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

Showing 25 of 321 results for

domain:anarchonomicon.substack.com

From the point of view of an average progressive normie playing as a black samurai is awesome and fun, and you're the one who is injecting politics.

God.

Paxton represents everything I dislike about this state. Setting aside his little scandal, he’s a shameless partisan who grandstands whenever he gets the chance. Every AG statement just drips with condescension and/or righteous anger at the opposition. I suppose, given our political climate, that makes him a savvy political operator.

While we have various stupid and offensive laws, I can’t really blame him for enforcing them. But I do not look forward to seeing how he operates with a more deadlocked legislature. Especially if Trump is looking for opportunities to get even.

If they’d released AC2 in current year, the same people would be complaining that beating up the Pope was an attack on Western civilization.

I agree that they should just play better games, though.

Okay, but Yasuke kicks ass. He’s a semi-mythical figure from one of Japan’s most famous historical periods. As a result, I’ve seen callouts to him in some weird places.

Too general.

Communists also have a ‘product’ they want to sell to ‘everybody.’ After decades with half the planet locked behind their ideology, has this co-opted MBAs into a fifth column? No, because there is a competing ideology, and it has a much more credible route to MBA-approved outcomes, like actually having markets or not getting purged.

I actually agree that social justice gains in corporations involve the motives you describe. They’re viewed as money on the sidewalk, better image with little to no downside. I argued such when the Bud Light business demonstrated the downside and when people were reading Super Bowl ads like tea leaves.

The interesting question isn’t “why do MBAs adopt social justice?” It’s “why doesn’t social justice have a credible competitor?”

Maybe it’s down to maintenance?

How long does the conventional rental serve before getting sold off as a used car? I know when I was car shopping, you could pretty low-mileage examples which had that history.

The insurance for rentals has already got to be crazy, so I could see fuel/maint costs making the difference.

There are lots of reasons to oppose Russia/push back on (perceived) Russia partisans even if one thinks Ukraine is doomed. But you may be right if I’m typical-minding.

Interesting that you blame corruption. My intuition at the start was Russia rolling in and destroying major C&C. Maybe not on Desert Storm level, but something relatively fast. In that case, the industry of either side wouldn’t matter too much. Frankly, I assume that’s what Russia expected, too. If they’d known how much money and experience they’d lose to get this far, I would like to think it wouldn’t have happened.

But given that Ukraine didn’t shatter, and instead got this awful slog—now the production is key. And they sure can’t do it on their own dime. As critics have observed, we dumped most of our old and cheap munitions, and are struggling to spin up new production. So is this failure because of corrupt or incompetent procurement? Or were we just not expecting it to come to this?

I realize this sounds like I’m saying “nah, we’d totally win if we weren’t holding back.” Hubristic, right? But there really is a lack of political will. Our politicians even fought over sending the old stuff to this small, faraway, non-NATO country. If that level of intervention was unpopular, is it so surprising that we haven’t kept up in shell production?

jannies are treated as valued curators of harmony, not power tripping egoists.

That applies to almost all jannies here. Alas, there is always that one or two who end up power tripping and should be forbidden from any janny duties that aren't just obvious spam removal. This has been the case since almost the beginning back on reddit.

No, it does not involve any of that even if you talk about papal infallibility doctrine that was so far used twice in history. Catholics do not have to listen to whatever pope says in some interview. So far Catholic Church is against gay marriages in line with Persona Humana doctrine. Just couple of excerpts:

At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.

But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

Women being more likely to have a partner doesn’t make them more promiscuous. I don’t know, it doesn’t seem like you’re reading the statistics correctly.

I've seriously considered voting for him, should he be on the ballot in my state. (Is he going to be on all the ballots or just some of them?)

His voice is bizarre. And the brain worms thing is genuinely concerning. But I feel like we're at a point where the big two options in this election are so clearly and obviously not good for the job that I'm desperate for something I can do to signal my total displeasure at the direction of my country.

I'm a pretty conservative guy, and have become more conservative over the past few years. But I've also never voted for Trump. I have seriously, seriously considered it, not because I think Trump has magically become a better candidate, but because the ways in which lawfare has been invoked in an attempt to limit his influence is totally shameful, an insult to the democratic process, an obvious refusal to follow democratic norms on behalf of a party which continually claims its opposition has abandoned democratic norms.

It's the fact that this hasn't worked, and even backfired, that has made me back off from my initial intention to vote for Trump. Even him winning 45% -- which I think he's likely to do -- would be a solid and profound rebuke of the attempts to use weird lawsuits and criminal trials to bring down a major political candidate. But I am still much more incensed by the Democratic party's use of overblown criminal trials, especially the "hush money" one that seems like nonsense upon stilts, than I am by anything Trump has ever done. The Democratic party is the real threat to democracy in this country, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm also angry about the OSHA vaccine mandate, and Biden's general inability -- especially before the election year -- to actually assert control over the executive branch. He promised he wouldn't mandate the vaccine and he did it. People I know were forced to receive a medical procedure of limited benefit to them, on the basis of shoddy (or outright nonexistent) evidence, pursued by an authority that had no true right to make such a sweeping regulation, and required to continually present evidence of receiving this procedure, which has had utterly no value for at least the past couple of years, in order to maintain employment.

It's clear to me that Biden doesn't control his party, his party controls him. And I'm certain that has always been the case, even before he became senile. And however moderate Biden may have presented himself, his party is anything but moderate or restrained.

And what's worse is they're not even radical in the areas where the country desperately needs radical change. I agree with the tankies: the Democratic party is a party of woke capitalists. They'll talk every single day about "equity" and "diversity" and "racial justice" and "sexism," but when it comes to making real change in the real country, and doing things that help real people on the ground instead of boosting the status of various NGO officials -- they're a fucking joke. When's the last time you heard mainstream Democrats actually taking about real healthcare reform? Or making changes to employee benefits? Or consumer protection? Probably just a few times in the past few months, as the Biden administration has rushed to do a few things at the administrative level in an election year. But it's too little, too late. They burned their political capital on woke signalling and not actual policy, and the country has suffered for it.

Say whatever you will about him. But RFK seems to actually care about the direction of the country. I watched a speech he gave about our lack of direction, how medical debt and economic disparity has damaged our country. I heard him talk about how our young people lack direction and our society gives them no reason to have any. His message resonated with me. He's probably farther left than me, but I don't care -- he's passionate, he seems to my eyes to care about ordinary Americans regardless of their spot in the oppression olympics. He looks like the adult in the room to me, the guy who looks at the state of the country and cries out in the wilderness: something needs to change. I look at all the candidates, and the one who actually seems to care about Making America Great Again is RFK.

I think some of the extremes of his vaccine skepticism are kooky. But I admire the fact that he still seems to care about the crazy stuff we did during the pandemic. He hasn't allowed the mainstream to let him forget about all of our grave moral errors during COVID. I myself was infuriated that the red wave never materialized in 2022, after two years of injustice based on false facts. And I'm infuriated that our politics has devolved into culture warring, or whining on both sides about foreign wars, or paranoia about China, when it's clear to me that this country is facing a demographic implosion, a massive and unprecedented loss of meaning, and a rapid, unstoppable loss of national identity and values. We're re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic and pointing to explosions on far-off iceburgs, when the ship is sinking, taking on the water of anomie, while our young men and young women are sharpening their knives ready to maime each other. We need transformational leadership, and a positive identity.

And I'm not sure RFK will give us that. But I'm damn sure Trump or Biden won't.

It’s “why doesn’t social justice have a credible competitor?”

Unlike liberalism (in the Founding Fathers sense), SJ recognizes threats to it. A liberal institution will permit the rise within it of those who are hostile to it, one captured by wokeists will purge anyone not sufficiently loyal to their ideology, even if the neutrals are loyalty to the institution.

SJs pulled up the ladder which they climbed up upon. So in order for an alternative to form, wholly separate institutions need to be created anew.

One angle I'm somewhat surprised hasn't been brought up much is that this set-up will almost certainly lead to the "problematic" optics of a non-Japanese person running around slaughtering a bunch of Japanese people.

It won't matter in any appreciable way. Some leftists might not like it, but the people who really drive the energies of the progressive movement will, in any conflict between protected groups, come down 100% on the side higher in the progressive stack. This was clear to see during the affirmative action debate, where suddenly children of Asian immigrants were white-adjacent/part of the privileged class.

Back in the before times we had to wait for a new SO to introduce us to friends and family, but apparently now if a man doesn't at least have a sort of "pre-introductory portfolio" in that regard girls worry that they might get the "it puts the lotion on its skin" treatment.

That sure stirred up some thoughts. In rough chronological order order:

  • Boy, am I glad to already be married...

and now if you start to type "dating las vegas" into Google then autocomplete will helpfully suggest "dating last chopper out of nam" instead.

Oh lol, I guess I'm not the only one.

  • We need a total and complete shutdown on America until we figure out what the hell is going on.

  • Butlerian Jihad when?

women are spooked if you don't have an Instagram profile

Instagram specifically, these days?

But I get the spooking. I set up a Facebook account when it first came out, didn't find it interesting, and didn't think about it in connection to dating because I was in an LTR at the time; a few years later another (somewhat younger) girl I dated found that abandoned profile and seemed genuinely weirded out by my not having Friended every person in my life, like I had the profile of a serial killer. I hadn't realized that Facebook had succeeded in growing from "More pretentious Myspace ripoff" to "Indispensable credential of social proof" in just a few years. Back in the before times we had to wait for a new SO to introduce us to friends and family, but apparently now if a man doesn't at least have a sort of "pre-introductory portfolio" in that regard girls worry that they might get the "it puts the lotion on its skin" treatment.

I eventually met my wife on OkCupid, back when dating sites were new and weird, but also deep and suggestive of a more positive future. Then Match bought it out, and swiping-without-depth apps beat it out, and now if you start to type "dating las vegas" into Google then autocomplete will helpfully suggest "dating last chopper out of nam" instead.

Fact is that most boomers enjoy working around the house. Fixing up odds and ends and getting a perfect green lawn are hobbies not chores.

Part of this may be an age thing. I'm not sure why, but my attitude in the last few years has flipped from "ugh, housework" to "maintaining a nice home for myself and my family is worthwhile in itself." I think it's an age and maturity thing.

They recruited a couple untrustworthy people and I spent years scratching my head why we didn't kick the guy who would reply not instantly, like every other scout, but with a 300 ms delay. I didn't trust him from the start because of that and eventually that was proven right a couple years later.

Can you speak more about this feature? Is it some indication of psychopathology?

I guess we’ll see.

The Garrick, a drinking and dining den tucked away on a side street in London, has long been a haunt of Britain's top politicians, actors and lawyers. Women have not been allowed to join — until now.

Have you not played Ghost of Tsushima?

Maintenance is also much cheaper.

Compare to, for example, feminism in Western media.

Yasuke was probably not a samurai, that's a historical question. Many times the women described in these stories - where they function like men in the plot and mechanics - are anatomically impossible.

Yet, almost every single bit of Western media I watch allows this fantasy. I watch something about war or violence and ScarJo or whoever is doing acrobat-jiu-jitsu and throwing around 200lb men. I play a game and the female characters play just like the men even in places where it just doesn't make sense. I watch The Rookie and the 5'4 Latina captain and the 6'0 Nathan Fillion have the same record in fights.

I could complain about this being inaccurate , but I'd be the one swimming against the tide. And looking a bit weird the more insistent I got about it. Even other woke-critical people would be unsympathetic or walk away.

Who is his audience? Covid warriors?

I predict less success than Johnson. The libertarian bloc surely benefited from running against a populist and a Clinton. A protest vote against the current choices isn’t going to look like RFK.

Seriously, I don’t know anyone IRL who supports him. That’s not true for the libertarians, who apparently adopt streets (?!) near me.

Ok, thanks for the info! I might check it out and see if its for me but that wasn't really a ringing endorsement ;)

Wow, there's certainly a lot of conversation going on that I guess I've inspired! I apologize I haven't been active as I've been busy with my personal life, so I don't always participate off of surface level comments.

@you-get-an-upvote

Is correct, I posted the OP, not him. The focus on the male side of the lack of participation in the labor force is simply because that's the current headline and more noticeable trend. Population - wide employment participation seems to rarely fully recover after any financial or social crises. Even 7-8 years after the 2008 financial crisis labor participation never recovered. The male participation is more newsworthy, since the past 25 years has seen a 10% decrease of male labor participation compared to the ~3% decrease in female according to FRED. My goal wasn't to focus solely on males, but rather point out the most noteworthy trends and the underlying reasons behind them.

Whether males or females should increase their participation in employment is another discussion entirely.

/images/17162234284494343.webp

/images/17162234286686988.webp

Even if we grant them that they have discovered a new thing which can carry momentum, I am kind of puzzled about the implications for conservation of energy.

  • Friction and air resistance aside, the most effective method to convert energy into momentum of your vehicle is a railway (or car). The other mass involved in the conservation of momentum is Earth, which is much heavier than your train, so almost all of the energy you invest ends up as kinetic energy in your train. We know from high school physics that the energy you have to invest to reach velocity v is E=m/2vv.

  • Rockets are a lot less energy efficient than that. Because their momentum-balancing mass is much smaller, they end up with most of the energy being carried by the exhaust. Tyranny of the rocket equation and all that.

  • Photon drives powered by onboard reactors may or may not fall under some weird relativistic version of the rocket equation (after all, your reactor will become slightly lighter as it provides energy), but are in any case laughably inefficient.

  • A drive which provides a useful constant, rate of acceleration while using a constant amount of power would be better than the train, eventually, thereby violating conservation of energy.

Another way to think about it: If you are using undiscovered massive particles (perhaps dark matter) to dump your momentum into, the rest system of these particles will define an unique frame of reference. If you are in the rest system, you can accelerate very efficiently with your magical drive: just suck in particles and expel them with a tiny velocity (say 1m/s) to carry your momentum. If you do that for a while and now move through the particles with 10 km/s, you will notice that your job becomes much harder: to carry the same momentum, you will have to accelerate the incoming particles, which you see at 10km/s, to 10.001 km/s. This costs a lot more energy than accelerating them from 0m/s to 1m/s. (You will also see more particles per time, but this will not save you, fundamentally, the amount of energy you require to dump a marginal amount of momentum (dE/dp) will become very unfavorable.)

This of course suggests another test for the emDrive: Michelson-Morley experiment, dark matter edition. Measure the thrust per energy (probably in z direction, so don't pick the poles?) at different times of the day and the year, so that the relative velocity of the particles in the direction of the thrust is different. If you get fluctuations consistent with Earth moving through some particle field, this should be enough for at least one Nobel.