domain:ashallowalcove.substack.com
Mantergeistmann
23m ago
Smoke Jaguar
They were the opponents in MW3, right? I'm still waiting for any sort of modern platform re-release of that one... by which I mean the ability to purchase and play the OG on a modern Windows machine.
From your article, it seems like the obstacle is simply the cost recovery mechanism - i.e. they build it as they fund it and it takes that long to fund it using the current surcharge. I don't think that really says anything about "schedule disease" as such, it's just another example of cost disease.
FlyingLionWithABook
Has a C. S. Lewis quote for that.
1hr ago
What would you call it? It seems to be a statement made to make a point of some sort, based on Walsh's reply I would assume it is coming from the political left.
Pigeon
coo coo
1hr ago
finding racism in ham sandwiches
anti_dan
1hr ago
Power lines are all kinda important for those other things you mentioned. Maybe we should keep some cool people there.
hydroacetylene
1hr ago
Bring back the dame school, but don’t let feminists within 100 yards of it.
5434a
2hr ago
Score specializes in photographs of women with large breasts, either naturally larger or augmented. Voluptuous features busty women who have had no breast augmentations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Score_Group#Magazines
Marketed with the strap line "All Stacked All Natural".
UwU
2hr ago
I guessed like 10 years. 400 years is insane! My first impression is that this is malicious compliance by some disillusioned engineer to highlight the absurd state of the project.
hydroacetylene
2hr ago
California
It seems like every ridiculous example of government imposed lengthy timeframes has that in common.
Terracotta
2hr ago
Right, but OP was specifically critiquing
the fantasy among some dateless conservatives that if only they were born in some bygone era where women didn't have nearly as many options then they'd surely get a girlfriend almost by default.
The point of the trad dating vision, at least as I understand, is not "If only it were The Past, I could have become a more socially adept man, then they'd want to date me." Instead, it's "if only it were The Past, I could have access to more desperate women, then they'd have to date me."
And I think that latter claim is wrong: women's standards are variable above a certain threshold, but there's also a hard limit of interpersonal function below which instinct just says it's better to go it alone.
The parallel question is also interesting to investigate for heterosexual male desire. For instance, if every woman (including every woman in porn) suddenly weighed 4x more, what proportion of men would just opt for permanent singledom? Would any?
Lewis2
2hr ago
I’ve been to a few touristy locations with quiet, unassuming, empty, but gorgeous Orthodox churches. I’ve wondered for a while whether the placement of those beautiful churches was deliberate.
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
2hr ago
kky
2hr ago
I guess your point on romantic signaling is probably true, though I hate signaling and reflexively oppose the position on principle.
But I actively disagree that the most important thing is to push moneymaking degrees, on a couple of points.
First, the whole degree-to-job pipeline is overrated. The degree is a proxy for, roughly, intelligence, and as long as you have the real meat you will be able to leverage the actual work. (This is my life story. Started in humanities and trivially switched to work in STEM. I’ll admit software makes this easy.)
Second, while cash obviously matters, I think the most important thing is to learn wisdom and be a good and broad-based parent to your children. This is what my parents were to me. And while I decry the sorry shape of the liberal arts in universities, the actual subject I consider paramount. So rather than just add work training for women, I think bringing refinement and rigor back to the degrees would be better. (And helping people who have no business being in college get out. That’s another topic.)
kky
2hr ago
You’re right about divorce as a path for extremely cynical women. If I were writing about the man’s perspective, this comes front and center. He’s devoting so much of his life to her! What if she just takes it from him, with the blessing of the courts? It’s genuinely unsettling. But, in that other hypothetical post, I wouldn’t be talking about cads. I don’t think (or hope) my audience is cads, or people interested in cads, and the same goes for the female equivalent.
Divorce is honestly another point of risk for an honest woman, just like it is for an honest man. Risk hitting your mid-thirties with no loyal man, and either no children or worse - children? It’s kind of awful to think about. But the post was already meandering a little for my tastes.
Yes, of course I agree a man needs standards. I have standards, and I insisted my wife meet them (kindly and firmly in the dating stage - and no, not about petty things like how I wanted my breakfast cooked).
But that doesn’t undercut the fact that what underwrites those standards is a man’s reliability and character. I’ve been performing a little personal ethnography on this forum, and in my own life, and the men who are happily married tend to be extraordinarily solid and secure in their opinions, thoughtful and caring about women’s perspectives (NOT a dogwhistle for mainstream feminism), and with a great focus on their own ability to be trusted. And this is something that good women, women who clearly enjoy the high opinions of their husbands and of me (should I meet them), deeply desire.
Anyway. I don’t think women have greater risks in dating, or that men do, for that matter. I tend to agree that the risks are mostly around discerning good from bad, and that’s hairy both ways. But learn good from bad one must do, or at least learn the methods of getting wiser friends to help, if one wishes to make anything of oneself. But I’m sympathetic to your worries, and hope you find a woman who allows you to lay them aside.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3hr ago
I don’t think it’s that crazy of a position. First, the problem with national wide injunctions without classes is the asymmetry of the outcome. 500 different plaintiffs can bring the lawsuit in different district courts. 1/500 needs to win if the judge gives a nationwide injunction. Contrast with a class where the plaintiffs are in fact bound by a loss.
If it is all going to end up decided by SCOTUS anyway this seems fine. Better one rule while we sort out the litigation than possibly 96. The government has the resources that individual plaintiffs certainly don't.
Second, the idea the government would in fact look for not yet born residents to impose something where there is direct SCOTUS authority is a hypothetical that is so far out there compared to the first concern because the government would quickly lose (eg new plaintiff would say there is a scotus case directly on point).
This is true if the hypothetical plaintiff has the resources to press their claim in court. Unless you already have an injunction against the government, in your own name or as part of a class, the government is free to force you to engage in duplicative litigation and drain your time and resources. The government, at oral argument, would not even commit to respecting a 2nd Circuit precedent in the 2nd Circuit!
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3hr ago
There were both individual and state plaintiffs at oral argument, with somewhat different arguments.
KMC
3hr ago
Vox Day's books also come to mind (SJWs Always Lie, and SJWs Always Double Down).
faceh
3hr ago
The mainstream rejoinder would be that your buddy must had been No True Trustworthy Husband or his wife would never have left him—that he must had become lazy or neglectful after marriage-trapping her, was financially or emotionally abusive behind the scenes, or thought of her as a broodmare for the family business.
Yep. But I spent a lot of time hanging out with him in a variety of circumstances and I have not gotten an INKLING that he was anything other than what he presents himself as. Never heard a whisper of an accusation of abuse.
If there was ever a paradigm of the "non-toxic" masculinity that feminists proclaim they want (I know, I know), he was it.
The biggest critique you could level against him is that he is a bit of a manchild when it came to hobbies. But he had his life completely in order otherwise, he was REALLY GOOD at his hobbies (Magic: The Gathering is one of them) and perhaps most importantly: his wife was into nerdy hobbies too!
While they were married his wife went and got her Master's Degree, so I could have ascribed their split to her getting 'overeducated' compared to him. But shortly thereafter Bro went and got his MBA so he was matching her beat for beat.
Learning what happened to them soured my last bit of optimism for forming relationships in the current era. She was a 6 at best, raised in a traditional family, had a relatively low body count (i.e. they met while she was in college, around age 21, so she hadn't had that much time to sleep around), she was a sorority girl (and not the blonde bimbo stereotype), he had tons of money, was willing to spend it on her, no red flags, and while they were together they pretty much presented as having everything they wanted. And it wasn't enough to make it even 4 years into a marriage (they dated for about 2.5 before they got engaged).
My one theory is that she watched a few of her friends go through breakups and complain about their men and got incepted with the idea that either she could do better if she left him (i.e. she married too early) or that he was going to become an abusive monster at some point and she better get out before then.
TIRM
3hr ago
I understand the schedule is not literally true. This won't be relevant 400 years from now. Someday some political or social change will kill it or make it irrelevant.
They started thisprogram in the 1960s with a special tax to pay for it. They stretched that tax and made it people's income ever since then. It's taxpayer sinecures for consultants. And recently local city board meetings in which local residents ask why this has a multi-century timeline. And of course proposals to increase taxes since the program is in a bad state.
The fact that it lasted 6 decades so far does mean the schedule is not completely made up. It's a long running program and we can compare decades of it's progress to the stated goal.
Hieronymus
3hr ago
I have wondered if we could create a new version of the marriage contract: "Enhanced Marriage," which both parties can opt into that makes it MUCH harder to get divorced AND adds additional legal duties on both sides (and presumably some additional benefits) so that they are tied more strongly together.
There was an attempt at this with covenant marriage, but it doesn't seem to have accomplished much. That said, it'd be interesting to hear from mottizens who live in states where that's an option. It looks like it was watered down to make the law acceptable to the mainstream and undermined by the availability of no-fault divorce in other states.
And, while I can't speak for all social conservatives, I'd be reluctant to support any new version of this so long as Obergefell stands.
zoink
4hr ago
The guy could have been a troll, whatever
Quantumfreakonomics
4hr ago
This isn't a real schedule. This is an artifact of legal and bureaucratic processes. Some polity passes a law that says, "Entity X must formulate and implement a plan to do Y." Entity X doesn't actually want to do Y for whatever reason (usually political opposition, but not nessesarily). The thing that Entity X always does in this situation is spend their time coming up with insane plans that will take forever and hope that they will never be implemented. The endgame is to abruptly cancel the project years later and hope nobody notices. Radioactive waste disposal projects are the poster boy of this phenomenon. Yucca Mountain was abruptly cancelled for no reason as soon as the planning was done, $10 billion over decades for absolutely nothing.
SerialStateLineXer
4hr ago
Surely learning Georgian is unlikely to increase your earning power meaningfully, so the claim must be about correlation, not causation. Most Americans who speak Spanish are Latinos, and Latinos tend to make below-average incomes. Most people who speak other languages are either positively selected immigrants, or natives who were smart and conscientious enough to learn another language as adults. So they tend to make more.
Yes. But the Christian position is that even though the outcome was good, the act was still bad. I've never heard anyone seriously try to argue that killing Jesus was good on a consequentialist basis, anyways.
More options
Context Copy link