domain:twitter.com
thejdizzler
1d ago
Ahh I see. It is a lot better than what I'm used to, which is just idle theorizing usually. At least couzens tries to support his ideas with "something". But you're right, it's not very rigorous. Thanks for the explanation.
thejdizzler
1d ago
My understanding is there is a large metabolic and structural component. Heart disease is still the #1 killer and this is almost entirely due to a break down in how the circulatory system functions. There is a genetic component but ti's not like fixing people's DNA will really help
JTarrou
1d ago
I too am terrified that if we deport more Guatemalans not enough Indians will come here and do the jobs Americans just won't do (for less than minimum wage).
There's one major factory company left in mid-Michigan, but they hire their engineering and technical staff entirely from the subcontinent. Now, because I've seen the unemployment numbers and because this used to be a manufacturing hub, I don't think this is because there aren't enough locals to do the job. It just costs more when you can't ship them back after their visa is up. Every hotel in fifty miles smells like curry, but at least Dow doesn't hire Americans for jobs outside the warehouse.
It would be a real tragedy if those indians were so enraged by anti-black racism they see on the internet that they no longer wanted to come here. Why, companies might have to pay real wages and benefits, and not be able to hold a work visa over their recruits' heads, and that would be bad. Our economy cannot survive without a constant stream of immigrants, because we have laws that force employers to meet certain minimum criteria when hiring Americans, and that's bad.
I quite liked KSR as a kid but Aurora completely ruined him for me, it's fractally bad.
In particular the nonsense about insular dwarfism which crops up very early and makes it obvious that he does not understand the first thing about biology. He repeatedly states that the ship's genetic screening/controlled breeding system is working fine and there is no inbreeding or loss of genetic diversity, then insists that this is pointless and they are doomed because they didn't take the zoo/island effect into account. There's no attempt to find a mechanism by which that might operate despite the genetic diversity being fine, and I don't think KSR realised he needed one.
The morality is even more confused: it builds its anti-space argument around the deep immorality of generation ships, with endless discussion of the inhuman cruelty of condemning future generations to live and die in a ship for your ambition, climaxing with the protagonist attacking would-be space explorers on earth, denouncing them for a crime which none of them have or plan to commit and which she already has. Literally Freya is the only character in the entire book who we see launch a generation ship, and she uses the immorality of her own actions to condemn space exploration as a whole. KSR brushes off this hypocricy, yet he's obviously aware of it because he uses the cryosleep deux ex machina to let Freya give the speech directly instead of dictating it to the grandchildren she condemned to die in space.
Also it's a much pettier issue but I couldn't get over the fact that the ship's closed-loop ecosystem is not only divided into a bunch of different ecoregions with non-overlapping fauna but that most of them have predators including miniature bears and wolves. I half-wish the Snakes on a Plane people would option it for a sequel.
EilonwyPrydain
1d ago
AuDHD. Interesting you mention the father thing because he's exactly like his dad, which is what scares me sometimes. We're divorced because he couldn't reign in his emotions. They both get extremely frustrated when there's a task they're having trouble with.
Society doesn't seem to have the right model for it. "Oh, he's an abusive husband because he yells and throws things, he's using his emotions to control you." I don't think it was that calculated (and for the record, he never laid a hand on me). I would describe his outbursts as panic attacks - just really accelerated breathing and heart rate and this kind of spiral of escalation that he seemed unable to break out of.
Anyway with the teen, we're trying to figure out the right mix of medication and talk therapy approaches. His school has a 504 with him and we're working on an IEP. Overall they've really tried to work with us. I just have some discomfort around the idea that we're pathologizing what to him is a normal emotional reaction, and making him feel somehow broken. But it does need to be addressed because living with his dad was volatile and unstable. I hope Junior can find a better way to manage it all.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
1d ago
Well certainly avoid physical confrontation or violence of any kind, though perhaps that's the idea--you'd like to be violent but the repercussions would be unavoidable.
Hard to answer without much more specific descriptions, unless you're casting about for permission to use manipulation and subterfuge to undermine this person. I'd personally avoid that route as well, though such strategies tend to get results. I'd argue the cost is one's soul but I tend toward dramatic statements, especially when sitting in a hospital waiting room for hours, as I'm doing now. (I'm not sick.)
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
1d ago
Well normally I'd suggest a gin and tonic at this time of year, but the other comments are probably going to give a peace of mind with a more robust shelf life.
pbmonster
1d ago
there are many competing ideologies and it isn’t clear to me which KSR thinks are the right ones.
To me it seemed that he design the gift economy some of the Martians end up with to be pretty utopian. But yes, he does't dwell on it, or even elaborate very much.
thrownaway24e89172
Death is the inevitable and only true freedom
1d ago
How do you define a "principled liberal"? Liberals typically have principles beyond "freedom of speech" and recognize that important principles sometimes conflict. Does being "principled" require a naive "Rank principles in order of importance and act based on that ranking." method of conflict resolution?
Dean
Flairless
1d ago
Is there a reason to believe a cross-section of the society that has been causing the replication crisis for the professional careers of most of its members is 'quality?'
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
1d ago
Two things I might offer.
-
a question. You mention he is "neurodivergent." That could mean many things, and you do not have to tell me any of them. But do you suspect this is what's the root of the issue, and that his anger is an artifact of this? That he is acting out anger in inappropriate ways due to an overreaction to stimuli that a less neurodivergent person would react to differently ? If so, that's a tougher issue.
-
Dad is a model of manhood, for better or worse. Many men I know consciously try to be UNlike their fathers (in my mind they fail mostly). But I for example try to be a lot like my dad in terms of temperament. I can remember what would set him off and when. He never really lost his temper--where I have regularly lost mine. I have shown anger in front of my sons in ways he never did, but I have his model to sort of steer me back to how I would like to be. But if 1) is the issue my 2) might again be less relevant. If your son is overreacting to benign stimuli that's going to take more work. I will say that you as the mother are not the model, so there's that. You're more the model of how he will view women.
Heavy exercise is great, sports are great ways to exhaust the body and vent. I agree with whoever already said that. I have two teenage boys.
Finally, I can't comment on your school system in any way but the most vague generalizations, but school has been in some ways always stifling of boys, to varying degrees. Your write-up isn't specific enough for me to know if that's what's going on. I'm pulled back to the word neurodivergent however and wonder if there's more going on.
Also I think that terraforming Mars is a red herring. Are we really short of lebensraum on Earth? Easier to build cities and extract resources in Canada, Antarctica, the deep oceans, Russia, the Sahara.
All near-future space stories have this "problem". There's no good reason for humans to go live in space (besides escaping the "single planet trap" which hedges against catastrophes that are extremely unlikely, many of which would still leave the surviving humans on earth better of than the humans surviving in our potential colonies). The technology required to teraform Mars or building O'Neill cylinders would also fix most problems on earth, just orders of magnitude cheaper.
Let's get offworld certainly, advance as a civilization, secure Mars... but only with good reason. The costs must be outweighed by the benefits
What benefits?
What about Mercury, is there not a tonne of solar power there?
Around twice the delta-V of a Mars mission, if you start from Earth orbit. And for what, 7x the solar irradiance of Earth? Just built 7x the amount of panels here. That's going to be cheaper than shipping the panels (or the panel factories) to Mercury for a very, very long time. Also, once you have heavy industry on Mercury, you need to ship the... heavy goods back out, quickly depleting what little water there is on Mercury.
There are resources in the asteroids, let's get them.
Almost all asteroids are worse sources of metals than a decent mine on earth. So you get into a chicken-or-egg problem with asteroid mining: the only reason why you'd want to do it is because those resources are already in space. But if the only thing to built in space is infrastructure for getting resources, you can just skip the entire space-headache and do your project on Earth for a fraction of the cost!
In the end, it's an awesome scenario for stories, and we like telling stories. Either for entertainment, or for inspiration. But realistically/economically, I don't see a case for human space flight at all. And if you want to build cool/inspirational stuff, you can do a whole lot just with our moon and the space around it.
Dean
Flairless
1d ago
Do you have any reason to think that @magicalkittycat is not, in fact, just a principled liberal?
Sure. Principled liberals have battle scars from running into reality, and magicalkittycat is neither indicating or claiming any, while repeatedly rejecting other people's observations on sophistic grounds in ways that classical liberals aren't exactly known for, even as he denies or ignores historical dynamics that principled liberals were publicly conceding for decades.
MKC speaks as a leftist assuming the mantle of a liberal, which has been a standard dynamic for decades, not as a classical liberal.
BahRamYou
1d ago
That's my suspicion. Its like people have taken the prestige from the entire field of mathematics and awarded it all to this one guy, because they need a single person to be the face. No one cares about the number 2, even if he's also super smart and successful.
RenOS
something is wrong
1d ago
I fear that in certain fields, the opposite might even be the case - that the science regresses one funeral at a time. It's not that the older scientists have no biases whatsoever, but it really isn't rare that younger academics (can't really call them scientists in good conscience, tbf) are much more strictly dogmatic and don't even pretend to be interested in the pursuit of truth if it goes against their beliefs.
BahRamYou
1d ago
There's also the Mathew Effect, where people give credit to the most famous scientist just because it adds prestige. But can sometimes lead to people like Einstein getting solo credit for things he just briefly mentioned.
Dean
Flairless
1d ago
You avoided the question, since you did not identify what free speech right is now being targeted by the government by the government not providing monetary grants.
The government was already- as in, for decades pre-Trump- using Title IX against universities for what individuals were doing. This has repeatedly withstood the scrutiny of courts, bipartisan elected official review, and even the approval of academics like Terence Tao. Your own citation concedes that 'Real discrimination deserves a real response,' it merely quibbles what [real discrimination] should be bounded at, while presenting a false dilemma that has already come to pass.
BahRamYou
1d ago
See i see anecdotes like that, and I think "cool, what did he say that's so smart it made a highly respected professor feel awe? Can i see it too? Maybe I can't understand it but Id like to try. "
With Einstein, there's tons of famous quotes from him, and a ton of pop science designed to help regular people understand his work. Because he did interesting work that we want to understand. Scott Aaronson has a nifty blog helping regular people understand his own work in quantum computing. Ive never seen anyone try to do that for Terence Tao. It just seems like hyper abstract academic stuff that only mathematicians would care about.
That's a great way to go about it, but it still has an issue.
All epistemic methods I'm aware of have issues. I'm not aware of one with fewer issues than weighing evidence, making predictions, and tracking results. Certainly you have not presented an alternative, nor explained why that alternative is better.
I'll call it the "9/11 truther effect" because I see it in conspiracy theories a lot. People will have some sort of low evidence idea in their head that is disagreed with because of a personal bias or issue of theirs, and then update later with the claim of "Ahah, I was right all along. This proves 9/11 was manufactured!" because of course, the standards and biased thinking that led them to believing 9/11 was fake to begin with also lead them to judge they are proven correct later.
You are pointing out that peoples' assessment of evidence can be flawed, and their assessment of outcomes can also be flawed, and that correlation between these flaws can compromise their assessments. This is true. Unfortunately, there is no general solution to the epistemic problem, and all the evidence I've seen indicates that this is as good as it gets.
When I was much younger, I was a deep-blue progressive atheist deeply embedded in the Blue Tribe narrative machine. I believed that Bush did 9/11, that he was a fascist, and that he intended to overthrow American democracy, probably by conducting another false-flag terror attack and then using it as a pretext to suspend elections. This was a quite popular belief among Blues back then, and I bought it all hook, line and sinker. I believed it so firmly that I moved to Canada and seriously considered renouncing my American citizenship. Only, none of the things I believed would happen, the things the people I was listening to predicted would happen, actually happened. There never was another major terror attack anywhere close to the scale of 9/11, false-flag or otherwise. Bush was re-elected in an election I and most of my social circle was certain was rigged, but then four years later Obama trounced Romney, and power transferred as normal.
I had invested heavily in predictions that were decisively falsified. Much that I had theorized, much that I had assumed was true, came apart. I took a hard look at much of the information economy I'd been patronizing, and downgraded the voices who had clearly fed me bad data and bad predictions. I updated my model of how the world worked. Nor was there much room for ambiguity in these predictions.
In 2016, immediately following the election of Donald Trump, I had a considerable amount of savings, and wanted to invest it. I'd been reluctant to do so for years, due to distrust in the economy after living through both the dotcom crash and the housing crisis. Still, it seemed to me that my fear of economic conditions was increasingly irrational, and I thought I should probably bite the bullet and put my money to work. While researching the question online, I found Nobel-prize-winning economist Paul Krugman's post-election predictions that Trump was absolutely going to trash the market and destroy the American economy. I looked around and found plenty of other economic authorities offering the same line. Having spent well over a decade immersed in Blue Tribe culture, and having spent considerable time reading and discussing Rationalist literature, I had great respect for Credentialed Experts. I sat on my money, and missed out on one of the best stock market runs of my adult life.
Again, I had invested (or not invested, as it were) heavily in the predictions of a particular data stream. That data-stream's predictions were falsified very thoroughly. I noted this, and updated accordingly: I no longer listen to Paul Krugman, nor to people who employ or cite Paul Krugman, and I place significantly less weight on the opinions of economists generally. This has stood me in good stead ever since, from holding crypto to noting the presence of inflation that was officially denied, to refusal to accept the economic case against Trump in the 2024 election.
What predictions have you invested in? Where have you been wrong? What have you learned?
With your knowledge as a rational actor aware that this self perception bias is both extremely common to the point of being basically universal and it's hard to see one's own bias, what would you place the odds of the neutral alien reality knowing arbiter choosing your side being correct when they check reality?
I would place the odds of the reality-knowing alien agreeing with me fairly high. You are correct that all humans are biased, and that it is hard to see one's own bias. That does not mean it is impossible, and I have spent a long time testing my understanding in a fairly rigorous and notably adversarial environment, while going a fair distance out of my way to encounter and engage with contrary opinions and perspectives. I do my best to maintain epistemic humility, and to consider that I might be wrong, but at this point I do not think it is unreasonable to expect something more concrete than a looping claim of "maybe you're wrong even if you can't see how or why and no evidence has been presented". Yes, maybe I am wrong. Maybe all the evidence I've accumulated and all the predictions I've tracked and all the outcomes I've updated off were flawed in some subtle way. And if so, then the best way to know it is to see outcomes that falsify my expectations or evidence that contradicts my understanding, not to reject assessment and action due to endless, self-referential doubt.
But good news, the answer doesn't even matter anyway if you choose the option to have principles! If you stick up for freedom no matter when and who, the alien won't rule against you no matter what.
What is the alien in this model? You are familiar with the is/ought problem, yes? It seems that your scenario only makes sense if the alien is "ought", if the alien represents moral correctness, and you are asking "are you confident in your moral judgements". As it happens, I am reasonably confident in my moral judgements and, from the way you write, somewhat skeptical of yours, but I do agree that the best way to ensure one maintains the moral high ground is to stick to one's principles. Unfortunately, I have also learned that actual principles are exceedingly costly, and I find that I cannot afford to maintain very many of them. It has proved crucial to choose which to keep and which to discard, and while you have not even begun to adequately define this "freedom" you speak of, I am pretty sure that's not one of the ones I'm holding on to. "Freedom", as popularly understood and as taught to me in my youth, is a spook, a non-entity, a linguistic confusion. It seems to me there are some specific freedoms worth paying dearly for, but the model you appear to be appealing to here and certainly have appealed to elsewhere in the thread is, in my assessment, worthless, pointless and hopeless.
clo
1d ago
Practical question.
How to tackle an insecure superior who is worried about his job and thinks he can retain it by forcing out the people under him?
I have been in this situation for a while, recently things sort of came to a head and made me realize that the situation is intolerable and requires some drastic changes for the sake of my own mental health. Current job market is not great and I don't relish fighting algorithms and corporate hiring websites for access.
Bonus points for any solution that allows me to escape the consequences of using physical violence in a white-collar setting, but I doubt it.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
· Edited 1d ago
Huh. I rated that one Neutral, because I read it as an obvious metaphor for "raze the institution quickly, ignore the regrettable collateral damage, move on to the next head of the hydra", which is a solid - if bitter - policy prescription and doesn't go the "YOU WERE ALL GUILTY AND YOU WERE ALL LEGITIMATE TARGETS!" route of indiscriminately demonising whole groups.
On reflection, I can see that if one read it literally, or even as ambiguous, that puts a very different spin on things.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1d ago
For decades, our biggest strategic advantage has been that the smartest, most ambitious people from all over the world wanted to come here.
There's a relevant essay from Arctotherium on this, you don't have to have mass immigration to bring in the top Taiwanese semiconductor experts, or German nuclear scientists or post-Soviet Russian STEM experts. You can bring in a few hundred or a few thousand people on 10x wages, have them stay for a few years to teach locals the skills and then have them leave or retire into obscurity.
China for instance brought in South Korean shipbuilding experts on high wages, worked out how to build ships and now dominates the world shipping industry. They tried this with semiconductors too, Taiwan actually passed laws to stop Chinese companies poaching semiconductor talent with high pay. Meiji Japan did this too, alongside others he mentions. Targeted skill acquisition does not require mass immigration.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-169701612
The US is very wealthy, they could close the door to the median-wage immigrants and keep the top talent, even aggressively headhunt top talent with high payouts. Not 'I published a crappy paper in one of those journals that exists for resume packing' but 'I'm actually really smart and have these rare skills'.
Furthermore, there are all kinds of problems with relying on mass immigration.
There is indeed a large amount of Indian talent, I see Indian names on various AI papers regularly. So why isn't India rich or at least on par with China? There's no Indian Deepseek, Huawei, BYD, J-20. There may well be something wrong with Indian culture or society that impedes this kind of development. Mass immigration would likely import this problem to some extent.
Suppose there's a disaster in America, it's one of those situations where all hands need to be on deck for a massive crisis. Would the Indians, Chinese, Latin Americans perhaps think 'not my problem' and head back to their home countries rather than giving their utmost? If they leave their country for a better life once, they can do it again if the situation changes.
Whatever issues with unity there are in America, it's hardly going to be helped by mass immigration. More ethnicities and diversity increases the potential for conflict. There are also the more basic costs of unfiltered 'Fuck Trump' mass immigration of randoms who come in via Mexico: drugs, crime, welfare payments, gaming the electoral system, demographic replacement.
Now it's fairly reasonable that some truly elite people will be turned off by the administration's rhetoric, even if the Trump admin did go 'we want the super smart but not the mediocre'. They might not want to come to America because overseas mainstream media blares out FASCIST USA. But it's not clear that this would be that bad compared to mass immigration.
We can see the results: Australia, Canada and the UK have been doing mass immigration. Racism has been suppressed by hate speech laws. The economic results/innovation in these countries have been underwhelming at best. Canadian GDP per capita has stagnated over the last 10 years. Britain is mired in all kinds of problems.
The strongest argument against Trumpism IMO is that it puts these loudmouths in charge, who go around openly declaring their strategies and letting their opponents counter them: https://x.com/Jukanlosreve/status/1958334108989530207
They're simple and unsophisticated thinkers in a complex world.
But even there, you don't have to be loud and obnoxious to be dumb. The EU is full of sober, hard-working, reasonable and civilized leaders who do immense damage to Europe by constantly making terrible decisions.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1d ago
Even if I want funding to these universities to be cut, I still don’t want some PhD student, writing their thesis on the inescapable legacy of white male oppression or whatever, to be unable to find a job, or to be unable to be treated for disease.
Why? Why is this belief more justifiable in your eyes than the notion that turnabout is fair play, or that the woke memeplex is an existential threat that must be suppressed by any means necessary, or that it's just funny to watch libs cry?
I largely oppose the above notions, but they are clearly memetically superior - more attractive, more consistent, more vital - than the desire for (")neutrality(") that still lives on in the vestiges of the liberal right. I sympathize with your view, but I'd bet that there will be no graceful ending to this conflict.
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
1d ago
a different third letter?
I believe it was actually this different, third letter - which was just misinformation that TracingWoodgrains boosted (and upon whom I lay all of the blame). But that first UCLA white supremacy statement also satisfies the requirements for my post, so I'm not particularly upset. The entire university system, his classroom included, is very much a part of the "white supremacy" that the letter seeks to dismantle or co-opt.
In the context of UCLA he is probably justified in not considering himself very political.
He wrote a private article about how Trump is bad and how he had trouble teaching classes after the 2016 election. You don't get to write about how awful and stupid the conservative presidential candidate is (and how his election is so terrible that it causes enough psychic damage to prevent you from working) then talk about how you're not very political.
He had it pulled because UCLA attracted Sauron's gaze.
And he was one of the voices who was shouting out and begging for Sauron's attention. Everyone else was doing it too, and I understand why he simply went along with it. But if he wanted to be apolitical, he could have been - sure, he might have faced some consequences for doing so, but he's now facing the consequences of not doing so.
I found some of the replies in Trace's thread frustrating.
I did too, but I'm now reconsidering it because I think some people were arguing against false claims that were boosted by Trace by mistake.
You seem to have knee-jerked a reply without actually paying attention to the details under discussion.
We're talking about the AG of Nevada. Not an Israeli government official.
And assuming all Jews are Zionists is SS's position, not mine.
More options
Context Copy link