domain:noahpinion.blog
Throwaway05
14hr ago
If you date enough absolutely gorgeous women you will find out two things:
-
A shocking number of them are obnoxiously perfect (by which I mean they are smart, kind, and functional). It's quite unfair! ...And it puts pressure on the relationship because they know they can have anyone.
-
For the ones that aren't, well it gets tiring and it happens oddly fast (especially because most of them aren't good in bed). A girlfriend + porn rapidly starts to seem better than the 10/10 girlfriend who is annoying. If you happen to know a bunch of beautiful women closely you'll be shocked at how much some of the complain about not getting laid especially the ones in a serious relationship. The quote "no matter how hot she is, someone out there is sick of dealing with her shit" is prescient.
I imagine this guy is having some number two action.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
14hr ago
One might also note that until fairly recently, "judicial command" based on the Voting Rights Act included a mandate to maximize minority (in practice, Democratic) representation.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
15hr ago
And then God gives someone like Cormac McCarthy to the world, and keeps him around for as long as it takes.
NYTReader
15hr ago
You say that the Dems clearly started it. Others says the Reps clearly started it.
Without reading (at least) 50 years of redistricting history, how does one possibly get to the bottom of this? As time goes on it becomes increasingly obvious to me that it's a folly to believe there is anything resembling objective truth on almost any contentious issue.
I read something on TheMotte that appears to be well-argued, some guy replies with what appears to be an equally compelling argument, and some other website has information that contradicts them both. My brain feels like it's going to explode. There is no hope.
beefypo
15hr ago
It seems to me that almost every woman is more cautious around any individual man vs any individual woman (especially in isolated situations) due to the risk of sexual assault. Is this sexist? Should they not discriminate in this manner?
No_one
15hr ago
Don't forget Jack L. Chalker.
I'm somewhat fascinated by the frequently short lifespans of American writers.
No_one
15hr ago
...focuses? No. It doesn't. It's incidental to an experiment in trying to understand partner's POV.
cartman
16hr ago
You've provided a map without much context with regards to population or voting demographics, so in the absence of that information the map doesn't demonstrate much of anything about the prevalence of gerrymandering
self_made_human
Sajjano durjano bhūyāt, durjano badhyatāṃ sadā, baddho'nyān nibandhāyet
16hr ago
Goddammit, I knew I'd done something wrong. I was actually aware that it's not correct to use the population mean of 100, but I was unsure how to account for it. Thank you for the correction.
self_made_human
Sajjano durjano bhūyāt, durjano badhyatāṃ sadā, baddho'nyān nibandhāyet
16hr ago
Belonging to the Global Latina Belt has its perks.
self_made_human
Sajjano durjano bhūyāt, durjano badhyatāṃ sadā, baddho'nyān nibandhāyet
16hr ago
Noticeably below average, if not actually retarded. The kind of person who is literate, but definitely struggled in school, not that I have her test scores at hand.
EilonwyPrydain
16hr ago
Hey, appreciate it. Mostly I was just feeling low and felt like venting about how sucky life can be sometimes. I agree with all the advice (sports, role models) but it's so hard to put into practice. I can't magic male role models out of nowhere. He does see his dad a couple times a week, for what that's worth. The sports thing has sort of been a perennial struggle because the boy really digs in and gets resistant as soon as I suggest something "organized". When he was younger he would run and play on the playground and climb everything in sight, but he freaked out when I wanted him to do an actual parkour class. Wrestling or boxing or track might be something if I can find something age appropriate.
I was being flippant about the AuDHD - he has been formally diagnosed with ASD and ADHD. The ASD is more recent so I'm still navigating what it means and how it should change my parenting approach.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
16hr ago
Is there any evidence that what she did was in any way warrented?
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
16hr ago
Yes it would be a serious issue. But there is no evidence that Chattah did that
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
17hr ago
Here's a court opinion from Queensland, Australia.
-
At three in the morning, a drunk 19-year-old male engages a 51-year-old prostitute for a 30-minute session. After the woman tells him that his time has expired, he angrily responds that he hasn't finished (ejaculated) yet and punches her in the face multiple times, resulting in "significant" injuries. Two hours later, he accosts a 66-year-old woman who is on her morning walk and rapes or attempts to rape her three times—once with fingers in vagina, once with penis in vagina (just an attempt since he failed to achieve an erection), and once with penis in mouth. He also inflicts severe injuries on the 66-year-old (dislocated shoulder, broken jaw, fractured eye socket, and broken nose). Some hours later, he is arrested, makes "partial admissions" to the police, and expresses "genuine remorse".
-
The 19-year-old pleads guilty. Before the sentencing judge, the prosecutor suggests a total sentence of 14 years—3 years for the assault on the 51-year-old, and 10–14 years in total for the attempted and actual rapes and grievous bodily harm on the 66-year-old. The defense accepts that a range of 10–14 years is appropriate for the second set of offenses, and asks for a total sentence at the low end of that range. The judge imposes a total sentence of 13.5 years (with the possibility of parole after 10.8 years)—1.5 years for the assault, consecutive with concurrent sentences of 12 years for each actual or attempted rape and 6 years for the grievous bodily harm.
It is critical, as is required, that a sentence be just and appropriate, and not too crushing and disproportionate. What I have sought to do is ameliorate the sentences so that the overall sentence is just and appropriate. The likely overall sentence would have been, I think, about 16 years; that is, the sentence for count 1, in my view, is likely to have been over two years, and was likely to be over 13 years for your sexual offending, coupled with the violence.
-
The appeals panel reverses. In this case, the offender was only 19 years old, had no criminal history, had a disadvantaged background (his mother committed suicide when he was 13, and he lived unhappily with his grandmother afterward; he was exposed to excessive drinking and violence in his childhood; he started drinking at age 15), has expressed remorse, and has been out on bail for 16 months without reoffending. In the context of both the crimes and the offender's background, the sentence imposed was "manifestly excessive".
The case of R v Wark, in which the offender was resentenced, on appeal, to 12 years’ imprisonment, supports the view that 12 years was too high in this case. The offender in Wark was 51 years old, with a limited criminal history of minor drug offending. He too had a problem with alcohol and had been drinking in the lead up to the offending, which started at about 1 AM one Saturday morning. The complainant, a woman in her 30s, [suffered one assault while armed, one assault with intent to rape, one deprivation of liberty, five actual rapes, and one attempted rape]. Both by reference to the circumstances of the offending (which involved a far more prolonged series of violent and degrading sexual assaults) and the offender, Wark is a more serious case.
The panel resentences the offender to 11 years (with the possibility of parole after 8.8 years)—1 year for the assault, consecutive with concurrent sentences of 10 years for each actual rape, 5 years for the attempted rape, and 5 years for the grievous bodily injury. -
One judge on the panel dissents. She would impose a total sentence of 10.5 years (with the possibility of parole after 8.4 years)—1.5 years for the assault, consecutive with 9 years for the oral rape, and no further penalty for the other crimes.
It seems to me that a comparison with the offending in Wark and the offending in the present case shows that the primary judge’s starting point of perhaps 16 years for the total of the appellant’s offending was significantly too high. Serious though it was, the appellant’s offending was objectively much less than Wark’s offending. Not only was the starting point too high but, again in comparison with Wark, a reduction from 16 years to 13 and a half years in the present case was an insufficient reduction to reflect a guilty plea. Significantly the primary judge in this case needed to mitigate the sentence he imposed to reflect a guilty plea, and also to reflect the fact that the appellant was a young man with no criminal history (Wark was a mature man). The appellant’s youth and lack of criminal history bore upon his prospects of rehabilitation. His youth also bore upon the primary judge’s consideration of totality. That is, in considering what might be a crushing sentence, the primary judge was obliged to consider the appellant’s youth.
The period of nine years is inflated to allow for the criminality of all the offending against complainant 2.
(The judges don't mention it, but obviously any 19-year-old male who would choose to hire a 51-year-old prostitute also has a severe mental disability that warrants special sentencing treatment.)
clo
17hr ago
I had a comment a while ago about how people outside America looking in are still at the "call a spade a spade" level of meta, and when they do what they say and yell about what they want they're confused about why the dominant American culture doesn't get it. The dominant American culture has been sipping industrial grade postmodern self-aware media propaganda and their mainstream entertainment is constructed out of large irony blocks.
Maybe African-Americans are not deep enough within the levels of simulacra to have internalized not to take either wing of the political aisle at face value yet.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
19hr ago
That's what my brief look-up said, and it also said what I mentioned, e.g. that this is not a clinical term.
No_one
19hr ago
I was reminded of the culture when reading the otherwise not that good AI-2027 essay.
There are even bioengineered human-like creatures (to humans what corgis are to wolves) sitting in office-like environments all day viewing readouts of what’s going on and excitedly approving of everything, since that satisfies some of Agent-4’s drives.33
RenOS
something is wrong
19hr ago
Maybe I misunderstand you, but this is imo calculated the wrong way. Presumably, most of the dudes family is also 130 IQ, and you already explicitly spelled out that her parents and siblings are all 130 IQ. If the expected child IQ of a 130 IQ pairing from a 130 IQ wider family is actually 118 ... What astronomical luck did the families have up to then?
First, heritability is a red herring, since we're not in an adoption study or similar situation. These are rich parents raising their own rich daughter. The relevant factor is regression to the mean, which is generally estimated to be ca 0.5, i.e. if you take your spousal IQ_s, and compare it to the population mean IQ_p you're descended from, then you're kids IQ will be roughly (IQ_s + IQ_p)/2.
The population mean you regress to is generally speaking that of your actual sub-population, which is your wider family; Ideally you also know the IQ of your grandparents and uncles and aunts, that improves the estimate further. It's not always 100, which is a very common misconception. It's generally trivially acknowledged for clear examples, such as ethnic ashkenazi jewish among gentiles, but it even holds among seemingly homogenous groups. The reason you see regression towards 100 is partially that assortative mating in superficially homogenous groups is only moderate, so usually there is some difference between the respective spousal family background, and partially an artifact of averaging. But it certainly holds for ethnically separated groups with rather strict assortative mating as is typical in large parts of India, as I understand it.
So the expected child IQ of a 130 IQ pairing from a 130 IQ wider family is simply 130. With a single spouse at 90, the spousal average becomes 110 instead, and the final number after regression is around 120. Still a 10 point difference though, so I guess not a big difference on that account.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
19hr ago
You have succeeded where AI and myself have failed.
MathWizard
Good things are good
19hr ago
In general I think AI content belongs in separate designated zones. If not its own website, at least a dedicated section. AI fiction should be found in the AI fiction section, not mixed with the regular fiction. AI art belongs in the AI art section, not mixed with the regular art. AI non-fiction... probably doesn't need to be posted anywhere. It's going to end up some combination of wordy filler and stuff that's already been said somewhere else. Basically a super fancy version of a google search. If you're not prompting it yourself such that you want a super fancy version of a google search, reading essays someone else told an AI to make is unlikely to provide value.
A general exception to this is AI content which is supplemental in support of a greater creative work. If you're designing a game and the primary design and development is original work, but the art assets and/or music are AI generated that's probably fine. They're there to maintain immersion for the game. Or if you're writing a novel and the cover art is AI generated. I think this is an excellent use to allow AI to cover for your weaknesses so that you can play to your strengths. If the majority of something is AI generated then it belongs in the AI generated section so that people can voluntarily choose to engage with it with that in their mind.
Is everyone just reflexively reacting to certain words and not actually reading the thread?
Reread.
It is SS's contention that the Israeli-born Attorney General of Nevada, Signal Chattah, arranged a special deal for Artem Alexandrovich because she's a Zionist.
So far as I know, there is no evidence that (a) the state AG was directly involved or (b) that allowing a foreign government official to return to their home country while facing charges in the US is unusual. We do not know why Alexandrovich was allowed bail while the other suspects were not or if he got special treatment for being a foreign government official.
If both (a) and (b) are proven, then maybe we can question Chattah's reasoning.
But right now, it's just the usual insinuations about Jews.
More options
Context Copy link