domain:ashallowalcove.substack.com
There have been people who've taken that line historically. That's the line of the Gospel of Judas, for instance: that Judas was a hero because he caused the Crucifixion, which saved the world.
However, this is obviously heretical, and to my knowledge orthodox Christianity has never had any time for it. The Crucifixion may have been the means by which the world was saved, but it was still nonetheless an evil deed.
The Gospel of Judas did.
Woke right is not a thing: it never was a thing, because actual Nazis, fascists, and white nationalists don't use or accept critical theory. Any resemblance (da joos vs da whitey) is coincidental: the true similarity is that both wokism and fascism are illiberal, but for completely different reasons.
Neil Shenvi has a few examples, surely? He cites Stephen Wolfe recommending using CRT's premises, and taking his opponents' weapons and growing stronger by them, and he explicitly refuses to abjure a critical theory approach. Shenvi also cites Abrahamsen to the effect of there being a 'Gramscian right', and credibly cites people like Sam Francis or John Fonte acknowledging Gramsci's influence on their own work.
That seems like a pretty reasonable prima facie case that at least some far-right or white-nationalist-adjacent people are genuinely influenced by critical theory.
I've never heard anyone seriously try to argue that killing Jesus was good on a consequentialist basis, anyways.
I've heard about some ancient Gnostics who argued exactly that. They got excommunicated as heretics.
Anyone who thinks "For the articles" is just a joke may not have picked up an issue. My neighbor gifted me a huge swath when he retired. The porn is fine - some of it even crosses into "good" - but 80% of the magazine is interviews, short stories, letters, and politics.
I'd pay for a subscription today if it still existed.
You're just bringing this exponential out of nowhere, how does it add anything to what I'm saying?
"In the big picture, everything we do on Earth doesn't matter" is true but it's a pointless thing to say. Things on Earth matter to us.
"Nazi Germany didn't conquer all the way to Ceres, so they're not a threat"
"Climate change isn't going to boil the oceans, so who cares"
"Covid isn't going to turn you into a rage monster from Resident Evil so it's a nothingburger"
Statements by the utterly deranged! But if you complicate it out so that 'biology is really complicated, the immune system is pretty good, epidemics often fizzle out and it's orders of magnitude from causing a zombie apocalypse' it suddenly sounds reasonable even when the realistic stance of the problem looks completely different.
GPT-4.5 was for creative writing and was mostly being reviewed by coders, since the AI community is mostly coders. There are a few who really liked it and were disappointed when it was taken away but most people never got a chance to use it, understandable with that pricetag attached. Plus the path seems to be scaling test-time compute, not merely scaling model size but scaling in general.
I personally think Dario from Anthropic is more credible on this kind of stuff than Scott, he's been talking about a country of geniuses in a datacentre by those kind of dates. He is at least close to the engineroom on this kind of thing.
I don't speak for Yud but if AI is where it is today in 2040 then I'll be very confused, not to mention him. On twitter he was constantly posting stuff about how rapid progress has been, that's part of his narrative.
No ifs about it. It is increasing.
If you look at the WW2 color photos the government commissioned of daily life, grotesquely obese people were pretty rare back then, basically you can't even spot any, and there's maybe a few mildly overweight ones.
Hence the sad and pathetic proliferation of bolt-on tits.
Well executed plastic surgery works pretty well and there's a huge undersupply of big, perky breasts.
If you were an evil genius utilitarian and invented say, a virus that'd bump up average breast size from B or C up to a G it'd cause a substantial worldwide increase in well-being of men and only a minor malus to well-being of women in that they'd mostly have to take care to do some back exercises.
Yes. But the Christian position is that even though the outcome was good, the act was still bad. I've never heard anyone seriously try to argue that killing Jesus was good on a consequentialist basis, anyways.
Smoke Jaguar
They were the opponents in MW3, right? I'm still waiting for any sort of modern platform re-release of that one... by which I mean the ability to purchase and play the OG on a modern Windows machine.
From your article, it seems like the obstacle is simply the cost recovery mechanism - i.e. they build it as they fund it and it takes that long to fund it using the current surcharge. I don't think that really says anything about "schedule disease" as such, it's just another example of cost disease.
What would you call it? It seems to be a statement made to make a point of some sort, based on Walsh's reply I would assume it is coming from the political left.
finding racism in ham sandwiches
Power lines are all kinda important for those other things you mentioned. Maybe we should keep some cool people there.
Bring back the dame school, but don’t let feminists within 100 yards of it.
Score specializes in photographs of women with large breasts, either naturally larger or augmented. Voluptuous features busty women who have had no breast augmentations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Score_Group#Magazines
Marketed with the strap line "All Stacked All Natural".
I guessed like 10 years. 400 years is insane! My first impression is that this is malicious compliance by some disillusioned engineer to highlight the absurd state of the project.
California
It seems like every ridiculous example of government imposed lengthy timeframes has that in common.
Right, but OP was specifically critiquing
the fantasy among some dateless conservatives that if only they were born in some bygone era where women didn't have nearly as many options then they'd surely get a girlfriend almost by default.
The point of the trad dating vision, at least as I understand, is not "If only it were The Past, I could have become a more socially adept man, then they'd want to date me." Instead, it's "if only it were The Past, I could have access to more desperate women, then they'd have to date me."
And I think that latter claim is wrong: women's standards are variable above a certain threshold, but there's also a hard limit of interpersonal function below which instinct just says it's better to go it alone.
The parallel question is also interesting to investigate for heterosexual male desire. For instance, if every woman (including every woman in porn) suddenly weighed 4x more, what proportion of men would just opt for permanent singledom? Would any?
I’ve been to a few touristy locations with quiet, unassuming, empty, but gorgeous Orthodox churches. I’ve wondered for a while whether the placement of those beautiful churches was deliberate.
I guess your point on romantic signaling is probably true, though I hate signaling and reflexively oppose the position on principle.
But I actively disagree that the most important thing is to push moneymaking degrees, on a couple of points.
First, the whole degree-to-job pipeline is overrated. The degree is a proxy for, roughly, intelligence, and as long as you have the real meat you will be able to leverage the actual work. (This is my life story. Started in humanities and trivially switched to work in STEM. I’ll admit software makes this easy.)
Second, while cash obviously matters, I think the most important thing is to learn wisdom and be a good and broad-based parent to your children. This is what my parents were to me. And while I decry the sorry shape of the liberal arts in universities, the actual subject I consider paramount. So rather than just add work training for women, I think bringing refinement and rigor back to the degrees would be better. (And helping people who have no business being in college get out. That’s another topic.)
You’re right about divorce as a path for extremely cynical women. If I were writing about the man’s perspective, this comes front and center. He’s devoting so much of his life to her! What if she just takes it from him, with the blessing of the courts? It’s genuinely unsettling. But, in that other hypothetical post, I wouldn’t be talking about cads. I don’t think (or hope) my audience is cads, or people interested in cads, and the same goes for the female equivalent.
Divorce is honestly another point of risk for an honest woman, just like it is for an honest man. Risk hitting your mid-thirties with no loyal man, and either no children or worse - children? It’s kind of awful to think about. But the post was already meandering a little for my tastes.
Yes, of course I agree a man needs standards. I have standards, and I insisted my wife meet them (kindly and firmly in the dating stage - and no, not about petty things like how I wanted my breakfast cooked).
But that doesn’t undercut the fact that what underwrites those standards is a man’s reliability and character. I’ve been performing a little personal ethnography on this forum, and in my own life, and the men who are happily married tend to be extraordinarily solid and secure in their opinions, thoughtful and caring about women’s perspectives (NOT a dogwhistle for mainstream feminism), and with a great focus on their own ability to be trusted. And this is something that good women, women who clearly enjoy the high opinions of their husbands and of me (should I meet them), deeply desire.
Anyway. I don’t think women have greater risks in dating, or that men do, for that matter. I tend to agree that the risks are mostly around discerning good from bad, and that’s hairy both ways. But learn good from bad one must do, or at least learn the methods of getting wiser friends to help, if one wishes to make anything of oneself. But I’m sympathetic to your worries, and hope you find a woman who allows you to lay them aside.
Abs on women are fairly risky. You need 10-14% body fat for that. Women with <17% body fat risk amenorrhea, and under 11% it's almost certain. Amenorrhea due to low body weight & exercise is associated with depletion of bone density, stress fractures etc.
'Relative Energy Deficiency' used to be called 'Female Athlete Triad'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_energy_deficiency_in_sport#Prognosis
More options
Context Copy link