site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 368 results for

domain:drrollergator.substack.com

According to all known laws of physics and aviation there is no way that a bumble bee ought to be able to fly.

[citation needed]

They can ruin the natural balance of the gut microbiome

oh, I forgot that one, thanks!

hepatic enzyme induces or inhibitors

and was not aware at all of that, double thanks!

Overuse or misuse of antibiotics can lead to antibiotic-resistant infections

I tried to cover this with "overuse/misuse reducing their effectiveness"

what's there?

I'm up for it, though I'm concerned that enough of you fuckers the fine Mottizens that are graciously volunteering in this very thread are deeply steeped in the knowledge of Pennsylvania's football teams to prevent me from scooping up later round bargains. Speaking of which, I fully reserve the right to draft a defense in the 9th round or a kicker in the 10th, and in fact to fuck up my entire draft because my other league is a full PPR league with 6 points for QB touchdowns and no kickers.

I linked this blog post in a reply at the bottom of a long comment chain, but it occurs to me that it is probably worth discussing in it's own right.

According to all known laws of physics and aviation there is no way that a bumble bee ought to be able to fly. The bee, of course knows nothing of this and insists on flying anyways.

Wikipedia has an entry dedicated to the phrase “Thank God for Mississippi” because for the last 100 years or so, no matter how bad off your state may be in a particular way, you could typically take solace in the idea that Mississippi had it worse. "Yes, our health outcomes suck..." the the people in Wyoming and Alaska may tell themselves "...but at least we aren't Mississippi".

In my experiance shitting on the South Eastern US as an embarassing, degenerate, cultural backwater, is not only tolerated in blue and grey tribe spaces but venerated and encouraged. Of course the south sucks, that's where Mississippi is. If you are from that region and you are persuing a degree at a school like Stanford or Cal-Tech you quickly learn to hide your accent and claim to be from somewhere else if you want to be taken seriously and graded honestly by your professors.

I present this as context for...

The "Missisippi Miracle"
In 2002 the second Bush administration signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law. Educational standards and reform had been had been a big part of his 2000 campaign platform, his wife Laura being a grade-school teacher, and one of the provisions of this act was a a mandate that "Public" (that is tax-payer-funded) schools would participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) originally established by the Johnson administration in 1964. As a result we now have standarized test data for almost every state and municpiple school district in the country going back over two decades.

For those outside the US, US school system is typically broken into 3 4 year long blocks. Kindergarten/Elementry School, Middle/Secondary School, and then High School. Specific names and implimentations vary from state to state but as a general rule the idea is that a child will enter the public school system at the age of 5 or 6 and graduate at the age of 18. The NAEP tests students for reading and mathematical proficiency at grades 4 and 8, IE upon entering and exiting Secondary/Middle School.

In 2003 Missisippi 4th graders where ranked near to last in the nation for reading comprehension, with an unadjusted average of 203. Only DC and Puerto Rico ranked lower. As of 2024 thier score is 219, representing a lttle over a standard deviation of improvement and placing them just shy of the top 10. This on it's own would represent admirable progress, but where things start to become unhinged is when you look at the "adjusted" figures. NAEP and various outside NGOs apply various adgustments to the raw scores in an attempt to control for things like demographics, socio-economic status, and spending per-student. When these "adjustments" are applied, Mississippi schools are not just performing better than they were 20 years ago, they are performing better than any other state school sytem in the nation. This is the alleged "Miracle".

Now a number of liberal commentators ranging from Friedliche DeBoer (of the South African Boers perhaps?) and Kevin Drum to Steve Sailer and the LA Times have all tried to debunk the so-called "Mississippi Miracle". The arguments generally fall into three broad categories. The first is that the mainstream media, academia, and establishment politicians are all prejudiced against liberal coastal blue-coded states like New York, Massachusetts, California, and Oregon, in favor of southern states like Mississippi. I find this claim laughable on it's face for reasons stated in the opening of this post. The second is the significantly more defensible claim that the NEAP's "adjusted" scores do not accurately reflect ground level truth. I believe that this is a fair critique, but the people making this critique often explicitly refuse to acknowledge that the unadjusted scores also saw an marked improvement (casts side-eye at Sailer and DeBoer) and that even when comparing like to like, the average Black student in Mississippi reads at a level about 1.5 grade levels higher than the average Black student in democratic strongholds like Illinois or Wisconsin.

Finally there is the claim that Mississippi is effectively "gaming the system". In 2013 the Mississippi State Legislature enacted the Literacy Based Promotion Act (LBPA) which required kids to pass a reading test to be promoted from elementary to middle school or else be held back or forced to repeat a year. The argument as it is, is that 4th graders in Mississippi are actually 5th or 6th graders by any other state's reckoning. If that were true one would expect to see a substantial age difference in the class cohorts, however that is not what we see, the average age of a 4th grader in Mississippi is only 0.01 years (or just under 4 days) above the national average.

To all appearances, and against the most ardent protestations of our resident Boer it would seem that having standards and enforcing them may actually matter.

How is this possible
I have a cynical answer that I expect to get me in trouble with the moderators, because I am about to take a stand in defense of Bulverism. Ad Hominem may be a formal fallacy, but in the real world it provides real value. Whether or not someone has an ulterior agenda is absolutely something you should be thinking about when you are trying to decide whether or not you are going to believe them.

I expect to be accused of "lacking charity" but the words are going to be theirs not mine. At some point all the experts in the blue and gray tribes seem to have decided that teaching kids to read was too much trouble and that not teaching them to read would be just as effective at promoting literacy as not doing so because demographics matter more than basic competency or engagement. Why would they do that even as they admitted that “For seven years in a row, Oakland was the fastest-gaining urban district in California for reading,”. The answer is in the following line "And we hated it."

By claiming that standards matter i am effectively take taking a shit on the foundational beliefs of Steve Sailer, Friedliche DeBoer, and a number of users here including at least one moderator.

Mississippi accepts your hate and Volleys it back. Ideocracy may be coming for America, but its coming for you, the blue tribe, not for MAGA country. We will teach our children Shakespeare Kipling and Twain, and you will not, and in 20 years we will see who has come out on top.

Do you think or feel your emotions? It’s obvious a both/and situation.

That question in particular wasn't related to any "MBTI dichotomies" (although I suspect it might be correlated). It was just a way to get people to start thinking about the diversity of emotional experience.

And for what it's worth, a number of people in the reddit thread said they experienced them as thoughts only.

If you mainly feel with your thoughts you probably have alexithymia, a surprisingly common condition

That's the thing though, I don't think I have "emotional blindness". I've never felt unable to identify what emotion I was feeling; I do it easily and often! I'm practically trauma dumping in my group chat on a regular basis about every subjective impression, positive and negative. I just... don't get bodily sensations with them. Except for, as previously mentioned, anxiety.

(Although, since learning about this stuff, I may have suddenly become consciously aware of bodily sensations associated with other emotions on a couple of occasions, and... I'm not really into it. I think I'd rather nip this in the bud before it gets too far. I have quite enough on my hands to deal with as it is, best not to go throwing all new ingredients into the mix.)

So what happens when a Fi gets programmed with highly neurotic/anxious software? Are they discernible to other people as any different from an Fe?

Good question! Under the schema I've presented, they could end up as behaviorally identical, yes. But I don't see that as much of a problem. The point isn't really to talk about behavior (nor is the point even to "sell" you on any particular theoretical view), but rather the point is to talk about the underlying phenomenological experience / thought pattern behind the behavior (which is what Jung's thought is really all about in the first place; the "personality type" stuff, based as it is on behavioral stereotypes, is just a ruse for the normies). Two people can exhibit identical behavior for very different internal reasons.

I believe I've shared this anecdote on TheMotte before, and it's one of the anecdotes I reflected on when introspecting on my own "herd animal" nature. When I was young and naive in the early 10s and I first discovered wokeism, I was immediately taken in by the "vibes". It just felt really good, y'know? I wanted to be a part of a group, I wanted to base my identity on a group, I saw that these people were enjoying themselves and I wanted to be part of that so I could enjoy myself too. But relatively quickly, my rationality kicked in and I realized that their actions violated principles of fairness and impartiality that I held to be important, which made me not want to be woke anymore.

So the movement was from sentiment (based on what I perceived to be the sentiments of others), to dispassionate analysis. And due to typical-minding, I assumed that this was essentially a universal human experience; of course everyone makes vibes-based decisions to determine their identity, and if anyone says they don't, they're probably lying because they're ashamed to admit it. But now all this stuff has got me thinking, well, maybe it's not a universal human experience. Maybe there are (neurotypical) people who don't weigh the vibe in the room, don't care about the vibe in the room, maybe they don't even perceive the vibe in the room because they've deemed it not even worth their time to assess it (obviously in the case of someone with say Asperger's, it would be different because their ability to pick up on emotional and social cues is actually compromised). In their case, they might make the opposite movement, from dispassionate analysis to sentiment: first a dispassionate "well, everyone seems to think woke is right, and they probably have good reasons, so I'll believe it too", but then their own internal "alarm bells" start going off indicating that it doesn't fit their own personal identity. And they could do all this without ever consulting the overall "vibe" of the collective. So we could have two individuals who exhibit identical behavior via very different processes.

Of course the point being, there is no way to observe these underlying processes behaviorally, you just have to introspect on yourself or ask others to introspect on themselves and report back.

That was going to be done regardless of blacks voting. Segregation had overwhelming majorities with or without black franchise when it began.

The guy who loads up on tight ends

I am in this post and I don't like it.

Absolutely recommend Meteora.

Do you think or feel your emotions? It’s obvious a both/and situation. Why dichotomous it?

MBTI

Oh, that’s why

If you mainly feel with your thoughts you probably have alexithymia, a surprisingly common condition

A generalized weakening or strengthening of the anxiety response in different individuals is probably part of the explanation, but it's not an entirely satisfactory theory on its own, as one individual may be highly neurotic about one thing but not neurotic at all about others.

Men are stronger than women, and upper body strength has been found to have a very strong correlation with anxiety/depression rates. Make of that what you will

I joke with love <3

I'm going to need a citation there. I've also seen that claim but I believe that to be a modern projection/cope rather than an actual scholarly argument. 1785 dictionary says:

To RE'GULATE. v.a. [regula, Lat.]

  1. To adjust by rule or method. Nature, in the production of things, always designs them to partake of certain, regulated, established essences, which are to be the models of all things to be produced: this, in that crude sense, would need some better explication. Locke.

  2. To direct. Regulate the patient in his manner of living. Wiseman. Ev’n goddesses are women; and no wife Has pow’r to regulate her husband’s life. Dryden.

I agree to an extent: part of the concern with the Articles of Confederation was that they had discovered early flaws with the national army (originally it was a pure volunteer state by state basis kind of thing IIRC), and so wanted it to be stronger but not so strong that it could crush legitimate internal dissent. It's also true that at least a good chunk of the arms were assumed to be (or even encouraged to be as some states even incentivized such) produced on an individual basis. It's also true that there was often a distinction made between an organized militia that was directed, drilled, and with some kind of chain of command and unorganized militias that were more like mobs, so it's not as if the concept is all wrong.

Despite all of that being true, I want to emphasize that last bit there. The intention was never that random groups should spontaneously rise up formed from ad-hoc combinations of gun-toting individuals! The intention was that localized governance was sufficiently democratic that they could decide to take collective action and associate with ad-hoc combinations of other cities and states to overthrow an overbearing national (or international) government. The distinction is quite crucial there! While I allow some nuance as to how states decide to implement this, the state was in charge at the end of the day of regulating its militias. Drilling and organizing and making them effective yes, but also deciding the proper shape, leadership, and call to action! While an individual owning firearms is useful it's still a bit incidental, because the goal the 2nd Amendment clearly states is merely that militias are capable of protecting liberty from tyranny.

In that context, a state can be somewhat strict in its regulation if the core purpose is accomplished. The test is all about core purpose, but some people have substituted an individual right-test in its place. This is subtly wrong. A state could probably choose to implement its core militia duty via individual gun-rights, but is not compelled to do so. A more modern-left state may well decide to be more discerning provided they meet the end goal. In practice, these might end up appearing similar, but they don't have to be!

Shay's Rebellion actually illustrates this, taking place in the Confederation period. Informal and ad-hoc groups of farmers and former soldiers banded together to revolt. They were not official local militias! In fact they raised themselves up in parallel to actual state legal authority, in defiance of such. Remember that that is where a lot of the power lay - the revolutionary Congress was formed from state delegations, in almost all cases with official representation!! That's where their legitimacy came from! Many people today fail to notice that, it wasn't an "extra-legal" effort, the original Revolution proceeded directly from local democracy. This was very front of mind for Constitutional drafting and party of why Washington himself and many others opposed Shay's rebellion (to be fair Jefferson was more sympathetic but he was always a little more radical in his ideas on the topic). They were an individualized mob, not a democratic effort against tyranny. The amendment was crafted in part this way to distinguish that stuff like Shay's rebellion was not the proper method of resistance (and also because at the end of the day the issue was about the policies of debt structure, not a core liberty, which farmers had failed to get implemented by official legitimate democratic means).

So the history of the matter rejects the modern framing by gun-rights advocates that it's a purely individual right. The history suggests that local democracy is important, that local democracy should be empowered, and that gun ownership is helpful to those aims. It's not saying that individualized gun ownership is a cornerstone by itself, supreme to everything else! Merely that a local repository of legitimate resistance is a duty of states to maintain.

FWIW, I changed from experiencing emotions as intense thoughts to bodily sensations and I feel my appreciation for emotions has gotten much deeper.

Yes, that's one reason the combinations are popular, but not the reason oxy with APAP (Percocet) is so favored over oxy with ASA (Percodan, no longer available) or oxy with ibuprofen (Combunox, no longer available). That's drug warrior pressure.

There is a bunch of research out there suggesting that OTC and milder agents are just as good as stronger agents for managing acute pain. Example:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2786200

Lots of research. You might not find that research convincing but it is absolutely out there.

Additionally APAP is a safer choice than ASA or Ibu if taken as prescribed, which is easier to ensure in an acute course (less potential for severe side effects or interaction with chronic medical conditions).

What are you talking about with 10 round magazines? In most states, you can currently purchase any size you like. Just 16 restrict it.

One also imagines that the sort of person who is willing to wage asymetrical violent civil war against the government of the USA might also have something of an itchy trigger-finger for his cordless drill -- making this argument indicates that the person doing so does not have the knowledge to make any serious comment on the broader issue, either.

synergistic analgesia

Yes, that's one reason the combinations are popular, but not the reason oxy with APAP (Percocet) is so favored over oxy with ASA (Percodan, no longer available) or oxy with ibuprofen (Combunox, no longer available). That's drug warrior pressure.

But ultimately society is organized around tradeoffs in your rights to enable you to have rights and the conveniences of civilization.

No, society is organized around what those with power want.

You may or may not be willing to see Los Angeles as a colony ruled by an appointed, authoritarian governor

Always has been:

https://media.gettyimages.com/id/748400/photo/lapd-chief-parks-talks-about-rampart-scandal.jpg?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=EZuaK2p3GFY7PM046xYeAa9ohN2BirI0T0O0ZCQhZM0=

In principle, you can let doctors, Catholic hospitals, etc opt out of any obligation to provide assisted suicide, even if it's "medically necessary" under some rubric. Even if you're extending the concept of coercion to taxpayers being forced to fund assisted suicide, you can block government funds from being used for it.

In practice, I recognize the slippery slope here.

My APAP related disgust is reserved for drug warriors who ensure that oxycodone with APAP is the most available formulation of oxycodone, because they consider people trying to abuse it dying horribly to be a feature and not a bug.

I think these days they would argue that the reason is mostly because of synergistic analgesia (which is not incorrect) but yes I agree it's a questionable cost/benefit.

But ultimately society is organized around tradeoffs in your rights to enable you to have rights and the conveniences of civilization. Having to deal with mildly annoying blister packs or smaller bottles doesn't seem like a high price to pay for the amount of pain you can prevent.

That being said, I like guns, and wish I lived in a jurisdiction where I could shoot beer cans with the boys over a barbecue. And not the anemic shotguns or hunting rifles can get in the UK, those bore me to tears. Give me a minigun in Vegas, and give me the salary to fire it for more than a few milliseconds.

I know you're in the UK, but if you ever swing across the pond to the US, DM me. If you're gonna be in my area I'll take you shooting. I, tragically, do not have an actual machinegun (my username can be considered more aspirational than factual) but I do have many interesting guns.

Does this seem like a lot to you? Because to me it kind of does...

It reads as LLM output to me as well -- more importantly failing the everpresent tl;dr criterion.

So while I'm not sure how posting a bunch of screenshots of you chatting with an LLM is supposed to make people think that you didn't generate the post using an LLM, if it's the case that you take so much input from the LLM that your post sets off people's LLM alarms, even though you typed it all out using your own fleshy hands -- maybe you are just working a little to hard on this, and it would be better to simply give us the straight slop?

Since I couldn't read your post (my AI detector involves reading normally, which for me means a lot of skimming -- and when I start to skim after two lines and... just don't stop, I figure LLMs are involved somehow and am almost always right) my comments on the actual content will be sadly limited -- however from the perspective of an actual Canadian who knows a couple of elderly & sickish people who did choose assisted suicide I can say this:

While I'm in favour of people being "allowed" to do more or less anything they want (direct and deliberate harm to others aside), in practice the whole thing feels... not good, in the pit of my stomach -- mostly I don't like the "assisted" part all that much, nor the moral preening that seems to go along with it. Could be that people just don't know how to do this thing correctly yet, but I'm not sure that's all there is too it.

The motte is a cancer riddled 96 year-old in constant pain, marking the minutes and waiting for the sure-enwinding arms of cool-enfolding death -- the IRL bailey (IME) often seems to be rather different from that.

Tylenol is somewhat uniquely dangerous, it would possibly not have been approved as over the counter in the U.S. in today's regulatory environment.

I'm not sure we'd have any OTC drugs in the US starting from zero in today's regulatory environment. Analgesics especially even get banned for prescription use (like the COX-2 inhibitors), because regulators refuse to consider that trading off risk of death against pain is valid in the first place.

That's a failing of today's regulatory environment, and has no bearing on whether I should be able to buy a big bottle of death.

My APAP related disgust is reserved for drug warriors who ensure that oxycodone with APAP is the most available formulation of oxycodone, because they consider people trying to abuse it dying horribly to be a feature and not a bug.

As always, there's a relevant XKCD (even if it came out after the comment was posted).