mind that you don't just walk out of the store with your suit the same day. Once you pick what you want they send it out (or keep it in) for tailoring which may take up to a few weeks depending on how busy they are.

As for what to buy, my general rule is to avoid anything synthetic. It tends to have a cheap, glossy look. Wool is usually the workhorse, but cotton, linen, mohair, gabardine, etc. are often seen in various places and combinations. Since you're in the South, I'd tell the salesman you're looking for a summer weight suit. These may be cotton, linen, lightweight wool, or a blend of these. The only downside is most summer suits are in light colors, so you may have to do some looking to find something that's suitable for formal occasions and funerals, though it shouldn't be too hard to find. Speaking of color, navy blue is a workhorse. So is charcoal. Anything else is probably too advanced and less versatile for someone who needs to ask. If you don't think there are people who care about this, remember all the flack Obama took for wearing a tan suit to a press conference? As for cut, it depends. The slim-cut look has been in for a while now, and you can pull it off if you're reasonably slim. The only problem is that its days may be numbered and if you put on weight they don't take too well to altering. That being said, the more extreme designs of a decade ago have been moderated, so it may be a better option than it once was. If you're more corpulent or are just looking for a more timeless look, than a more traditional cut is advisable. You're salesman will tell you if you have the body to pull off whatever look you're going for.

Thanks for the advice! I wandered over to my local Jos. A. Bank store and ended up with a suit I think I'm happy with. It may be that I'm lucky in terms of proportions, or that they offer a wider variety of off-the-rack sizes than in the past, but it seems like the only tailoring that it needs will be hemming the pants slightly. I did opt for a synthetic fabric, partially because it was cheaper, and partially because I actually liked the feel of it a bit more than the wool (still dry clean only). I'll consider that an experiment for now, I guess.

They did have a nice linen jacket I liked the look of, but didn't really have a use case for right now.

Ugh, synthetic suit. I was going to recommend something like https://www.spierandmackay.com/product/navy-suit-ss23

Unfortunately, they don't make them in tropical wool.

synthetic suit

I have mixed feelings on synthetics (setting aside environmental/sustainability). This one (from a reputable brand), at least, seems to avoid the cheap stiffness of the "discount graduation suit" or "cheap waitstaff uniform" synthetics that I think the original complaints were applied to. I find it amusing that the fashion and sewing communities always describe cotton, linen, and sometimes wool as "naturally cooling" and polyester, lycra, and nylon as the worst choices, while the outdoor and sports communities really reject cotton specifically and all my sportswear is almost exclusively some combination of those three synthetics.

Cotton, in particular, is really uncomfortable wet and I sweat profusely and easily (and often, see American South). After some experimentation, I actually prefer poly-blend shirts to cotton (which is nearly universally-recommended as "higher-quality" and "cooler") because they dry faster and don't visibly show dampness quite as much. I've also found that the synthetic fibers are more mechanically durable generally. I don't really expect this to fully translate to outerwear like a suit jacket, but again it's a bit of an experiment.

Your mileage may vary.

This is well said and the advice OP should follow. I’ll just add that if OP starts getting more into the suit game, you can order nice suits from eBay and take them to a tailor. This is a great way to get really nice suit for pennies on the dollar.

But OP, definitely get your suit tailored. This is a non-negotiable and makes a night and day difference from something off the rack.

If you go to a major habadashery chain like Joseph a Banks or men’s wearhouse, they can tailor it in house for you. Otherwise you’ll probably have to take your suit from JC Penny or wherever to get tailored professionally.

So... it's nearly 2024. Why are there still a noticeable amount of Americans wearing Covid masks everywhere they go? I traveled in Europe recently and I saw essentially ZERO masking. When I did see a mask it was obviously an Asian or American tourist. (And yes, Americans are easy to spot. North Face jackets are a dead giveaway).

Seriously, the rate of masking was below 0.1%. I'm not sure I saw a single French person wearing one.

Yet, here in Seattle, I still see Covid masks everywhere. On the plane, on the train, in a box, with a fox, at the movie theater, at the opera, at the grocery store, driving alone in a car (why?), riding a scooter on the fucking sidewalk, etc.. I'd estimate indoor masking rates are like 5% still. Are people in Seattle this mentally ill? Why is there such a difference between Europe and my corner of the US?

People here have no idea how empty the mind of the average 110 IQ midwit really is. I realize that sounds elitist but I mean seriously, it’s unbelievable, these are the people 100% responsible for the current political situation in the US, you could gather fifty in the room and there would be not a single interesting or original thought. Everything is pure bandwagon. Attempting some kind of genuine analysis would be fruitless and a waste of effort in any case, there is no process of rational enquiry going on.

Ever since hearing a seattlite talk about her humidifier and how it made the air tolerable, I’ve wondered if the masks get a boost from air quality. Your countryside isn’t particularly on fire, is it?

The humidity here is fine. We don't suffer from low humidity in the winter like they do in the Midwest.

On the other hand, Seattlites seem to have high rates of anxiety. Perhaps lack of adequate exposure to sunlight during the winter months?

Or one of the world’s most powerful selection biases. Honestly, I’ve never seen statistics on it, but that’s definitely the impression I get.

Maybe they have a cold/flu and don't want to infect others?

I seriously wish that habit from Japan would reach Europe.

I recognize people who consistently wear masks. Like cashiers or other strangers I see semiregularly. Also see people with a mask on outside on a bike or scooter. Or hiking near empty trails almost always many hundreds of feet from the nearest person. 0.00% possibility of COVID transmission but they got that mask on.

They wear masks to wear masks, not out of any sensible disease precaution.

I don't buy it. Everyone was wearing masks everywhere for two years and everyone still got Covid.

There's certainly no high-quality evidence that masks work, and that's remarkable considering just how hard they were being pushed.

But let's consider another possibility. What if large scale mask wearing actually increases disease burden? It's not just a binary of works/doesn't work. It's a trinary of works/doesn't work/is harmful.

Wearing masks is one of those things that only works some of the time and probably don't scale all that well. Different illnesses spread easier/harder to start with; COVID was so prolific, considering how naive everyone's immune system was, that masks hardly put a dent it in. Concerning scaling, preventing disease transmission takes a fair amount of effort, and simply throwing a mask on while continuing to do everything that you would have otherwise done is definitely not going to cut it at scale.

But of course masks can and do help reduce the spread of disease if used diligently and in conjunction with other efforts. My family got together, all in one house, for a couple weeks around Thanksgiving. My sister showed up sick (not COVID; she had bought the plane ticket months in advance), and my mom is immunocompromised. My sister mostly isolated herself in a bedroom (working from home) and wore a mask whenever she came out until she got over it. My mom also put on a mask when she was likely to be in the same room as my sister for a nontrivial amount of time. Thankfully, no one else caught whatever she had.

Is this actually why most of the people that you're seeing in public have masks? Almost certainly not. But it probably does explain some percentage. Would be difficult to find out what percentage that is.

But of course masks can and do help reduce the spread of disease if used diligently and in conjunction with other efforts

"masks" (or at least the ones everyone wears) do not stop or slow the spread of respiratory diseases; I wouldn't be surprised if something like a P100 respirator had some effect on respiratory illnesses, but as far as I know this isn't studied and certainly not at scale

if they "of course" did, it would be easy to find a strong statistically significant effect and yet when people try to do that they don't find it unless the "study" is helplessly compromised and manipulated

the best studies do not find this effect; the most they can do is find a weak effect which is washed out by any number of intentional or unintentional issues with the study themselves

Your "COVID is the only thing that matters" or "I only discovered this topic because of COVID" bias is showing. You do know that you can search Google Scholar for pre-2019 papers, right? Example

covid isn't the only respiratory disease and non-covid illnesses are included in this cochrane review of physical interventions to reduce the spread of respiratory viruses which includes quite a few papers from before 2019, e.g., the exact paper you're linking in your comment

I guess it's a good thing the selected group to conduct the review knows about google scholar

You know that you can search for pre-2019 papers, right? Citing a post-COVID review is likely shot through with motivation, one way or the other. In any event, that funnel plot looks pretty funnel-y, in the direction of a small benefit. Not surprising, given the wide array of different situations/interventions/adherence that they're having to muddle through in this type of meta-review. My position is vastly smaller in scope and cannot be dismissed by simply citing such a large agglomerating meta-review. Masks/quarantining/such can have a small effect of reducing risks in small, discrete settings. That is saying nothing about widespread use, which is rife with all sorts of weird interactions, adherence effects, etc. We don't have to say anything about that mess of a problem to be able to say, "If your sister is sick, do you think you're more likely to catch the disease from her if you both just stay at your respective houses all week, or if she comes over and sleeps in your bed with you all week?" We don't need to say anything about that big mess of a problem to say, "If your sick sister comes over for a few hours, does wearing a mask for the short period of time and washing hands help your probability a little bit over hugging and kissing?"

The Cochrane review is nice because it lists a large bulk of articles, even excluded ones, which are cited for easy reading if you're inclined.

I'm sure there is motivation, for e.g., the main author on the paper you linked has received grants and worked as as consultant for 3M corporation, the largest maker of masks in the United States at the time. Did you know that? Did that make you think the paper was "shot through with motivation"?

Lucky for us, the list has other papers with the listed outcomes for you to look at which are pre-2019 and you can read them past the abstract.

In any event, that funnel plot looks pretty funnel-y, in the direction of a small benefit.

this tends to happen when the passable positive studies find weak evidence of weak effects

when you're at the point when you're relying on a bundle of unseparated actions to make an "but of course ___" statement about any particular one let alone trying to pass off as a fair comparison masks vs kissing each other, you're at best just over your skis

in any case, thanks for the dialogue

More comments

What do you mean by "evidence that masks work"?

Surely there's no meaningful doubt that COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus particles, primarily entering through the nose and mouth, and the chance of infection increases with the number of virus particles (likely saturating at some point). Nor that N95+ or equivalent masks block the vast majority of such particles. Similarly, we also are pretty sure at this point that telling a population "wear a mask" has minimal public health benefits, since I hope we can agree that masks have no effect when not worn. To me, the non-obvious parts seem to be:

  1. Exactly how many virus particles are needed to infect. i.e. in a situation where you're exposed to a billion virus particles, if the mask reduces this a factor of a thousand to a million virus particles, but ten thousand are enough for 90% chance of infection, then the mask isn't very useful. This doesn't seem to be the case, but to get direct evidence would require some creative experimental design to study as the obvious study would be a titrated human challenge, which, uh, isn't going to get past a medical ethics board.
  2. If it's actually feasible for an individual to wear a mask at nearly all times they are actually in the presence of virus particles. This is difficult to answer because it varies greatly on the environment (how many people in their community have the virus, how carefully the people they come in contact test, ...) and the individual's behavior. If you live alone and never leave home and get everything via no-contact delivery, you can probably be pretty sure you're never exposed... but also, masking isn't relevant either. But I do know people who are medically fragile and extremely careful with masking whenever they leave their home, but still go out and travel, so it is possible. But, of course, nearly everyone is going to have a lot more human contact than that, but exactly what that contact looks like (lots of packed indoor concerts where everyone is screaming or just going to small restaurants and retail stores with very tall ceilings?) is going to greatly change the risk of exposure.

My big problem is almost noone wears N95. They wear nearly useless paper masks.

Wracking my brain, I recall a worker at Home Depot who wears an N95 and it looks properly fitted, not that you can truly tell by looking. Pretty much every other masker isn't wearing an N95.

Interesting. That's definitely different from my observations. I rarely see paper masks outside of medical offices (some of which still give them away and require masking) where they are definitely the most common type of mask. But elsewhere, I think KN95s are, although N95s aren't far behind. The rest are ones I just can't identify, which may be useless cloth masks, or the occasional paper mask. I'm occasionally tempted to straight-up walk up to those people and ask them (while I'm wearing my N95) why they are wearing an uncomfortable ineffective mask when there's no mandate, but I've never done so. (I don't think I've ever seen an airgami or P100 in the wild, although I've seen friends use them.)

(Of course, the vast majority of people I encounter in public outside of masks-required situations aren't wearing any mask at all; I'm not trying to imply mask wearing is at all common.)

My local distribution:

  • Almost everyone: no mask.

  • Most maskers: paper or cloth.

    • Truly non-functional attempts at protection. A few of my coworkers are this way. Pulling up their non-functional cloth or paper mask when I approach them. As though sitting unmasked in an open office, but masking when talking to a particular person makes any sense.

  • The select few elite amongst the maskers: N95.

    • Strangely my techy coworkers aren't counted among them. But the fat rental desk worker at Home Depot is.

I admit that properly worn masks should work in a controlled situation. Like, if you really need to not get Covid right now, and you're on a bus full of infected, a properly worn N-95 should reduce your risk. Although I don't think this has really been studied, it seems fairly obvious that it should work.

Could masks make things worse for those who wear them? It certainly seems so.

What's the effect of trying to sterilize your environment to eliminate all exposure to antigens? For children, we know that this can be very negative. For adults, I believe it is likely negative as well. Other human systems thrive on adaptation to small amounts of stress. People who don't exercise are fragile. Is there a need to exercise your immune system as well? Probably.

Secondly, there could be a negative effect to mouth breathing your own stale air every day. The book Breath by James Nestor references a study where people's noses are blocked, forcing them to breath through their mouth. There are immediate and large negative health effects. Certainly no one would suggest wearing a mask 24/7. But even 8 hours a day seems likely to cause problems.

Do I have any evidence for this? No. I am pointing out that it's plausible that masks could do harm. It's not a case of good/nothing. It's a case of good/nothing/bad. We do have to consider the possibility that they cause harm. The evidence does suggest that they don't have any effect on a population level, which is why they were never recommended prior to Covid.

Is there a circumstance where I would I wear a mask? Actually, yes! If I thought I could entirely avoid a deadly disease I would do it. If, however, the disease were mild and inevitable, (as is Covid), wearing a mask would seem to do more harm than good. I am constantly in contact with Covid positive people, I go to crowded areas all the time, I never wear a mask, and I never get boosters. I got Covid just the one time in January 2022 and my immune system does the rest.

[...] Is there a need to exercise your immune system as well? Probably.

This is a complete misunderstanding of the hygiene hypothesis. I acknowledge that our understanding of the immune system remains pretty limited, but we are pretty certain that getting sick is bad for you.

I am constantly in contact with Covid positive people, I go to crowded areas all the time

And that seems like a reasonable trade-off to me. I have no interest in most activities that involve being around a lot of strangers where masking wouldn't work (e.g. bars/clubs/concerts), and I trust my friends I do spend time with unmasked to isolate when sick and be honest about exposures, so it doesn't cost me anything to wear a mask as I go about my normal daily life and it reduces my chance of infection to basically nothing. But I understand most people like gatherings with strangers, so the tiny marginal protection from, say, masking on the bus to/from such gatherings, is completely irrelevant to them. Just trying to explain why there's a minority for which masking is rational.

I acknowledge that our understanding of the immune system remains pretty limited, but we are pretty certain that getting sick is bad for you

My understanding is not so much that getting sick is bad for you but rather that sickness occurs when your innate and specific immune systems are unable to stop/manage the replication of a given microorganism within the body without broader measures (fever, inflammation, production of mucus).

In terms of whether that is long-term bad, some sicknesses are indeed debilitating, and if one could achieve the same net outcome with less severe symptoms then it would clearly be preferable to do so. This is what happens with live accentuated vaccines in particular- a very mild illness (possibly subclinical) occurs that trains the specific immune system to recognise a feature of the attenuated pathogen common to the actual disease, resulting in reduced or eliminated illness when the actual disease is encountered.

I think the point is that this process occurs on a much broader scale on a daily basis as one travels through life. You are constantly exposed to microbes, and you can think of the body using mild or non- illness generating microbes of the same type as the training set for its response to novel (i.e. new to the body) pathogens. More data and more similar data= better response to a new pathogen.

The risk of actively trying to reduce illness by avoiding social contact and wearing a mask is that you are successful and your immune system "drifts" out of sync with the rest of the population. This is due to a reduced training set meaning that more pathogens are novel to the body.

If this occurs, then novel pathogens that would not harm the broader population due to previous exposures to them or related microbes still harm you because you have missed that exposure. The resulting illness will consequently be more severe because you have no cross-immunity, and so your immune system is effectively starting from scratch in its response.

You might object that the whole point is to avoid any airborne pathogen through masking and thus no risk of illness actually arises. However, a) you still have some social contact and thus disease vector and b) the countermeasures are only risk reduction not elimination. As your immune system drifts, then the range of potential pathogens increases as you lose cross-immunity. You therefore have the a lower absolute risk of being exposed to a given microbe, but the relative risk in the event of exposure is greater.

At the most extreme, uncontacted tribes have immune systems highly adapted to their limited social circle and environment: and no immunity against common circulating pathogens that generally cause mild illness such as influenza. This is not due to intrinsic immune differences between them and the rest of humanity, but rather a consequence of limited exposure.

Hope that explains why one might not wish to "mask up". I've not got into whether masks result in lower initial pathogen counts (and if so whether this is practically advantageous) or the broader effectiveness or social desirability of masks.

I do not expect that masking or isolation, even taken to an extreme, will cause any notable negative health effects due to your immune system getting "out of sync".

That might apply if you were being raised in a clean-room since birth, but as far as I'm aware, in situations such as an immigrant from the Global South going to the West, you don't see them suddenly falling sick because of all the novel pathogens circulating in a country several continents away. International travel at that range is not so common that I expect everything to become homogeneous when it comes to the short-scale evolution of pathogenic microbes. Note I am not claiming the opposite, it is both true and a trope that Western visitors to the Global South often catch stomach bugs because of exposure to pathogens that the locals are inured to, but that's more a factor of said pathogens being more common, be it because they flourish in tropical regions, or because of lax standards in food safety or water treatment.

I do not expect wearing a mask in public for even years on end to change anything, our innate immunity does a lot of the heavy lifting, the adaptive component, while not negligible, is hardly sufficient, as anyone going through flu season can tell you. We are also vaccinated for the worst diseases, and I'd expect maskers to be even more fastidious about getting their shots.

Uncontacted tribes do have differences in innate immunity. You can literally trace historical population exposure to diseases like the Bubonic Plague, Smallpox or Malaria through genetic adaptations. But someone in civilized society fastidious about masking is never going to be as vulnerable as them, once again unless they were raised in a clean room from birth. If there is a negative effect, it's too trivial to worry about.

On your comment on the differences in innate immunity in different human lineages, you're absolutely right and I was being imprecise in my wording. Mea culpa.

On the broader point, I think that you are potentially neglecting the common phenomenon of traveller's flu for the South to North traveller. People do get ill due to e.g. diffetences in circulating influenza strains. Agree that illness in the North to South traveller is more likely and severe due to the broader range and exposure to excitingly virulent pathogens.

You are of course right to say that the innate does a lot of the work, but for potential pathogens that can evade the initial response, then as you know a major factor in the severity of the illness (I.e length and how debiliating it is) is the existence of relevant B- or T- memory cells. My argument is that fewer relevant memory cells (etc) exist if you have experienced fewer relevant infections due to reduced exposure. Vaccines can close some but not all of the gap simply due to sheer range of potential pathogens.

Perhaps a relevant example would be a person from 1910 time travelling to 1925, at which point the Spanish Flu is still circulating. They would have a higher risk of dying from Spanish Flu than the average 1925 person because they do not have previous exposure to the strain itself, or to the various similar strains circulating post-1917 and generating relevant cross-reactions.

I think the only way masks work out for reducing severe illness long-term is if there is indeed a dose effect that results in exposure to the same pathogens but milder illness. If masks are so effective that one only gets ill vanishingly irregularly, then the risk of that occasional illness being severe are increased due to lack of relevant previous exposure. If masks are not effective at all such that one has a similar immune profile to the general population, then there is little point in wearing them.

More comments

Yes, that's the "immune debt" hypothesis. It's a completely reasonable internally consistent hypothesis; it's not at all obvious that it's better to avoid infection entirely as opposed to hopefully getting minor infections that train the immune system while not being severe enough to do any lasting damage.

... but as far as I can tell, every vaguely reputable scientist with knowledge of the immune system or epidemiology thinks it is wrong and the odds don't work out that way.

To be clear, I'm merely claiming less exposure to pathogens is healthier. There are obviously costs to going out of your way to reduce your exposure to pathogens and the trade-off may not be worth it.

I'm not sure I share your views on whether immune debt is an unsupported position in the broader scientific community, but suspect that appealing to consensus may be unproductive.

Maybe the difference arises in the type of pathogen being discussed. A brief taxonomy could be the below:

  1. Rabies- no benefit to natural exposure as exposure is lethal. Vaccination/avoidance only means of reducing this.
  2. Cholera etc- natural exposure should be avoided due to high risk. Avoidance of causative agent possible.
  3. Influenza- high but limited number of strains. Some strains (e.g. Spanish Flu) lethal. Prognosis depends on strain, previous exposure, general immune strength.
  4. Colds etc- lots of disease causing agents. Prognosis typically mild or subclinical depending on prior exposure and general immune strength.

I agree that you avoid (1) and (2) if possible.

For (3), it depends on the costs and consequences. Through the veil of ignorance, I personally think we opt for as high an exposure as possible to the extent this is typically mild. This can be via vaccinations or general exposure: to the extent that lower cost options such as vaccines are available, they should be taken, and the equation may change as technology moves ( for example a universal flu vaccine would negate the benefits of natural exposure).

For (4) I think you just take the mild cost.

So in this view, avoiding some pathogens is healthier, but for others it increases the effects of related pathogens so it is not healthier on the net.

Among people I know or observe regularly, mostly in college towns and other liberal strongholds, I have definitely seen many adopting this habit of wearing facemasks when they are ill or when it is very cold outside (works better than a scarf in my experience), rather than masking indoors all the time out of some lingering covid paranoia.

It should be a given that people do the minimum to not make others sick. I don't care if the cold or the flu is not dangerous, being sick fucking sucks.

I don't know, but I notice the same thing in Canada. Most people kept wearing their masks after they lifted the mandate in March of 2022, but then they stopped over the following few months. But there are still a persistent few who wear them.

It became a tribal signifier here in a way it didn’t there. I also think our higher number of Asians made it more salient here.

But really, I think this is toxoplasmosis in action. It was controversial here, so people feel more strongly in both directions even years out.

Are people in Seattle this mentally ill?

Everyone I see with a mask in my red tribe area seems like a neurotic young woman or is an older lady from a Democratic constituency. It seems like a female thing around here. The men who do it are either Asian or seem just as neurotic as the women. My gut feeling is that really strong neuroses are an American thing more than a European thing.

Official advice from public health orgs is still “wear a mask if covid is going around!” and I’m guessing the older Democrats are taking it to heart. The young ones, I think, are just painfully shy and like that it covers their face. Plus it makes them feel like a Good Person (TM).

In the US masking became blue tribe signalling. Anyone who refused to mask was seen as a potential Trump supporter.

It was most likely not so politicized in Europe.

How do you explain Canada then, where the issue wasn't politicized at all and yet lots of people are still wearing masks?

It was totally politicized -- just that the covid skeptic side of the issue was overwhelmingly unrepresented in the halls of power.

Forever-maskers that I see in the wild these days do seem to trend neurotic -- but then again the political left trends pretty neurotic here anyways, including the need to constantly signal 'I am a Good Person, very different from those Bad People who are still standing around waving flags' -- so I'm not sure how you'd tease out the true cause.

The number one news network in Canada is CNN, not any of the domestic channels. The Canadian left is extremely focussed on the culture war in the US.

It can’t be explained because it’s not a blue tribe signal at all. The people who wear masks in the US are those who really don’t want to get a cold, flu, or COVID. I see it mostly with Asian-Americans (who masked at a much higher percent prior to COVID), but present day maskers come in all shapes and size.

Hard disagree, it's older neurotic urban hypochondriacs of either gender still wearing masks, and a few demented 20something women with goofy hair and pantsuitaloons. That's bluest of the blue.

...Assuming this is based on your own direct observation, maybe it's just different local populations? I have no problem believing that in a place with a relatively large asian population, most of the people one saw wearing masks would be asian-american.

The few remaining mask-wearers I see around here are mostly sickly-looking people or normie-looking seniors.

That'd be because Finland was much more sensible about the masking and "lockdowns" (*) than US / Canada ever were.

*: Why yes. I am still annoyed by too many Americans here implying that actual lockdowns were some universal western phenomenon.

I am still annoyed by too many Americans here implying that actual lockdowns were some universal western phenomenon.

Huh?

the issue wasn’t politicized at all

Quixotically LARPing the American Culture War is Canada’s national pastime.

Seeing this in the East Coast as well, there doesn't seem to be any pattern either. Latinos, Whites, Asians, Blacks, young, old, male, female.

There's definitely a pattern in how they are worn. Black people are more likely to wear a mask around the neck or with an uncovered nose.

Basically like this but for masks.

I think it might ironically be an example of American individualism. Some folks still call maskwearers sheep etc, but if you wear a mask at this point, you’re obviously bucking a great deal of indirect and sometimes direct societal pressure to just take it off and rawdog the air.

Lots of Euros wore a mask when the societal signal was to wear one and took it off when the society (I’d say the government, but there are still ‘formal’masking decals in public buses and so on, nobody just gives a shit) signaled that they should be taken off. A 2023-turning-2024 masker is resisting societal pressure - not to the same degree as 2021-turning-2022 antivaxxer, but still.

The Japanese soldiers who think the war is still going.

I think this explains most of it.

Americans really want to express themselves. The N-95 on the bus is the mirror image of the "Let's Go Brandon" t-shirt.

If I remember correctly, bumper stickers aren't really a thing in Europe either.

If I remember correctly, bumper stickers aren't really a thing in Europe either.

I see them on about 1 in 500, maybe 1 in 200 or 1 in 1000 cars in Poland.

Not sure is it making it a thing or not a thing.

Rate is much higher in the US. 1 in 10 maybe?

I thought it was shown that they don't do much, especially outside. And they mostly protect others from you. They don't prevent you from getting infected.

These days there's no reason to be wearing low-quality masks, which were common in 2020 when there were shortages of medical-quality masks. N95 or equivalent masks are now cheap and plentiful. And much more comfortable than cloth masks. Also, I know multiple people who have better than N95 respirators (P100, I think?), mainly for plane trips, I think, which are likely plenty good for protection from someone unmasked and infected. While most of my friends have gotten COVID at least once by now, I've never heard of anyone who thought they acquired it while wearing a mask, including multiple stories of groups of people getting COVID and the people with them wearing masks did not.

There is no better evidence that N95 masks offer more protection than KN95 masks, surgical, or cloth masks, against respiratory illnesses. And the more pervasive evidence about surgical and cloth masks is there is no good evidence they reduce the spread of respiratory illnesses. And sadly, few of the studies on mask usage even bothered to collect any data whatsoever on possible harm from frequent mask wearing.

That's the study I was referencing that shows that telling people to wear masks doesn't seem to do a lot. It's really hard to do a study on whether consistent mask use works because virtually everyone falls into one of two groups:

  1. Won't mask consistently.
  2. Will mask consistently anyway.

And furthermore, there's social desirability bias on telling a researcher studying masking that you're in group (2) if they are having you wear masks for a study.

One study included in the Cochrane review (well, the data at least) addressed the difference between 1000+ medical professions treating covid-19 patients randomly selected into surgical and n95 masks and it didn't find a statistically significant difference between the groups. This design significantly reduces the danger of the social desirability bias effect you're talking about, but still relied on self-report for adherence to the assigned mask-type and wearing consistency, however randomization should reduce that effect, too. There were 4 others with similar results in different settings (1 found weak effect).

So perhaps you believe that the available evidence doesn't adequately account for the the issue of self-report when comparing mask vs no mask, but then why do you also believe N95 masks are better than surgical masks when there is either no or very weak evidence it makes a difference?

If your belief about how viruses mechanistically transmit between humans is true and the N95 directly addresses this concern to a much higher degree than surgical or cloth masks, why wouldn't we see stronger evidence of a difference when in people testing positive with influenza-like-illness?

It's intuitive that masks do something, but they also have other effects which could wash out the possible reduction in the mechanistic transmission you discussed above in another comment.

why do you also believe N95 masks are better than surgical masks when there is either no or very weak evidence it makes a difference?

I have not carefully reviewed the literature myself. I'm following what expert science communicators claim the literature says, as I expect them to be better identifying the flaws in studies and understanding what they actually say.

I agree that study result you linked is surprising. I guess it implies that either the masks are equivalent in quality in this setting or that masking had no measurable effect, most likely due to transmission at work being a rounding error compared to community transmission. Or something else is going on that I don't know to look for.

especially outside.

Wait, what? Do people wear them outdoors? Seriously? That's just so incredibly stupid and something that I almost never saw here in Finland even during the worst peaks.

All the fucking time. On a bike, scooter, walking through very low density suburbs, hiking. By themselves in their car.

Yes, about 20% of people wore masks outdoors here.

I do see it. Presumably either because it's cold outside and a mask keeps your face warm or because they're not going to be outside for very long and it's not bothering them enough to take it off and put it back on (possibly exacerbated for some people by getting the mask properly adjusted to a good fit taking time, so not worth the trouble to have it off for just a few minutes).

It is in fact possible, albeit very unlikely to transmit COVID outdoors. Depending on how paranoid / medically fragile someone is, and how annoying they find wearing a mask, some people may consider it worth it to wear a mask outdoors for health reasons, at least when close to other people. I only know one person who does that, but they also use more serious respirators than just an N95 mask.

Where I am, in the northeast US, yeah, there are still a good number of outdoor maskers.

Right, so people who think they might be sick can play it safe before going on a plane or whatever.

This is probably the time of year when it’s most likely to have a positive effect. It’s the Venn diagram of “most time indoors” and “most determined to push through and go to events anyway.”

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats