domain:streamable.com
There's some videos here and here (cw: deadly plane crash).
Too grainy to completely exclude takeoff misconfiguration (esp on a sleek design like the 787), but at least no obvious structural failure, and I'd be surprised if takeoff misconfiguration could get that high in those weather conditions with that passenger load. NTSB's going to do some tests for fuel contamination, pilot error, maintenance faults, so on, but at the risk of speculating too early a lot of what I'm seeing points to either dual mechanical failure of the engines or electrical failure of the whole aircraft, especially the reported RAT deployment is real. Given everything else a lot of people are predisposed to think software or major design failure, but it's hard to think of a software bug or hardware flaw that would hide for over a decade and then hit both engines simultaneously. Maybe flying into a flock of birds a la Sully, but without the river and miracle?
I see shame as the most powerful tool in the social toolbox. It needs to be used sensibly, and using it too much and too trivially is going to make it harder to use it for the things it needs to be used for.
The modern West is in bad shape precisely because it no longer uses shame. No job? Fine. Do lots of drugs? Can’t read or speak in complete sentences? Rob people, break property? Even lower level stuff like going out in public looking deranged/half-naked/just-rolled-out-of-bed? We no longer think a person should feel ashamed of themselves for doing that. As a result, we have wide swaths of society that no longer bother with anything but the bare minimum, and some even expect to be rewarded for that. Like, Yes, you got off drugs and applied for a job at Wendy’s. It’s an improvement, sure, but it doesn’t mean much.
An elderly woman will be tortured to death unless you...
Can I say that for all human-constructed trolley problems, I categorically place the moral blame for all outcomes on the constructor, not the one holding the switch? I get it they're unavoidable in some cases from natural causes, but this case is really just negotiating with terrorists.
Honestly, former prostitutes have better odds of becoming influential just by virtue of being closer to centers of power.
Ah, you mean like the young women in these paintings by James Tissot?
The Evening of 1878 and the more openly stated later version in The Reception (also known as The Political Lady and The Woman of Ambition) of 1885?
In both paintings we have attractive young women on the arms of much older men, clearly neither their fathers nor husbands, and equally clearly using this as an entrance into society above their original place on the ladder. I read earlier analysis of the dress in "The Political Lady" as being several years out of date, thus demonstrating that the young woman is not keeping up with the latest fashions and hence obviously not natively part of the high society circle, a point developed in this article:
Russell Ash states:
“To modern viewers the woman’s dress is a sumptuous creation, but Tissot’s contemporaries criticized it for being outmoded, La Vie Parisienne declaring, ‘She can’t aspire to being described as elegant, wearing one of those pink dresses that you wish would finish but never do, of antiqued cut, without any bustle but with a pointed black girdle like those worn twenty years ago.’”
Indeed, some of the choices Tissot made in depicting the garment in L’Ambitieuse were not in style at the time; by 1883-85 when it was painted, large, protruding bustles had become the fashion, and frothy, light garments like this one had been left behind several years before.
In the latter painting, look at the expressions of the other men - they're sizing her up and whispering about how she's plainly the new young mistress of the older man, perhaps speculating if they can get access to her as well. They don't seem to be respecting her and whatever influence she may gain as mistress of the older man will fade away once he dumps her or she ages out of being able to attract a sugar daddy.
There's a lot of surprising survivals in takeoff and landing crashes: Northwest 255 is a pretty (in)famous takeoff misconfiguration that managed to kill more people than were on the flight and had one survivor.
Yeah, makes sense. I'm a bit bitter that I probably wont get SS benefits, but oh well.
This is a common worry but going off current projections, you will get social security. Just not all of social security, about 80-70% scaling down over the years. https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2024/trTOC.html
Annual OASDI cost has exceeded non-interest income every year beginning with 2010. Cost is projected to continue to exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year valuation period. Cost is projected to exceed total income in 2024, as it has each year beginning in 2021, and combined OASI and DI Trust Fund reserves decline until they become depleted in 2035. After trust fund reserve depletion, continuing income is sufficient to support expenditures at a level of 83 percent of program cost for the rest of 2035, declining to 73 percent for 2098. Figure II.D2 depicts OASDI operations as a combined whole. However, under current law, the differences between scheduled and payable benefits for OASI would begin in 2033, when the OASI Trust Fund is projected to become depleted. Scheduled benefits equal payable benefits for DI throughout the entire 75-year projection period, because the DI Trust Fund is not projected to become depleted during the period.
Basically the issue right now is that payroll taxes doesn't cover outgoing benefits enough for the OASI funds, so we're currently eating into the saved up money put into the Treasury. Eventually we'll run out of those savings (estimated around 2033) and then only be able to pay out benefits equal to the amount of payroll tax collected. But that's still roughly 80% of total benefits.
The US should have dealt with Iran decades ago.
How, though?
Iran is mountaineous and has a large population, so a traditional war would have been protracted instead of something like the Irak war where the army surrendered effectively immediately.
Confused further by the fact that the pointing out essentially IS the consequence here.
Strong disagree. Like, I get that people believe everything is a social construct and thus all consequences are socially imposed. Or that what matters is not having done the thing, but people finding out you did the thing. But I'm not a blank slatist, I think certain behaviors actually do damage the human animal mentally, emotionally and physically beyond "social constructs", and I think someone looking for a mother of their children should have a right to know that a woman is a proud e-prostitute.
It almost gives me hope yet that no poor schmuck has ruined his life with her in the gravest fashion possible.
If what you're doing deserves to be treated with dignity and without antagonism, you should not be shamed! In fact, it will probably be very difficult to shame you if you actually know that you're conducting yourself in a dignified fashion and feel strongly that the people who suggest otherwise are in the wrong.
I doubt this very much. Someone immigrating from a country where women are expected to bare their breasts in public would be readily shamed walking around downtown NYC. Conversely, I've met women in the Peace Corps who ended up in countries where they were shamed for wearing shirts and went with the flow, despite their discomfort. A hedge fund manager would be shamed mercilessly were he transplanted to a trailer park in a suit with a briefcase full of whatever they put in their briefcases, and a trailer park bro would be shamed for driving his ATV around Martha's vineyard. Self-righteousness won't get you very far if you're literally being ostracized by every person you meet.
That is a fucking GTA mission. We are living in a simulation
Porn stars? No.
Prostitutes? Surely, many "Models" who marry influential men can become influential themselves. The actresses who fucked Weinstein now enjoy high status and influence.
Then her escort work should have clued her in to the possibility of getting married while continuing to be a sex worker. Those men didn't ask her "hey, you're young and hot and willing to have sex with me, how about I divorce my wife and marry you instead?" The men didn't want to break up their existing relationships, they just wanted/needed sex and this was how they solved the problem: visiting prostitutes. Marriage was a whole other and separate world, as was romantic love.
Yassine is a cool guy, I like most of his articles.
Essentially you're saying we should shame because she's an effective promoter of her ideas through her niceness?
she pushes [her ideas] against a high-iq people population (rationalists) who should be having more children
Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to have a child of two rationalists over another member of the permanent underclass. But to speak in plain language: These cucks are self-selecting out of the gene pool, and that's a good thing. Anyone stupid enough to participate in Polyamory is unfit to be a parent.
How should society treat a prostitute who encourages other women to become prostitutes? She's a predator. She is preying on the minds of other young women, as well as on the minds of young men.
There are countless stories from every culture in the history of the human species that portrays people like her as some form of demon that should be cast out of society at best. People aren't being as nice to her as she wants, and she wants to continue preying on them. Even this sob story about how she claims to be surprised that people don't like her is yet another attempt at hijacking the attention of people by violating sexual norms.
Yes she is a human being and I don't want her to suffer, but she should feel a nearly infinite amount of shame for the harm she has done to the people around her. I hope she figures this our and starts working to repair it.
No human being is irredeemable, and this includes her; part of that redemption is an acknowledgment that what she has been doing has been harming society. I truly hope she can figure this out, and once she does society will welcome her with open arms.
I don't know if that would work. By her account, she was raised by parents in a small, niche, hyper-Calvinist denomination who believed very strongly in "spare the rod and spoil the child", so all the Good News is tainted for her with "my parents literally beat me bloody for normal childhood mistakes then said this was the will of God".
Ah well, Saint Mary of Egypt, pray for her!
If the only thing I know about someone is that they refuse to bathe frequently, my opinion of them will be lowered significantly. Among other things, it's tremendously inconsiderate behaviour. It may well be the case that Aella is a genuinely intelligent and perceptive person in spite of being smelly and dirty: I'm just saying that, after reading a substantial chunk of her writing, I haven't seen any evidence that that's the case. I don't understand why so many people are falling over themselves to sing the praises of someone who ultimately just seems like a mid, pretentious sex worker who smells bad.
It's less about an argument in the logos sense than it is about the experience of reading it. It's a unique exercise in rhetoric.
Somebody has to be the one in a million. Guy might just have gotten extremely lucky.
There's no way that Aella would actually have trouble finding a partner who wants kids who is okay with her lifestyle.
The problem, so far as I've gathered, is "the guys I like enough to want something more than a casual sexual relationship don't want to marry me and have kids, and I don't like enough the guys who do want to marry me and have kids to want something more than a casual sexual relationship with them."
To me, it seems like a perfectly reasonable description of one possible thought process of an onlooker.
Confused further by the fact that the pointing out essentially IS the consequence here. This is a very similar line of reasoning to "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences".
Odd how this argument seems like an annoying aphorism exactly until you (royal) pick it up and throw it at somebody else
The general thrust is similar to his blog but with a focus on relationships. It centers around themes of self-deception, narcissism, performative virtue, revealed preference, cowardice, selfishness, and ultimately, dereliction of duty and the failure to be a good person. A book of cynicism in diametric opposition to nihilism.
For what it's worth I have also noticed this pattern. There seems to be this presumption that disagreement must stem from misunderstandings or poor messaging rather than sincere values differences.
Im not suggesting that we liquidate the undesirables im saying that we should seriously consider the positive effects of mass euthanasia on overall quality of life.
More options
Context Copy link