domain:inv.nadeko.net
Yeah I have that impression too, primarily based on the fact that every progressive woman I have talked about it with in person, upon explaining the iq variance situation, immediately scoffed "Oh so men are smarter than women are they?"
Which is actually funnier than it sounds at first. It suggests either A) a conflation of average and variance, even after an explanation of variance or B) the apex fallacy, where in a discussion on the distributions of men and women in some trait, women automatically jump to focusing on the right side of the distribution for men. Or both A and B. Ironically enough, either would provide mild Bayesian evidence for updating one's priors in favor of men being smarter than women.
The only people getting screwed are
Hmm I can think of at least 2 other people getting screwed…
Where to look for what? Interesting artists?
On the one hand, that's likely to be true, like the interesting music coming out of various subcultures in the 90s.
On the other hand, I'm not sure how one would go about looking for that. They have an "artist studio tour" in my area, and although there are something like 40 artists, I didn't find anything I felt any energy from. They were mostly boomers painting hills, or sometimes textural abstract sorts of things.
Have to also account for how that brain is wired up and, maybe most critically, how it responds to stressors and setbacks.
Having two people of equal (and relatively high) IQ but with different neurochemistry and one can be a neurotic wreck who can nonetheless make good contributions to a group, and the other can be calm and decisive and able to actually take responsibility for the group's actions and inspire the group to follow him.
I'm never going to say ONE factor determines all observed differences, but a brain awash in testosterone will produce far more behaviors we expect as 'leaderly' than one awash in estrogen.
And on the other hand, cortisol is the stress hormone, (see the previous links) which can trigger cognitive disruptions... but also lead someone to be decisive out of pure survival instinct.
I can say that my perception is that women that attain leadership position read to me as high-cortisol style leaders. Constantly stressed, constantly making decisions because they have to and are basically in continual fight-or-flight mode. And if they're high-IQ enough, they are able to navigate those decisions well, but they're never emotionally comfortable with it.
If cortisol is too low, of course, then the response to dangers/threats is delayed so even if they make good decisions, they might come too late to make a difference.
If the majority of women at all IQ levels fall into the low-T/High-C quadrant, it would explain why there's just fewer female leaders overall.
1797 score, which put me in the top 55% for today. I got several incredibly tricky ones (ended up being greater Indonesia) which tanked my average. Other than those, I was generally remarkably close.
cost Larry Summers his position as President of Harvard.
It frustrates me that whenever his name is mentioned, I picture Douglas Urbanski.
What's currently the most cost-effective and practical method of getting ahold of Ozempic/whatever weight-loss drug in the US without a diabetes diagnosis?
You should learn how to buy the freeze-dried peptides directly from gray market sources and constitute them yourself in vials with bacteriostatic water and use an insulin syringe to inject it. There are Telegram groups where people get together and test the gray market sources, usually organized by the gray market source itself.
Most cost-effective: this comes to about $60/month if you buy a one year supply of the drug and related materials.
Most practical: because you can just get everything delivered and don't need to manage a prescription via a doctor, though it takes a bit of research. It's not as idiot-proof though so you could mis-dose yourself, but if you're sane and can do basic math and trust a friend to double-check your work you should be 100% fine.
If you don't have a diabetes diagnosis but can convince your doctor to write you a prescription for it anyway (since it is approved for weight loss as "Wegovy"), you can expect to pay about $350-500/month by buying it ("Zepbound") from Eli Lily direct. You still have to fill and inject yourself with syringes though.
I was informed, with mock-seriousness, that confusing a denizen of Colorado with a Texan was a Capital Crime.
Accurate. Texas has annexed large amounts of Colorado, and many locals are less than pleased. In part, it goes back to this observation:
Our taxi driver continued complaining that the tourists who appear to be Dover’s primary fuel source were a nuisance who clogged the roads. This seems to be a common paradox in tourist economies.
However, many of the Texans have moved from the category of "tourist" to "occupying force," hence the less-than-fond attitude by many Coloradans towards Texans.
Extremely absurdly niche genres/mediums that you can't train an AI on because there's no prior art is my guess of where to look.
It's a meme on twitter because, iirc, Britain and especially London restricts AC in new buildings etc.
Google shows you it's location tracking in Google maps timeline.
Apps that respond to voice commands Hey Alexa, OK Google etc. Must record all sounds to parse the command sound. That doesn't mean they archive it all but it's all getting recorded and processed. They certainly have all your phone call metadata (who you called and for how long). Your browser has site history which is generally sold widely.
I would operate under the expectation that all of those but phone transcripts to be available to anyone who wants to buy them.
Thankfully the pedo rings don't in fact exist. Hopefully Rightists will grow more comfortable in saying so. Epstein conspiracism is not only wrong on the facts, it's a pointless political dead-end.
I don't think you can conclude this.
It's a pointless political dead-end because it can't ever be adjudicated. At best you can say the epistemic commons are so poisoned on the issue that Epstein Files is now 9/11 Conspiracy is now JFK Conspiracy. No majority will believe any explanation, no matter how bipartisan the committee and how much evidence gets dumped.
Have any other middle-aged dudes grown out their hair? How did you keep from going insane?
I'm over a year into growing it out and it's long enough to pull into a ponytail. However, I don't want traction alopecia, so it can't be in a ponytail all the time, and it drives me crazy when it's loose and I can feel the weight against my neck (I have very coarse hair that is also very thick [such a burden for a man in his 40s, I know]). Taking care of it is one thing, but always feeling it is another. Perhaps I have too much 'tism for long hair.
but in the end parents still want their kids to be successful,
Be afraid of this. Be very afraid. Immoral Mazes reward psychopathy - mean chickens. Selecting for expected income would literally be one of the most destructive rubrics possible; at least if 5% of the new generation had penis noses it'd mostly just suck for that 5% rather than dragging everyone else down with them the way that 5% being genius psychopaths would.
The Skin by Malaparte. Not as good as Kaputt so far, but it has been worth it if only for the chapter about how the young male survivors of WW2 became communists because they were homosexuals and wanted political justification for their pederasty.
Can you get a medical marijuana doctor to ‘diagnose’ you with diabetes and give a scrip for ozempic?
One of EA's main tenets is that the traditional hyperfocus on overhead costs of charities is unhelpful as a measure of actual efficacy. If you want smart, driven people to do good work in allocating resources, paying them something like market rate is advisable. Otherwise, you're selecting on something other than merely talent for the job.
Yes, but the problem is that if you are giving them good salaries, you are selecting for the ability to tell good stories to donors in exchange for money. There's a reason why charities have tended to be suspicious of such structures: they have no in-built market correction so they're easy to turn into guilt-tripping sinecures. (GiveWell is fine but it's like a regulatory body and is straightforwardly capturable, so doesn't count.) That's why charities have traditionally relied a combination of:
- scions of wealth
- wives of wealthy men
- men who've made their money and want to give back to the community (or, cynically, to barter wealth for influence)
None of whom need the money. Of course, this still biases charities towards sounding good rather than doing good, but that's really really hard to avoid.
What's the source of sympathy over casting couch situations? It's gross and worthy of judgment, but against both participants. The only people getting screwed are 1) the investors in the project, as the caster is misusing their authority to choose a (presumably inferior) casting option instead of fulfilling their responsibilities; and 2) the superior casting option who gets passed over. Just a particularly sleazy form of graft.
The young women choosing to do this might have economic struggles, but those aren't unique to them; whatever empathy they deserve for that should also be extended to all the women (and men!) who have the same economic struggles but don't choose the couch.
A couple examples just to give you a sense of some of the gymnastics that are required.
I don't consider this gymnastics. It's like saying that freedom of the press applies to television. The founders didn't have television and the Constitution doesn't say anything about television. But you can guess that if someone had magically told them about television, they, or at least a substantial portion of them, would have said that television counts. So you read "press" as including television. Likewise, you should read "army" or "navy" as including the Air Force.
It's true that the Air Force can do things that the army and navy don't, but it's also true that television can do things that printed newspapers can't. That's not really a reason to say that television doesn't have freedom of the press. Also, the exact terminology is irrelevant; if we had by happenstance of language called the Air Force the Flying Navy, that wouldn't change anything.
(Notice that "if they had heard of it, would they count it?" is not the same as "they hadn't heard of it".)
Is there anything interesting going on artistically lately?
Aside from the obvious, that digital artists are getting supplanted by cheap, fast AI images?
I tried searching a bit, and asking ChatGPT, and mostly people seem to be saying that there are a bunch of different things going on, many of which are identity based and fairly boring as far as I'm concerned. The last large movement I liked was probably Impressionism; Art Deco is also pretty good.
People around here mostly paint the hills and skies, which I think is just kind of a default, I don't know if I'd call it a movement. I guess recently I like the atmospheric, somewhat out of focus landscape artists, like Gareth Edwards or Paula Dunn.
Blank slatism for adults isn't extreme, as it isn't limited to EA, nor limited to progressives. It's a part of mainstream Western white culture, e.g., magic dirty theory. Or see for a specific example, a white woman forgiving her mother and cousin's murderer (who's of the demographic one might expect), hiring him to work on her property, only to get murdered by him herself.
How much detail do you think is in the data that governments and tech companies are keeping about us?
-
Are they keeping a log of every website you visit?
-
Are they keeping a log of your phone's 24/7 location data?
-
Are they keeping transcripts of all of your phone calls?
-
Are they keeping transcripts of every word you say in the vicinity of a smart device?
-
etc.?
It's not pedophilia, but we should still call them pedos anyway. However, there's only so far you can push this socially useful equivocation before it starts backfiring.
Another thing to consider here, is that within the past 20 years, the Catholic Church did suffer tremendous fallout for this thing.
It suffered massive losses in cultural influence, credibility, financial payouts, and legal win against it.
There’s two points here: one is that to the average person, this is a massive point in the “it could happen” column. Justice can be seen at least to a degree that isnt zero.
Second, all the excuses AT is making about technicality of ‘pedo ring’ applied here as well, but didn’t matter to the public perception. was widely regarded and reported as a pedo scandal, when it was mostly gay pederasty. The same mainstream taking down the Church downplayed this, not to justify them, but to avoid crossfire against homosexuality as well as get maximal outrage.
So again, ATs cutsie sneering at MAGAs that “this isn’t how it works” is completely at odds with how it actually did work and recently.
I would argue that Epstein and his guests are different from random truckers in that they purposefully selected for underage. If Epstein had hired 18yo's from escort websites only, this thing would be an absolute non-story, and nobody except a few prudes and feminists would get upset.
Being a sex worker at a truck stop is very likely not a great job. I would expect that the pay is lousy (because your clients do not have a lot of disposable income), it is rather dangerous (because "trucker", unlike "bank executive" does not filter for "intelligent person with an appropriate discounting function who will avoid any homicides they will not get away with") and that the clients are not particularly hot or skilled at sex. If you can make ends meet using OnlyFans or doing escort work, that seems much preferable. So I can totally see that this job selects for 16yo runaways who need to pay for their next meal or their next dose, and have neither the wardrobe nor the age to make it in the more respectable branches of sex work (where underage is likely a hard no, because it attracts the eye of Sauron like little else except murder).
Unlike the US, I have no problem with prostitution per se. I certainly do not think minors should be prostitutes, but also admit that I have no good way to align the incentives of a 16yo drug addict to that end. Still, I think informed consent is as important for sex work as for any sex act.
Some time ago, there was a scandal where some porn company would hire women for what they claimed to be modelling (or something similarly tame), then get into a plane to some other city, and suddenly be confronted with the fact that they would be shooting hardcore porn instead. This put the women in a position where they could either walk out, and find themselves in a city which they knew nothing about without a return ticket home, or they could conform with the expressed opinion of the set crew that shooting porn was not a big deal and believe their lies that their video would only be sold to foreign collectors and not be put on the internet. Eventually, the company got sued and is out of business now, and good riddance. By contrast, no hooker who climbs into a truck is under any illusion that the truck driver is going to do a photo shoot to kick off her modelling career. She might still get raped when the trucker violates the agreed boundaries, but that would then at least be a criminal matter (not that this would buy her anything, realistically).
Now, in theory, it could be that Epstein recruited his victims by driving to local truck stops and telling the sex workers: "I am currently recruiting underage prostitutes for a sex party. Here is a brief detailing transportation, accommodations, sex acts, payment, and safe words. Please read it, think about it for a week and then mail me what sex acts you feel comfortable with and I will get back to you."
However, in my world model, this is exceedingly unlikely. It is seems far more likely that the girls travelling on the Lolita express had at best a vague idea what would be required of them, and then were coerced in pretty much the same way as the victims of that unethical porn company were, except worse, because they were underage and actually trapped on an island.
I base this on my general impression of Epstein's MO wrt consent and also one major thing which I think is appealing in men about young partners, which is sexual inexperience. If you want an eager escort who has a great technique in oral sex, your ideal woman is likely a 25-30yo who has given head a few thousand times in her life and perfected her game, not a 16yo hooker. On priors, I don't think that Epstein specifically recruited virgins for his guests, because most of his guests would not appreciate a woman who curls down on the floor and starts crying when she is told what is expected of her, but I think that the whole setup was pretty much build around maximizing the power difference, his guests were probably into making their victims submit to sex acts which were way out of their comfort zone.
More options
Context Copy link