domain:nunosempere.com
YouEssAyyy
27m ago
100mm would be a massive increase. Trump only got 74mm in 2020 (losing by 6 million).
It’s possible that a felony conviction will get him 20mm more votes but I think that’s pretty unlikely.
That potato recipe sounds like some fat fuck shit, but eh, I can get behind the rest.
On the topic of food. Getting an air fryer and a rice cooker has been a game-changer for me.
I cooked up a whole seabream, and some jasmine rice in a grand total of 15 minutes end to end. I drizzled some "Prik Nam Pla (I added a small amount of sugar in addition to what the recipe says)" over the rice and fish, and it was excellent. I could easily see people paying a bunch of money at a Thai restaurant for a similar-tasting meal. The fish was perfectly cooked with potato chip esque crispy skin and moist flesh.
Silverdawn
I wake up 🔄 There's another psyop
41m ago
AI music is getting really, really good. https://old.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1d5dxvg/suno_35_is_out_of_early_access_you_can_now_get/
ControlsFreak
48m ago
Depends highly on the content, my familiarity with the subject or the language it's in, whether I'm watching it with my wife and various factors relevant to her, and what the purpose of the video is. For example, if it's English and a subject that I'm familiar enough with that I can process most of the information extremely quickly and am only looking to see if there are some nuggets of new ideas, definitely 2x. Though I am always ready to rewind and slow it down if necessary. An example scenario would be that I'm watching a recording of an academic talk in an area that I know pretty well, but BLAM, he starts banging out some chunk of stuff that I haven't really seen before, I'll go back and go through that section slowly.
Wife is a native French speaker, and I'm kinda learning. We watch a few French language channels together, but a nice compromise is that they are subjects that I otherwise know a lot more about than she does. We literally watch some of those on 0.75x. I can't actually tell if they're "fast" talkers relative to some typical rate, because I'm just not good enough at French to know, but slowing it down doesn't mess with the sound of it too badly, helps give me time to comprehend the words, and she's okay with it, because she's pretty new to the content.
Some videos we watch purely to relax before bedtime. Channels are picked appropriately, and they're a smooth, buttery 1x.
pm_me_passion
אֲנָשִׁים נֹשְׂאֵי מָגֵן וְחֶרֶב וְדֹרְכֵי קֶשֶׁת וּלְמוּדֵי מִלְחָמָה
51m ago
Not only is this Gell-Mann amnesia, it's the literal ur example of it. You don't trust the NYT when they imply (never outright say) that MAGA republicans want to destroy American democracy, so why do you trust them with the equivalent reporting on another country? Do you understand Israeli politics well enough to know why ~10% of the Israeli population will vote religious-right regardless of who's leading it? Probably not, and it would take actually living here to get it.
The equivalent is if a European would think that 50% of Americans want to turn the US into literal hands-maid tale. It's a not-even-wrong level understanding.
FiveHourMarathon
The Gun Would Go Off
53m ago
Isn't Trump's higher likelihood of targeting more than compensated for by his vastly larger resources to defend himself?
ControlsFreak
1hr ago
doing so would not in any sense present a first amendment issue
I think this just is one of those where you are not well-versed with a very different legal regime than your own. I notice that you avoided talking about McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n. Do you have any comment on that case or how it could play in to a hypothetical future case that directly addresses reporting requirements?
My understanding is that if there is no coordination with the candidate there is no reporting requirement. You can spend a billion dollars on "vote Trump" ads and as long as you don't communicate with the Trump campaign there's no obligation to disclose anything.
Express advocacy has reporting requirements.
Suppose Trump pulls two crisp Benjamins out, which happens to be just enough cash to place a "Blue Lives Matter" sign, not on his own lawn, but on a patch of land that cannot be connected to him, personally. He happens to think that this message will implicitly bolster support among people who are likely to vote for him in addition to just personally believing/liking the message and wanting to support the police. Reporting requirement? Criminal?
I think that's a reporting requirement. I haven't gone into any case law, but a plain reading of the legislation would seem to indicate that any expenditure made for the purpose of influencing the election is a campaign expenditure.
Hell, we don't actually need to go all the way to Trump doing it. Could again just say that I, a random ass-individual, spent a few hundred dollars on a "Blue Lives Matter" sign (presumably because you picked it out; I don't think I'd ever do that otherwise), but let's immediately forget that parenthetical and assume that I did it because I thought it would implicitly bolster support for Trump and help Trump's election campaign. Reporting requirement? Criminal?
Neither. Not a reporting requirement, not a crime.
What's the difference? You just said "any" expenditure made for the purpose of influencing the election is a campaign expenditure. So, shouldn't the latter be one, too?
Let me one more hypo you. One that I would be very unsurprised if it literally actually came up in arguments if we had a SCOTUS case directly on the reporting requirements. Would the pseudonymous Federalist Papers have been legal? They were all essentially politicians of various sorts and were surely running for elections at various times. The papers, themselves, were certainly aimed at influencing voting, and they could very plausibly think that it would influence things in ways that would get them elected (as they were, indeed, elected to various positions). Pseudonymous? Or reporting requirement? Criminal?
I want to repeat that very last thing. Is it criminal to not report it? Because I believe NY law was requiring a crime, not a civil infraction that merely incurs a fee.
Or at least, that's what it seems like to me?
Pretty much. Or at least, it's a very reasonable understanding. Your bounded distrust filter seems healthy.
All I'd additionally add is the reminder is that there are many, many forms (and reasons) of non-compliance/active subversion of a state, such that it can be anti-value to conflate groups and rationals too aggressively lest you start implying/believing that all groups conduct [worst act of subversion A] for [worst rational D] when really groups doing [subversion A] are doing so for [less malign rational C] and groups with [worst rational D] are reasonly only doing [marginal acts of subversion B]. If there's a reason to be hesitant about the NYT piece, it's in this conflation risk.
As for what you do about different groups, that depends on the groups and the nature of the subversion and the nature of your democratic checks and balances. Military groups in particular, however, can generally be cracked down on with military law, as a refusal to abide by lawful orders is anathema to the principles of civilian control of the military when said lawful orders are derived from civilian leadership-set policies. Others parts, however, may be prosecued on criminal lines, or may not be criminal at all- the ability to challenge the state is inherent to an actual democracy.
But ultimately, a lot of government is based on deference to the government from the bottom up, not top-down control. Non-compliance and apathy, let alone active disagreement or opposition, routinely subvert government attempts at policy implementation.
Felagund
2hr ago
While I generally agree with your comment, I think in my own case, 2x speed is usually closer to reading than speedreading, in that I'm still able to follow pretty closely, not merely get it because it's low in information density. It doesn't feel like I'm forcing my brain to comprehend faster, it just feels like I'm causing them to get through what they're saying at a less ponderous speed. Of course, they vary in how information-dense they are, so I will slow down depending on the video.
orthoxerox
I realized I can change my flair color to Barbie pink
2hr ago
Scott has published Unsong on Amazon. It's currently #2 humorous science-fiction book on Amazon, but that's not what I wanted to talk about. #6 book in the same category, according to Amazon, is Slaughterhouse-Five. I guess you really can't spell "slaughter" without "laughter".
Felagund
2hr ago
2x speed when possible (and I'd probably experiment with a little, but not too much, higher if offered). If they speak too quickly for me to keep up, I'll drop a little to 1.75 or 1.5, or more if needed. I'll drop temporarily and rewatch a portion if something was hard to catch.
But video content feels inefficient, so I try to prefer text, or watching quickly.
People watching videos (at least, ones primarily meant to inform) at 1x speed is kind of crazy to me. How do you sit through that? Why not watch twice as much in that time? At least, for me, 1x speed is, unless there's a very quick speaker, quite a bit slower than what's needed for me to understand—it's at the pace of them speaking, and usually it's faster to understand a sentence than to come up with one. Perhaps that would change if I watched videos on harder to understand topics, like advanced math or something.
I should probably make more use of youtubetranscript.com.
fishtwanger
shirking duties randomly made up by people who hate us
2hr ago
I don't really care about the settlements, as buildings on pieces of land. It's more the faction of the population that acts in these ways, and said faction happens to be associated with the settlements, and the existence of the settlements puts the faction in proximity to West Bank Palestinians (who have their own set of problems).
If the settlements were razed today, and all the people in them were pulled back deep into Israeli territory, those people wouldn't instantly change their views. They'd still vote, and would still be in the IDF and the police and all other branches of the government. They'd still have access to Israeli Palestinians. And anything going on in Gaza that's attributable to them, would still be happening. Or at least, that's what it seems like to me?
MaiqTheTrue
Zensunni Wanderer
3hr ago
I think her view is pretty much my view of most protests. Most of the protesters (on any topic, mind) don’t actually know much about the things they protest. Get them off their talking points (something Ben Shapiro is pretty good at), make them defend their position without going back to slogans and references to things seen on video, and they fall apart.
The ICC and the various other countries suddenly “recognizing Palestine”, in my view have mostly their own credibility in mind, especially the ICC. They’re not serious proposals. The states recognizing Palestine have no trade agreements with Palestine. They have no trade deals with Palestine, they’re not recognizing a Palestinian passport. There’s no state to recognize, with no serious government, no exports, it is not a state to any real degree. At best it’s two reservations shooting missiles over a border completely controlled by Israel.
On the ICC side, the gain is legitimacy. It’s a toothless organization issuing meaningless “rulings” that it can’t enforce. They can’t arrest the people they want to try. No state is going to March into Jerusalem and perp-walk Netanyahu. Or nab Putin in Moscow or Biden in DC (if he gets convicted of something). They can issue calls for arrest, they can try leaders in absentia and sentence them to anything they want to. It doesn’t matter, as they cannot enforce any of that. If they sentence someone to death, it doesn’t matter because the person can live as they please within their own country. Sure, maybe if Netanyahu gets drunk and flies to Europe, something might happen. But if he stays in Israel or other friendly states, he gets to remain free and even remain PM of Israel until his base kicks him out.
Closedshop
話說天下大勢，分久必合，合久必分
3hr ago
Guess who's back? Back again. Eminem just released his new single "Houdini" today. It's billed as a kind of return to form to his old Slim Shady character. The music video is filled with references to his classics like "Without Me" and "My Name Is." Even his voice sounds like a younger version of himself in parts of the song. Is this just memberberries getting to me? Maybe. I did enjoy it in that early 2000s way though.
I haven't listened to Eminem or the rap genre since around 2010. I've tangentially heard about him in the years (I'm glad he felted MGK so hard that MGK had to change genres). Is the song as good as his late 90s to early 00s era? Maybe this is nostalgia talking, but I don't think so. Something about the song just feels like it's not as raw or groundbreaking as his early work. The lyrics are not as unleashed as they were in the early days. The music video, while good, paused too much in the middle of the song. Now all that being said, it's good. I enjoyed it. The lyrics, while not as hard hitting, are what you'd expect from Eminem. His rhyming is still crisp. He still raps like Eminem, or Slim Shady in this case.
While I'm just someone who used to listen to Eminem in high school or whatever, I think the song is good enough to stand on its own even without the callbacks to his classics. Is this his best work? No. Is it as completely rancid as Relapse? Definitely not. It's good. And that's more than I can say for a lot of the shit that gets released these days.
If any more serious Eminem or even rap fans would like to weigh in, I'd love to hear other opinions.
self_made_human
Kai su, teknon?
3hr ago
[REDACTED] : "They have no human capital." and subsequent description is boo outgroup [REDACTED]: boo-outgroup [REDACTED]: boo-outgroup [REDACTED]: boo-outgroup [REDACTED]: antagonistic [REDACTED]: boo-outgroup [REDACTED]: boo-outgroup [REDACTED]: boo-outgroup
My. It's rare to see a comment get quite that many reports, and have the consensus of the volunteer jannies be that it's frankly fucking terrible.
You could very well have conveyed the exact same message with much less inflammatory wording. In the words of @Amadan, while we don't police content, we very much police tone.
And yours is utterly dripping with sheer contempt, and is absolutely not what we're looking for here, or even conducive to a healthy argument.
You've been warned once for antagonism before, and I would wager it hasn't worked. I hope a day's ban will make you choose your phrasing more carefully in the future. You're welcome to share your opinion on Trump and his voters, simply not while nakedly sneering.
2rafa
3hr ago
It is true but historically the extremists pull back when the IDF does. Settlers left the Sinai. Settlers left Gaza. Raze their houses and let the enemy move in and they run scared pretty easily. Most extremist religious Zionists aren’t angry young men, they’re large families with huge numbers of women and children, they’re easy targets.
aardvark2
3hr ago
Current war strategy on both sides of attritional warfare probably costs another 200-400k Ukranian lives and some multiple of that in Russian lives.
"some multiple"? That's retarded. It's Ukraine not letting its men out and catching them on streets, not Russia. It's Ukraine who asked "all for all" POWs swap. Given how slow fronts are moving, losses are probably close to 1"1
In case "Russia backs down" you do not consider a number of deaths in civil war in Russia, just NATO shows and everything becomes good and sweet?
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
3hr ago
Is this not the purpose of an abstract?
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
3hr ago
I am honestly learning for the first time that people watch videos of people talking at more than 1x speed.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
3hr ago
Consuming raw milk as I am sure you know is a roll of the dice. Pasteurization is a good thing.
fishtwanger
shirking duties randomly made up by people who hate us
4hr ago
A couple of weeks ago, the NYT Magazine had a long in-depth article about certain factions of Israeli society who tend toward violence against Palestinians. If you ignore the click-baity title of the article, the body seems mostly descriptive, and like the sort of investigative journalism I want to see more of. It's not an overview of the entire conflict, not about the Palestinians, and mostly not about the many Israelis who don't do this. It focuses on groups connected to Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, and their respective Mafdal-Religioius Zionism and Jewish Power parties, which together have 11.67% (14/120) of seats in the Knesset and got 10.84% of the votes in the last election back in November 2022. (Ignoring the existence of Noam for simplicity.)
The upshot seems to be that there's an active minority of Israelis who are intentionally engaging in hostilities against Palestinians, and who are subverting attempts to mitigate those hostilities. The only comparisons that come to mind are areas where gangs and mafia have hollowed out the state, and the example of the US South after the Civil War, working around Reconstruction. Since the number is at least 10%, we have to assume that they're present at most levels of civil society and the military.
Then there were these tweets from Haaretz, about the IDF command losing control over some units. It didn't sound like full "Apocalypse Now" donkey-slaughtering, but still worrisome.
(And there was the IDF reservist who posted a video which effectively threatened mutiny. Of course, it would be wrong to judge an entire group based on the most extreme thing one of them posted online.)
I've got questions in two main areas.
First, how accurate is all this? This stuff passes my "bounded distrust" filter: it seems plausible from what I know of human nature and society, matches what information I have about conditions in Israel and the settlements, and makes sense of some contradictions I'd been seeing regarding the Gazan war. But I'm hoping that people who know more (@Dean seems like one) will chime in. Maybe I'm suffering from Gell-Mann amnesia.
Second, assuming this is roughly accurate, what the heck does Israel do about it? More generally, how can a state recover when a substantial minority refuses to go along with its orders? As anarchists delight in telling anyone who'll listen, a lot of what we think of as "government" is a consensual hallucination. There's fiction about what happens when people say "I won't" or "mind your own business" or "fuck off", but how often does it happen in real life? If we're supposed to "never give an order that won't be obeyed", where does that leave legitimacy when 10% won't obey certain types of orders? Maybe an Israeli Eliot Ness could put together a modern day group of Untouchables, but (going by vote totals) there's over 500,000 Israelis who at least nominally support this agenda. And the political factions that represent them are in the government coalition.
aardvark2
4hr ago
I don't see what education in Nigeria has to do with the education of Nigerian Americans in the US.
Maybe I am wrong. I heard claim "Nigerian Americans are very educated" claim many times, and I always thought that it referred to 1st gen Nigerian Americans and majority of those got their higher education in Nigeria (I think that about 50% Nigerians obtaining higher education in Nigeria emigrate)
I think I have to repeat myself "While education is a proxy for IQ, it is a poor proxy in case when comparing between universities/degrees having different standards or affirmative action."
Meanwhile, your opinion on IQ for people in Ivory Coast is likely based on Flynn's paper which I point out has some issues to take into consideration.
No my opinion is not, I think 70 is close to phenotypic average SSA IQ and I consider that African Americans have somewhat similar genotypic IQ to Ivorians because most of their origin is from West Africa (maybe 5 points higher due to White admixture). If you don't like Flynn estimates, get better ones but do not shift into discussion how many degrees Nigerian Americans have (a highly selected group benefiting from race-based affirmative action).
that 70 IQ average value from the Ivory Coast is not equivalent to 70 IQ person in the US
If so (I am not saying it isn't), then you should drop "70 iq people are unemployable" alltogether.
but I have reasons to believe education does have an impact on IQ
Many people say this, but nearly all twins studies find impact of shared environment on adults low, less than 10%. Research of education>IQ is not stigmatized. Why didn't they come with some impressive results?
So would IQ decrease from FAS or cerebral palsy (phenotypic) have mostly no effect on whether the individual could function well in modern society?
This is the exception. Not everyone in Ivory Coast or other sub-saharan African country has FAS or cerebral palsy or other non-nutrition defective diseases driving the IQ down.
Why these are exceptions? They are just conditions with larger effects, there are many lesser conditions. If some condition drives phenotypic ability to perform well on IQ tests, why wouldn't it be drive their phenotypic ability to perform well on a job?
lower IQ than population average is often associated with personality deficits and mental disease, which average member of low IQ population does not have.
This personality IQ correlation is done in the US and thus it cannot be appropriately extrapolated to Africa. Unless you know any specific studies/research to suggest otherwise, I don't know any.
It looks to me, that I completely agreed with your point that "70 iq Ivorians not same as 70 iq Americans" and yet that you're thinking I am disagreeing and you do not like that I wrote something unflattering for SSA.
I'm not sure there's enough detail in the linked article to draw any meaningful conclusions. Were a number of young people asked "do you accept homosexuality?" as a single binary-choice question, or were they responding to longer surveys that included questions from "Should gay sex be illegal?" to "Do you think pride parades include too much publicly indecency" or "Do you think there's too much focus on LGBT representation in the media"? If the latter, any nuanced set of opinions over a range of topics will probably be seen by the media as "unaccepting" even compared to relatively recent times when these issues were less contentious.
More options
Context Copy link