domain:savenshine.com
TwiceHuman
2d ago
Psyops about having less kids because of the climate crisis
This is just propaganda. It's often said in a condescending and accusatory tone, along the line of "do X or you're a bad person". You can recognize this sort of thing by its use of manipulation methods like guilt tripping, instilling fear or insecurity, or making you feel like the world will be against you if refuse. Advice should benefit you and want nothing in return. I find older self-help books (pre-2000) to be rather enjoyable
Just no one has even tried to explain how exactly government buying up and owning private enterprise is a smart idea (something that we've been saying isn't good for decades) and why it's a solid goal towards improving the nation's economy and wealth.
... to steelman the counter-Lincicome argument:
High-grade semiconductors have massive military and economic importance. There are a variety of things that either can't be done, or can only be done on glacial timescales, just going from <10nm to 100nm process scales, due to thermal, electrical, and latency issues. Losing the ability to produce or source those processors would put a country literally twenty years back; having them sourced to a supply chain that's opposed to that nation risks serious security and core functionality threats. AI is the current-day focus, but these tools are necessary for everything from telecommunications to hardware control to transportation in their 'conventional' programmed form.
((It's actually worse than it sounds, because in a lot of military and industry roles you can't just switch out a scavenged motherboard and CPU and call it good enough. In extreme cases, you end up with very specific chips not just to manufacturer or generation but even specific chips. On the upside, the smarter businesses buy in bulk. On the downside, there's a lot of buyers that aren't smarter, or things in-development that can't be undone.))
Lincicome discusses government support for Intel as stiffling third-party competitors, but this is a class that basically doesn't exist, here. AMD and RISC-V and everyone else even remotely in the field either depend on Intel or Taiwan, or on Chinese manufacturers. There are no other <10nm foundries in the United States or even Western Europe, and the closest companies as a process level (STM, Micron, maybe Motorola if you squint EDIT: definitely not, thanks Skooma) are neither capable of nor interested in micro_processor_ work at the desktop scale. Any attempts, even attempts using third-party foundries oversees, have ended poorly, as anyone who recognizes the name VIA might recognize. Any model for how those systems could respond to a complete collapse of Intel is necessarily guesswork, but I've seen credible estimates of 10+ year timelines to bring even mid-end devices assuming everything works out perfectly the first go.
Meanwhile, the competition is not exactly operating from a free market. TSMC is the closest, and it's a national project for Taiwan, unsurprisingly with how much of its economy revolves around the business, and one part of that is Taiwan gave the company a giant pile of seed cash in exchange for just-shy-of-half of its ownership, and other parts involve widespread continuing indirect subsidies on its major material costs. The Chinese government doesn't exactly give out the most honest breakdowns for how its subsidizes foundries, but even ignoring the !!fun!! question of industrial espionage with CCP characteristics, the official numbers are significant and come with very pre-2018-Jack-Ma-sized strings.
Which could be surmountable. Intel, as recently as 2015, was still on top of the world, to a point where people were worried AMD would go under.
But it's gone from merely slightly behind-the-curve in 2019 to consistently the less-good choice across entire fields, often by significant margins and with no or negative price premium, along with a number of serious stability and reliability concerns due to manufacturing defects. And that's worse than it sounds. Chips and foundry technologies are costly not just to produce, but also to fail to sell, both due to how the sales model works and due to rapid depreciation. To skip over a whole bunch of technical details, they're in a cash crunch at the same time that they need a lot of investment to not be in more of a cash crunch unless they want to turn into a second- or even third-rate foundry.
((There's also some messiness involving Intel ARC, which is both strategically very important to the Western world's military, not obvious, and which has an entertainment business case that it's only barely starting to credibly begin to compete with kinda, but is a short investment away from being a really big deal.))
Which might just be the only achievable result, if we trusted Intel to be doing (or trying) the best thing. But there's a lot of reasons to be skeptical. The current CEO and board have been abandoning new development processes since December of last year. Critics have focused on said CEO's ties to the CCP, and to be fair those do exist! But even if Intel was making these decisions from a solely economic basis, they're overwhelmingly emphasizing matters to maintain stock price over either the availability of next-gen onshore foundries or the company's long-term dominance or relevance as a first-tier manufacturer. The actions here are ways to credibly commit both the US government to continued (or starting) the funding it claimed it would provide, and Intel to actually running the things.
It's not that the conventional criticisms of crony capitalism stopped existing! There are significant risks to this sort of investment and (tbf, minimal) control. But there are tradeoffs and risks to non-action, and Lincicome seems neither willing nor able to even consider them.
Tenaz
2d ago
Why is the Father God and not Jesus?
They both are.
when I say God does something I could be referencing the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.
Yes, me too.
So you hold the Father specifically in esteem because He is our creator, and when you say God you mean the Father.
Eh, I do think they're separate people, but when I say "God" I'm referring to the Father or to the other two acting in his stead. I certainly hold them all in esteem as God.
Anyways, I don't really see why you bring up the trinity here. Jesus said his Father sent him, and his father is God, so I think it's accurate to say that God sent Jesus even if you hold to the Trinitarian definition.
With your wife, I'm wiling to bet you do reason from first principles sometimes. By this I mean, you know she is a woman, which means that she has weeks where one hormone is dominant, weeks were another hormone is dominant, sometimes gets pregnant, etc. Knowing this, I suspect that your response to her changes depending on knowledge you have of her that pre-exists knowing her. You know pregnant women need late night ice cream randomly, for example, even before the experience of your wife kicking you out of bed at 11PM to go get pickle juice and chocolate.
This still isn't first principles; first principles would be something like inventing the concept of women from whole cloth based on extremely abstract ideals. I'd describe what you're talking about as top-down reasoning (applying principles to reality), as opposed to bottom-up reasoning where you observe reality and try to build principles from your observations. When I talk about first principles I'm referring to the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, and similar arguments.
That's why I can't tell you if someone is God without knowing what it is.
And this is where we disagree! I think the entity that is described in the Old and New Testament is God even if his actual nature is very different from what I expect.
quiet_NaN
2d ago
I do not think that MAGA has a large overlap with old school conservatives. Trump can be adequately modeled by assuming that he is maximizing his personal power and profit, without any political convictions beyond "I should be president".
For him personally, the move makes sense. He gets all the influence (while he is president) without personally paying for the shares, and the people voting for him are mostly indifferent towards that deal.
I am not sure why he would prioritize Intel over social media companies, though.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
Aww, heck. I didn’t even realize the ambiguity.
I was trying to say that it’s a very small circle. Almost no one treats SJ as an existential threat. Out of the handful that do, most of them are otherwise disillusioned with liberalism. Plans to quarantine/exile/execute SJWs are firmly in the lunatic fringe. They barely even make it into the alt-discourse.
Now, I was also thinking that there were almost no liberalism skeptics who got there without developing a distaste for SJ. @magic9mushroom pointed out the obvious counterexample. So I suppose the illiberalism circle should fully contain the existential-SJ circle, rather than perfectly overlap it.
TwiceHuman
2d ago
I don't entirely disagree with negative traits of modern people, but resisting submission does make sense from one perspective. Think of it like an immune system. Most people who preach something merely want your money. Most people who do speeches merely want you to invest in their cause. Most charities are scams. Everything competes for our attention and uses advanced techniques to manipulate us for the sake of making money.
Over time, one learns to have one hell of a strong defense mechanism. I can drink alcohol until I struggle to stand, and I will still remain rational. I'm immune to hypnosis, I sometimes notice that I'm dreaming because I realize that something is wrong. I've been suicidal and I've been rather manic, and in both cases, those around me wouldn't notice unless I told them.
To trust somebody with all your heart, to give yourself to something else, to invest 100% in one thing, to let down your guard entirely, these are all powerful choices, and people who can choose them tend to be wonderful people, but life simply teaches us that this is naive and dangerous. So we become superficial narcissists who don't commit to anything unless it offers immediate rewards.
I hope to be more healthy, but it requires staying in a healthy environment, and there's less of these by the year.
You can't make all advice part of yourself, though. For the same reason that you cannot be every class at once in an RPG game. There's very much "paths" to take in life, and advice which is good for some people, but incompatible with ones path. "one man's meat is another man's poison" and such. Nietzsche seems to value a sort of purity when he says "With fifty blotches painted on your face and limbs, thus you sat there to my amazement, you people of the present!". He certainly seems to advice against nitpicking a bit of everything and plastering it on yourself.
Corvos
2d ago
It’s hard to cleanly separate questions of value and questions of fact because our values influence what we think about the facts.
1000x this. Which to my mind is the true and valuable insight hidden at the heart of post-modernism.
atelier
Jimmys: unrustled
2d ago
I think at the pro level it's not just giving advice it's also serving as mediator, strategist, advisor and sometimes main talent evaluator that really is too much for most coaches (especially at the NFL level). Plus the salary cap comes for the best players and often the best schemes to make use of cast off talent.
One of the reasons I didn't use Phil Jackson as my example is I don't think he was that much better at giving advice, but he was really good at managing the egos and team dynamics of all his players better than most (I think that's clear from his success with both the MJ Bulls and Kobe and Shaq Lakers).
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
2d ago
There is no such thing as apolitical government data. He has an agenda, and I’d suggest finding it by looking at the types of data he’s highlighting, and especially any sorts of data he’s not highlighted. My suspicion is that he’s pushing a Trump-bad narrative by digging up data sets that make Trump look bad. If the GOP wanted to push a narrative through the data, they can simply put it on their various platforms and move along.
jkf
2d ago
"First do no harm," my guy -- "not that effective" is a very different from "may have killed my wife/kid".
Then there's the fact that Russia and China adopted mRNA vaccines several years after the West.
Russia and China didn't adopt MRNA vaccines in any serious way at all, unless I'm missing something?
Why wouldn't they take their perfect opportunity to screw over the West by boosting claims that mRNA vaccines cause novel harm
Who says they aren't?
2rafa
2d ago
The public aren’t interested in the nuance of trade policy. Vance can be pro-tariff in the primaries and then after taking office sign various “incredible deals” that lower rates.
jkf
2d ago
Defect:cooperate pays the best (for the defector), or else there wouldn't really be much of a dilemma, would there?
Earendil
Then over Middle-Earth he passed
2d ago
All (mostly) fair questions but I'm a bit preoccupied at the moment and probably won't be able to respond substantively until tomorrow at the soonest. Thanks for asking.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
2d ago
This is a good point. I'd extend it even further. I think a lot of heat arises from the fact that news media brings political conflict right to our faces, but doesn't give an outlet that viscerally feels like retaliating.
I think this is a major cause of the phenomena of "progressive woman screams at her phone camera" videos. It's why people spiral deeper and deeper into violent ideation. If they redistrict us and then we redistrict them back, it just doesn't feel like a proper retaliation to an ape brain that expects retaliation to feel like knuckles violently impacting something. The endocrine response is just frustrated.
So we do a 2X tat, but it feels like a 0.1X tat, so we demand a 20X tat.
Multiple by emotional incontinence, mental illness, and arrested development.
Ioper
2d ago
Jedi fallen order is the biggest game that Disney star wars has produced by far and that was released in 2019. That should only have been 1.2 billion in revenue though.
cjet79
2d ago
There are different types of advice, and some of the threads here bring up different criticisms of each thing, or ignore other things.
- A hard thing is worth doing. - "Tough Love"
- How to make a hard thing easier to do. - "Fun Facts"
- How to be better than others at a thing. -"Winning"
- A thing you might like to do or want to do is a bad idea - Warnings
Tough Love advice is something I only give heavily caveated as "this worked for me". If it isn't something I've done I avoid giving this kind of advice to anyone outside of family and very close friends. For dieting this would be me suggesting that people cut out sugar or go low carb. It's worked for me, but it wasn't easy and it may not work for everyone (see the caveats).
Fun facts might already be known, or too broad to be useful. If someone I don't know asks for advice this is generally what I'll try to give them. For dieting this would be me mentioning that hard liquor and bacon generally don't have much sugar or carbs (unless it is added).
Winning advice becomes worthless when adopted too widely. I generally offer this advice not as a personal experience but as an example of someone else I know doing well at it. If you offer this as personal experience it just sounds like bragging. "Yeah I did much better at dating after I started working out and getting a good haircut" vs "My friend saw his dating prospects improve after he started working out and getting a nice haircut".
Warnings need to have clear consequences laid out. And people need to believe you about those consequences. "Ingesting a large amount of cyanide will painfully kill you" Otherwise warnings just sound like threats. Sometimes warnings are just threats. "Trespassers will be shot". Warnings where you personally suffered the consequences are better than the alternative "I drank a lot of soda and ate tons of sugary food and got diabetes by age 30"
Giving good advice
There does seem to be a lot of blame going around for people not taking advice. But giving good advice is a skill too. I see it as an important life skill, because I'd like my friends and those I care about to do better. When giving advice you should consider why you feel the need to give the advice. Unsolicited advice is rarely received well. Advice that is just meant to put down the receiver or build up the giver isn't much help, and possibly doesn't even deserve the label of "advice".
There are only three people in the world that I think should definitely listen to all of my advice, and those three people are my kids. If I'm not making a warning/threat about defending myself then my advice is mostly informational, you can take it and account for it in your actions but I see no reason for you to be obligated to follow it, or even believe it is correct.
There are some people that treat advice as a full on gift giving process. They expect accolades for giving the gift. They expect the receiver to at least pretend that they liked the gift. And the gift they'd always like in return is for the receiver to act on their advice. This seems like a toxic approach to me.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
2d ago
Analysis paralysis is definitely a part of it. I feel like there are twin traps, one of analysis, the other the fact that continued inaction seems to have a momentum all it's own. Analysis paralysis might get you into the trap of inaction, but inaction's own gravity keeps you there.
But there is also this aspect where our modern society seems to be producing and entire oversocialized professional and expert class. They're risk averse and initiative averse to a degree which stifles all human actions, and they are supposed to be our betters to whom we listen.
I would trust the blue collar BJJ coach who barely graduated highschool far more than the PhD trying to give me advice. And on a lot more than BJJ at that.
Why is the Father God and not Jesus?
God to me isn't a Person, He's a Nature that three Persons share. That's why I can't tell you if someone is God without knowing what it is. That is probably a huge unspoken difference here, when I say God does something I could be referencing the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.
So you hold the Father specifically in esteem because He is our creator, and when you say God you mean the Father. How odd my responses must seem to you! In that case, if you tautologically define God as the Father, then the question becomes different as to would God be God if he did not have God's nature. I don't feel like that brings me any closer to understanding why God matters to you. The word "God" has great significance that I feel like you're copying the vibe of but then using it to refer to something else. Like having a conversation about Jesus and then someone reveals they've been talking about their gardener this whole time.
With your wife, I'm wiling to bet you do reason from first principles sometimes. By this I mean, you know she is a woman, which means that she has weeks where one hormone is dominant, weeks were another hormone is dominant, sometimes gets pregnant, etc. Knowing this, I suspect that your response to her changes depending on knowledge you have of her that pre-exists knowing her. You know pregnant women need late night ice cream randomly, for example, even before the experience of your wife kicking you out of bed at 11PM to go get pickle juice and chocolate.
Ioper
2d ago
I think we should probably be more specific, its social media and algo driven content serving (especially short form) that's the issue, not watching movies on your phone or w/e.
There are plenty of studies that show this, its not some kind of new and unknown subject. The issue isn't that we don't know what's harmful, it's that there are powerful commercial interests opposing regulation. It's the same thing with online casinos, it's not the internet that's the issue, it's specifically the gambling sites.
greyenlightenment
investments: META/FBL, TSLA, TQQQ, TECL, MSFT ...
2d ago
I don’t think tariffs are a central Vance belief at all. If you oppose them it would be easier to lobby him personally in 2028 as presumptive Republican nominee than to convince people to oppose any Republican candidate on that basis.
It's possible he personally thinks they are a bad idea, but he has to signal protectionism,, as that is what is popular with voters and necessary to win the primaries. Trump has shown the winning playbook and I cannot see his successor deviating much from it, at least not during the campaign.
The rise of Trump, who copied the same protectionism of Biden, on top of Obama, has basically revealed the libertarian-adjacent wing of the GOP to be ineffectual. These people forever have been on the losing side, save for Ross Ulbricht pardon.
Ronald Reagan, pretty much the most beloved conservative president in living history doesn't count? He slowed the growth of government spending during his presidency, fought for free markets, and helped to make America far better off with his pro market small government policies. He stood up for liberty and capitalism and America stood tall while the communists kept collapsing. Even China only succeeds because Deng Xiaopeng realized they have to be a bit more like the freedom loving open market Americans to do well. And despite them having over a billion more citizens (tons of manpower and talent they can draw from) they're still at about 63% of our total GDP.
2rafa
2d ago
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?
I don’t think tariffs are a central Vance belief at all. If you oppose them it would be easier to lobby him personally in 2028 as presumptive Republican nominee than to convince people to oppose any Republican candidate on that basis.
My guess is that this is an entirely personal project in which Ballmer, who is a centrist liberal, wants to ‘make an impact’ for the usual combination of civic and personal pride reasons, and has possibly been conned by one of the usual media grifter types into pouring a huge amount of money into it (but a pittance for him). The producers or other organization producing these can claim a comfortable $250k salary for “video production” or whatever, which Ballmer personally probably doesn’t know or care about, and do some light work and get taken out to lunch and invited to parties by cool ad agency people who want the spend.
The videos also star him personally, which again is less “influence operation” and more “I want the people to know who I am and feel like I’m sharing my wisdom with the world”.
Trump frequently changes his mind though. We saw this with tariffs.
A person like Scott Lincicome of CATO truly believes that government taking equity of private enterprise is bad policy, and thus it's easy for him to critique it.
And you see with libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul, Justin Amash and Thomas Massie criticizing the Intel buy
The rise of Trump, who copied the same protectionism of Biden, on top of Obama, has basically revealed the libertarian-adjacent wing of the GOP to be ineffectual. These people forever have been on the losing side, save for Ross Ulbricht pardon. Their publications and think tanks are utterly ignored by anyone of importance. They are screaming into the wind. It has always been that way, but it's like what a waste of money promoting all those libertarian causes. I think this shows that some flexibility is good, and Trump's successes is illustrative of this. Otherwise you just become obsolete and end up wasting money and time.
Citation needed?
This 2011 study finds 16.9% of studied genes show pleiotropic effects, but that's not an estimate, that's where "Only SNP-trait associations reporting genome-wide significance (p < 5 × 10⁻⁸) were considered". By 2017 we have "44% of genes reported in the GWAS catalog associating with more than one phenotype. The proportion of genes shown to be pleiotropic has continued to increase as more studies are added to the catalog." Then by 2019 we're at "11,544 (65.9%) genes were associated with at least one trait (Supplementary Table 7). Of these, 81.2% were associated with more than one trait and 67.2% with traits from multiple domains".
More options
Context Copy link