domain:twitter.com
greyenlightenment
investments: META/FBL, TSLA, TQQQ, TECL, MSFT ...
1d ago
Competent teachers and coaches through talent and experience are able to identify these levels in their clients/students and will adjust advice accordingly
yeah there is a "you get what you pay for" rule in regard to advice quality
Grant_us_eyes
1d ago
A different audience in Europe. London, specifically.
This particular myth tends to annoy me a great deal, because it's a perfect encapsulation of a tactic I've seen displayed by left-leaning types time and time again - the constant, insistent urge to drag politics into areas that it doesn't really belong(ie, entertainment).
This wasn't Cancel Culture. It was a masks-off moment for a bunch of grifting entertainers that were trying to belong to the Cool Kids Club. Surprise, surprise, the group that made them popular from the start didn't take well to being grifted.
Doubletree3
1d ago
This statement is wrong in the general case on game theoretic grounds. Not everything is a prisoners dilemma, and not everything your opponent does that you don't like is a game-theory defection. In this case, if you believe that government intervention in the market is bad, then cons are just doing a harm and not disincentivising future similar actions by liberals.
ChickenOverlord
1d ago
If I have to tell it to avoid common footguns then it's faster to just write it myself
greyenlightenment
investments: META/FBL, TSLA, TQQQ, TECL, MSFT ...
1d ago
For the past 3 weeks I have been inundated with ads paid for by USAFacts, a non-profit founded by Steve Balmer. In its own words, it's a "...not-for-profit, nonpartisan civic initiative making government data easy for all Americans to access and understand. We provide a data-driven portrait of the American population, US governments’ finances, and governments’ impact on society."
Some of these videos have a considerable number of views. The videos below have 10 million views each in less than a month, indicative of a large budget and a major media push. YouTube ads targeting the US are not known for being cheap, given that it's a high-SES audience. YouTube counts a view as someone who clicks the link and watches at least 10 seconds of the video, at a cost of roughly 10 cents a view. By my estimation, he has spent $2-4 million in promoting these videos, among others, in just a month alone. This is pocket change for him, but my question is, what does he hope to accomplish with this?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=JXKLoDXmZNo
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Bl1HRu18X0Y
Although it describes itself as non-partisan, this does not preclude some sort of agenda or motive by its founder.
The 2028 US presidential election is still years away. The content itself is not outwardly partisan and it's hard to shoehorn it into any specific agenda. Perhaps he hopes viewers will become better informed about trade, to dissuade them from voting for the presumptive GOP nominee, that being JD Vance, who supports tariffs? But the ads are broadcast everywhere, not just battleground states. Or he's trying to cement a legacy as a lecturer and public intellectual , similar to Milton Friedman or Ray Dalio, who also have popular economics videos. Between this and Bill Gates' philanthropy, it shows that the ultra-wealthy tend to also be workaholics. They are not content just retiring with their money. The last thing I would want to do is get all dressed up and read for hours scripts for many videos. Sounds really tedious and boring.
I don't think it will work though. The era of the 'TV public intellectual', as exemplified by Donahue and Crossfire which pioneered the format, peaked in the 80s and 90s, before the internet.
ThenElection
1d ago
I don't see the Intel buy as motivated by revenge politics. It seems more motivated by Trump's desire to be seen doing things: do a lot of random, high profile things, and select those that work out as proof of your leadership (those that don't, of course, fail because of the wreckers).
Maybe the revenge narrative makes sense, but not a revenge against Trump's most visible enemies, but the layers of bureaucrats and experts whose main function tends to be saying you can't do things and then acting to make it harder and more expensive to do things.
(All that said, in this case the naysayers are entirely correct, and Trump should be picking his things to do more judiciously.)
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
1d ago
Some of this is different strokes for different folks
Yes, definitely. I have an upcoming backpacking trip where my phone will be off or in airplane mode (when I need it for navigation, unfortunately) for 5ish days. It will be heavenly. And I'll be reminded when I get back how little I really need the phone and how much I pay per month to have a texting/email/wikipedia pocket tracking device.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
1d ago
I mean, yeah... you can almost hear the voice deepen and roughen and see the lighting change when you read that last phrase.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
1d ago
Yes, but your definition of 'right' is outdated compared to the actual definition of 'right'. I assert that, after 2016 and especially after 2020, the Blues repositioned themselves firmly on the Right and the Reds (the people who will be paying for that gross conservative decadence that was the uncommon cold for the rest of their lives) have inherited the Left.
Care to expand on this? I've read it multiple times and still can't follow it.
FtttG
1d ago
I can't remember the payoff matrix for the iterated prisoner's dilemma, so it's possible.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
The Venn diagram between “thinks SJ is existentially dangerous” and “has given up on liberalism” is damn close to a circle.
I'm rather bemused at all the people here who bemoan the lack of charity for left, casually just making shit up about their outgroup, but I suppose such is life. Anyway, sadly, you are mistaken. Liberalism skeptics managed to appeal to some of the elites, but we're yet to win mass appeal, even among anti-SJ people.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
1d ago
I think the right is becoming the party of nothing but political grievances and emotional overreactions in much the same way.
Yes, but your definition of 'right' is outdated compared to the actual definition of 'right'. I assert that, after 2016 and especially after 2020, the Blues repositioned themselves firmly on the Right and the Reds (the people who will be paying for that gross conservative decadence that was the uncommon cold for the rest of their lives) have inherited the Left.
This is why I believe that [by that definition] the Right's current strategy of "mimic Trump on Twitter" is going to fail. It isn't the left that can't meme: the left is where memes come from, 4chan was just confused as to who left and right actually were at that time, as were [and are] we all.
A lot of wokeness is nothing more than people being sanctimonious on the internet
Well, that and the human trafficking (sorry, "illegal immigration"), and the "ban all business for 2 years" thing, and Burn Loot Murder, and encouraging your children to castrate themselves (and arresting those who voice opposition thereto), and...
I could go on. Those have real sociofinancial costs, and the Left would like the Right to pay for them.
But unless you want government czars deciding how individuals relate to each other, what are you going to do about it?
We already have that: it's called the Civil Rights Act. It was a weapon used by one side for the last 60 years, and it's understandable that that faction using it in that way is apoplectic about it being used for its stated purpose (not the one they used it for).
FlailingAce
1d ago
It seems to me that you're conflating pricing and insurance.
You can imagine a world where prices factor in the expected cost, but we're not in that world. If I have a complication in a routine procedure, they will charge extra to handle the complication. Then my insurance spreads that extra cost between a pool of policy holders. The pricing for the procedure doesn't spread the cost, and doesn't need to, because that's the purpose of the insurance. Instead, insurance will pay the minimum it can get away with for a specific procedure. They sure as hell aren't paying $2000 for a $1000 cost procedure because sometimes things go wrong - they pay $1000 and then upcharge when things go wrong.
Tophattingson
1d ago
so until a political leader comes along who shares our values, we're forced into alliances of convenience with whichever group isn't currently holding the whip [...] Tories when Labour are in power, Labour when the Tories are
Unnecessary. Both Tories and Labour back the OSA. Reform oppose the OSA.
greyenlightenment
investments: META/FBL, TSLA, TQQQ, TECL, MSFT ...
1d ago
I sorta see what you mean. Personally, I have learned give and take little advice. People generally do not want unsolicited advice. Good advice is typically very specific and by an expert ; for example , an academic advisor.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1d ago
A cooperate-bot in a population that contains defectors is a sucker, this is not a value judgement, it's a purely analytic statement of fact.
No, this is a value judgement. Perhaps you mean it as an analytic statement of fact, but that is not what "sucker" means. It is purely a derogatory statement about one's belief that someone is foolish.
A "sucker" is a victim of one's own credulity or benevolence. This is an objective category in instrumental terms. A cooperate-bot in a population that contains defectors is a sucker, this is not a value judgement, it's a purely analytic statement of fact.
You either are putting yourself at the mercy of your enemies thereby threatening your ability to effect your agenda or you are not.
You can only argue this is subjective if you're willing to say that engaging in effective politics is not your goal, which is axiomatically excluded from this discussion given effective politics is the topic.
jkf
1d ago
Even if she's (probably) lying, Alice likely isn't stupid enough to pull the same trick on the next turn, so in the short-term, Bob's best bet is to hit cooperate on the next turn too.
If Bob thinks Alice is more likely to cooperate immediately after her defection, isn't his short term best bet to also defect immediately since there's less risk of accidentally aligning his defection with one of Alice's random ones and ending up at defect-defect?
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
The Venn diagram between “thinks SJ is existentially dangerous” and “has given up on liberalism” is damn close to a circle.
Much of SJ is in the latter but not the former.
Killing some percentage of the population is not in the liberal Overton window.
I will cop to being a serial breaker of Overton windows. It's really quite hilarious the things people say when one does so; "are you Darkseid" and "what's next, revealing your family's secret rape dungeon" are some of the more memorable (though I've gotten really, really sick of "you're a child molestor").
Throwaway05
1d ago
Physical books or kindle + libgen. I find reading on the phone to be terrible, and really, kindle isn't great either.
Some of this is different strokes for different folks - I would never in a million years ago back to a separate music player.
I will say that I have a kindle and used it over my phone for a long time until I got an oversized phone and then suddenly reading on the phone didn't bother me.
hydroacetylene
1d ago
The government is neither owning intel, nor directing policy there. The government is owning ten percent of intel’s stock and voting with the board of directors.
That’s perfectly reasonable as a condition of government grants(which were already going). This way the government at least gets dividend revenue.
MadMonzer
Pedo! Pedo! Pedo! Out! Out! Out!
1d ago
Actual, formal criminal investigations of prominent political opponents announced by law enforcement agencies? Three - James Comey, John Brennan, and John Bolton, versus zero at this stage of the Biden administration. Part of the reason why I described the Biden administration's response to Trump's election antics as milquetoast was that Merrick Garland slow-walked things to the point where Trump could and did delay any trials until after the 2024 election.
Targetted investigations of prominent political opponents intended (based on public statements by the White House or Congressional leadership) to lead to formal criminal referrals in the future - lots (the exact number is unclear because I don't know how many of the investigations Trump announces on social media actually happen) , versus one federal investigation at this stage of the Biden administration (the House Jan 6th committee). There was also the NY State investigation into the Trump organisation.
Given how slowly the justice system works (and did work against Trump, and will work for him), the claim that Trump is doing less lawfare than Biden is a claim that he is incompetent or unserious and the lawfare he is announcing won't actually happen over the next three and a half years. I agree this is plausible.
If you're discussing human evolution, why not drop the Tidus framing and just call them humans? And write a sourced post instead?
What is the cliffnotes version of the data supporting this hypothesis? Just what you describe below about inference from modern primates?
What is the evidence for this being a relevant description in human evolution, or is it referring to some other concept in evolutionary biology I'm not aware of?
You open with wanting to discuss polygenic traits, then what follows is largely a description of pleiotropy. Pleiotropy is far from universal (your 'no gene does only one thing' quote) with 10-20% of human genes estimated to be pleiotropic. Polygenic traits frequently have very significant environmental influences (Even in animals, and even in genetically identical animals) which you also do not discuss.
I don't know what you're referring to here, but this sort of polygenic interaction is impossible to keep track of with our current level of understanding. There's no way to construct a deterministic/mechanistic model of how genetic variation will translate to a given trait. If you're referring to polygenic scores, I wouldn't call that 'keeping track of polygenic interactions,' and furthermore, their explanatory power is in the single to low double-digit percentages of variance explained.
What is the evidence for this? Is it a purely theoretical conclusion based on your argument around pleiotropy? Because:
This just isn't true. I can give you plenty of examples of genes I could manipulate that would result in an observable difference in physical appearance that aren't even expressed in the brain. I'd have an even easier time giving you genes that would mess with your immune system without affecting the brain. I suppose you would argue that I could never prove to your satisfaction that those mice experience the world differently, but that would just a be waste of everyone's time.
To be frank: I find is disquieting how many people reject psychology when it concludes that racial diversity improves team efficiency, stereotype threat or whatever other bullshit and then happily eat up evo psych slop that flatters their own biases. 'Current best mainstream academic hypothesis' is only as rigorous as the data behind it, and there's obviously differences in rigor between disciplines.
Were you HelmedHorror on the old site?
More options
Context Copy link