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

Showing 25 of 9447 results for

domain:anarchonomicon.substack.com

It's gotten worse, but the apps still work in some places.

For a straight man, a place must meet 3 criteria to have a good dating apps scene:

  1. Large - It's a numbers game. You needs lots of people. Top 10 Metropolitan statistical area is needed.
  2. Transient - Need young transplants coming in on a regular basis. Large grad student population is always good.
  3. Majority Female - Male demand >> Female supply. Having more women balances it out.

The NE corridor is probably the best place to be on dating apps. Boston - NYC - Philly - DC. West Coast (Seattle, Bay Area) is brutal. Note: Dating apps are hell for any man who isn't at least a 6.5/10, and stays a struggle until you make it past an 8/10.

Or whatever is the next hot thing in dating?

It's run clubs and pickleball. We're in the Lululemon era of dating, where you must demonstrate a commitment to nondescript-fitness to be an eligible bachelor.

This is the way.

You can't use LLMs for anything that you can't check yourself afterward; the hallucination rates are still just too high. But they're fantastic for cases where you'd like to use a search engine but there's just no way to turn your query into a list of words that (along with obvious synonyms) would define and sort the results.

"Tourist attractions in X" will get you to a TripAdvisor page that's fine. For "but not too expensive" you might be better off with the LLM than you would be manually searching a curated list. For "near a road trip route in between X and Y" and "oh, but we'd prefer to take a more northerly and high-altitude road in the summer heat" there was just no beating the LLM (actual example from my last vacation). It took surprisingly few queries like "here's what I vaguely remember about a fun trip with my parents in this state decades ago" to get to an answer like "here's the specific canyon and creek-side picnic site they probably took you to" (which, based on how familiar the drive felt when I took my own kids there, was probably correct).

You'd think that only works for fuzzy answers like vacation planning suggestions, but it's pretty good even for well-defined answers to fuzzily-stated questions. I'd never trust an LLM alone to tell me what Godunov's Theorem is or means, but when I couldn't remember the name "Godunov's Theorem" it was by giving a vague description to Claude that I found it.

What's his outlook towards the end of the book ? Is there a sense of deescalation with time, or is it the sort of hopeless resignation that I see from most experts ?

Do you have any evidence or specific examples? Even anecdotes? Or is this merely idle speculation?

If you don't care about the issue, feel free to not care about it, but your insistence that others shouldn't care about it either is bizarre. Throughout my time on here the discussion went from me always feeling like I'm on the back foot, to feeling like I've some chinks in the pro-trans side armor, to the current state where I can kind of understand how one might call it "almost no opposition" (it's not true, but I can understand). I'd imagine that chronicling the rise and fall of the trans movement might be worth it as a matter of historical social commentary, if nothing else, but for you the issue is not only "minor", it "was played out by the end of the last Bush administration". No matter the state we're currently in, we apparently always have been pre-ordained to be in it.

That's all beside the point anyway. The whole point of this place is to have civil conversations even when they aren't allowed on mainstream forums, and you're telling me I should just shrug off a gag order on my hobby horse, and accept it as not a big deal.

So there's generally a lot of questions about why R politicians such as Ted Cruz are so pro Israel.

There are a lot of theories about AIPAC, money, and Evangelical beliefs about judgement day.

But from what I've seen the truth is that it's about staff. More specifically, lawyers.

To start off with a bit of preamble, it's more common to get screwed in the legal system than a lot of people think.

While the ideals of the practice of law talk about the zealous representation of clients, in reality lawyers have their own careers to worry about. Judges hold grudges. Other potential clients hold grudges.

Most of the time things work out because in a typical criminal or civil dispute the judge is genuinely disinterested. There are a lot of business lawsuits, there are a lot of criminal prosecutions. The one before them isn't special.

However there are a lot of legal issues around political campaigns and judges definitely have opinions about which party they'd like to see win.

Election law is a legal specialization. There are also relatively few clients since lawyers typically only work for either the Rs or Ds.

So for a local lawyer going against party brass in court because their client is getting screwed in the nomination is a potentially career limiting move. They may get cut off from representing other candidates in the future.

There's a similar problem with judges. In theory if a judge is being biased the lawyer should call him out and aggressively go after him in the appeals court. But if the lawyer expects to have twenty more cases before that judge, is it really a good idea to do that? Letting your client get screwed is just so much easier.

In theory the bar association should step in when something like that happens, but they really don't. They tend to defend their own, especially if the client who got screwed is someone they don't like.

Remember it was easier to throw Michael Avenatti in prison than to disbar him.

So where do the pro-Israel Jewish organizations come in?

Simple, they know a lot of lawyers with experience on election issues. They can fly someone in, pair them with local counsel, aggressively defend their client, then fly home and go back to their normal practice.

They are unconcerned with local patronage networks or pissing off local judges, within reason.

It's just incredibly beneficial to Republican politicians to stay friendly with the pro-Israel Jews.

There's a good deal of overlap between support for assisted suicide for everyone and support for nerfing the world so it's really difficult for anyone to kill themselves (e.g. bans on weapons, dangerous sports, etc)

It would be a nice dogwhistle for "mudslime" (common slur for Muslim/Arab).

Not so much anymore since the mass destruction of buildings and orchards, and the intentional destruction of water sources.

Your comment is as ridiculous as wondering why a prisoner who is locked in a cell requires food being brought in, and can't just grow his own food, when any attempt to create a mini-farm, would be destroyed by the guards.

It doesn't work because his name is pronounced : "Mum-daani". MudMaani doesn't have the same ring to it.

I finished four books over my holiday, including Pieter Judson's The Habsburg Empire which I wrote a short review of on reddit

Kind of sounds like a smaller-scale version of Mattress Girl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight)), without any sexual contact between complainant and defendant alleged to have taken place.

And the year-long Floyd-specific admin-motivated rule against promotion of violence. And everything that hit politicalcompassmemes. And the other cases where it was never clear exactly what motivated admins to intervene, it just happened.

And while I'm not impressed by the Joos-posting, I'll notice that the alternative at reddit was a poster getting AEO'd for merely looking like he was triple-parenthesising.

A person who travels to another country to end their life has the agency that they can commit suicide the normal way.

I don’t advocate for putting cancer patients on a list of prohibited firearms possessors, even if I think them killing themselves is a bad thing.

Well yes, it exists in relation to prevailing life paths is my point- I’m merely disputing the direction of causation.

It’s in the Bible.

Fwiw, the slatestarcodex reddit is terrible now, it's full of bad ai takes, I think we did the right thing.

Hang on, are we using the same forum? themotte.org?

I once thought about whether writing original articles might be a way to attract a better audience, the way many organically found econlib and ssc, like I did.

Reddit will only swim leftwards, there are fewer "based" people there, you don't want excessive sneerclub attention.

As for how bad it is, Gina Carano got fired by Disney for normie boomer cuckservative posting, she recently settled with Disney as Musk was happy to foot the bill, every single post about it there is actively hostile.

I'm afraid, if we go back, people will paint a target, or at least the self censorship will neuter quite a bit of what we do.

I feel that the rationalist ideas are played out, we have gone through the bulk of the rat ideas, the vision for me is something new that goes beyond what we already have.

And props to zorba, my last week's comment about the internet being concentrated forgot to include reddit, having your own platform makes you sovereign, it's worth the troubles.

Fwiw, the slatestarcodex reddit is terrible now, it's full of bad ai takes, I think we did the right thing.

At this moment in the US there are far more people with obesity than with cancer.

Damn, I never knew yud wrote about quantum mechanics. Can you please tell me more about it.

It's both true and not true. If you give men an unlimited stipend and no consequences they'll go to strip clubs and buy hookers constantly. They probably know it's bad for them, but well people do shit that's bad for them all the damn time.

Dating apps are an equivalent for women, a constant parade of male attention and access to men they wouldn't have otherwise who in truth have no interest in them. A decent subset will abuse that, with intention or without. Eventually society and obligation will make them circle back (well for most).

Some may have insight into it or not.

"I want to fuck the prom king" isn't irrational when given permission to do so. It may be common but usually they grow out of it and it's a matter of when.

What drives such a belief? Do you think that drugs care about the moral pulchritude of those taking them?

There's a common religious belief that suffering is holy and morally required. You see this a lot with Catholics in particular. They will lecture people with claims like "quitting smoking using nicotine lozenges isn't really quitting smoking". Somehow results don't count, it's the suffering that's important.

Also in modern society the left expresses purity through diet.

Additionally believing that fat people are gross because they are sick and unhealthy doesn't jive with a lot of modern views. You aren't supposed to be weirded out by people's medical conditions.

So the view that obesity is a moral failing is popular. This has the added effect of letting healthy weight people feel morally superior.

The idea that a medication can safely reduce appetite is jarring. That implies that their feelings of moral superiority were unjustified and kind of immoral.

It could be explained idealogically, but there's a simpler answer that also explains "why did Mississippi fail so hard for so long then?" and "why is Mississippi the standout and not all the red states?"

The top of the Urban Institute list for 4th grade reading is Mississippi. Number 2 is Lousiana, number 3 is Florida, number 6 Kentucky. Mississippi isn't the only Red State doing good; it's not even the only standout. Mississippi is most notable because it was the worst before.

So I had a cousin commit suicide this year. I don't know the exact means and methods he used, seemed garish to ask at his funeral, and frankly it doesn't change anything to me how he did it. He suffered into his 50's with mental health issues, and I can only assume the ruins of the life he was still inhabiting overwhelmed him. I wish he hadn't done it. I wish I could see him again, have a cigar, and shoot the shit for another evening. I wish it wasn't so hard for him to exist. But I can't change it.

The pain it caused in his mother, who he saw all the time, and his sister, who he saw less often being states away, was beyond words. That said, as nightmarish as that act was to them, there at least was no 3rd party to the act to complicate their feelings of grief. There were no accomplices who gave him advice, walked him through the act, supplied him with means and methods, or even just did it for him. When all was said and done, he took all the guilt for the act to the grave with him, and saved his family the further grief of having anyone else to be angry with, anyone else's actions to judge.

I can accept that some people just want out. I can accept that though it may be painful for their families, their decisions about what to do with their life is theirs to make. I don't think I can accept third parties being involved, making it easier, "normalizing" it, and complicating the grief of an already unimaginable difficult thing to cope with.

Before I was born, a culture war was fought over ending life, and the defenders of it ran on the slogan of "Safe, Legal and Rare". 63 million abortions in the United States later, it's clear this was just a slogan. I don't know why I would trust these same people a second time.

Well, not me personally, I wasn't alive for "Safe, Legal and Rare", but you know what I mean.

That’s because it’s the easiest topic to grandstand on because it gets almost no opposition. Even our few trans posters have had very heterodox opinions on the subject, and everyone else (again, including the liberals and leftists) tends to be opposed to the standard libleft position on the subject.