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

Showing 25 of 10086 results for

domain:betonit.substack.com

I’m arguing that having a citizen in the family does in fact benefit the entire family including entitling the child to benefits that might well be unavailable in the home country thus creating a strong inducement to do anything possible to have the baby in America. And that without skin in the game of some form, it’s a big problem.

And the whole thing is about the immigrant because the baby doesn’t drop down from outer space. The stork didn’t deliver the baby, Scottie didn’t beam down the baby, the baby came from a woman who had sex with her husband. And therefore creating benefits for the baby by necessity creates benefits for tge family that created the baby. And I think you should very careful about how tge thing is handled.

I've noticed this blue tribe insane striver culture, like white orientals. I feel bad for their children and strongly believe the striving doesn't actually do anything. But at the end of the day, it is the default response to a hyper-credentialist culture with overproduced elites(see also, oriental countries). I... don't actually know what we can do about it, other than to let the blue tribe shrivel up and die from the low fertility this produces.

Yes, you could, but you also won't learn much from reading them, which is the entire point of school.

On one side I have the family tree, supported by Catholic church records, going back to 1200 AD. I'm confident it's provable that I qualify.

Not much of a comment on the rest of your post- I broadly pretty much agree and appreciate the exponentiation on my point- but I think a huge supermajority of Finnish immigrants are very recent, so all of them are first or second gen.

I suppose it's possible that there was some large Sami-Finn fertility differential that opened up exactly the right time ago, but my guess is that the Sami don't have scores that much lower than the Finnish majority anyways. My guess would be changing teaching practices with bad results, but I don't think we have the data to really tell.

this interesting chart

I don't think this really means anything. It certainly doesn't imply that 'actually the US education system is a good as X's'. If you let all the other countries filter out their historic underclass then they'd probably go up as well. Whatever reason you ascribe that underclass status to, it has to be at least partly self-reinforcing a la Ogbu.

The Federalists were against adding an explicit Bill of Rights, and only chose to do so as a compromise.

Yes, but why they were against? Because they argued if you explicitly make a list "there's a right to X, right to Y, right to Z" - and then somebody comes with the question about whether or not the government can regulate R, then people would say "well, it's not X, Y or Z, and there's a list and it must be for a reason, those are clearly more important than others, so R not a real right, it's kinda secondary one, so let's regulate the heck out of it" - completely opposite of what 10th Amendment was intended. And they were right - we hear arguments like these all the time now. If it's not mentioned in the plain text of the Constitution, good luck limiting the government reach into it. The Anti-Federalists were kinda right too, in that that without Bill of Rights, we probably wouldn't be able to hold on even on those enumerated rights either - see Europe as an example. At least this way we got something out of it, even though much less than we were originally supposed to.

No, the Congress didn't declare any wars since 1942. That doesn't make your false claim any more true. And the fact that you are using the same fallacious logic as Democrat propaganda instructs you to use is a good confirmation Democrats did deploy an opposition to Trump's actions, and this opposition is quite effective - people are now thinking, completely contrary to the facts, that Trump "launched an illegal war". That didn't happen by itself, they made it happen.

pay scouts money like actual sports and remove weight cuts.

I don't think the UFC can compete with things like wrestling for lower weight classes or NFL on the high end. It'll never be as prestigious or profitable. And it simply doesn't have the number of fights to absorb all of the combat sports.

The best part of its model is that it leeches off other, more entrenched sports' scouting and training practices. What it should do is try to attract more athletes who want to cross over (like UFC fighters do with boxing) but the UFC is now in the WWE position and has no reason to innovate.

Has anyone ever described the motivation for watching fights, or what people get out of it ?

It's the motivation for watching any sporting event + a few additional benefits:

  1. It appeals to the apparently ineradicable male urge to debate Star Destroyers vs the Enterprise/Lebron vs Kobe/whatever. It's basically a simulation to find the best styles/fighters and to see how they match up. You can have the hypothetical discussion in a barbershop about how good a karate guy matches up against a Muay Thai guy or how useful aikido is or you can watch UFC.
  2. It's all of the benefits of watching any competition except fighting is the competition, the last argument. There's just a sort of additional, primal oomph. As Rogan says, you lose a basketball game you say "I'd kick your ass". You lose the ensuing fight and you just lost. An MMA fight is the last stop, not just fighting but fighting with the smallest set of constraints America can stand.

PISA is itself a standardized test though. Admittedly it's low-stakes for individual students since it isn't part of your grade, so you could hypothetically have a model where South Koreans are "studying for the test" which helps them on that individual standardized test but if they were spending that time on more holistic learning it would be dramatically more effective on standardized tests they haven't bothered to study for, but I'm dubious. It's not like students know what is going to be on the test that exactly. Or at least I assume not, I've never actually looked into the practice tests that "cram schools"/hagwons have.

Looking at actual PISA scores I assume he's talking about 2018, in 2022 there's more of a gap since Finland's score dropped by 74 and South Korea's rose by 11.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/pisa-scores-by-country

I haven't looked into how much of this can be explained by changing racial demographics. A quick search finds this page saying it can't be explained by that because only 7% of Finnish students are immigrants, but that only includes 1st and 2nd generation immigrants. Actual racial data would make things easier, I know the U.S. collects racial data for PISA tests, allowing this interesting chart, but Finland might not. In any case that last chart also shows U.S. whites matching South Koreans, which seems to support the point that either all those extra hours don't make much of a difference to PISA scores or they're doing something very wrong to render them ineffective. Come to think of it I wonder if anyone in those east-asian countries has done randomized control studies on the effects of cram-school enrollment.

not allowed to ban something then you shouldn't be allowed to make access risky.

Isn't this how it is in meatspace?

Going to the shitty area of town to the adult bookstore was one of the things you could do when you turned 18.

Like, you ask me, the entire point of UFC is to set up the most interesting fights/matchups possible and encourage the top contenders to fight as hard as possible for a win, and generally avoid safe, riskless approaches. Big purses and other monetary incentives are a good method. Bring in the best talent from across the globe and get them to give their best performance.

This was the line when the UFC was growing and needed to compare itself positively to boxing. It's quite clear that, after the sale and the ESPN deal, the UFC simply doesn't care as much about this. It's nothing new: the strict USADA testing was implemented to clean up its image for a sale (GSP begged for it and was ignored until it was to the UFC's benefit) and then they eventually did away with it because why risk stars popping constantly? It's actually perversely rational: the UFC looks worse than sports that don't test so why bother?

And you can understand why. This isn't the WWE where you can script and the public often doesn't reward you at all for good fights. Mighty Mouse did incredible things in the ring but nobody ever cared. People would rather watch Sean O'Malley or whoever fight.

Making competitive fights is how a champ like GSP who brought along Montreal/Canada (one of the few countries that'll pay for PPVs) get knocked out by Matt Serra. Or 1m+ PPV seller Ronda Rousey ended up getting beaten to within an inch of her life by a Brazilian lesbian with a thick accent. She's probably not going to charm the audience on Colbert or get put in many films. The division - which was attracting normies who wanted a role model for young girls - never got as big again.

Now that they have no credible competition they've settled for squeezing money from their existing base and resting on their laurels.

But also the actual fighting is getting to a point where the 'optimal' style is somewhat predetermined. Unless you're a talented kickbox-wrestle-jitsu practitioner, you're going to get stomped by someone who is more well rounded than you, no matter how good you are at your particular niche. Maybe that's how it should be, but its just a fact now that "MMA" is not literally "mixed martial arts" but really it is a style unto itself, it isn't really about pitting different styles against each other anymore.

I don't think this is the case. People have been saying for years that MMA is destined to be dominated by "true" mixed martial artists like Rory MacDonald who've trained in blended styles from the start. But Rory never became champion and there's still a ton of people with a specific specialty they build on when they get to MMA

It may be that this should have happened but the very problem we're discussing prevents it: if you're a very athletic youth and you have options why would you want to focus specifically on MMA to make 10/10? There's a reason a lot of the top people are former wrestlers who've hit their ceiling and HW is so bad a division athletically (an athletic HW is probably going to gain more in other sports)

None that I know of, but the locations nearest to me are a drive. It's like a burger CFA in my opinion. The kid's burgers are the same size as their normal ones so if you're looking to save some $ that's the play.

Yeah...I think planning to fuck without a condom or a ring and baby trap a guy and hope it works out is just about the best example of jugaad ethics imaginable.

Yeah, the 'homeless person' concern is not the main objection, and I don't think anyone here's going to care what Texas' policies about low-cost IDs are.

That said, I think there are serious privacy and chilling effect concerns regarding this specific implementation and how it interacts with normal website management. The Texas law applies to any website run by a commercial entity (with a tiny number of exceptions), where more than 1/3rd of its content is 'harmful to minors', must do this verification or face sizable fines (up to 10k USD/day, plus 250k USD if a minor sees any banned content). Any web host operating in the United States that serves both adult and non-adult content, or even repeats content from its users, needs to do some pretty serious evaluations.

This wouldn't be too rough if the burden from age verification was tiny -- you take the precautionary principle to the max or divide the website and/or commercial entity -- but that doesn't seem to be the case. The plaintiffs here had a bit of a nut for a lawyer, but his claims that age verification could cost 40k USD for 100k users were plausible enough for a skeptical Texas court to accept it. That's steep but workable for a conventional commercial porn site; HB 1181 does not operate based on being a commercial site selling porn, but on being a commercial entity serving partially adult material. Even if he's off by a 'mere' couple orders of magnitude, there's a lot of websites and services where that's going to bring the risk-reward underwater, or outspend what sort of losses that a hobbyist is willing to lose out on.

It takes all sorts, I suppose. The meme is not an exaggeration, though, and the phenomenon is widespread enough that it is a meme and you have heard of it.

What about "Two wrongs don't make a right?"

One wrong also does not make a right. Then too:

"But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

...but by all means, if you truly are committed to the idea that two wrongs do not make a right, I encourage you to apply this logic to wrongs committed by my side.

In this case, the law requires age verification for a web site run by a commercial entity where one third of the content on the site is 'harmful to minors', or the Texas AG can bring 10k USD/day charges even if no minor has visited the website. There's a lot of speech you do have a right to that can fall under that bar.

Maybe it's close enough to the right policy as to be worth that burden, but it needs to at least be considered in the context of what it's actually promoting, not just what the sticker on the front says.

So maybe they have a handful of very well-paid "guides" but the real teaching is being done on the cheap by call centre tutors in Brazil? Because why would you have the kids ringing someone in Brazil if they have problems with the material, rather than the guides on site? This, on the face of it, seems to be the way they can afford to pay the "guides" much more than if they were public school teachers - less of them, the real work being done by cheaper outsourced labour.

I found an interesting comment on that by someone involved in the program:

Matt Bateman

The “brazilian teachers” are software developers and academic specialists who work on the curriculum and platform. They run the coaching calls because they are the ones who need to know what’s not working and fix it on the app side. Not sure about Brazil but some of them are indeed remote.

So that's interesting. I guess the hope is to eventually need even less human interaction, it's one of those "training your AI replacement" positions. Which brings me back to: what are the Guides doing in the morning? They've selected for kids who won't disrupt everyone to get actual human interaction, so they presumably aren't conducting classroom management. Are they spending half the day preparing the extracurricular programs?

you are objecting to laws being broken to try to get the illegal immigrants out. The law was very definitely broken to let the illegals in; either you objected to this, or you did not. If you did not object to it, why object now? If you did object to it, then you observed that your objections were ignored then, why would you expect your objections to carry weight now?

If you do believe that the law should not be broken here, but you offer no remedy to the law being broken before, then is that not accepting violation of the law to allow illegal immigrants in? If you say you do not accept it, what does "not accepting it" mean in concrete terms?

What about "Two wrongs don't make a right?"

Presumably, all sexual material intended to arouse is deemed "harmful to minors"?

In theory, the term's pretty clearly picked to mimic federal obscenity-to-minors jurisprudence from Ginsburg, which... is a clusterfuck, but supposedly trades socially redeeming values against what extent the material is 'patently offensive to prevailing standards of what is appropriate'. In practice, I'd expect the Texas AG's going to act more based on what he thinks he can get away with and who makes particularly good news headlines.

I do not think that viewing PIV sex on video after searching for it is intrinsically harmful. The stuff which is harmful is all the stuff where porn differs from what one would recommend as sex acts for beginners.

There's some good arguments for this policy (and some against: do gay or trans versions of those get commissioned? should it recognize any kink at all, if in very 'correct' ways?). There's even been some, albeit mixed, efforts along those lines (one 'documentary' is very popular among het breeding fans, which... uh, Shinzo Abe meme, but probably not intended). You even get really awkward discussions about what the 'correct' age for this involves, and that's not a fun thing to even consider.

I dunno. I was a late bloomer. I don't think I have a good model for a lot of what'd be best, here, or even what a lot of potential harms would be. There's a lot of motions in both law and psychology about how any exposure to even 'normal' sex early on can cause harm, but then we're relying on a bunch of (mostly 1970s) psych research, and I would prefer not to.

But my suspicion is that the Texas move was never about protecting minors in the first place, it was about getting the filth off the Texan internet by pretending to care about minors seeing boobs and dicks.

I'd expect it's even less good than that: the end result's just going to make the stuff operated by American businesses less profitable and crush smaller actors, and scare straight websites that intermix adult and non-adult content.

What interpretations, and what controversy?

What do double parentheses mean?

What number would you consider more appropriate?

I've been depressed for a few years, so I may be misremembering the comparative enjoyment. But, IIRC, before I became depressed, playing video games was a much more reliable source of enjoyment than masturbating to a jade-like beauty, and fapping was merely an extra bonus that could be quickly extracted at the end of the day without requiring me to invest hours of time into it (but still requiring a significant amount of annoying arm exercise).

Are you familiar with the meme "nut, clean up, close 50 tabs"? And, to put it delicately, how familiar?

Based on personal experience, I assume that the meme is a gross exaggeration and the typical person engages in, not two-hour edging/gooning sessions, but 30-minute fap/schlick sessions.