domain:slatestarcodex.com
3472094371
20hr ago
I'm curious how easy this riddle I recently found myself spending days to solve would be for professional software developers.
A fictionalized description of the situation: I'm in charge of a cadre of robots, whose working shift is from 6 am to 5.50 am next day. Every time they assemble a batch of Dyson swarm units, a database entry with the size of the newly born batch is created, amounting to hundreds of rows per robot per shift. To report on the process, by midday I need to submit a table on the previous shift numbers, but unfortunately my interface only supports exporting data from 00:00 to 23:59 of a given day. Nobody pays much attention to the shift tail end's results, because even robots slack after midnight, but the results for the previous day, which actually matter, are seriously truncated after downloading, let's say 20% of the expected amount of data. After random messing with filters in the interface, turning something off, maybe turning it on again, I am able to download something looking like the full data set.
I reverse engineer the REST API of the web interface, and try to replicate that random tinkering in a script. For example, exclude those robots assigned to assemble catgirl bots instead of Dyson bots, or do two downloads, of the robots painted red seperately of the robots painted blue, or some other even more convoluted approaches. Each approach works exactly once, as if there is somebody on the other side of the API, blocking every approach he encounters.
What was (apparently) happening and how did I (hopefully) prevail?
Rov_Scam
21hr ago
Luckily it didn't escape everyone's notice: https://theonion.com/sherwin-williams-triumphantly-reports-nearly-half-the-p-1819566493/
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
21hr ago
I am not sure that it will still be true at the end of his administration, depending on how bad his policies will get.
You're assuming the horror stories about the effects of Trump's policies are going to be both true and one-sided. This may not be the case. If his policies hurt Republican "takers" but help the working class (according to their own perceptions), that's probably a net win for Republicans. Republican takers are probably one of the least-reliable voting blocs (especially since Republicans lack the ground game to get them to the polls), and the working class has only recently turned Republican.
So, the problem I've run into with partners in industry, and you'll see this in the github issue I linked, they read the GPS_RAW_INT.alt_ellipsoid field, thinking it's the height above the WGS84 ellipsoid. It is not. It's the height above the EGM96 geoid. MAVLINK does not consider this a bug. It results in a lot of confusion over and over and over again with people insisting adamantly that they are providing the "raw WGS84 height above ellipsoid from the GPS unit".
I keep that github link handy to escape the endless cycle of "But it's the alt_ellipsoid field!" Which is understandable. If I were reading a field called alt_ellipsoid I'd assume it was the altitude over the ellipsoid as well. This is usually caught when they are 100' off a known ground level.
theincompetencetheorist
21hr ago
The question if GLP-1 drugs are a net positive financially for the medical system is extremely cynical.
Well I agree that it is cynical. But I also find the view that it is a pure plutocratic exercise of who has the most lobbying dollars as equally cynical. Those who are interested profiting the issue that Semaglutide solves is not only McDonalds. It is is a whole host of US domestic companies that extract profits by providing both the cause and management of the symptoms as a result. A weekly shot from a Danish company is a threat to the bottom line of fast food, healthcare providers recurring visits and lifelong medication by domestic pharma. Maybe the politicians gives patriotic rebate to the lobbyists?
quiet_NaN
21hr ago
I do not think a significant number of Republican voters believe that bad things (for them) will result from Trump's policies and are willing to suffer for them. You can tell because Trump doesn't talk that way, more or less ever. They think that the policies Trump is pursuing will result in the instant improvement of their lives.
This might have been true at the beginning of the year, and still be true for a majority of people who will be badly affected by his policies. I am not sure that it will still be true at the end of his administration, depending on how bad his policies will get. He got a trade deal with the EU which will increase revenue and not directly hurt US industry (but I am less optimistic about the long term effects for the US hegemony). However, a trade war with China still has the potential to wreck the economy. Likewise, cutting medicare has the potential to be ruinous for a lot of his voters.
Most people have some awareness of their relative economic situation under different administrations. They suck at attributing it to specific policies (and often make off-by-one errors when policies take long to yield results) and economic effects unrelated to government policies, but they will notice if they are better or worse off. A few idiots will double down on their partisan preferences when things go badly for them, but I am hopeful that many will not vote for the leopard eating people's face party after having their face eaten for 3.5 years.
I would also posit that many a cat-caller does it not just because they think someone is hot, but because they enjoy the fact they get to flex "power" over someone by making them uncomfortable with no recourse against them (dovetails nicely with everyone's discussion about lower class men, they don't get to flex power often).
I'm not especially sympathetic to the "sex as a power trip" narrative, but assuming it is basically correct--isn't women dressing in revealing clothing also often an opportunity for them to enjoy flexing their power over men? I think maybe part of what leads you here--
I'm unconvinced cat calling should be an indictable offense, but comparing it to skimpy clothing is ridiculous.
--is a background Western assumption that men have power, and that power is what men have. I occasionally see feminists (especially, "sex positive" feminists) move past this decidedly mid-20th century "Second Sex" narrative into a more postmodern, Foucaultian "women's power is different" narrative. Men may dominate physically, but women dominate socially; men may gatekeep the levers of action, but women gatekeep the levers of status. Occasionally in these "catcalling debates" women will decide to flip the script and start catcalling men; this never works out because men love this shit. Not the truly aggressive and negative stuff--honking at pedestrians, shouting insults--that might well get you punched in the face! But "CHECK THE GUNS ON THIS GUY" is going to put a smile on his face for days.
Putting on a skimpy swimsuit is the psychologically female equivalent of a man looming over someone and saying, "hey, you wanna feel my muscles?"
And sure, you might not find this totally persuasive, but I think it's a long way from ridiculous. Except in the sense that ridicule itself is a way of socially signaling; countenancing the idea that women may have just as much power over men, as men have over women--just in different ways and contexts--is very low status, at present! It's the kind of thing you might expect to hear some "beta cucks huffing as copium," in the parlance of the iPad youths.
Finally, while I agree that society is teaching and reinforcing women to be far more paranoid than is warranted, the Venn diagram between "is willing to break social norms by cat calling" and "is willing to go for a cheeky bottom pinch or other form of personal assault" has overlap, there is a small but credible possibility of violence from that person. The Venn diagram of "has ass out in Lululemon" and "will grab your dick through your shorts" is 0, unfortunately.
The Venn diagram between "is willing to ask you out" and "is willing to rape you at the first opportunity" has overlap, too. Women are wise to be cautious of men! That's clearly true, and surely of importance in this discussion. One of the reasons I started it is because, like other posters have more explicitly suggested, I think there is a kind of person who will feel unsure about the Surrey stings until they see the color of the perpetrator's skin! Or two kinds, if we want to separate them out--people who will only be mad if this is enforced against non-whites and immigrants, and people who will only be mad if it is enforced against native whites outside otherwise-criminally-problematic neighborhoods. As an anti-identitarian I think both of these perspectives are avoiding a real substantive issue, namely, the regulation of interpersonal behaviors in public spaces shared between individuals with diverse and not entirely compatible interests. Likewise, treating women's interests in public space interaction as weightier than men's interests in the same, is identitarian rather than appropriately considerate of all the issues involved.
(One solution some cultures implement is to simply segregate the disparate interests; men from women, white from black, whatever. That is a workable solution in many cases but the West has rejected it, and as a liberal myself I think it is both possible and desirable for people with disparate interests to share public spaces without significant conflict. So I set this solution aside, but I know not everyone does.)
Somewhere downstream from catcalling is a slightly different thing: the cold open. Most people here are not old enough to remember the Clinton years, but a phrase that got kicked around a lot (with direct reference to Clinton's own behavior) was, "it doesn't hurt to ask!" Meaning: the First Amendment protects men asking women if they'd like to go out on a date--or even have sex! Even if those women are strangers! Even if 99.995% of women are going to say no!
We don't seem to actually live in that world anymore; we punish men for even asking, in almost any setting, and so they have in many cases just stopped asking. Norms are forcing these conversations out of almost every environment, onto dating apps that optimize for something other than flourishing. All in the interest of preventing women from ever being put in an uncomfortable position in public--while allowing them to put men into uncomfortable positions through comparable, albeit not identical, practices, like dressing provocatively* while immune from any kind of interpersonal or societal response.
*I here leave aside the tiresome conversations about what counts as provocative, as of course different cultures will have inculcated different views on the matter; as a rule, people know what "sexy" clothing is for people in their sociocultural environment, even if they try to ignore the actual biological implications of the word "sexy."
roystgnr
22hr ago
I've upvoted this, of course, but it irks me that I can't figure out whether I'm upvoting a really good suggestion or a really good joke.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
22hr ago
I was passed by a Sherwin-Williams truck earlier today and noted something unusual that had escaped my notice surely dozens of times before.
Their slogan is “Cover the Earth” and it is accompanied by a graphic depicting paint pouring out of a bucket over a globe.
Is there any other company anyone is aware of that is quite so up front about their corporate commitment to instantiating apocalyptic end-of-the-world scenarios? I’m choosing to call the Sherwin-Williams situation an ecru-goo doomsday.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
22hr ago
It requires empathy to care about civilization. Because it means understanding that there are people just like yourself who will be living in the far future, though they do not yet exist, and they matter as if they were your friend or cousin. Humans come equipped with an interest in securing the wellbeing of those who are like themselves, though there have been some mutations which express other inclinations usually deemed antisocial. If civilization, then their happiness is secured. If barbarism, then doom —
cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.
Also, interest in civilization is usually a proxy for intergroup competition. The failure for your group to be fruitful simply means that another group will dominate yours. This will probably be the Chinese when they eventually realize how easy it is to increase TFR. All of your descendants will be less happy, just as the celts were less happy when the Anglo-Saxons ruled over them. Many of their descendants will beg and prostitute themselves. A well-tuned empathy makes you feel about future members of your tribe in the same way you feel about your own child. This is why Kings with paternal feelings toward his subjects were beloved in history; it is probably evolution’s favored form of governance, given that the primates the dominant member shares food and protects the lesser members.
If you truly
get that it feels different if you have kids
you would recognize there is a chain of empathy descending from “caring about someone who has kids”, to “caring about their kids”, to “caring about their grandkids”, all the way down. Because if you care about them then you also have some care for their terminal values, which is going to be their children. Our present happiness is related to our future predictions, so it’s reasonable to feel unhappy if your civilization is trending toward doom.
birb_cromble
22hr ago
we suffer either way, but at least this way we get to wipe the smug grins off the city-dwellers' faces
I genuinely believe what you call city-dwellers have absolutely no idea how strong that impulse is in a lot of rural Americans.
If I asked ten of my neighbors if they'd do something that harmed themselves if it hurt the nearest city twice as bad, I think twelve of them would say yes.
Trump's election in 2016 and 2024 represent the apex of this phenomenon, but it's not the only one.
birb_cromble
22hr ago
This is also Republicans possibly losing their rural hospital
At least here in the Appalachians, those rural hospitals have been closing down since at least 2010 and nobody other than the local residents has given a shit.
Could you explain how this is different and why I should be more concerned? Or, for that matter, why people who aren't from here and didn't care then should care now?
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
22hr ago
Mavlink always outputs what it calls "MSL" in EGM96 (and it's not correct to refer to HAE as MSL, so that's reasonable), right? The normal ublox protocol that a lot of gps modules use doesn't seem to include the geoid nor the HAE, rather it outputs both MSL and geoid separation (which if it follows NMEA is positive -- height of geoid above ellipsoid). I expect best practice there would be to calculate the HAE and then re-apply whatever geoid model you want to use.
The latter class votes Republican because they hate the former class and want them thrown off Medicaid. This isn't poor people voting to throw themselves off Medicaid, it's contractors voting to throw addicts off of welfare.
This is also Republicans possibly losing their rural hospital
From the article again
During a June 19 special meeting of the Mitchell County Board of Commissioners, Jeff Harding, chair of the all-Republican board, said the hospital’s closure “could be devastating to our small community” and urged residents to contact their elected officials.
This is an all-republican board concerned about the impact.
Unless the good hard working rural Republicans are superhumans who don't need a hospital and anyone who is concerned is just a RINO, it's going to hurt them too because the economics of rural healthcare is already tight.
Shrike
22hr ago
This is admittedly speculative due to a lack of contact with the former class but my general assumptions are that they aren't exactly hardcore voters to begin with.
I also suspect that if they do vote for the GOP, they probably aren't thinking "I'm going to get thrown off of Medicaid but it will make the blue-haired freaks unhappy so it's a net win for me," they are voting GOP under the theory that entitlement reform never happens but maybe their neighbor with the string of misdemeanor assaults and restraining orders will finally be locked up for good, or that it will help the economy, or things like that. My general assumption is that people who are "on the fringes of society" in the sense of being on welfare and not being particularly poor are more likely to be sensitive to the economy and crime, not less.
Despite having a Democrat governor, the Republican (almost) supermajority in state congress and the past decade of slowly removing powers from the governorship combined with NC already having a low power governorship means a lot of things that would normally be in the governor's hands are instead in the state Congress. North Carolina might even be the weakest governor in the nation
As governor, Stein holds essentially no power over the state budget other than the obligation to share his vision with Republican lawmakers who are free to promptly discard it in favor of their own.
His veto power is one of the weakest in the country, with no ability to object to specific items in budget bills, redistricting legislation, constitutional amendments or bills that apply to fewer than 15 counties.
He doesn’t even get to appoint his executive team. The attorney general, secretary of state, superintendent of public instruction and six other primary executive offices are elected by the people.
sohois
22hr ago
The UK has failed to build any new reservoirs for, IIRC, several decades. This despite the fact that the population has expanded considerably in that time.
sohois
22hr ago
I wonder how much of the lack of chemistry is driven by the simple fact that Johnson and Evans are not good actors. Perhaps Song thought she could get something interesting out of them once they were taken away from comicbook crap?
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
22hr ago
I posted a source. Dismissing it on its face is extremely poor form.
The capture of the institutions has made such "poor form" necessary for intellectual hygiene. Consider, perhaps, if there'd been a dispute about whether smoking causes cancer and someone posted an authoritative-looking study from the Council for Tobacco Research saying otherwise.
quiet_NaN
23hr ago
I just googled "medicare GLP-1 costs", and found this article:
Trump wants Medicare to pay for your Ozempic treatment. Taxpayers may foot the bill for billions in fraud
I am happy to hate Trump because he cuts of GLP-1 for millions. I could probably be persuaded to hate Trump because he wastes billions of dollars on GLP-1 drugs.
Unfortunately, I can not help but notice that both reasons to hate him seem mutually exclusive. While it is nice to know I can hate him no matter what he ends up doing, until he moves out of that superposition of bad options, I am stuck in a state of cognitive dissonance.
The annual US revenue of Novo Nordisk (Semaglutide) seems to be 45G$, while that of McDonalds is 25G$. Likely, NN's profit margin is a bit higher, so they could afford to out-lobby fast food.
--
The question if GLP-1 drugs are a net positive financially for the medical system is extremely cynical. Given that the lifetime patient costs mostly occur in their last years, it basically reduces to of the obese cost more before croaking than the non-obese or not. From a purely financial consideration, the most effective intervention (short of killing them outright) would probably be to offer free base-jumping courses and equipment to medicare patients. The government might spend 10k$ per death caused, which would be a lot cheaper than bypass surgeries, chemotherapy or keeping a dementia patient alive for a decade.
The compassionate, EA-ish metric would be cost per quality adjusted life-year (QALY). Both measles vaccines and doing a full-body MRI scan for tumors once a month are interventions which would boost the QALY of the median patient. But the former is pretty cheap and pretty effective and the latter is very expensive and not very effective, so we pay for one and not for the other.
For GLP-1 agonists, a lot depends on the cost per month.
That fortune article with their moral panic about fraud mentions:
The government recently estimated that covering GLP-1 drugs for obesity would cost Medicare alone $35 billion from 2026 to 2034.
What they forget to mention is that this is peanuts. If half of the patients enrolled with medicare get GLP-1 drugs, that is 35M patients. So the cost per patient per year would be 200$. That is a factor of 60 less than the sticker price of 1000$ a month! If somehow every obese American defrauded the US government into paying 200$ per year for GLP-1 drugs, that would be even better.
I do not think that this is happening, though. I recently turned to biopiracy to knock a few points of my BMI (I will write an article about my experiences on LW at some point), and I will likely spend north of 100$/year on peptides from China. Of course, the medical system will not have patients reconstitute peptides in their kitchen and inject what they think is the correct dose using insulin syringes with no medical or pharmaceutical oversight. Even weekly subcutaneous injections of saline would probably cost 500$ a year.
MollieTheMare
23hr ago
Interesting, as usual. I almost think we should have a dedicated Saturday Series of Court Opinions: brought to you by ToaKraka™.
I wonder if the dissent with respect to "marriage and child-rearing" is some positioning in case the US Supremes ever revisits Obergefell Re. Roberts dissent:
It (marriage) arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.
I stood @ToaKraka up the other week on Victoria 3 mods.
While I don't have as many as him, this is what I've been playing with:
- Regional HQs are a shitty game mechanic. They absolutely hijack your investment pool, and they're a pain in the ass to remove (made better in 1.9.8) and impossible to remove from Vassals or if they have investments in a third party country. They're also poor game design as they are a "click this button every time if it's available" option, which isn't good game design (good game design is all about making interesting choices).
Thus, I changed AI weights so they never pick them, and I never pick them.
- late game performance is awful, because of pop fragmentation. I increased the defines for both assimilation and pop consolidation by a factor of 10x. I think a lot of the background stuff is hard-coded because it really didn't seem to do much. I have a late game save right now that's basically unplayable now (I also fucked up and conquered too much of the world, so multithread performance dropped), so I'm going to try 1000x and see if that helps, I don't think it will.
I did notice that my assimilation did increase dramatically for a while when I had a +25% assimilation buff, so I will test that out eventually (more on this later).
-
infamy calculation is fucking stupid as it's based off population and not GDP (african states are so expensive it's so stupid). It also scales incredibly poorly in late game. My attempts to rebalance thus far have gone poorly, I can get it to a good place in early game or a good place in late game, but there isn't a good unified set of defines for both I've found yet. I think I could probably add more infamy reduction to later game tech, but my willingness to spend my free time balancing a paradox game for free was low.
-
clicking "build power plant" a million times makes me want to kill myself. I modded power plants to have 4x output and 4x input. This makes them somewhat overpowered, I don't care, I now click 4x less.
-
I increased the amount devastation recovers per state. The war goal system is AWFUL which causes AIs to get locked into wars no one can end for a while, which means if one is occupied that whole time it gets inadvertently genocided (population loss has 0 effect on war exhaustion, lmao, and it wouldn't matter if it did, LMAO). Making devastation recover faster mildly helps with this. I think they just fixed this somewhat in 1.9.8, but frankly the AI needs all the buffs it can get in this game.
-
I changed the law enactment time from 180 days to 50 days. I think this may make the game easier? Although now movements/revolutions are still mad after the law they hate is passed, so I think it's okay. The law passing mechanism is fucking atrocious, and could easily waste YEARS of times bouncing around with "+10%"..."-10%"... etc. This makes it snappy. The challenge of passing a law is maneuvering your political structure into place so it's passable at all. Once you can pass it, it's just a matter of how many de-buffs you take along the way. I'd prefer to pay the cost and move on, not watch a random number generator slowly tick.
Side note, but the paradox communities' acceptance of "save scumming" as an acceptable part of the game, but console commands as "cheating" absolutely sends me. It's literally the same thing, except one is a horrible use of your time. I once (only once) spent 30-45 minutes micro-ing and reloading to pass a very low % law. It was probably the worst use of 30-45 minutes of my free time. I don't understand why people do this in a single player game.
Something I would like to do, is get better at event modding. I want to set up some AI only global events that would trigger in ~early mid game to kick the AI all off traditionalism/serfdom as those laws are crippling and AI sucks at government management.
I also am considering setting up a global event for like +50% assimilation as that seemed to be much more effective than my define tweaks.
I also would like to make a mod that gives the AI +10 goods production of every good in their capital. I think it'll help them bootstrap supply/demand cycles for new goods. I'm not sure how they're doing at electricity production, etc
Finally, I don't know if I can, but I really want to 1) make the AI better at upgrading units as it current SUCKS at doing this and 2) make the AI stop making 30 individual armies, as that provides 0 tactical benefits to the AI, and makes the game noticeably laggier.
EDIT: ONE MORE
migration in this game is in an AWFUL state right now. If you get a Chinese or Indian country in your market, they flood your country at absurd rates (although I do plan to do an India run where I take Canada/Australia and fill em up, for historical accuracy purposes lol).
And mass migrations are basically "human only" because you GDP/capita and SoL maxxxxx and then absorb like 80% of the mass migrations regardless of you're Brazil or Vietnam, which is so fucking stupid.
I need to figure out how to give the new world a massive buff to mass migration attraction.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
23hr ago
There's two separate questions in there.
-
Are they in the Taker class?
-
Do they perceive and identify themselves as being in the Taker class?
Broke trailer trash generally abhor trailer trash, which they perceive as their neighbors rather than themselves. "I'm poor because I have to support all these people on welfare," "I'm a hard-working man, if I could, and my disability payments would be higher if it weren't for all the immigrants we're supporting..." "I'm just a drinker, he does meth," "I only do a little meth I'm not an addict like that guy over there," "I wouldn't be on the meth if it weren't for trying to compete with illegal immigrants..." There's various degrees of magical thinking involved in excusing one's own temporary circumstances, such as "Rural areas really produce things while urban gdp is fake and gay" or "Once you throw the bums off welfare and the immigrants out, I'll make more money and I won't need Medicaid." I do not think many GOP voters perceive themselves as takers, even if they mathematically are.
I do not think a significant number of Republican voters believe that bad things (for them) will result from Trump's policies and are willing to suffer for them. You can tell because Trump doesn't talk that way, more or less ever. They think that the policies Trump is pursuing will result in the instant improvement of their lives.
On Wednesday evening I went to see Celine Song's new film Materialists, her follow-up to 2023's critically acclaimed and Best Picture-nominated Past Lives, which I adored. The film concerns Lucy Mason (Dakota Johnson) a successful New York-based matchmaker who mostly caters to clients in their thirties and forties. While attending one of her client's weddings, she gets to talking to Harry (played by the omnipresent Pedro Pascal; seriously, he starred in like 1/3 of the movies being screened in that cinema that day), the wealthy brother of the groom whom she attempts to recruit as a client (but he has other ideas). She also runs into John (Chris Evans), an ex-boyfriend and aspiring actor she dumped years prior, and yet who visibly still holds a candle for her.
Right off the bat, let's manage expectations: it's not much like Past Lives, and it's nowhere near as good, but it's still worth a watch.
Past Lives was an intimate, semi-autobiographical character drama about romantic love and Song's own experiences as a Korean immigrant to the West. Here, Song attempts (not entirely successfully) to wed two wholly unlike genres. On the one hand, it's a cold, glassy-eyed and cynical dissection of the economics of modern dating and marriage, in which women marry purely to spite their younger sisters; in which successful career women in their thirties are passed over by their male peers in favour of gorgeous dullards fifteen or twenty years their junior (about whom they have the audacity to complain that they're "immature"); in which Lucy's prospective clients present her with laundry lists of traits their partner must have (no men under 5'11", no women with BMIs over 20). On the other hand, it's a conventional romantic fantasy, in which the female lead has to choose between a wealthy finance bro who's safe but makes her feel nothing, and a starving artist who sends her heart all a-flutter. (No prizes for guessing how she picks.) At times, the dialogue is just as intimate and piercing as anything in Past Lives; at other times, you feel like the characters are reading out choice quotes from /r/femaledatingstrategy. If you've spent enough time in redpill and PUA circles, some of the talking points are sure to inspire a shock of recognition: it's practically a femcel manifesto in cinematic form.
Sadly, Johnson and Evans have very little chemistry with one another. Part of this might just be because of the usual reasons actors don't have chemistry with one another, but I suspect a major contributing factor might be Evans himself. At the time of filming he was a 43-year-old playing a 37-year-old character: looking at his face, I got the distinct impression that he's undergone a lot of Botox and/or cosmetic surgery to maintain a youthful appearance. (No need to do this in his most famous role, for which he mostly wore a mask.) He hasn't gone full Bogdanoff by any means, but whatever procedures he has undergone make it very difficult for him to emote: his skin is simply stretched too tautly across his skull. It was hard for me to believe his character is going through the emotional torpor the screenplay wants me to believe he is when nothing below his cheekbones is conveying this. The fact that men undergoing painful and expensive cosmetic procedures to improve their status in the dating and jobs market is actually a plot point in the film makes me wonder if Evans's casting was intended as some kind of meta-joke.* Johnson's character admits to having had work done on her nose and breasts: I'm dying to know if this is also true of Johnson herself. Nose, perhaps; breasts, probably not.
Johnson and Pascal do have some chemistry with one another, but as my girlfriend pointed out, it's the chemistry you expect between a girl and her gay best friend, or perhaps a girl and her cool uncle. It was hard for me to believe they were romantically interested in one another, even if it's implied that Pascal's character is significantly older than Johnson's (although probably not quite as much as their IRL age gap of ~15 years).
A little funnier than Past Lives, but ultimately it didn't move me nearly as much, even though it was obviously meant to. While watching Past Lives I felt like I was watching real people going about their lives and having genuine conversations, a feeling I never got from Materialists, and I don't think that's just because of the increased star power Song has to work with: a lot of the aforementioned femcel dialogue felt extremely artificial and essayistic. Perhaps the most affecting part of the whole movie is when one of Lucy's clients has been sexually assaulted by a man Lucy set her up on a date with: she angrily throws Lucy's words in her face and tearily insists that she is deserving of love, no matter how much Lucy might urge her to keep her goals realistic. It was a heart-rending scene that has me tearing up a little just thinking about it now. Shame the romantic A-story couldn't inspire anything resembling that kind of raw emotion.
Another data point added to the viewing public's efforts to psychoanalyse Song and her presumably peculiar relationship with her husband, Justin Kuritzkes. Given that both Song's first movie and Kuritzkes's first screenplay (Challengers, directed by Luca Guadagnino) concerned love triangles between a woman and two men, these jokes have been ongoing for some time. Personally, I interpreted Materialists's romantic plot as a spirited defense of Song's decision to marry a sensitive, artsy boy, rather than a wealthy finance bro as her mother presumably wanted her to. At least she had the forethought to marry a successful artsy boy, instead of a loser like John.
*At one point, Lucy and Harry attend a play in which John is starring. A poster for said play mentions that it was written by Celine Song.
Easy ... how?
Countries have tried in both recent and historic times, but AFAIK the only time a national policy has significantly increased TFR (from sub-replacement to above 3) was in Ceausescu's Romania, via "outlawing abortion and contraception, routine pregnancy tests for women, taxes on childlessness, and legal discrimination against childless people". Lots of countries have tried various "carrots" to little effect; it seems like only such big "sticks" work. You'd think China would be uniquely positioned to be that oppressive today, but even for them it might not be possible soon - they only ended the One-Child Policy a decade ago, and it'll be embarrassing (and hence politically risky) for the old guard when they have to admit that continuing it so long was a mistake big enough to require a similarly hard push in the opposite direction.
Even in Romania, fertility didn't stay above 3 for long, though - it was below 2.5 in a few years, and dipping below replacement again well before the policies ended - though it plummeted to 1.5 after, so it's not like the polices weren't still doing something, they just weren't doing enough.
The strongest correlate to fertility is probably the inverse correlation with years of education for females, but I don't know if China is the type of brutal to try fiddling with that. They're certainly not a gender equality utopia, but in higher education women there now outnumber men, despite solidly outnumbered by men in that age range.
More options
Context Copy link