site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   3688 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 7, 2024

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.

4
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What things do you have very different personal preferences and policy positions on? Do you have any area that you didn't even realize that until the policy changed and lined up with your stated position?

The biggest one that I have been having a difficult time with lately is marijuana. For my entire life, I thought marijuana should be legal and that it's pretty hard to justify having a substantially different control scheme for marijuana than alcohol (tobacco is quite different and I think the comparison is pretty stupid). I still hold this position due to everything I can figure out objectively. There are a few caveats, such as the potential for marijuana to trigger schizophrenia, but really, I doubt it does more harm to a typical person than drinking. I even smoked a decent bit when I was in my younger, party years, and pretty much just had harmless fun.

Nonetheless, it turns out that I don't actually like legal marijuana much. I didn't really notice it when it was mostly illegal, but weed culture is fucking annoying. I get that some people feel that way about alcohol, and I can certainly think of all-out drunkenness scenes that I don't like, but there are big chunks of drinking culture that I do like - craft beer, good bourbon, wine-tasting, cocktails, tailgating, food-drink pairings, this stuff is all somewhere between lowbrow fun and genuinely interesting culture. Pot though? Just fucking annoying. Stupid aesthetics, lazy slobs, constant whining about how pot is actually good for you, man. I don't personally dislike the smell of pot but smelling it on my state's capitol square on a weekday morning is just utterly degenerate. None of this convinces me that it should be illegal, my annoyance doesn't suffice to want something banned, but damn, it turns out that I find stoners way more annoying than I ever would have thought when they had to just smoke at their houses.

Always found it interesting that the studies on marijuana use focus on health and not whether the person is being as productive, forming memories of positive experiences, or engaging in a social community. i know a dozen people who used marijuana and then had to stop because it essentially drained their vital life force — they stopped doing anything worthwhile and stopped being motivated toward things. With tobacco it’s the opposite — it’s unhealthy, but no one’s ever been like “this tobacco is really ruining my creativity and preventing me from bonding with friends”. Perhaps the state cares more about a docile population that is not costly for medical services?

This is literally me. I used marijuana to self-medicate for anxiety and depression. It seemed like a miracle drug: it helped me quiet my mind enough to sleep and provided a relaxing buzz similar to alcohol but without the hangover or calories and significantly cheaper. But fast forward 5 years and I found myself socially isolated, intellectually stunted, and boring. I realized that I didn't do anything after work other than watch tv and play video games, and the underlying issues weed allowed me to ignore just slowly got worse until I was able to force myself to make a change.

Alcohol is definitely more acutely worse for you, but the insidious, underappreciated danger with weed is that you never get any "holy shit I need to change my life" moments. There's no overdose risk, it's not disruptive enough to prevent you from putting the minimum effort in at work, and there are few, if any, negative physical side effects associated with over-use. Like you said, it just slowly sucks your vital life force away. And you don't even notice it's happening.

Funny you mention the insidious part because I immediately noticed that being a failure mode the second time I smoked weed in my life.

I've noticed that I lose my literal and figurative mojo when I jack off too much, and that loss of mojo felt exactly the same when smoking weed. So maybe I'm primed to notice subtle changes in mojo.

Seems different for everyone. My social circles as a teenager were intensely invested in smoking weed, with all the accompanying weed culture one pictures. But weed just never did anything for me. Maybe I did it wrong? It just seemed to have no effect whatsoever. But my friends at the time all seemed increasingly passive and isolated in their little smoking enclaves, not going anywhere where they could not smoke all day long, and only spurred to action in order to acquire and consume more weed. The negative effects of either the drug or the culture seemed very obvious. Some of those people got better, some stayed the same, some went under, and most I just lost track of because I got tired of their antics and they of my insufficient participation.

Seems different for everyone.

Slingerland, in Drunk, makes the point that Alcohol has remained the universal social solvent across cultures and history because alcohol has fairly predictable effects on people. People may be lightweights or have a hollow leg, and they may be angry drunks or sad drunks or horny drunks, but the basic frame of alcohol--suppressed impulse control--impulsive behavior is fairly universal. While he specifically calls out marijuana as having unpredictable effects on people, causing a variety of impacts at a variety of intensities for what seem to be genetic reasons.

Some of my friends who smoked too much weed turned into doctors and accountants. Some of them seem to have had mental breaks and went from successful high school students to wash-outs.

But we're really bad at handling the idea that X works well for some people and doesn't work for others.

danger with weed is that you never get any "holy shit I need to change my life" moments.

I realized that I didn't do anything after work other than watch tv and play video games

It's funny that weed actually did give me one of those moments, albeit because I was already often doing nothing while sober before I started using it regularly.

It was just that (since I was using edibles) I was having to make a conscious decision to be alone doing nothing of value for several hours and the highs were punctuated by moments of stark self reflection. Before I started using them, I was instead regularly making the decision to do nothing without really thinking about it and without getting caught up in my own thoughts.

I haven't fully quit weed now, but I have cut down from my peak while also trying to be more social + productive while sober.

Similar story here.

you never get any "holy shit I need to change my life" moments

I stopped smoking weed because that was literally the only effect it was giving me. It became like a boredom magnifier where instead of zoning out and happily wasting time I'd zone alllll the way in and get frustrated about the lack of progress on my ambitions. Made worse by smoking it at the end of the day when there was no opportunity to make any concrete progress on those projects beyond ruminating on how I could do them if this, which I would do if that, which I can't do because...

I used it to self-medicate for insomnia. Worked better than some other off-label stuff which caused insane weight gain. It was actually great...for a year. Lost weight, maintained regular exercise regimen for months...

And then...it crept up on me but now the motivational hit when I toke is insanely noticeable. I thought I used to slack off at work, no I was working in bursts. Now I slack off. Even basic "lazy" shit I used to do - blast through an audiobook of a book I really should sit down and read - is harder.

but the insidious, underappreciated danger with weed is that you never get any "holy shit I need to change my life" moments.

Lucky you. Now I get the self-loathing and the lack of impetus to change.

So...yeah. I think the other side was right on this one.

Considering the state banned weed in the first place and it's still federally illegal, any argument for why the state likes weed can be dismissed out of hand.

Anything can be dismissed out of hand if we don’t think thoroughly. The feds have turned a blind eye on state marijuana activities for a long time now, and the interests of the state can change over time — norms in 1937 are not the norms of 2020, right?

  1. Why would the feds not simply legalize it?

  2. The fact that it is federally illegal puts a big damper on the market. Dispensaries are usually cash only or otherwise forced out of the normal banking system. You can't sell weed out of state so states with no growing operations are out of luck.

  3. Weed is only legal for recreational use in 24 states.

"The feds want you to smoak" is an argument that simply doesn't hold water.

The State, namely Congress, prevents federal agents from raiding state marijuana dispensaries: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/837011#?form=fpf. If the State were to treat marijuana as it does other illicit drugs, it would continue to raid marijuana dispensaries and not specifically pass an exclusion for only marijuana dispensaries. “Why not Congress make legal??” is not a serious retort because an explicit legalization involves unwanted political ramifications from voters, whereas allowing people to smoke marijuana in “legalized” states does not (note that these two are different things: “the State” can implicitly permit marijuana usage through policy without making it legal).

Okay, so why don't the relevant enforcement agencies turn a blind eye on banking for weed businesses and sales across state lines? There's money on the table here.

Simply ask yourself if the world we live in looks more like the world where uncle sam wants you to smoke weed or the world where there's no clear policy from the top leading to a mishmash of regulations and enforcement. If you think it looks more like the former, then G-d bless.

Agreed, marijuana addiction doesn’t necessarily look like serious health issues or criminal dysfunction, homelessness, etc. It looks like stunted potential and an unfulfilled life.

So, there's the theory that the left cares more about politics, which is why they show up more and are louder about it, including the wokeness business. Presumably, they're also much more likely to want to use marijuana. Will the ever-growing train of legalization cut out a contingent of them? Or within that population, are there two subpopulations - one which was already trending toward lethargy, which will descend yet further, and another which was already hyper politics, which due to some composition effect results in them eschewing marijuana for their own personal use?

“The state” still says marijuana is the devil’s lettuce, at least in the US. It’s a Schedule 1 drug with the same (nominal) restrictions as ecstasy, LSD, and heroin. Amphetamines, opioids, and benzodiazepines are all scheduled lower. Why? Because they’re some combination of less addictive and more medically useful. In theory.

This drug scheduling scheme isn’t based on docility, and it certainly isn’t based on cost. It’s also not interested in drawing lines between stimulants and depressants, which is rather important when comparing tobacco and marijuana. Alcohol is a better comparison; despite being a very effective social lubricant, it is definitely able to cripple social and creative abilities. Naturally, neither tobacco nor alcohol are scheduled by the DEA. They are in two leagues of their own.

The ongoing debate is very much defined by state governments pushing back on something Byzantine and possibly counterproductive from the Feds. Just because Democrats adopted the issue doesn’t automatically make it authoritarian!

I'd echo what others have said about locality. There are tons of behaviors for which my deontological side wouldn't necessarily support a national ban. Unfortunately, on a practical level, there are often so few options for local bans my consequentialist side wins out and gets me wishing for a general ban.

There seems to be a spectrum of positions on any given nuisance ranging from "the courteous thing is to not make the nuisance at all" to "the courteous thing is to let people do what they want". I'm on the rather extreme end of the former on a many issues (no one should have to hear your dog bark, smell your cigarette smoke, or feel the vibrations of your subwoofer from within their own homes).

Most people, in my experience, seem to lie moderately in that direction (they'll deal with a dog barking for a few minutes or a subwoofer for an hour in the afternoon without getting too annoyed). These people usually act responsibly without needing a ban to force them. Unfortunately, in an apartment building, all it takes is 1 inconsiderate tenant to ruin it for everyone else.

Frankly, I would pay double to live in a neighborhood of likeminded people who agree that barking, smoking, and subwoofers just don't belong in a shared building at all. Let the people who want those things live in their own building and deal with the constant smells and noise. The problem is it's actually really hard to find a place willing to actively exclude the latter type of individual. The best you'll often find is noise ordinance that is "enforced" by a half-hearted "warning" but rarely any real consequences for offenders.

Frankly, I would pay double to live in a neighborhood of likeminded people who agree that barking, smoking, and subwoofers just don't belong in a shared building at all.

Pay perhaps around twice as much and live in a nice single family home only neighborhood.

Let the people who want those things live in their own building and deal with the constant smells and noise.

Yeah I lived like that a bit. Even decent apartments are slums compared to SFH suburbs. Just a big building of annoyance.

What are SFH suburbs?

"SFH" = "single-family house".

Oh, that makes sense. I thought "SFH" was some iGen dunk on...well, I don't know, I thought I was going to have to ask Christine Baranski about it. She's pretty up on the kids today.

Single family home. Condos, apartments and townhouses don't count.

Maybe in (parts of?) America that's true but certainly not in general.

I recently moved from a modern apartment building with decent soundproofing to a single family home out in the suburbs.

My stress levels instantly plummeted and I regret not having done this much sooner. The occasional bark or lawnmower is nothing compared to what I was putting up before whenever I opened a door or window.

Frankly, I would pay double to live in a neighborhood of likeminded people who agree that barking, smoking, and subwoofers just don't belong in a shared building at all

If you've got the budget it for it, and like the other aspects, you've just described much of suburbia. If you'd buy the house from the new house flipper guy just down my street, mine would go back to being one.

I think about it often, but at the end of the day it's hard to let go of being in walking distance to work. >95% of my neighbors are great. I just wish it were easier to coordinate making that 100.

I'm going to be frank: such enforcement is rare because it is completely unreasonable to expect people to metaphorically walk on eggshells within their own home. If you wish to live as if other people do not exist near you, then live apart from other people, invest into soundproofing and/or vote for building better-insulated apartment blocks.

Then you're just one of those people who think "the courteous thing is to let people do what they want", which is perfectly fine. I just want to live around people who believe otherwise.

It costs me nothing to not have dogs or subwoofers or cigarettes. In fact, I strongly prefer not doing those things (certainly nothing approaching walking on eggshells). All I'm saying is that I'd like to find a few dozen others who agree to live together and keep the ones who disagree out.

I am actually planning a soundproofing enhancement, but nothing's going to fix the fact that opening a window at any point means I'm assaulted by some combination of dog piss and cigarette smoke from the balcony two below mine. Not much I can do about that.

What things do you have very different personal preferences and policy positions on? Do you have any area that you didn't even realize that until the policy changed and lined up with your stated position?

I'm an Ancap-leaning libertarian with an overall socially-conservative bent. I don't like abortion, prefer monogamous marriage, am bullish on religion and Judeo-Christian norms, I like guns and I don't mind racial diversity. I feel much more affinity with red tribe than blue tribe.

I simultaneously think that people should be free to engage in debauchery in their private lives, and generally be free from judgment for it to the extent they don't parade it around in public...

AND that people should suffer the consequences of their decisions and externalities should be minimized.

Which is to say, I'd prefer my own local community to follow fairly traditional norms that don't need to be heavily enforced, and resists outside influence attempting to subvert them. So red-tribe norms are a natural fit... except for the parts that I don't like.

So I don't like most laws that restrict non-aggressive human behavior... but there's a laundry list of non-aggressive human behavior that I don't like being around.

This is mostly resolved by my adoption of Taleb-style localism as an ideal.

And of course a ton of smart people have proposed the concept: Nozick's Utopia of Utopias, Scott Alexander's Archipelago, Yarvin's patchwork, Weinersmith's Polystate. It's all the same idea. I'm forgetting a few others who pretty much came up with the same thing.

Thousands of different cultures can co-exist as long as there's an overarching framework that keeps them from interfering with each others' internal affairs. The internet is a living example, insofar as themotte can have our own internal culture and processes meanwhile groups who absolutely hate our guts can have their own forum and websites with their own internal culture and neither one need disrupt the other.

Nonetheless, it turns out that I don't actually like legal marijuana much.

I don't personally dislike the smell of pot but smelling it on my state's capitol square on a weekday morning is just utterly degenerate.

Never touched the stuff, but I also think that criminalization is absurd.

And yet, I also don't want to have to smell it whenever I go out in public spaces. Vapes are also up there but I find it somewhat more tolerable.

This is mostly resolved by my adoption of Taleb-style localism as an ideal.

And of course a ton of smart people have proposed the concept: Nozick's Utopia of Utopias, Scott Alexander's Archipelago, Yarvin's patchwork, Weinersmith's Polystate. It's all the same idea. I'm forgetting a few others who pretty much came up with the same thing.

I really do think this is the answer. As long as there is freedom to leave, then almost any other freedom can be safely constrained.

For me, as a libertarian, there is all sorts of stuff I'd like to ban. But a government empowered to ban those things is also empowered to rob of us our freedoms. Better to fight against government power in general, even if it means having to be surrounded by annoying stoners all the time.

But a sufficiently local, atomized government could make all sorts of tyrannical rules, and no people would be seriously injured as they could choose a different system that works for them. In that world, I would have no problem criminalizing marijuana in my local area.

As long as there is freedom to leave, then almost any other freedom can be safely constrained.

Right, but for some 'odd' reason, almost no centralized authority likes to give people the 'freedom' to leave if they can control it.

I'd highly recommend reading The Dawn of Everything. I'm not sure I totally buy into the conclusions, but freedom of movement is something considered deeply in the framework of "Three Fundamental Freedoms" when examining prehistoric and non-European societies.

One theory proposed is that many Amerindian societies in North America maintained a degree of freedom through a system of Clans which stretched between polities, forming a cross-cutting identity set from the broader tribe. Bear, Wolf, Hawk, etc clans are found within tribes stretching from upstate New York to New Mexico, with an expectation that a traveler would be able to expect hospitality from clan members in other tribes. This system, the authors argue, provided a safety valve against tyranny, as any tribe which tried to enforce brutal rules would find itself leaking members outward.

I'm not sure I entirely buy it, but systems where small patchwork principalities existed also often show evidence of extended networks between and across polities, which frequently took on religious or kinship qualities. While authoritarian governments which restrict movement successfully often feature citizens who have nowhere to go (eg German Jews in '38, or Gazans today).

This is mostly resolved by my adoption of Taleb-style localism as an ideal.

I've been a non-Catholic Distributist for the past several years and have made comments to that effect even on the old reddit. Given what you've just said, I highly recommend looking into that philosophy - and at the very least it means you get to read more G.K. Chesterton, which is always a treat.

Wow thanks for mentioning this philosophy. Seems excellent to me. Like a less crazy version of anarcho-syndicalism.

I think weed is a great example, because I feel the exact same way. I don't want people to be criminals for choosing to smoke weed, or for that matter for doing any drugs really. I think that we should cover bad behavior arising from drug use with the laws which outlaw that behavior anyway, e.g. if you murder someone because you are an addict we have existing murder laws for that so no need for drug specific stuff.

But all that said... bloody hell, the stoners in my state (CO) are fucking dicks and they make me seriously reconsider my position. I shouldn't have to smell them smoking weed (which smells absolutely awful) when I go to events, when I go to the park, or even when I drive down the bloody street. It seems to me that we (CO society broadly) gave them an inch, and they took a mile. Well, if that's how it's going to be then maybe we should take the initial inch back from people who have shown themselves to be completely antisocial.

I try to stick to my convictions. I'm not actually out there campaigning to reinstate a ban on weed under state law. But holy crap, the stoners have made it hard to stand by those ideals.

It's always my position that if we're going to legalise weed, I want stench nuisance laws alongside it.

I’ll say this about almost any form of legalization. Basically, it becomes available enough that children will have access to it. It’s going to be common in homes much like alcohol and cigarettes are. Which will lower the mean age of people getting access to it. I’m not familiar with the effects of cannabis on a child, but I think any legalization scheme needs to understand this reality and be willing to put up with those negative effects.

Briefly, I wish there were welfare for a wide variety of things. It just feels good to not have to pay for things. However, economically on aggregate I understand it's inefficiencies and the effects it has on incentives and all the things downstream of that.

I would also not lose much sleep if certain social things were illegal, but that's a slippery slope to a nanny state.

I persistently run into, in myself and others, a fantasy of welfare that would be perfectly set up to keep people from suffering a problem while also giving zero incentive to utilize it, and that it would be efficient. A world where no family is hungry because basic food ingredients are subsidized, they can get big sacks of rice and beans and potatoes and flour and milk for free that will keep them alive. Then someone shows me the actual math and how vastly inefficient such a system would be such that it would be more expensive than the food stamp program while delivering a worse product, purely for the purpose of punishing people who collect welfare and soothing the hurt feelings of people who don't. But still, I kind of wish it were real.

You can get a 10lb bag of rice for $10, that might as well be free. And rice and beans and lentils honestly aren't that bad, I'd much rather eat just that than whatever the average american eats, both by taste and by health.

A large fraction of weed users are not into weed culture, it's just that the ones who are into weed culture stand out a lot.

If anything, legal weed is likely to diminish obnoxious weed culture because if weed is legal and you can go buy it at the local 7-11, then it is no longer so much a cool rebellious thing that motivates people to have a subculture around it.

Yeah, that was the claim, and it's what I thought would happen, but it seems like the opposite happened.

That has not been my experience. I remember weed culture from 20 years ago pretty well, since I was part of it. And it wasn't any less obnoxious than weed culture now. Was it more obnoxious than now? To be honest, I have no idea.

I am a libertarian mostly. But I hate smokers, loud trucks, gun culture, sugary beverages, marijuana, ugly strip malls, gambling, and just lower class preferences and behavior in general. I prefer to be in places where these things don't exist, but I don't support banning them.

As someone who grew up in a California beach town and never enjoyed the experience of smoking weed, I cant begin to describe how much I relate

I am very pro pot legalization and share your annoyance. I like in a non-legal state, and I hope it always stays this way. As I can drive an hour to a neighboring state for whatever I want, but enjoy the fact that there isn’t a ton of dispensaries littering all the roads and stoners being brazen in public. The only people who actually get in trouble here are behaving in a way where it’s a public nuisance, in which case, good riddance. That said, I do hope it is federally decriminalized.

How do people feel about white space in web design?

There has been this ongoing trend of massive amounts of white space, where it's basically a single sentence per screen. I find the experience awful on desktop. But only mildly annoying on mobile.

I'm also trying to find professional web design blogs or posts that point out how annoying this trend is. Instead all designers seem to have nothing but nice things to say about white space. Rather than making me think I'm wrong for going against all designers I instead just think the whole profession is wrong.

I hate it with a burning passion. (This is, unironically, what a website should look like: https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/) I guess they want things to look nice and clean, but for practical reasons, I want as much information to fit on the screen at one time as possible. I can understand limiting clutter, but they have gone way too far. I don't like clicking through menus, especially if I don't know where to find what I'm looking for, and I really really don't like scrolling.

For the same reason, I abhor the trend of making things too big. I really don't like that if I open YouTube on my 27" monitor, I can only see 8 videos at a time (or just 1 or 2 on my Pixel 6 XL). My bank used to have a nice website that they ruined by replacing with the design from their app. I have five accounts and only two fit on the screen because they're using 24 point font with huge chunks of white space between them. They can't fit 5 numbers on a 312 square inch screen! I'm seriously considering switching banks over it and I only hesitate because the others will probably do the same.

I have to resist going on a rant about this, so I'll just conclude by saying I also dislike the trend of replacing text with symbols that I have to decode, and by saying that if God is just, there is a special place in hell for whoever is responsible for pushing this.

http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ is my preference. I don't care if my screen fits a lot of information when it doesn't fit into my eye focus.

No, I much prefer the other one. This one has a narrow column that wastes two thirds of my screen. That's the main problem with modern websites.

What he referred to as "a grotesque pile of shit" was perfectly fine. Text should hit the side of the browser. It should be small and packed together.

As for line width, the priority in my view should be not wasting space so that less scrolling has to be done. I don't have any trouble tracking my eye back to the left side of the screen, but for those who do, maybe they can use multiple columns. But only using a narrow column is not good.

I don't care if my screen fits a lot of information when it doesn't fit into my eye focus.

What do you mean?

I mean it's easier for me to scroll down than scroll left to right and back to left with my eyes. I don't get the "use ALL of my screen" demands, especially as screens only ever get bigger. Different physical widths have different purposes.

It seems obviously easier to move your eyes than to use a scroll wheel.

I’m not so sure. Mostly because of the failure mode I observe when tired or otherwise impaired, where my eyes lose the line on wrapping around. I suspect that correlates with line width and especially with text density.

And yet it is not, in my case. Perhaps I am but a young grasshopper and will speak differently once I acquire mouse-related hand fatigue.

motherfuckingwebsite.com is unironically better than 95% of sites on the Internet today. I know that the author is like "this is satire", but I would far rather read that website than the vast majority of what people put out.

Agreed, except for the font.

For some reason I hadn’t seen that site before.

Not only was there good information density screenwise, it practically gave me a jumpscare by how quickly it loaded.

I find it very sad that websites load more slowly than they did 30 years ago or whenever it was when my parents first got high speed internet.

Everything should be horizontally expanded to fit its container at all times. Empty space is wasted space.

This is probably a symptom of the ongoing "app-ification" of webpages, whereby mobile and desktop layouts are merging increasingly to make less work for the designers and maintainers. The mass amounts of white space are usually there because that space doesn't exist on portrait mobile screens.

Everything should be horizontally expanded to fit its container at all times.

There are some legitimate concerns about readability and column width on widescreen monitors. The old school 80 column wide text terminal is a decent width, but a bit wider is fine too. That said, there are definitely designer-driven layouts that are way too narrow, but manually adjusting my browser window would be a PITA to do frequently.

Some width limit is reasonable, although maybe allowing sites to specify it might have been a poor design choice.

manually adjusting my browser window would be a PITA to do frequently.

I don't see how you would need to do it frequently. In the glorious world where every site fills your browser window, you would set your browser width once and then it would be correct for every site you visited.

Not really, no. For a multi-column design that has several chunks of content, I want them all at the same time filling my screen. For a single-column website like an article or a book, I prefer the text filling no more than 50% of my screen so that I do not forget where the beginning of the line was by the time I've gotten to the end of it.

I think you've missed part of the point, which is that in the ideal world we wouldn't have disparate setups like that. Every site would just be a single column, taking up the whole browser, and you size the browser accordingly (once).

But a single column is not always the best presentation.

I disagree with that. I think it is the best.

But if I want half-monitor-width columns of text, do I size my browser to half a screen (I've done this before)? When I want to view images, videos, or even tabular data (calendars, for example) though, I frequently want full-screen, widescreen presentation. The "multi-media" nature of web pages makes this difficult generally.

Although, I think the web would have developed very differently if the browser were allowed to specify maximum column width like it can text sizes or accessibility features. Not certain if that'd be better (light/dark theming is only now starting to work tolerably), but certainly different.

The problem is that text isn't the only thing we view in a browser. When I view a video or just an image, I often - usually - want that taking up a lot of width. And it's not always a matter of just maximizing it, since I might want it to take up 70% of my monitor width rather than 100%, while I want 30% of my monitor width when reading. Ideally, I could just keep my browser at 70% width, and the text would take up 3/7 of the browser width when I read.

I personally think there should be some sort of default "text width" setting in browsers that force text to start wrapping if it goes beyond a certain width in terms of characters/percentage/pixels/units, much like how we can set a minimum font size in our browser.

I don't think that's true, because then the eye needs to track back and forth over a further distance at line breaks. It's why Bibles and newspapers (which use all their spaces) break up the text into columns.

It's awful. We truly live in a dark (or too bright) time.

Consider New Reddit:

  • This is the default. I'm only getting 2 posts per massive browser screen. After browsing a bit, it does fill some of that space with a "recently viewed" list, but the massive bars on the side are still there. I'm convinced these design choices have dumbed down participation on reddit such that people now only posts pics and simple questions rather than longer discussions.
  • This is if you change it to "Classic" view, but that still only shows 7 posts compared to old reddit 's 13. These aren't so bad. The whitespace would be filled by longer post titles, so it doesn't feel like a waste. Personal preference, but I still think old reddit is much cleaner, despite displaying more.
  • This is "Compact" - dropping the thumbnails, shrinking even further, and new reddit still only gets 12 posts on screen. In an effort to shrink things, they've moved the comment button way off to the right, which looks awkward when the post title is short. And for what? Now I have to trace along that whitespace with my eyes to find the comment info.

Substack is even worse:

  • Just look at this shit! We are approaching 80% whitespace here, and half of it is Substack pushing their stupid twitter clone.
  • This page should be the home screen instead, and it's still half blank.
  • Another sin: If you accidentally hover over a username, it pops up a giant box like this full of yet more whitespace, covering your view of what you were looking at. On mobile, this happens if you thumb the screen to scroll down and accidentally press anywhere near a name.

Can anyone familiar with design explain why we can't have stuff like the old slatestarcodex blog back? It worked just fine on mobile. If the text is too small, you just pinch zoom the screen a bit.

This is a website I built, and mostly designed:

https://www.mpsbrettonwoods.org/

My disdain for empty space has probably created the opposite problem of things being too cramped. But the audience is monetary economists. The kind of people that read books, and write books.

A book is nothing but a wall of text and it's a design that has endured for hundreds of years. I think as long as a design isn't more dense than a book then it's fine.

I don't think things are too cramped at all and I would prefer even less white space. I don't even like the big title page that makes you have to scroll down to where the content starts. I would rather have the "It is our pleasure ..." start the top left of the page, with a narrower top banner.

I think Gwern probably one of the best designed websites I've ever seen, though I'd be tempted to reduce the font size a bit.

I "mostly designed" it. I did operate on concessions to other parties, and things that "look good" that "most website do" are hard to argue against.

Part of my original question is looking for a design group that says "obscene amounts of white space is stupid" because I constantly have to have these arguments.

Gwern's website is closer to my preference.

This is the kind of design I'd argue against:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=beck+and+stone&atb=v390-1&ia=web

The throughlink to a search engine is intentional. Please don't direct link.

It's 80% white space if you only count wide open space. It's more like 95% or more when you consider how much space there is around everything. For example, look at the ridiculously large orange shape around the New note button. There's no reason for it to be that big. There's no reason for the items on the menu above it to be spaced so far apart.

I agree the old Slate Star Codex website was a really well designed.

I find the experience awful on desktop. But only mildly annoying on mobile.

Well yeah, that's because it's all designed mobile-first. It's probably also worth noting that sure, people have very high resolution screens now, but if they're over the age of 20 they'll probably be running them at 125 or 150% scaling (if they're over 50 and somehow know enough to touch the slider, even 200%, though other OS UI elements start going fucky at that scaling factor). So your 1920x1080 display at 13" is closer to the old 1366x768 after that scaling.

Also, whitespace provides a clear space where users aren't expecting buttons to be (since mobile design in general necessitates the implicit understanding that if you want to interact with a row, you tap the row- there really isn't space for '90s-style buttons and drop shadows). If you present a list to a user on a phone of information (and this isn't in the "I already know what's in this playlist" sense), you need to provide a place for their non-transparent thumb or fingers to scroll the screen so they can scan the page. Usually this is to the right of the text, but can be placed to the left as well for languages whose words start on the right of the page, if we care about them (and designers are typically, ideologically-speaking, the type of people who will even if they never get any users that do).

Whitespace also provides a space for menus to expand into. For the same reasons as the above (very limited real estate), you can't have a left-side menu any more because if you do you're intruding on the precious space the user has to usefully navigate your app (and you can't have a top-side/bottom-side one because good luck fitting more than 2 words side by side big enough for a user's fat finger to press... and if you failed to impress that you could scroll that menu the functionality to the right might as well not exist). While having whitespace doesn't solve this, it does mean that you can do the cool animations that don't force a total context switch away from the list you were browsing (by showing a sliver of it on the right side, usually).

And you can't go for columns of text unless it's exploring a parent-child relationship (best example being Mail apps), because again, you've run into the "I'm scrolling something I want to read and now my hands are in the way" problem, since 2 columns of text covering half the screen means you're barely reading either of them.

Oh, and even if your users' monitors are big, and they're still using reasonable scaling factors, the website still has to be responsive if it's resized- the cheapest way to do that is to just be in mobile mode always. Besides, if the users all of a sudden snaps your site to the side of the screen, even though the means of scrolling doesn't block the screen itself, the viewport has shrunk so much that you might as well be on a mobile device now anyway.

I don't think the trend is going away until mobile VT-100s stop being the dominant way people use the Web, and as such and I think this problem is going to be with us for a long, long time. (Or until we have an AI that just magically desktopifies the site so you don't have to spend money maintaining two versions, but y'know.)

there really isn't space for '90s-style buttons and drop shadows

There is.

Well yeah, that's because it's all designed mobile-first.

I frequently play an online game which is desktop-first (they kinda partially support mobile, but it renders awfully), but it looks to me that it shares many flaws. One data point.

There is.

There's barely space on a mobile device to show 2 buttons with some text side by side on screen at the same time. Maybe 3 can fit comfortably if you're using a phablet. The border is taking up valuable space that you sometimes can't afford to go without should the button's text actually need to be that long... and sometimes that is indeed the case.

I frequently play an online game which is desktop-first (they kinda partially support, but it renders awfully), but it looks to me that it shares many flaws.

The problem with the minimalist mobile design philosophy is that it leaks into places it doesn't belong. There's really no reason that, say, the modern Hitman series of games needs to be all Metro'd up like MS wanted Windows 8 to be, and yet... it is.

Also, it's very cheap to do- you just need to set the color of the box and be done, no color matching the shadows, no problems with color when the button is pressed in, etc. Hell, half the time you just color the text or place the icon and expect the user to guess that it's even a button in the first place; sure, design languages are slowly moving away from that shit because... it's awful, but it's even less work than placing a button is.

I'm not saying discoverability in flat UIs isn't plain awful, because it absolutely is, but given the constraints of the hardware and interface (fat fingers and hand) to work with I'm not that surprised this kind of design is what the industry moved towards. Now if only they'd make it easier for me to obviously show that yes, there's more to this scroll view other than "just hope the text is cut off in a manner that suggests you should scroll down"...

there really isn't space for '90s-style buttons and drop shadows

My greatest complaint for modern UI is that there absolutely is space for 1 pixel of grey on two sides of every button. Modern designers wrongly choose to make "flat" buttons that you can't always tell are buttons.

We've regressed from clear consistent ways to show what can be interacted with to a flat obscure aesthetic.

There has been this ongoing trend of massive amounts of white space, where it's basically a single sentence per screen. I find the experience awful on desktop. But only mildly annoying on mobile.

My theory is that this is just the struggle between the Berners-Lee Web (a vast network of intellectual interaction) and the Consumer Web (a powerful tool for buying and selling). (Social media arguably sits between these, as it is primarily concerned with buying and selling human interactions.) Whitespace is mayonnaise: it helps you swallow whatever you're being fed. Phones (and to a lesser degree, tablets) are not Berners-Lee devices; they are consumption devices, which may explain why you find web mayo more palatable when you're on your phone.

I don't understand this. I can consume better if the information is there. If I have to click and scroll to find it, I will consume less of it. Whitespace isn't mayonaise, it's the two thirds of empty space in the chip back or the child-safe lid on the medication bottle.

or two thirds of air nitrogen in pack of chips

I like this description, it's also one of myain complaints when being asked to implement that type of design. It's vacuous and looks best when there is very little content.

It's an anti-content type of design.

Also, related: round userpics, which waste space. Cut corners aren't filled with any content. (could be buttons or indicators, at least) I abhor modern design. We probably would have much better designs if we had small screens like in past.

Maybe a part of problem is companies want to increase women representation, and women prefer doing design/UI/UX so users have to view needless frequent redesigns.

round userpics, which waste space.

I'm going to defend this a little bit, too. If a profile picture is designed to show one's face, having it be a circle makes sense since that's how faces are generally shaped. With a square box, you're also showing your shoulders in the picture and it's a little more awkward to get the picture framed just right.

Of course, that's assuming you'd prefer to share your face and use your real name, something generally more conducive to the goals of female users than their male counterparts. It is absolutely more inconvenient to have to fit a more generic square picture into a round hole.

If user wants circle, they can replace corners of their userpic with white/gray/whatever. This is always available. But users wishing for square are denied choice by designers. Sometimes website forcefully changes existing square userpic to circle, and the pictures were never framed for circle.

Human faces are more oval than round. Ovals were pretty popular in 19th century (also, it saves expensive silver in mirrors and pictures). I remember oval photos of my classmates in pre-internet time. Handsome male faces look more like rectangle than oval gigachad.jpg

showing your shoulders in the picture

even if it, what is the problem here? Why showing Adam's apple is good but shoulders are a no-no?

little more awkward to get the picture framed just right.

AFAIK none of smartphones/cameras have circular frames for shooting pictures for a circular userpic.

I was trying to convince some devs at an up-and-coming twitter-esque platform to do away with whitespace and their only argument was that people viewing on a wider screen don't want an entire sentence to span across horizontally. So they kept their design, where on even a regular desktop 50% of the website is white space.

I countered with the fact that no one needs to maximize their browser to fill the entire width of their monitor.. and alternatively they can just as easily zoom in.

It seems as though, either for monetary reasons tied to continued engagement, or possibly genuine preference from enough people, the extra-white-space design is here to stay for a bit longer.

If it wasn't obvious I'm not a fan of it. But for a website that is following the numbers, we can see that extra whitespace is beyond an experimental stage as the style has been, and continues to be, adopted by many websites.

I was trying to convince some devs at an up-and-coming twitter-esque platform to do away with whitespace and their only argument was that people viewing on a wider screen don't want an entire sentence to span across horizontally.

I wish that these people would get it into their heads that some people do, in fact, want that. I want it very badly! But nobody will give it to me, and it drives me crazy.

It's awful. I'm sick and tired of web pages which are about two inches wide on my 24" monitor. Like @Astranagant said, a lot of this is because stuff increasingly gets designed to fit the vastly inferior capabilities of phones. The justification about reading comfort is weak nonsense, imo. I have a much easier time reading text all the way across my monitor than in a tiny column. And really, if some people prefer small columns of text then the right thing to do is let them adjust their browser width to fit their desires. But when the text is artificially limited, I can't expand it to fit my preference.

And as you have noted, basically the entire design profession is dead ass wrong about this. But unfortunately, that's not too surprising. UI design in software is absolute garbage compared to 20 years ago. Everyone is chasing the same stupid trends, or worse, is trying to optimize everything to squeeze out one more marginal user (without any regard for the experience of the users they already have). There's very little quality software interface design being done these days.

But when the text is artificially limited, I can't expand it to fit my preference.

You can modify the CSS—by right-clicking and choosing "Inspect", or by using a browser extension like Stylus.

Quoting works published in years 1996 and 1929, Wikipedia says:

Traditional line-length research, limited to print-based text, gave a variety of results, but generally for printed text it is widely accepted that line lengths fall between 45 and 75 characters per line (cpl), though the ideal is 66 cpl (including letters and spaces). For conventional books, line lengths tend to be 30 times the size of the type, but between 20 and 40 times is considered acceptable (e. g., 30 characters × 10-pt font = 300-pt line). Early studies considered line lengths of 59–97 mm (about 57 cpl) optimum for 10-point font. For printed works with multiple columns, 40–50 cpl is often better. For justified, English-language text, the minimum number of characters per line is 40; anything less than 38–40 characters often results in splotches of white spaces (or rivers) or too many hyphenations in the block of text. Longer lines (85–90 cpl) may be acceptable for discontinuous text such as in bibliographies or footnotes, but for continuous text lines with more than 80 characters may be too long. Short text, such as ragged marginal notes, may be as little as 12–15 characters per line.

Desktop browsers generally set the default text size at 16 pixels, leading to a "widely accepted" line length of 720–1200 pixels, or around half of the width of a standard 1920×1080 screen. Presumably, web designers think that more people would be annoyed by extremely long lines of text than by large expanses of empty space.

On my own desktop computer, I typically browse the Internet using a half-width 960×1080 window rather than a full-width 1920×1080 window. Alternatively, you can buy a monitor that can be rotated into 1080×1920 portrait orientation.

This problem was solved at least three hundred years ago by newspaper publishers when they started printing multiple columns on a single page.

Chrome on Android is kind enough to save me from the worst of it by suggesting I enable reader mode, though I wish it was possible to easily force it like on Safari (without fiddling with flags).

I prefer density quite heavily, and all the times I notice white space (selection bias, I know), it only detracts from my experience.

I have $92,000 in my Donor-Advised Fund. I haven't made a grant in 30 months, which means I have 6 months to make a grant or the fund will be liquidated and merged into some generic charity fund. I only need to donate $500, but I'm inclined to donate at least half the fund.

Who should I give to?

The first place I went to was GiveWell. Unfortunately, it would appear all their top charities are woke. For instance, here is what Helen Keller International had to say:

"We are overwhelmed with grief and concern over the killing of George Floyd—on the heels of the recent killings of Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor. Racism has no place in America, or our world."

Should I just give these people my money anyway? My problem is that I think wokeness makes the world a worse place, so while I think it's probable that the organization does good by preventing blindness, they are also harming the world by propagating a quasi-religious framework which hinders human thriving.

Are there any charities that would meet GiveWell's criteria for effective donations that are non-woke (or ideally even anti-woke)?

If you have any pet causes, now would be a good time to post them. My chance of donating is fairly high in the next week or two. I've been feeling a bit Scroogish lately and would like to turn that around.

Let me describe some of my beliefs and the very tentative conclusion they've led me to, and you can decide how many of these beliefs you share and thus how seriously you should take my conclusion. I frame this as a description rather than an argument because I don't think I can capably advocate for any of these views, at least not succinctly the way someone with more talent could, and thus I must simply hope you already share them.

Suffering is bad, but, lacking a good word to describe this, [failure to reach potential / absence of joy] is far worse. The worst suffering is caused when a source of joy disappears. Some of the worst pain you can experience is losing a loved one or getting divorced, with physical pain a very distant runner-up. I'd rather have a child, experience a few years getting to know them, and then lose them, than never have them at all. Same with marriage etc. The worst position you can be in, I think, is to squander great potential and end up living a bare-minimum life without having tried hard to better your situation.

So, all else being equal, I think the life of a paraplegic with a good attitude is more valuable than the life of an able-bodied person with a bad attitude. Second-order effects and other caveats aside, I think it's pretty easy for anyone to squander all of their gifts, and I also think it's doable for someone with no gifts to live an extremely meaningful and joyful life pretty much unrelated to their material circumstances.

In the long run, I think culture beats charity. As Zero HP Lovecraft says:

Everything is downstream of everything. Culture and law and politics and religion all feed into each other like an ouroborotic human centipede. All the various pieces of the world that we try to taxonomize feed backwards and upwards and every which way into each other.

I think this is true, but culture, and human belief, are in the end what determine human wellbeing along multiple dimensions. Optimistically: everything is downstream from culture in the sense that if you fix culture, literally everything else will be fixed in short order. Culture is downstream of everything else in the sense that there are actual actions you can take which will meaningfully affect culture.

Fund a woke charity, and you may save 3 bazillion lives, but you're also subsidizing the status and reach of some of the most woke people in the world. In the long run I think this may actually matter more--the poor people will survive, which is great, but they or their descendants will be forced to bend the knee to ideologies which will ultimately destroy them, spiritually if not physically.

So I think the best sorts of charities do one or more of the following:

  1. Accelerate science, ideally without granting undue status to universities
  2. Increase the status of noble, well-directed, self-sacrificing activities, especially parenthood
  3. Create art which directly promotes traditional conservative values, e.g. traditional values, e.g. integrity, discipline, self-respect, etc.

I think #3 is probably the lowest-hanging fruit, and usually leads to #2, so that's where most money should go. Find someone who makes good art, but isn't crazy enough to pursue that rather than support their family. Pay for a year of their work and see what happens. Maybe if a few thousand people do this we'll get an excruciatingly beautiful work of art which we wouldn't have otherwise, valuable both in its own right and as a cultural cudgel against competing ideologies. I'm not sure what all of Lars Doucet's beliefs are, but he strikes me as a good writer, and were it not for his obligations to his family he would be producing art right now (at least if you count indie games as art). Instead he's working in real estate on something lucrative but ultimately meaningless. I'm sure there are plenty of people like him, both skilled and with their priorities straight, who could be unleashed by those of us with the same priorities but considerably less artistic talent.

I'm also interested in #1, but tbh I think capitalism is probably the best way to accomplish that, so if your talents lie in that direction it's probably better to create/fund a startup than to create some ridiculous scientific institution aimed at promoting conservative values.

That’s a strange way to value a life.

On the capitalist side, it’s hard to imagine funding some guy to not work a standard job is more efficient than funding a bunch of people to not be starved or blind or diseased. $50,000 is supposed to save, what, 10 to 15 lives?

Evaluating cultural impact is even weirder. The right side of the scale gets one man’s cultural output. The left, whatever cachet is gained by allocating an extra 0.012% to bed nets, scaled down by how much that reflects on distantly correlated progressive projects. These both feel like laughably small quantities.

Why is it that $50,000 can save 10 to 15 lives? That's such a laughably small amount of money. We abhor slavery in the States (as we should) but there are probably hundreds of millions of people whose temporal circumstances would be immediately and meaningfully improved if they became slaves. Not to advocate for that, I think a poor free life is much better than a slightly less poor enslaved one, but where did things go so wrong?

I have a very successful African friend. He came to America with the explicit goal of getting rich, returning to Africa, and lifting his countrymen out of poverty. He did get rich, he did return to Africa, he started an array of businesses designed to help the people more than to earn money, and corruption sank all of them. Employees, customers, and government officials all stole from his business. At one point he essentially had an entire company stolen and had to steal it back, which is when he gave up on the project entirely and returned to America.

$5000 apiece is a steal to save a human life, and anyone who donates is absolutely making a good decision, but more than saving those lives I want to fix whatever problem made those lives so cheap in the first place. The AMF does great work, but should be, and as far as I know is not, dwarfed by our efforts to fix the underlying system. From what I can tell the issue lies not in physical technology but in social technology--if they could build a more high-trust society most of their problems would evaporate instantly.

They don't do so because culture is nigh-impossible to change. We could help--we could, and have, forced better social technology upon them via colonies, which seems to have produced meaningful and lasting benefits to the affected countries. We have also given up on that due to culture.

Culture created Africa's problems, culture can fix its problems, and culture prevents us from fixing its problems. Organizations like the AMF do great work treating the disease but ultimately do very little to cure it.

Evaluating cultural impact is even weirder. The right side of the scale gets one man’s cultural output. The left, whatever cachet is gained by allocating an extra 0.012% to bed nets, scaled down by how much that reflects on distantly correlated progressive projects. These both feel like laughably small quantities.

"One man's cultural output" is on a power law distribution depending entirely on the man. I happen to believe that the sort of person I have in mind--one who is inclined to put their family above their personal artistic dreams--is 2-3 standard deviations better at art than those who will sacrifice everything for an artistic pursuit. Art benefits from real life experience, and so the most passionate artists (relative to their passion for more grounded things, not relative to a baseline of apathy) may paradoxically be the worst at actually creating good art. This is why I think a cultural patronage movement has a chance to succeed big and create at least one major artist, though on its face "pay someone for a year to write that novel they've always talked about" sounds like a terrible idea.

Maybe focus on fixing African culture, then, instead of US culture? (unless you also suggest opening immigration way up, which would help the people on its own)

My perspective is that all culture is incredibly flawed. Africa might look bad in comparison to America but we're all hives of scum and villainy compared to what we could be, so Africa is less of a low-hanging fruit than it appears to be at first glance. $5,000 is, again, an extremely low price to pay to save a life, and the fact that that need isn't completely and easily met by Americans reflects extremely poorly on us.

Also, I'm not African, and have a much better chance to (directly or indirectly) affect American culture than African.

Immigration is sort of related to what I was saying about colonialism, but with colonialism you don't cause nearly so much brain drain, one of many reasons to prefer it.

$5,000 is, again, an extremely low price to pay to save a life, and the fact that that need isn't completely and easily met by Americans reflects extremely poorly on us.

Nah... I don't think anybody has an obligation to help people who won't help themselves. There might be an obligation to teach a man to fish, but a positive obligation to give a man a fish just encourages helplessness.

I think we do have a positive obligation to help others, which when taken seriously also leads to considerations like encouraging self-sufficiency. There's no contradiction there. I don't think we should really ever let people die from easily preventable causes. Either we should step in and forcibly change their culture if it's that bad, or we should feed them if it's not that bad (and thus their issues are caused by external factors outside of their control).

I think we do have a positive obligation to help others,

It depends what you mean by "help". I know a woman who "helps" her stoner grandson by covering his rent and living costs, while dude does absolutely nothing with his life. I don't think she has any obligation to do that, and I think she's making thing worse, in fact.

There's no contradiction there.

Not strictly speaking, but these are forces pulling in opposite directions.

I don't think we should really ever let people die from easily preventable causes.

You do you, but I disagree, and again would argue that people have no obligation to help those that won't help themselves, no matter how preventable their causes are.

Either we should step in and forcibly change their culture if it's that bad,

This has been deemed taboo by the powers that be, and until that taboo is abolished you have no right to wag your finger at people who won't shell out $5K to save the life of someone on the other side of the planet.

and thus their issues are caused by external factors outside of their control

Nowadays this is only true on an individual level (talented people born into corrupt societies), or as an immediate result of a natural disaster.

More comments

Sure, I was just addressing:

Culture created Africa's problems, culture can fix its problems, and culture prevents us from fixing its problems.

What I meant by that last part is that our culture prevents us from fixing its problems, though I suppose its culture does as well, to a lesser extent.

Eh, I would require a lot more evidence for how effective art is at producing conservative values.

My default assumption would be that it would be more effective to try to affect policy and institutions, or promote ideas directly.

I suppose Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality was very effective at what it was aiming at, but that's an extreme outlier, I think.

Harry Potter itself was pretty effective. The books themselves weren't all that conservative, but they gave Rowling a ton of influence. I think without her Britain would be significantly more crazy than it currently is.

Tolkien's works were conservative imo on many different levels. They directly promote values like humility, courage, and mercy, rather than sassiness, dysfunction, and unabashed hedonism. Even today the new adaptation, while somewhat woke, didn't have any sex scenes, and had a much more somber tone than any comparable media.

Cathedrals, and the art within them, have been keeping people coming to church for hundreds of years.

I like the idea of fighting at the institutional level too, and don't mean to downplay it. I think the patronage method is probably best there too, or at least underutilized--we're a lot more strapped for talent than we are for money. Somewhere out there is an amazing lawyer, one with the skill to credibly challenge the Civil Rights act or Wickard v. Filburn, who is instead going into business to ensure he can feed his family. Still, probably 99% of art nowadays is produced by far leftists, and that has to have an effect on our culture.

If I had the talent--or if, in the future, I have the time and attention to build the talent--I'd start with good fiction, build a following, then slowly make my works more and more explicitly political. They'd never reach Ayn Rand levels, but maybe a book would be centered around a poor mother and the child she refused to terminate or something. Build a good story like that, build a narrative people can apply to their own lives, and you may save thousands from abortion, and make them heroes in their own minds too. It's impossible to objectively evaluate the impact of either route though.

I posted the other reply before seeing this, and I think this answers some of my questions. My own community is chock full of artistically inclined people, it has way more talent than money, but especially more of both talent and money than organizational capacity.

They'd never reach Ayn Rand levels, but maybe a book would be centered around a poor mother and the child she refused to terminate or something. Build a good story like that, build a narrative people can apply to their own lives, and you may save thousands from abortion, and make them heroes in their own minds too.

That does not sound like a good idea. I'm on the same side of the issue, I don't even dislike all preachy novels (I liked Pollyanna, actually), and my first thought was "ugh". And unless you're absolutely brilliant, ugh is enough for nobody to ever see your work, no matter how much their pastor pushes it on them at the Christian bookstore. I would have to think longer about why I have this reaction, but it's related to reading "Christian girls novels" in my youth, and pattern matching to that.

My own community is chock full of artistically inclined people, it has way more talent than money, but especially more of both talent and money than organizational capacity.

Talent as in artistic talent? My point was that conservative artists are far more likely to turn their skills towards safe, reliable careers than progressive artists are. To be honest, unless you have some truly exceptional people in your community, the fact that they're artistically talented and poor to me means they're either not that talented or not that conservative. The people I'd want to fund are those who put their families before their passions.

As far as organizational capacity, again, that's because the good organizers went into business rather than activism (as they should).

That does not sound like a good idea. I'm on the same side of the issue, I don't even dislike all preachy novels (I liked Pollyanna, actually), and my first thought was "ugh". And unless you're absolutely brilliant, ugh is enough for nobody to ever see your work, no matter how much their pastor pushes it on them at the Christian bookstore. I would have to think longer about why I have this reaction, but it's related to reading "Christian girls novels" in my youth, and pattern matching to that.

I think you're imagining something much more extreme than what I had in mind. The story would star those two, and that would be that; it would otherwise just be a story about some other thing. I just wrote a short story along those lines (actually far more obvious imo) and nobody on Reddit caught on so I'm pretty confident this is doable. It's not rocket science, it's just stories that don't celebrate evil. Tolkien's works would more than qualify if written today.

To be clear, I meant Yudkowsky's Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, which I'm led to understand had a substantial effect towards drawing people into the Rationalist community.

Frankly, it's going to be really hard to convince people on abortion when it's such a tribal issue (and judging by frequent election results, something that's less popular). Any such book would have to be something written with an intended audience that is on the right, unless it's very skillfully done.

To be clear, I meant Yudkowsky's Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality

I know.

Frankly, it's going to be really hard to convince people on abortion when it's such a tribal issue (and judging by frequent election results, something that's less popular). Any such book would have to be something written with an intended audience that is on the right, unless it's very skillfully done.

It would be a single brick in the cultural wall. At the level I have in mind, there's not really any convincing going on, or even reading for that matter. The book becomes a movie, a teenage girl watches it, then later when contemplating abortion she feels like she knows someone who didn't get an abortion and made it work well.

Eh, I would require a lot more evidence for how effective art is at producing conservative values.

It isn't only HPMOR, but it is Atlas Shrugged, Bellamy's Looking Backward, Upton Sinclair, Jack London, Émile Zola ...

It is difficult to evaluate the magnitude of the effect, but there is anecdotal evidence that art acts as (firstly) a Schelling point for like-minded people to meet and network and (secondly) as cultural growth medium for their activities. Consider how many of the left-wing activists are college students enrolled or teaching in literature and humanities programmes or writers or artists. The activist is a person who is willing to spend their time at activism (promoting ideals) full-time instead of starting a career in banking or engineering. A person who does that is most often an idealist, and idealists need something to be idealistic about. When you have it going, you have started a perpetual machine that provides steady supply of idealists to promote your ideas for generations to come. Instead of giving man a fish, set up an aquaculture farm. Sometimes political manifestos seem work (if they are romantic and fiery and engaging), but fine art has often wider appeal. (And sometimes it is good thing on it's own. Victor Hugo saved Notre Dome of Paris by writing a popular novel.)

Have you considered finding a church?

A good one would hit items 2 and 3 on you list quite well. Nearly every church does a pastoral visit when they get a visitor, make a good pot of coffee and buy a pastry and ask the pastor questions about how their church does those. Then you can get a short list to sit under the pastor's teaching as well as a bible study, to learn more about the goals you share. You won't have to make a conversion, though I'm sure they would welcome and celebrate jt.

When you find one you like start giving, the nice thing is you can dole out the funds slowly and hopefully in a way that you can seem them being used to fulfill your goal. Can a donor advised fund, be used for grants to private individuals not affiliated with the fund? If so, after you've been there a while you could mention to the pastor or a deacon that you have a heart and source of funds for benevolence and they might have some opportunities to directly support parents or people working directly to fullfil their potential. It can be done through the church if you prefer to remain anonymous.

I'm pretty sure @Meriadoc is LDS?

Then I'd recommend getting more involved with his stake and when someone senior notices express an interest in benevolence or Personal and Youth or whatever the LDS calls their scouting replacement program.

For sure, I don't mean to write off personal direct charity, but I think one can do both.

Yep, I'm pretty sure that side of things is already taken care of, at least for every American congregation I've seen. The church will pretty much give you all the food, cleaning supplies, and other household goods you need, and help pay for your rent / medical bills, at the discretion of the bishop (the congregation leader, at about the same level as a pastor). Often this support is conditional, you have to appear to be making some effort to improve your station in life, which can mean a requirement to attend weekly personal finance seminars, but that's pretty much it. If anything, as far as I can tell it errs towards generosity, though the extremely online subsection of ex-mormons seems to disagree.

I do have some weak qualms with the church's finances--I have no idea why we have so much money saved up, as our numbers dwindle--but they seem to be managing it well and I have faith it will eventually be used for the right purposes.

I hope to eventually help people a lot, but for now I'm just grinding and working on being able to afford kids myself. In the meantime I'll keep paying tithing and trying to serve people in person, and hope to build a greater capacity to serve in the future.

It's a good suggestion though @atelier, sponsoring people on a more personal level like that has a ton of advantages, not to mention the institutional structure and experience that churches have to offer. This is perhaps a bit cliche, but I have a theory that welfare is uniquely harmful for people because they do not have to ask for it. There is no sense of "humbling oneself and recognizing you need help", there's not even a sense of "that specific person made a sacrifice to help me, and thought that I deserved help," instead it's just "Papa Government gave me some cash because I fall into X income category and have Y kids." In many cases it's obfuscated even further--there's no check from the government; instead things, especially medical bills, are just mysteriously cheaper. I can't imagine the human psyche is helped by such diffuse, sourceless aid. The least people can do as they're given food and shelter is recognize that such support is charity, not something they are owed.

Create art which directly promotes traditional conservative values, e.g. traditional values, e.g. integrity, discipline, self-respect, etc.

I would be interested to hear you expand on this.

Are you talking about ascetic artists practicing those things? Storytelling media about them? Usually that ends up going poorly, comes off very cheesy, and the actually brilliant works are things like Dostoyevsky just showing all these different people (and Ivan is convincing, but everyone in-world loves Zosima. In my own experience we much more need to produce more people like Zosima, I've known approximately one, which is more than many people have known).

Find someone who makes good art, but isn't crazy enough to pursue that rather than support their family. Pay for a year of their work and see what happens. Maybe if a few thousand people do this we'll get an excruciatingly beautiful work of art which we wouldn't have otherwise, valuable both in its own right and as a cultural cudgel against competing ideologies.

Have you ever heard of this working? How would this work? What would you expect them to produce?

I guess someone might say: look at the Inklings. They were sponsored by the British University system (somewhat contra #1), with enough slack to produce excellent conservative friendly stories. Which sounds like an argument for more slack at work. It isn't necessarily an argument that they would have produced something even better had they been freed of their day jobs -- their teaching jobs (and even war experience) were probably important to their development as storytellers. Meanwhile, people like Dickens or George MacDonald or Dostoyevsky had to keep writing to pay the bills, and this contributed quite a bit to how much they wrote, which is good to the extent their work is worthwhile. Faulkner is maybe not so conservative (I'm not actually sure I care about artists being "conservative, vs being true and beautiful), but he also seems like an argument for "jobs with slack;" stories brew slowly. The current Substack arrangement seems worse, because writers are expected to produce thoughts way too fast (though Chesterton thrived in a Substack adjacent editorial culture), drowning out their good work with a sea of trite nonsense. But this can also be accomplished with patronage (c.f. Rod Dreher -- talented enough, some good content, but just churning out 8 things a day under patronage; he might be better off having to also teach school or something).

Commissions are great. Hire someone to paint a mural or cast a sculpture. This is the Renaissance method, still in use, not at all the same as just paying them to potentially create something, everyone hopes, and very good for their interest in continuing artistic pursuits. I know churches that bring over iconographers to cover the insides of their churches with icons, and it would probably be beneficial to offer scholarships for them to take on an American apprentice or something, but I think this is more of an issue of people liking some people's work more than others, rather than otherwise capable people lacking time and money.

Are you talking about ascetic artists practicing those things? Storytelling media about them?

Storytelling about them. My view is that a good traditional fantasy book is pretty good at promoting traditional values, and a big part of this is because of how Tolkien defined the genre. The point is to watch impressive people overcome adversity.

Have you ever heard of this working? How would this work? What would you expect them to produce?

I've never heard of anyone trying it with conservative authors. The only one who comes to mind for progressives is Marx, who is either a perfect example or counterexample depending on how you look at it. I'd expect the majority of the beneficiaries to produce little of consequence, a sizeable fraction to pick up a talent which eventually leads somewhere, a small fraction to create valuable works of art sufficient to support them, and a tiny fraction (optimistically 1 in 10,000) to create something truly significant.

It's worth considering the downsides--these people would be giving up a year of career development for a chance at great success. If they succeed they still lose the real-life career experience and maybe their art is actually worse than it would be otherwise. If they fail they lose that experience, their careers are hurt, and maybe they are at risk of becoming dissatisfied with regular life. I would hope the upside, being better at art, would make up for some of that. I have many family members who have successful regular jobs and quasi-careers as artists on the side; they'd appreciate having an extra year of experience in their fields of passion.

I love the idea of jobs with slack. If anything that's much better, because they get life experience, have the time to create, and don't have to worry about their livelihoods once the year is up. The Inklings seem like quite an outlier, but you are changing my mind somewhat towards supporting institutional support.

(I'm not actually sure I care about artists being "conservative, vs being true and beautiful)

I strongly agree with this, but what I'd consider true and beautiful is seen as pretty far-right. The point isn't to wage the culture war but to promote values good for self-betterment rather than entertainment, which incidentally leads to better entertainment. Still thinking of Tolkien here.

Commissions are great. Hire someone to paint a mural or cast a sculpture. This is the Renaissance method, still in use, not at all the same as just paying them to potentially create something, everyone hopes, and very good for their interest in continuing artistic pursuits. I know churches that bring over iconographers to cover the insides of their churches with icons, and it would probably be beneficial to offer scholarships for them to take on an American apprentice or something, but I think this is more of an issue of people liking some people's work more than others, rather than otherwise capable people lacking time and money.

There just isn't as much inherent demand (or economies of scale) for this as there is for other forms of art. Books, movies, videogames all have way broader reach. The idea would be to start a virtuous cycle where the artist makes money doing what they love, and consumers get more of what they love.

I'm an extremely shallow consumer myself, and read all sorts of litRPGs, fantasies, and prog fantasies, wasting easily hundreds of hours per year. I can think of only one which even slightly scratched the itch I have for "person gets powerful and then protects others." Books like that exist, I'm sure, but all that I've found have been super low-quality. There's a big market for these stories, but the people who would write them are too busy with safer ventures.

(I want to write that story myself, but at my current trajectory I might be able to retire in about 5 years if I work hard, leaving me with another ~45 to find and pursue whatever I determine to be the best use of my time. So it's not happening for 5 years.)

I see what you mean better now, thanks. I was partly confused by your use of "artist," which is more often used for visual arts and a bit musicians, where it seems like you mean something more like storytellers, for the most part.

It would be interesting to try, though I'm pretty skeptical. The way you describe it, it sounds sort of like offering sabbatical opportunities to non-academics, in exchange of some expectation that the person will create stories, and then like you say, that isn't necessarily compatible with many people's career paths. Would it be somewhat like Scott's grants projects, where it's posted somewhere that interested people are likely to see the opportunity and apply? Or maybe someone knows a person who has something in mind, and offers it personally? I could see Brandon Sanderson organizing something like that, but just for fun storytelling, rather than Culturally Important Art.

Movies and video games are quite different industries, as far as I can tell, and way more expensive (especially movies), but maybe they'll be getting cheaper with the new AI technology? At least in a decade or two? Could offer some interesting opportunities for smaller operations to try to enter the field.

I'm an extremely shallow consumer myself, and read all sorts of litRPGs, fantasies, and prog fantasies, wasting easily hundreds of hours per year. I can think of only one which even slightly scratched the itch I have for "person gets powerful and then protects others." Books like that exist, I'm sure, but all that I've found have been super low-quality. There's a big market for these stories, but the people who would write them are too busy with safer ventures.

I used to read a lot of low brow fantasy (spent a whole winter alone in Alaska with Edgar Rice Burroughs novels). The morality seemed... fine, I think? Lots of emphasis on courage, anyway, which is fine.

I want to write that story myself, but at my current trajectory I might be able to retire in about 5 years if I work hard, leaving me with another ~45 to find and pursue whatever I determine to be the best use of my time. So it's not happening for 5 years.

Interesting. Have you written stories before?

I kind of liked the subplot in That Hideous Strength where Jane is on birth control, and is super bored alone in her flat, trying to work on her dissertation. And then later Merlin says that they could have had a child who would have been super important and amazing, but the time for that is past, idiots! My guess would be that the book reading population (or at least the population willing to read a book written by a Mottizen) is significantly more likely to be in that kind of situation than the (more numerically common, but unlikely to be affected by this meme space) "never married 19-year-old with three children, below the poverty line" mentioned by an article I just looked up on the statistics. Or the young underclass women Theodore dalrymple is known for writing about.

I see what you mean better now, thanks. I was partly confused by your use of "artist," which is more often used for visual arts and a bit musicians, where it seems like you mean something more like storytellers, for the most part.

I'd include the visual arts if I thought they were likely to be impactful at all. IDK if our culture has moved on, or if it's always been this way, but visual art doesn't seem to have the same reach or emotional impact as other forms of art. I do include musicians, but know much more about writing than music, so writing is what I've been talking about.

It would be interesting to try, though I'm pretty skeptical. The way you describe it, it sounds sort of like offering sabbatical opportunities to non-academics, in exchange of some expectation that the person will create stories, and then like you say, that isn't necessarily compatible with many people's career paths. Would it be somewhat like Scott's grants projects, where it's posted somewhere that interested people are likely to see the opportunity and apply? Or maybe someone knows a person who has something in mind, and offers it personally? I could see Brandon Sanderson organizing something like that, but just for fun storytelling, rather than Culturally Important Art.

Yeah, I'd do it on a personal level, but honestly it's not well thought-out yet.

I used to read a lot of low brow fantasy (spent a whole winter alone in Alaska with Edgar Rice Burroughs novels). The morality seemed... fine, I think? Lots of emphasis on courage, anyway, which is fine.

I'm not super impressed with low-brow fantasy books (despite them being essentially all I read nowadays, lacking better alternatives), but Tolkien for example had:

  • A cursed magical artifact the heroes could only resist through moral strength, nothing else
  • Other cursed magical artifacts with similar lessons
  • In the end their own strength couldn't save them, but the mercy they showed along the way did
  • "I can't carry the ring, but I can carry you," a good analogy for compassion and charity in general
  • Lots of background noise morality--Sam gets married and has about a dozen kids, which is straightforwardly presented as a good thing

and so on.

Interesting. Have you written stories before?

Not really, but I'm excited to try. I started writing/posting short stories this year with the goal of improving that skill. Currently I'm not a good writer at all, but I still think with some practice I can do better than the drivel that's popular on Royal Road these days.

I kind of liked the subplot in That Hideous Strength where Jane is on birth control, and is super bored alone in her flat, trying to work on her dissertation. And then later Merlin says that they could have had a child who would have been super important and amazing, but the time for that is past, idiots! My guess would be that the book reading population (or at least the population willing to read a book written by a Mottizen) is significantly more likely to be in that kind of situation than the (more numerically common, but unlikely to be affected by this meme space) "never married 19-year-old with three children, below the poverty line" mentioned by an article I just looked up on the statistics. Or the young underclass women Theodore dalrymple is known for writing about.

I like that, though it's probably too on-the-nose to work the way I'd like it to. That story won't reach mainstream audiences nowadays.

This is beautifully written and encapsulates a lot of my beliefs. I also believe that capitalism >>> charity for improving the world. So even if a charity is doing very good work, if its increases the power of socialism, it could be a net negative to society.

On the other hand, when a charitable intervention is so powerful that just a few hundred dollars could radically alter a person's life for the better, I'm inclined to cut the charity a little slack.

There is another thing that gives me pause. If a charity like Deworm the World is so effective, and is in need of funding, why hasn't some billionaire just fully funded them? Is the market for charity so inefficient that million dolllar bills are just lying around waiting to be grabbed?

I also believe that capitalism >>> charity for improving the world.

Have you seen the recent ACX article, wherein he regrets that he doesn't see an easy way to directly support capitalism in the third world? It was interesting.

Do you have any recommendations of artist like this? I share your line of thinking but I haven't discovered many. I'm a fan of Daniel Mitsui but he's about the only one I know.

Thanks for the reference, he's pretty cool. The only way I can think of to find such people would be to look for people who already produce good work while managing full-time jobs. Resident Contrarian is a Christian with good writing skills, but recently got a good job so I don't think he would (or maybe even should) take a year off of that. A. Trae McMaken is a Christian who already writes pretty good fiction without a huge following. We're talking about such a rare strain of people--those who share our uncommon values and seem to have exceptional artistic talent--that I think finding the right candidate is probably 95% of the battle.

Replying to self:

Against Malaria (https://www.againstmalaria.com) doesn't appear to be explicitly woke.

I also think the layout of website sends a valuable signal about priorities. No money wasted there. I tried to find Twitter accounts for their Advisor Board and didn't find any which is good. Furthermore, they say 100% of the money goes to malaria nets which would imply zero paid staff. IMO, that's how nearly all charities should operate.

Am I missing anything?

The Against Malaria Foundation is a pretty solid choice, and is the one that makes up most of my charitable contributions. If you care more about quality than about quantity of life, you might also consider Deworm the World. Their pitch is also refreshingly concrete and not "woke" at all:

More than 913 million children are at risk for parasitic worm infections like soil-transmitted helminths and schistosomiasis.

These infections mainly occur in areas with inadequate sanitation, disproportionately affecting poor communities. Children infected with worms are often too sick or weak to attend school because their body can’t properly absorb nutrients. If left untreated, worm infections lead to anemia, malnourishment, impaired mental and physical development, and severe chronic illnesses.

A safe, effective, and low-cost solution does exist — in the form of a simple pill taken once or twice a year. Regular treatment reduces the spread of the disease and helps children stay in school and live healthier and more productive lives.

Since 2014, Deworm the World has helped deliver over 1.8 billion deworming treatments to children across several geographies – for less than 50 cents per treatment. We work closely with governments to implement high-quality and cost-effective mass deworming programs which are resulting in dramatic reductions in worm prevalence.

Every year, GiveWell publishes a detailed analysis of the cost effectiveness of each charity in a spreadsheet that documents their assumptions and their model. If you care to do so, you can also make a copy of the spreadsheet and plug in your own numbers, though I basically never do that.

But yeah, no reason to give money to a global health charity that has politics you hate. The impact per dollar between the listed global health charities just doesn't vary by all that much.

Deworm the World seems like a great cause. Unfortunately they seem slightly woke.

https://www.evidenceaction.org/insights/challenging-convention-women-lead-at-evidence-action-part-one

"We see that diversity as one of our fundamental strengths", etc...

They spent $12 million on salaries in 2022 and another $574,000 on conferences. The CEO makes $356,738. And someone presumably got paid to make that article. Why didn't they spend that money on deworming instead? After all, they need money, and money = more deworming. Right?

Okay, that's too harsh. I just scrolled through their Twitter feed until I got back to April 2020. No George Floyd, not too much Covid, and not too much woke stuff in general. They seem pretty close with the Gates Foundation/Clinton foundation/Vox crowd. But that's just the milieu they run in. It might be hard to escape.

I'll throw them some shekels, thanks!

I don't think we should rate charities based on how low their overhead costs are. It's like saying we should cut Tim Cook's compensation to boost Apple's profits.

I think we should because it's a reliable signal about values.

Let's say I make $300,000 a year. I'm giving some of my money to a charity. But, wait, the charity's CEO actually makes more than I do! Shouldn't the CEO take a pay cut to support the valuable work of the charity? The CEO is saying HER marginal dollar is worth more than the work of the charity, but MY marginal dollar is worth less. To which I say hmmm....

The most important thing isn't really whether they're woke in the sense of feel obligated to post a statement, it's what they actually do with the money, so I probably wouldn't worry about that too much, as long as they spend pretty much all the money on what they're nominally for? I haven't looked in particular, but given that they're on givewell, I assume they're pretty good at making use of the money.

That said, by all means, prefer ones that more clearly stick to your values.

I do wonder what areas effective altruism is blind to. The fact that Open Philanthropy funded criminal justice reform significantly decreases my trust in their work overall, though I would imagine they would do far better on average than the default of not doing the math and hoping you end up somewhere effective. Based purely on vibes, GiveWell seems less likely to do things like that.

I agree with for the most part. Works matter more than intentions.

But it's hard for me. Would you donate to a Wahhabi charity that spent 80% of funds deworming in Africa but occasionally sent their staff on an expensive junket to a meeting of religious clerics? That's the question I'm wrestling with right now.

The fact that Open Philanthropy funded criminal justice reform significantly decreases my trust in their work overall

Were they the ones who were like "we ran the numbers and the most effective donation is giving to Democrats in swing states" or something? Motivated reasoning has no limits, so I think it's imperative to understand the people who make the calculations in addition to the calculations themselves.

I don't actually know. I do know that some enormous donors heavily tied to effective altruism (Dustin Moskovitz, SBF) spent a lot of money on democrats, but I don't know that it was through the EA-tied funds?

  1. St Vincent de Paul society is non-woke and may not be the most efficient use per dollar(it’s US charity so it almost certainly isn’t on a utilitarian basis), but has low overheads and specifically focused on the working poor. I believe they have a program for refinancing payday loans at lower interest which might be of interest.

  2. The Knights of Malta have their own hang ups but are also non woke and have more to do with the third world.

  3. You could always donate it directly to Ukraine aid- I think there’s at least a few local ones which don’t steal anything that comes in, and they’re not woke at all.

If you value the capacity for independent thought, how about donating to fund voluntary sterilization for people with tragic drug addictions?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prevention

I don’t personally think making a statement about Current Thing is inherently destructive, so I wouldn’t consider that a disqualifier. It does put your support firmly in the category of making common cause with people you dislike. I think that’s admirable, assuming it doesn’t actually advance the agenda.

Though maybe this is more flagrant—I couldn’t find the actual statement you were talking about.

That said, HKI is number 3 on the top charities list. What about Malaria Consortium or Against Malaria Fund? Both look remarkably unconcerned with domestic political advocacy, sloganeering, etc.

Has anyone else noticed Twitter being really buggy since Elon Musk took over? It's worse than Facebook Messenger. For example, it has had trouble loading images for the last day. I don't get why people have concluded that you can fire all these people and have everything be fine. The content moderation is better, but Twitter as a piece of software is obviously much worse now.

I'm not saying that means firing those people was a bad idea. Maybe having software work perfectly is not worth the cost, and the stock market's reaction to the mass layoffs at FAANG suggests they weren't pulling their weight. But that brings me to a related question. Why was it so common up until recently for people to say that, despite the very high salaries of software engineers in California, they were actually very underpaid given the amount they made for their employers? This now appears not to be even close to true. Why did people think this? Was it just some dumb profit divided by headcount calculation?

Was it just some dumb profit divided by headcount calculation?

It's precisely this because many leftists think the worker is entitled to most if not all the profits generated from their labor.

Okay, to be more fair, I think some people actually did some more in-depth analysis or had a more nuanced take. For an extremely naive example, they hire a software engineer at $200,000 to make some optimization on their servers that cuts costs of those servers by 10%, and if the company was spending $20 million on servers that's $2,000,000 saved. That example is probably not close to reality though, and I think people were thinking of software engineers in those FAANG companies, in which the software product is the driver of profits.

But it becomes extremely difficult to properly attribute what percentage of a single person's work is responsible for the success/profits of a product, especially when you have tens or hundreds of people working on it. And it's not just the software, there are also other aspects of business such as sales and marketing. Think of how many Google products fail due to shoddy marketing, or how many Google Engineers leave to start their own products/companies and fail (because while they might be technically talented, they lack people management ability for a CEO role or lack the sales/marketing ability to drive consumers to their product).

If it was so easy to generate millions in profit, why don't they A) Start their own business or B) successfully negotiate a higher salary? You could say this was their attempt to create some kind of public awareness/narrative to give a higher chance of them succeeding in option. I also think part of this mentality is driven by hatred for the rich, which is hilarious because as you pointed out, those software engineers are rich, earning the top 1% of income in the United States. But if there is someone richer, I guess you can go hate the richer guy first. Being a millionaire is okay now as long as there are billionaires to hate on.

There's also another perspective to consider. Most software engineers may be costing FAANG money, not generating profit for FAANG. They simply pay those software engineers a high enough salary that they are happy to work at those companies and don't leave to create competing products or go work for their competitors. That's why it was so easy for these companies to let go of people when profits went down because they weren't that valuable to the company. Think of how many "A Day in the Life of a Software Engineer" videos used to come out a few years ago and they showed very little of how much work they do and more on how many free smoothies they can get at the snack bar. (One could argue this is marketing to make the life at the company look better, or it was only focused on the positive aspects of the company). And some people claimed to work only 10 hours a week while being paid mid-high 6 figure salaries, and even more people that were working 2 remote software engineering jobs at the same time. These people are likely not working on the critical products/features that would be the main revenue drivers for the company.

This is true of a lot of people though. Anyone working with large amounts of data and money have this large effect on profits through their labour.

Does an IRS worker that prevents ten million in tax fraud every year deserve 200k a year? I feel like should have a lot to do with how replaceable the labour is and some people in SWE (especially at FAANGS) have gotten fairly overconfident in exactly how irreplaceable or necessary they are on an individual level.

One can of course turn this around and say that some people in other sectors are very underpaid for the very valuable and hard to replace labour they do.

Having an effect on profits is not the same as solely generating that profit. Let's say you have a small business that generates widgets generating revenue of $300,000 per year, and it has two employees who operate a machine to make the widgets. If either employee or the machine stops working, no widgets get made and the profits go to zero. So each employee and the machine can claim that 100% of the profits depends on its role. But that can't mean that each employee is worth $300,000 a year. If each employee were paid $300,000 a year and the machine were rented at $300,000, the company would be losing $600,000 a year. If the machine costs say $100,000 a year to rent, then each employee can only be paid $100,000 a year. So an employee who can correctly say that $300,000 of revenue depends on their work is only worth $100,000. More complicated processes with more employees would result in starker differences between these two figures.

I'm sure there's some capacitor somewhere in some multi-million dollar machine that would stop it from working if it failed, but that doesn't mean the capacitor could possibly be worth more than a few dollars, because there are many other components like it and if it did cost more than that, the machine could never have been built in the first place.

That is what I'm saying, it depends on the value of the process and the replaceability of a particular part/person (and to a lesser extent the value add of the person). The tech worker depends on their position in a process/system just as much as the IRS analyst to generate value but one is harder to replace than the other.

Only... Sometimes it other things disrupt this. Collective bargaining (and control over labour supply) and employers with employees in vulnerable positions are common examples, or people that are just too complacent/risk averse to effectively negotiate. People collectively overvaluing something is common as well.

I believe that people in tech (both employees and their employers) have been overestimating their value and replaceability/redundancy. There are still plenty of people in tech that actually are valuable and hard to replace and many of the people that are replaced are needed in other parts of the economy, but they might not command as high wages.

In the specific case of software engineer layoffs, replaceability isn't the issue. They weren't replaced. Their employers got rid of their positions and expected profits went up, which meant that whatever they were doing wasn't producing enough to pay their salaries. So, their mistake was not just to think they were irreplaceable, nor was it to neglect that other employees and capital were needed for them to their jobs.

They must not have understood that what they were doing was not nearly as valuable as they thought.

I agree.

I believe that people in tech (both employees and their employers) have been overestimating their value and replaceability/redundancy.

Yup, anyone with a basic knowledge of economics would understand why the average salaries are the average salary for a particular profession.

I wonder how much of it is a complete lack of knowledge or misunderstanding of the labor market versus fully well understanding how they work but then choosing to argue against the premises/reality that created those systems in the first place and wanting to replace it with something else.

Oh, this reminds me of a dumb take I saw on the system adminstrator subreddit, where several people argued (and everyone else agreed) that, as a system admin, they were worth whatever the lost revenue would be if they didn't do their jobs, which, as they pointed out, was basically all of it. Thinking about this for two seconds should reveal why this makes no sense.

There are lots of employees doing work upon which the same revenue depends. They obviously can't all be paid out of that same revenue. The value added by each step in a process cannot be equal to the total value created by the entire process, even though stopping any given step would destroy all value.

To expand on your example, the software engineer that saves the company $2,000,000 cannot do that without the system on which they're working being built in the first place. Someone had to make that investment, and they did so with the expectation that there would be optimizations that could be paid for with $200,000. If the resulting profits weren't expected, they would have invested in something else.

If it was so easy to generate millions in profit, why don't they A) Start their own business or B) successfully negotiate a higher salary?

You could argue that their employers have monopolies.

There's also another perspective to consider. Most software engineers may be costing FAANG money, not generating profit for FAANG. They simply pay those software engineers a high enough salary that they are happy to work at those companies and don't leave to create competing products or go work for their competitors. That's why it was so easy for these companies to let go of people when profits went down because they weren't that valuable to the company.

Something would have to have changed such that the risk of their starting competitors had gone down.

And some people claimed to work only 10 hours a week while being paid mid-high 6 figure salaries, and even more people that were working 2 remote software engineering jobs at the same time.

It's anecdotal, but I do remember reading a comment somewhere that, at the height of the the lockdowns, expectations had gone out the window and the culture had become one of just making sure everyone's mental health was good. No one was put under any pressure at all to get anything done. It's hard to believe that was common though.

In economics the problem of how to value various actors in a cooperative game is solved by the Shapley Value. In order to calculate it, one needs the profit the company generated if it employed a only certain subset of employees, for every subset. So if it employs 1 sysadmin, 1 rockstar programmer, 2 average programmers, and 2 secretaries, one needs to consider 2^(1+1+2+2)=64 possibilities.

What if it's zero for everything but the set of all employees?

Clearly the profits, if one doesn't take into account risk or replacibility, should be divided equally. It is a simplified model.

Sometimes I see all the tweets on my feed become blank tweets dated 01/01/1980, but that's the only bug I've seen.

The real issue that needs fixing is onlyfans thot follow spamming bots.

You can't see threads anymore without being logged in, which I assume is a load shedding measure to keep the servers from falling over.

User hostile design like "you have to log in to see this" is really common in the social media site space, it's not just Twitter. Instagram does it, Pinterest does it, etc. I assume that it has something to do with wanting to show advertisers "look we have this many users" so that they can demand higher prices for ads, but I don't actually know for sure.

There must have been a reason Twitter didn't do it previously.

Sure. But whatever the reason they didn't do it previously, they are now. It seems more likely to me that they are doing so because they hope to capture whatever value other social media platforms find in forcing logins, rather than they are trying to prop up failing infrastructure.

I think it’s something more substantive than that. In particular, a logged-out lurker is far less valuable than a user. Users are able to engage, create content, drive interactions, and yield far more data for the website to track. So if a lurker is led to sign up for an account because of a logout wall, even if that lurker is initially only intending on using that account to continue to lurk, it’s very likely that they’ll end up engaging with the site in some meaningful way. Even just liking posts gives the site owner a ton of data that can be used to target ads.

(An anecdotal datapoint: this account of mine on The Motte was originally only intended to allow me to lurk more effectively and view the most recent comments across subthreads, a feature forbidden to non-logged-in lurkers. But sure enough, I ended up posting here (albeit very rarely). That’s the sort of behavior that Twitter is trying to capture, but on a far more massive scale.)

Not sure that I'd call that a "bug" to be "noticed". Didn't Musk publicly announce it, saying that they were finally fighting back against scraper bots, or something?

Scrapers can't log in? I can still use nitter.

It adds a barrier and allows more targeted rate limiting, I guess? The controversy was a while ago, and I didn't pay much attention at the time.

Edit: I feel like I've also seen Nitter display isolated posts the same way Twitter does.

Yeah, the other issue is that bots have become a lot worse, though I can't clearly connect that to anything Musk has done. The biggest issues for me are crypto scammers and people who post irrelevant videos as replies. My best guess is that this is actually due to my following Vitalik Buterin.

I've seen sponsored ads (with the "ad" tag) for individual OnlyFans thots. I've also seen ads for "Bubbling" AI services like it's 2014 4chan. I love the site, but it's going to die.

Twitter has worked just fine for me since the purchase, barring the issues from dumb decision making like the rate limiting and so on. I can't say the actual experience of using the site is any worse overall, so I draw the exact opposite conclusion, that the aggressive culling of the employees was warranted.

Weird, I've had near constant issues. It's probably the buggiest app I use on a regular basis.

I don't use the app, just the mobile site, and it works about the same as ever.

The app is indeed weirdly buggy. But it has always been that way for some reason

I've encountered bugs on Twitter since Elon took over, including images not loading a couple days ago IIRC, but I haven't noticed Twitter being worse in this regard since Elon took over. Maybe there are some actual stats on this, but my experience of Twitter pre-Elon was that we would get various minor outages and/or weird nagging issues every few months that would usually take a day to get fixed, and I haven't noticed this rate changing post-Elon.

The only significant QOL issue I've noticed is the enforcement of the official Twitter app on Android, which also does an absolutely awful job at maintaining your position on the timeline. The amount of times I've seen a Tweet and wanted to look at it more carefully, only to have it forever lost to the abyss because the Twitter app decided to invisibly refresh my feed and force me to jump to the top is uncountable, and this severely negatively affects my Twitter experience.

This is now the third day of images not loading for me.

I don't get why people have concluded that you can fire all these people and have everything be fine.

Precisely because I haven't seen those bugs. I have seen people say that they experience a bunch of bugs and I suppose I believe them, but the app seems to just work fine.

So, what are you reading?

I'm picking up McGilchrist's The Master and his Emissary. The documentary was interesting enough, but I'm still not sure what to expect. The open, scholarly tone is welcome, more nuanced than I would have expected from a book about left and right brain hemispheres.

Meanwhile, Dantes is escaping in Monte Cristo.

I just finished Christopher Moore's Razzmatazz which I found highly disappointing after loving his earlier works as Teen. I just found so many of the tropes tired and lame, the stereotypes of Chinatown and gay nightlife felt so stupid and flat, and the noir pastiche felt ridiculous. I'm wondering if it's that Moore is stuck in the past, or if I'm stuck in the present.

I'm working song by song through Bob Dylan's Philosophy of Modern Song. It's really interesting in that I'm a huge Dylan fan and you see what influenced him.

On digital, I read the first chapter of the War Nerd Iliad. It's fun, I'll probably finish it in between, but it isn't what people claim it is. It's raising in me the interesting question: in translation and abridgement/editing of a great work, what constitutes "reading" it? Clearly reading every word of the original published manuscript in the original language constitutes "reading" Mysterious Affair at Stiles. But what if a copy abridges some superfluous scenes? Have I read Tolstoy if I don't read Russian? I've read the Iliad in multiple translations, and I understand the goal of the War Nerd Iliad and that it considers itself a translation, but if you read the War nerd Iliad I'm not sure I'd say you had "read" the Iliad in the way I would say you had if you read the Fagles translation. But then Pope also took liberties, and his Homeric translations are my prior favorites.

I'm getting to the latter portions of Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. As it wraps up I'm probably going to write an effort post on it. It's a really interesting piece of historiography that I think reflects a really interesting view of the period, in the same way that historical films always give the characters slightly modern haircuts. The strong homophobic invective thrown at Roehm and (hey, gotta hand it to @SecureSignals on this one) the way he views the Holocaust in a way that is clearly different from our current view, along with the relatively few tomatoes thrown at Stalin et al. A better title overall might be "a political history of the Third Reich", while events on the battlefield are covered the author remains most interested in dispatches, internal memoranda, negotiation, and intrigue. I'm happy I broke my WWII fast with this one after seven years.

I want to read Rise and Fall too. Unfortunately, my WWII backlog hasn’t gotten any shorter, and I’ve already got a copy of Speer’s Inside the Third Reich to try.

If you're already knee deep in WWII stuff, I could probably sit down and abridge the chapters for you and halve the length. It aims to be a fully universal history of the Reich, and covers things like battles in sketch form, but where he does his best work is in examining diplomatic and bureaucratic documents.

Overall the book confirms my general view of the Hitler phenomenon as misunderstood as a result of the bastardized Hegel that governs how history is taught in the USA.

Okay, I very much would like to see your writeup(s).

I came away from high school thinking I had a decent understanding of the phenomenon, so I’d ask what you think is missing. Perhaps that’s just bias from immersion in other sources?

Okay, I very much would like to see your writeup(s).

Moreso I feel like you could skip/skin 40% of the book that deals with battles, events, etc. because you already know those pretty well. His thumbnail sketch of Stalingrad will probably leave you cold, particularly given the paucity of soviet sources at the time of writing. I've actively avoided WWII stuff since about 2015-16 or so, but I feel that a lot of his material is strong and fairly novel to me.

I came away from high school thinking I had a decent understanding of the phenomenon, so I’d ask what you think is missing. Perhaps that’s just bias from immersion in other sources?

I think that the tendency of American schools (I can't speak to any particular schools except the ones I attended or that my close friends attended/taught at) to teach in distinct "units" reflecting a sort of pseudo-Hegelian "zeitgeist" view of history. So for example, a lot of schools teach American history unit-by-unit and teach "The Industrial Revolution" or "Westward Expansion" after they have already taught "Slavery/The Civil War"; this tends to obscure the ways that Westward Expansion and Northern Industrialization caused Slavery to become such an important issue leading to the Civil War.

So the flaw in Nazi historiography tends to be that a lot of schools teach "The Cold War" after they teach "WWII/Nazis/The Holocaust." The rise of fascism is best thought as occurring in the context of a Cold War that started before the Tsar's body was cold, was in its infancy from the Paris Commune onward. Every developed, and most undeveloped, nations had major communist parties, many of which took orders directly from Moscow. Germany and Italy came close to falling to Comintern parties. The red scare took America before the 20s. The battle lines were drawn: The western democratic capitalist imperialist powers, against the USSR and the Comintern.

The Western democratic powers very much felt that Fascism, while perhaps distasteful, was preferable to communism. The feeling was that Mussolini and Hitler were better than puppets of Stalin. Western readers of Mein Kampf tended to see the rabid anti-communism, the clear intention to invade Russia, and see Hitler as a reliable partner against the Soviets. He might ultimately need to be brought into line, but he would certainly stop Communism from expanding West. To a certain extent they were correct: Hitler and Mussolini did prevent Moscow from taking Spain, Communism took control of no European nations outside Russia until after Hitler was on his way out, and Hitler did ultimately invade Russia even though by then it was a really bad idea.

On the Soviet side, meanwhile, the USSR can always be thought of as in many ways a theocracy. While Stalin and his clique were unbelievably cynical and evil, they were also in many ways true believers in Marxism. It's a matter of faith for orthodox marxists of the time that the imperialist capitalist powers must come to blows with each other. Stalin did not really worry about Hitler because it was a matter of theory that the imperialist powers would fight destructive wars, exhausting each other, until they fell to Communism. His actions only make sense if he assumed that the Nazis must, inevitably, as a precept of the Science of History, go to war against the Western Capitalists. To a certain extent he was correct: Hitler did go to war with the Capitalist powers first, and as a result Communism swept over half of an exhausted Europe. (As an aside, we should also note that Japan's early invasions of China were hockey-assisted by Mao's ongoing civil war, and that after KMT and Japanese forces had worn each other down Mao would sweep to power in China a few years later)

Of course, while each side was partly right in that Hitler would do tremendous damage to their enemy, they were also partly wrong.

I am reading Sacred Symbols that Speak about symbology in the Orthodox Christian church. One of the most beautiful sections so far has been the one on candles. Candles are a big thing in the Orthodox church, and the overall symbology rests on the idea that Christ brought a fire to earth, as he says:

I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!

And so the goal of pious Christians is to be as a candle - but one burning with light, hope and love. I found this idea incredibly beautiful.

Also catching up on The Screwtape Letters by Lewis, which is a great classic where a demon is sending letters to a trainee on how to tempt men to the devil. It's quite funny.

I was thinking last week about this section, which I read as a “baptism by fire”. It’s nestled between these two passages about punishment:

the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful

Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division

The way I interpreted this (if I can opine) is by first eradicating literalism. Baptism does not mean submerging in water, its broader meaning is immersion. A Greek study shows that it’s also using for changing the whole color of a cloth by dying, or in cooking recipes for fundamentally changing the nature of a food item through immersion in some other liquid. There is the immersion by water of John’s baptism for forgiveness, and then there’s the immersion by fire (the opposite of water). And what is this fire? Complete and utter pain and punishment — the opposite of forgiveness — as hinted by the Christ’s anticipation of his passion:

how great is my distress until it is accomplished

This word “accomplished” or finished or completed often refers to the Crucifixion, as for instance in John immediately before he says “it is finished”. (Consider also that Father divided/against Son is certainly one way of seeing the Crucifixion depending on your theology).

This interpretation allows us to now understand the other “baptisms” mentioned. The baptism by the Holy Spirit (immersion into it), and the baptism in the name of the Lord (immersion in knowing and identifying with Christ). These coincidentally line up with the four ancient elements: water, fire, air (spirit, same word used in koine Greek), and earth (God made man as if from clay is common metaphor). However, this has led me to some unorthodox theology, that for instance Jesus does not call us to be baptized by water but to be baptized into his Being. Hence the “john the Baptist baptized with water, but I baptize with the Holy Spirit”

so the goal of pious Christians is to be as a candle

To be a “burnt offering”!

Interesting thoughts here, I honestly don't know enough theology to really comment but it makes ya think. I do believe that what the modern world considers "Christianity" is far from the true teachings of the Church or Christ. I think the Orthodox church by far comes the closest, but still not 100% that they have it all. Then again as I said I'm pretty ignorant at this point.

I think the Orthodox church by far comes the closest, but still not 100% that they have it all. Then again as I said I'm pretty ignorant at this point

Closest to Roman Imperial church of 4th century? Yeah.

Closest to first Christians? (always nonviolent, always rejecting all Earthly authority, always preaching and evangelizing, always persecuted, always awaiting end of the world, always willing to suffer and die for their faith)

Go look somewhere else.

edit: link

I never said they were perfect. shrug

I've finished The Return of the King. Nice enough.

Then I burned through 1984 in a fever of horrified interest. The most disconcerting dystopian fantasy I've ever read of. Now I'm seeing Ingsoc everywhere.

Now I'm reading the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, but with my usual suspicion that whatever I read is just the author trying to be his own propagandist.

And I also got a facsimile of the Royal Armouries Ms. I.33 fencing manual for Christmas, and I'm enjoying it a lot. Too bad there's nobody here to fence with!

The Return of the King

Including the appendices?

You got me. No, I haven't finished those yet. I'm on them, but they require somewhat more effort to read than the story itself.

Now I'm seeing Ingsoc everywhere.

This is deliberate. Nineteen eighty-four (Orwell always spelt out the title) was intended to be a self-preventing prophecy about what was, in 1948 when he wrote the book, a plausible future. In particular, he deliberately set out to write about the nature of totalitarian socialism, rather the accidents of any particular form of it, in order to provide a fully general warning. The name Ingsoc suggests that it evolved from a form of "national socialism" but there are also a lot of hints in the book that Ingsoc actually evolved from some kind of communist-adjacent movement. But by 1984 it has lost almost all traces of the original cover story (economic egalitarianism for communism, racial-national renewal for national socialism) and has gone mask-off about the purpose of power being power, as O'Brien so memorably puts it.

As Eliezer Yudkowsky points out re. superintelligent AI, acquiring power is an intermediate goal of almost all optimisation processes. And totalitarian socialism is the best way for a movement that has or can reasonably hope to achieve control of a state to consolidate and extend its power in the medium term. So every political movement that doesn't have guardrails against it "wants" to become totalitarian. At the time Orwell wrote the book, the western democracies had weakened their guardrails deliberately in order to mobilise against the Axis, and a lot of people (cough, Joe McCarthy, cough) wanted to weaken them further, at least notionally in order to defeat the Soviet Union. A well-targetted memetic immune system in the minds of the elite (the "High" in Goldstein's theory of oligarchy) and potential counter-elites (the "Middle") is a powerful new guardrail. And it still works.

You should be seeing tendencies towards Ingsoc everywhere - Orwell wants you to be on your guard against totalitarian tendencies, regardless of whether they wrap themselves in the Bible, the Flag, the Constitution, the Universal Brotherhood of Man, or Martin Luther King's burial shroud. And he wants you to have the language to call them out. Above all, he wants you to focus on the correct target. Newspeak and doublethink should be scarier than swastikas or hammer-and-sickles.

You will notice that when we want to call out totalitarian tendencies, we still use language taken from Nineteen eighty-four. Orwell was very good at what he was doing.

Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Shlott's The Canceling of the American Mind. Only just a little way into it, and there's some bits that, while I understand why the authors would feel the need to include them, are a bit well-worn for me. Also, from the tone, I'm expecting their offered solution to be an "if everyone would just…" proposal.

and there's some bits that, while I understand why the authors would feel the need to include them, are a bit well-worn for me.

Lemme guess: "these cancellation tactics actually hurt people of color more" or "cancellation is a band-aid and a distraction from systemic change to fight racism/sexism/xism"?

No, just a lot of citing of statistics and example after example to establish that 'no, really, canceling is a real thing and not a myth.'

I just started General Wrangel’s ”Always with Honor” after hearing it described as one of the greatest war memoirs of all time, up there with ”Anabasis” by Xenophon, which I’m reading simultaneously.

If you’re not familiar, General Wrangel fought in the side of the whites in the Russian civil war and held out in the Caucasus mountains for years. He died in exile.

I rather enjoyed Theft of Fire. Premise is that a rich gene-modded anime girl kidnaps tough Spacer Pirate in his own ship for a secret quest. An enormous amount of sexual tension ensues.

Pros:

  1. Engaging from the get-go. I drop a lot of writing early on, this novel caught me and kept me. That's the most important thing a book can do, IMO.

  2. Author dunks on leftists on twitter but they're not really screeds so much as long well-written, impassioned pleas and thoughtful statements that sound that they could belong here, albeit toned down from twitter norms of hostility. The ultimate political tone of the novel is right-libertarian: holding to one's promises, anti-monopolistic capitalism. The setting is right-libertarian, there are no state govts in space and Earth is an irrelevant basketcase. No strawmen ideologies amongst the main cast though, characters are treated with dignity and the setting has the flaws you'd expect of ancapistan. I think the author only actually got noticed because he was dunking on leftists on twitter, some of the people I followed retweeted him and that's how I found out about the novel.

  3. Thematically clear and interesting, it had a variant on the Frog and the Scorpion that made me think 'this guy is somewhat thoughtful'.

Cons:

  1. It's not what I'd call 'hard' sci-fi, taking a few too many liberties with stealth-in-space, though the no-stealth-in-space principle isn't totally violated. AI is of the pre-GPT tropes of 'artificial stupidity' or 'completely human-personality tech-genius in a box' kind, which I found slightly irksome. I hope this trope is finally going to die soon. There's some implausible evasive flying later on.

  2. Some of the combat writing became a bit hard to follow but this was rather minor.

  3. Ending somewhat weaker than the middle. When I was half-way through I wished 'why can't this book be longer' and I still want to see a sequel, I just don't want it quite so desperately.

There's also David Chalmers' Reality + which I found to be midwit regurgitation of better minds (Bostrom and so on) + more unnecessary pop culture references than you could poke a stick at.

Does anybody else find The Atlantic's "If Trump Wins" issue hilarious? Just reading the titles and blurbs for some of those 24 pieces actually had me chuckling.

As a citizen of a small European country bordering Russia, I am a bit worried about the NATO part.

America's NATO ""allies"" fail to spend the agreed upon amounts on their militaries. They fail to meet their commitments and for some reason my American tax dollars are spent keeping them safe. The European "peace dividend" is me getting footed with the bill while they selfishly spend on social programs. Trump correctly called them out as failing to meet their commitments. His lack of politeness and poise has the benefit of him plainly stating the unpleasant truth.

I don't want Russia getting away with invading their neighbors. I don't want a return to 19th century and early warfare. I wish Europeans shared my attitude.

Europeans are by no means a homogeneous group. By "Europeans" you mean rich countries of Western Europe which are unlikely to be invaded and keep strong economic ties to Russia, like Germany, France, Italy or Spain (mainly Germany). But there is a bunch of CEE (short for Central and Eastern Europe) countries, like Romania, Poland and Baltic states which are fully aware of impending Russian danger and keep their military spending beyond the NATO threshold.

So we are in a position of conflicting interests. Western Europeans are reluctant to pay for the safety of their eastern neighbors, but they benefit largely from the stability given by the American umbrella. CEE countries want to fulfill their obligations, since they are in obvious risk, but stand little chance against Russia without NATO's help. Would you rather punish CEE countries for the misdeeds of their western friends, or give Germans free ride? Some statistics about NATO spending by country are here.

The war in Ukraine shook a few countries awake, but in 2014 only the US, UK, and Greece met the spending target. All other countries were content to free ride.

https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2023/07/03/defence-spending-sustaining-the-effort-in-the-long-term/index.html

Sure, but 2014 was precisely the year when the threshold was set, so I find your comment very misleading. This information is very plainly written in the link you have given and in the link I have given above.

During the 2014 summit, all NATO members agreed to spend at least 2% of their GDPs on defense by 2025. In 2017, only four nations met the threshold: The United States (3.6%), Greece (2.4%), the United Kingdom (2.1%), and Poland (2.0%). However, by 2021, ten countries were meeting the percentage target.

In this link you can find all the military spending of Poland as a percentage of GDP between 2014 and 2023. As you can easily see, from 2014 onward, Poland has been seriously trying to meet the spending target.

Gonna be honest, I didn't read that part of the page. However, I think the key point is that the biggest defense spenders were the US, UK, and Greece. The US is the US, but the UK and Greece are not in any immediate danger of invasion.

Probably Greece spends so much because of constant tensions with many times bigger Turkey, and UK, well, has always been the enforcer of the European balance of power.

Probably Greece spends so much because of constant tensions with many times bigger Turkey, and UK, well, has always been the enforcer of the European balance of power.

Also the UK is committed to maintaining a blue-water navy, which implies a certain ongoing minimum spend even when there are no threats on the horizon - a blue-water navy isn't something you can spin up in a decade. The British army is vestigial, but the UK has a very long history of successfully keeping its military tradition intact when the army shrinks to a vestigial size during peacetime and rolling it out again when the army expands in wartime.

We tell the private who is made 2ic of a 4-man fireteam that we are teaching him leadership in case he has to take over the team after the corporal is shot, but the real reason is that he would be a platoon sergeant in charge of a toff and a soccer riot into a 2LT and a platoon if things kicked off.

The original 2% agreement goes back to 2006

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

I don't want to punish anyone, but:

rich countries of Western Europe

...are the industrial foundation of European self-defense. 2% of German GDP pumping out tanks, 2% of (NATO newcomer) Sweden pumping out Saab anti-tank weapons, etc, etc. I'll give France a pass since they are at 1.9% GDP expenditure.

West Germany had over 7000 tanks circa the fall of the Soviet Union. Now they have around 200. There's talk of taking Cold War equipment out of museums and refurbishing it for use against Russia. This is an entirely self-inflicted problem.

It is the rich ones who will commit, or it is me in America footing the bill. Europe should be a fortress of industrial military might. With, as you correctly point out, even the poorer countries contributing what they can. But as of recently almost all NATO "allies" haven't been pulling their weight. Even Canada promises 2% and entirely fails to deliver. Too bad you CEE types are stuck with such a feckless band of supporters and an expansionist Russia.

We lacked incentives so far. Or rather, the incentives are stacked heavily against military spending.

With the US backing us up, Poland being a comfortable buffer state, Russia seemingly docile for decades and an important trading partner, our welfare state demanding an ever-increasing budget, and the Germans successfully indoctrinated into a pacifism that denies even the possibility of conflict, with us so far having gotten away with under-delivering on our NATO obligations, with our military-industrial complex being known far and wide as a pit of corruption and our armed forces as an ineffectual money-burning machine - what force on Earth could realistically have convinced the Germans to wish for more military spending?

It seems like a bad idea on so many levels to waste funds that are clearly needed for [insert favorite redistribution project] on something that we don't want, don't need, are bad at, which is going to backfire anyways as experience has proven either by wasting the money without effect or by making our politicians think that we can go on another adventure in Afghanistan or Mali or fuck-knows-where, and which we consider morally wrong.

I wish Germany had military strength commensurate with its economic stature, but frankly I don't see how that's going to come about within decades of now, and I also don't think throwing money at the problem will actually improve anything. Except for the defense industry's business, for what that's worth, and since I regretfully rejected a defense job in the past, I am now sour grapes on those guys and I don't think we should spend taxpayer money on them.

It's worth noting that there are reasons why American (and Anglo-French, but it has been the US that mattered since 1945) policy has historically discouraged Germany becoming a major military power. I agree with you that they no longer apply, but America allowing Germany to free-ride rather than rearm is inertia rather than stupidity.

Given who normally invades Russia, if Russia's invasion of Ukraine does lead to German rearmament, it will be the biggest national-security self-own since Pearl Harbor.

Don't get too friendly with Russia. If you see Victoria Nuland, you'll know your about to have a mostly peaceful color revolution.

It's so funny that I kept highlighting different pieces to copy/paste and make fun of, but they keep escalating and I couldn't pick one. I suppose I'm most excited for a "MAGA Judiciary" out of the list, but it was a close call between that, Four More Years of Unchecked Misogyny, and Trump's Polarization of Science.

It looks like a slate advice column from back when the really woke guy was answering questions that were blatantly trolling. The ridiculousness is honestly awe inspiring.

The only one I think I might read is “What Will Happen to the American Psyche if Trump Is Reelected?” The tagline is what sells it: “Our bodies are not designed to handle chronic stress.” I think I’d enjoy it as much as I enjoyed this.

A MAGA Judiciary

In a second term, Donald Trump would appoint more judges who don’t care about the law.

What a treat these are.

How is Trump going to ruin America? Could we get an example? Answer: He's going to "police gender".

I don't read the Atlantic, but I thought their focus was on long form serious articles. This whole page is clown school for journalists. Doomscrolling for progressives, which is an oversaturated market.

I did audibly laugh as I read the blurbs, and a few times during the articles. On the other hand, I think if you strip out the apocalyptic prophecies, the first few articles are right that Trump's actions on around J6 were pretty bad for "democracy", and that Trump's going to nominate a lot more officials who are from Trump World as opposed to 'the swamp' and as a result will be much less competent at basic government functions. Which isn't too huge of an issue, but it'll just make a lot of things somewhat worse.


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