domain:arjunpanickssery.substack.com
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
6m ago
You can't make all advice part of yourself, though. For the same reason that you cannot be every class at once in an RPG game.
Agreed, you can't be universally naively trusting. You can end up following really bad advice, or you can end up endlessly switching paths as you are persuaded by new advice. In an RPG, if you never specialize down any skill tree, you never reach the higher level skills that make the whole thing work.
I don't entirely disagree with negative traits of modern people, but resisting submission does make sense from one perspective. Think of it like an immune system.
What do we call someone with an immune system that attacks vital organs? Sick or healthy?
Most people who preach something merely want your money. Most people who do speeches merely want you to invest in their cause. Most charities are scams. Everything competes for our attention and uses advanced techniques to manipulate us for the sake of making money.
Was this less true in the past, or is it merely that the grifters of yesteryear have mostly been forgotten?
It's perhaps true that much of the clergy was cynically parasitic on the medieval body politic. But that's a different question from whether they were net positive!
07mk
8m ago
There are some people that treat advice as a full on gift giving process. They expect accolades for giving the gift. They expect the receiver to at least pretend that they liked the gift. And the gift they'd always like in return is for the receiver to act on their advice. This seems like a toxic approach to me.
As an aside, this seems like a toxic approach to gift-giving, not just advice-giving. The entire point of a gift is that you're giving it to someone without expectation for anything in return; that's the very nature of the gift that makes it a gift, as otherwise it would be an implicit bribe or payment. The gratitude and pomp and circumstance can be pleasant and even appreciated when they're there, but expecting it in return for a gift means that it wasn't a gift in the first place, it was a payment, in order to get the receiver to play-act the part of "grateful gift recipient" for the gift giver's satisfaction.
gattsuru
9m ago
They're not nVidia (and not even Intel's own foundry, lol), but the ARC models are encouraging. A bit better for inference in raw specs than an nVidia 4060, mostly hampered by poor software support that's quickly improving, and that the chips themselves are just coming from whatever spare time is available on a mostly-saturated TSMC line.
If Intel can get the software support figured out, and get their own foundry up and running, they'll have a pretty major impact on the market. But while the former isn't a huge leap of faith, the latter has got a lot of question marks on whether they're even going to try for it.
Doubletree3
10m ago
but can anyone name a single time Democrats opted for grace and forgiveness, for not "punching back twice as hard", for not "sending one of theirs to the morgue"?
This is quite easy. Unfortunately from the rest of your post I suspect you have quite a different standard of evidence than the plain meaning of your words as written. But here goes anyway. If your standard is, "John McCain telling his supporters to be less racist", then here is a symmetric example:
Former Vice President Joe Biden spoke out against the suppression of speakers and defended free speech during an event Tuesday with Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R.).
Speaking to an audience at his alma mater, the University of Delaware, Biden said shouting down speakers is "simply wrong." Biden noted that when he was going through college, free speech was also at the forefront but it was those on the left who were "shouted down when they spoke."
"Liberals have very short memories," Biden said. "I mean that sincerely."
Biden placed blame on those who have engaged in "violence" by stopping speakers from speaking.
https://freebeacon.com/issues/joe-biden-on-free-speech-liberals-have-very-short-memories/
roystgnr
11m ago
with 10-20% of human genes estimated to be pleiotropic.
Citation needed?
This 2011 study finds 16.9% of studied genes show pleiotropic effects, but that's not an estimate, that's where "Only SNP-trait associations reporting genome-wide significance (p < 5 × 10⁻⁸) were considered". By 2017 we have "44% of genes reported in the GWAS catalog associating with more than one phenotype. The proportion of genes shown to be pleiotropic has continued to increase as more studies are added to the catalog." Then by 2019 we're at "11,544 (65.9%) genes were associated with at least one trait (Supplementary Table 7). Of these, 81.2% were associated with more than one trait and 67.2% with traits from multiple domains".
TwiceHuman
21m ago
Psyops about having less kids because of the climate crisis
This is just propaganda. It's often said in a condescending and accusatory tone, along the line of "do X or you're a bad person". You can recognize this sort of thing by its use of manipulation methods like guilt tripping, instilling fear or insecurity, or making you feel like the world will be against you if refuse. Advice should benefit you and want nothing in return. I find older self-help books (pre-2000) to be rather enjoyable
gattsuru
24m ago
Just no one has even tried to explain how exactly government buying up and owning private enterprise is a smart idea (something that we've been saying isn't good for decades) and why it's a solid goal towards improving the nation's economy and wealth.
... to steelman the counter-Lincicome argument:
High-grade semiconductors have massive military and economic importance. There are a variety of things that either can't be done, or can only be done on glacial timescales, just going from <10nm to 100nm process scales, due to thermal, electrical, and latency issues. Losing the ability to produce or source those processors would put a country literally twenty years back; having them sourced to a supply chain that's opposed to that nation risks serious security and core functionality threats. AI is the current-day focus, but these tools are necessary for everything from telecommunications to hardware control to transportation in their 'conventional' programmed form.
((It's actually worse than it sounds, because in a lot of military and industry roles you can't just switch out a scavenged motherboard and CPU and call it good enough. In extreme cases, you end up with very specific chips not just to manufacturer or generation but even specific chips. On the upside, the smarter businesses buy in bulk. On the downside, there's a lot of buyers that aren't smarter, or things in-development that can't be undone.))
Lincicome discusses government support for Intel as stiffling third-party competitors, but this is a class that basically doesn't exist, here. AMD and RISC-V and everyone else even remotely in the field either depend on Intel or Taiwan, or on Chinese manufacturers. There are no other <10nm foundries in the United States or even Western Europe, and the closest companies as a process level (STM, Micron, maybe Motorola if you squint) are neither capable of nor interested in micro_processor_ work at the desktop scale. Any attempts, even attempts using third-party foundries oversees, have ended poorly, as anyone who recognizes the name VIA might recognize. Any model for how those systems could respond to a complete collapse of Intel is necessarily guesswork, but I've seen credible estimates of 10+ year timelines to bring even mid-end devices assuming everything works out perfectly the first go.
Meanwhile, the competition is not exactly operating from a free market. TSMC is the closest, and it's a national project for Taiwan, unsurprisingly with how much of its economy revolves around the business, and one part of that is Taiwan gave the company a giant pile of seed cash in exchange for just-shy-of-half of its ownership, and other parts involve widespread continuing indirect subsidies on its major material costs. The Chinese government doesn't exactly give out the most honest breakdowns for how its subsidizes foundries, but even ignoring the !!fun!! question of industrial espionage with CCP characteristics, the official numbers are significant and come with very pre-2018-Jack-Ma-sized strings.
Which could be surmountable. Intel, as recently as 2015, was still on top of the world, to a point where people were worried AMD would go under.
But it's gone from merely slightly behind-the-curve in 2019 to consistently the less-good choice across entire fields, often by significant margins and with no or negative price premium, along with a number of serious stability and reliability concerns due to manufacturing defects. And that's worse than it sounds. Chips and foundry technologies are costly not just to produce, but also to fail to sell, both due to how the sales model works and due to rapid depreciation. To skip over a whole bunch of technical details, they're in a cash crunch at the same time that they need a lot of investment to not be in more of a cash crunch unless they want to turn into a second- or even third-rate foundry.
((There's also some messiness involving Intel ARC, which is both strategically very important to the Western world's military, not obvious, and which has an entertainment business case that it's only barely starting to credibly begin to compete with kinda, but is a short investment away from being a really big deal.))
Which might just be the only achievable result, if we trusted Intel to be doing (or trying) the best thing. But there's a lot of reasons to be skeptical. The current CEO and board have been abandoning new development processes since December of last year. Critics have focused on said CEO's ties to the CCP, and to be fair those do exist! But even if Intel was making these decisions from a solely economic basis, they're overwhelmingly emphasizing matters to maintain stock price over either the availability of next-gen onshore foundries or the company's long-term dominance or relevance as a first-tier manufacturer. The actions here are ways to credibly commit both the US government to continued (or starting) the funding it claimed it would provide, and Intel to actually running the things.
It's not that the conventional criticisms of crony capitalism stopped existing! There are significant risks to this sort of investment and (tbf, minimal) control. But there are tradeoffs and risks to non-action, and Lincicome seems neither willing nor able to even consider them.
Tenaz
26m ago
Why is the Father God and not Jesus?
They both are.
when I say God does something I could be referencing the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.
Yes, me too.
So you hold the Father specifically in esteem because He is our creator, and when you say God you mean the Father.
Eh, I do think they're separate people, but when I say "God" I'm referring to the Father or to the other two acting in his stead. I certainly hold them all in esteem as God.
Anyways, I don't really see why you bring up the trinity here. Jesus said his Father sent him, and his father is God, so I think it's accurate to say that God sent Jesus even if you hold to the Trinitarian definition.
With your wife, I'm wiling to bet you do reason from first principles sometimes. By this I mean, you know she is a woman, which means that she has weeks where one hormone is dominant, weeks were another hormone is dominant, sometimes gets pregnant, etc. Knowing this, I suspect that your response to her changes depending on knowledge you have of her that pre-exists knowing her. You know pregnant women need late night ice cream randomly, for example, even before the experience of your wife kicking you out of bed at 11PM to go get pickle juice and chocolate.
This still isn't first principles; first principles would be something like inventing the concept of women from whole cloth based on extremely abstract ideals. I'd describe what you're talking about as top-down reasoning (applying principles to reality), as opposed to bottom-up reasoning where you observe reality and try to build principles from your observations. When I talk about first principles I'm referring to the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, and similar arguments.
That's why I can't tell you if someone is God without knowing what it is.
And this is where we disagree! I think the entity that is described in the Old and New Testament is God even if his actual nature is very different from what I expect.
quiet_NaN
27m ago
I do not think that MAGA has a large overlap with old school conservatives. Trump can be adequately modeled by assuming that he is maximizing his personal power and profit, without any political convictions beyond "I should be president".
For him personally, the move makes sense. He gets all the influence (while he is president) without personally paying for the shares, and the people voting for him are mostly indifferent towards that deal.
I am not sure why he would prioritize Intel over social media companies, though.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
33m ago
Aww, heck. I didn’t even realize the ambiguity.
I was trying to say that it’s a very small circle. Almost no one treats SJ as an existential threat. Out of the handful that do, most of them are otherwise disillusioned with liberalism. Plans to quarantine/exile/execute SJWs are firmly in the lunatic fringe. They barely even make it into the alt-discourse.
Now, I was also thinking that there were almost no liberalism skeptics who got there without developing a distaste for SJ. @magic9mushroom pointed out the obvious counterexample. So I suppose the illiberalism circle should fully contain the existential-SJ circle, rather than perfectly overlap it.
TwiceHuman
37m ago
I don't entirely disagree with negative traits of modern people, but resisting submission does make sense from one perspective. Think of it like an immune system. Most people who preach something merely want your money. Most people who do speeches merely want you to invest in their cause. Most charities are scams. Everything competes for our attention and uses advanced techniques to manipulate us for the sake of making money.
Over time, one learns to have one hell of a strong defense mechanism. I can drink alcohol until I struggle to stand, and I will still remain rational. I'm immune to hypnosis, I sometimes notice that I'm dreaming because I realize that something is wrong. I've been suicidal and I've been rather manic, and in both cases, those around me wouldn't notice unless I told them.
To trust somebody with all your heart, to give yourself to something else, to invest 100% in one thing, to let down your guard entirely, these are all powerful choices, and people who can choose them tend to be wonderful people, but life simply teaches us that this is naive and dangerous. So we become superficial narcissists who don't commit to anything unless it offers immediate rewards.
I hope to be more healthy, but it requires staying in a healthy environment, and there's less of these by the year.
You can't make all advice part of yourself, though. For the same reason that you cannot be every class at once in an RPG game. There's very much "paths" to take in life, and advice which is good for some people, but incompatible with ones path. "one man's meat is another man's poison" and such. Nietzsche seems to value a sort of purity when he says "With fifty blotches painted on your face and limbs, thus you sat there to my amazement, you people of the present!". He certainly seems to advice against nitpicking a bit of everything and plastering it on yourself.
Corvos
43m ago
It’s hard to cleanly separate questions of value and questions of fact because our values influence what we think about the facts.
1000x this. Which to my mind is the true and valuable insight hidden at the heart of post-modernism.
atelier
Jimmys: unrustled
52m ago
I think at the pro level it's not just giving advice it's also serving as mediator, strategist, advisor and sometimes main talent evaluator that really is too much for most coaches (especially at the NFL level). Plus the salary cap comes for the best players and often the best schemes to make use of cast off talent.
One of the reasons I didn't use Phil Jackson as my example is I don't think he was that much better at giving advice, but he was really good at managing the egos and team dynamics of all his players better than most (I think that's clear from his success with both the MJ Bulls and Kobe and Shaq Lakers).
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
53m ago
There is no such thing as apolitical government data. He has an agenda, and I’d suggest finding it by looking at the types of data he’s highlighting, and especially any sorts of data he’s not highlighted. My suspicion is that he’s pushing a Trump-bad narrative by digging up data sets that make Trump look bad. If the GOP wanted to push a narrative through the data, they can simply put it on their various platforms and move along.
jkf
53m ago
"First do no harm," my guy -- "not that effective" is a very different from "may have killed my wife/kid".
Then there's the fact that Russia and China adopted mRNA vaccines several years after the West.
Russia and China didn't adopt MRNA vaccines in any serious way at all, unless I'm missing something?
Why wouldn't they take their perfect opportunity to screw over the West by boosting claims that mRNA vaccines cause novel harm
Who says they aren't?
2rafa
57m ago
The public aren’t interested in the nuance of trade policy. Vance can be pro-tariff in the primaries and then after taking office sign various “incredible deals” that lower rates.
It's reasoning from nature. You deduce your wife's nature from your senses and then reason from that nature to other things.
It's the same with me and God, just His nature is different from your wife's.
Have you ever had someone who agrees with the Cosmological argument explain it, asked them questions, etc? Or is your exposure mainly by people who don't agree with it giving their rebuttals?
But then what does God mean? Is it any different from telling me that the entity described in the Old Testament is a Lion or a Blogalsnarf? It doesn't mean anything to be God unless there is a something that God means.
More options
Context Copy link