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

Showing 19 of 19 results for

domain:imgur.com

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.

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).

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.

"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?

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.

Defect:cooperate pays the best (for the defector), or else there wouldn't really be much of a dilemma, would there?

All (mostly) fair questions but I'm a bit preoccupied at the moment and probably won't be able to respond substantively until tomorrow at the soonest. Thanks for asking.

This is a good point. I'd extend it even further. I think a lot of heat arises from the fact that news media brings political conflict right to our faces, but doesn't give an outlet that viscerally feels like retaliating.

I think this is a major cause of the phenomena of "progressive woman screams at her phone camera" videos. It's why people spiral deeper and deeper into violent ideation. If they redistrict us and then we redistrict them back, it just doesn't feel like a proper retaliation to an ape brain that expects retaliation to feel like knuckles violently impacting something. The endocrine response is just frustrated.

So we do a 2X tat, but it feels like a 0.1X tat, so we demand a 20X tat.

Multiple by emotional incontinence, mental illness, and arrested development.

Jedi fallen order is the biggest game that Disney star wars has produced by far and that was released in 2019. That should only have been 1.2 billion in revenue though.

There are different types of advice, and some of the threads here bring up different criticisms of each thing, or ignore other things.

  1. A hard thing is worth doing. - "Tough Love"
  2. How to make a hard thing easier to do. - "Fun Facts"
  3. How to be better than others at a thing. -"Winning"
  4. A thing you might like to do or want to do is a bad idea - Warnings

Tough Love advice is something I only give heavily caveated as "this worked for me". If it isn't something I've done I avoid giving this kind of advice to anyone outside of family and very close friends. For dieting this would be me suggesting that people cut out sugar or go low carb. It's worked for me, but it wasn't easy and it may not work for everyone (see the caveats).

Fun facts might already be known, or too broad to be useful. If someone I don't know asks for advice this is generally what I'll try to give them. For dieting this would be me mentioning that hard liquor and bacon generally don't have much sugar or carbs (unless it is added).

Winning advice becomes worthless when adopted too widely. I generally offer this advice not as a personal experience but as an example of someone else I know doing well at it. If you offer this as personal experience it just sounds like bragging. "Yeah I did much better at dating after I started working out and getting a good haircut" vs "My friend saw his dating prospects improve after he started working out and getting a nice haircut".

Warnings need to have clear consequences laid out. And people need to believe you about those consequences. "Ingesting a large amount of cyanide will painfully kill you" Otherwise warnings just sound like threats. Sometimes warnings are just threats. "Trespassers will be shot". Warnings where you personally suffered the consequences are better than the alternative "I drank a lot of soda and ate tons of sugary food and got diabetes by age 30"


Giving good advice

There does seem to be a lot of blame going around for people not taking advice. But giving good advice is a skill too. I see it as an important life skill, because I'd like my friends and those I care about to do better. When giving advice you should consider why you feel the need to give the advice. Unsolicited advice is rarely received well. Advice that is just meant to put down the receiver or build up the giver isn't much help, and possibly doesn't even deserve the label of "advice".

There are only three people in the world that I think should definitely listen to all of my advice, and those three people are my kids. If I'm not making a warning/threat about defending myself then my advice is mostly informational, you can take it and account for it in your actions but I see no reason for you to be obligated to follow it, or even believe it is correct.

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.

Analysis paralysis is definitely a part of it. I feel like there are twin traps, one of analysis, the other the fact that continued inaction seems to have a momentum all it's own. Analysis paralysis might get you into the trap of inaction, but inaction's own gravity keeps you there.

But there is also this aspect where our modern society seems to be producing and entire oversocialized professional and expert class. They're risk averse and initiative averse to a degree which stifles all human actions, and they are supposed to be our betters to whom we listen.

I would trust the blue collar BJJ coach who barely graduated highschool far more than the PhD trying to give me advice. And on a lot more than BJJ at that.

Why is the Father God and not Jesus?

God to me isn't a Person, He's a Nature that three Persons share. That's why I can't tell you if someone is God without knowing what it is. That is probably a huge unspoken difference here, when I say God does something I could be referencing the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.

So you hold the Father specifically in esteem because He is our creator, and when you say God you mean the Father. How odd my responses must seem to you! In that case, if you tautologically define God as the Father, then the question becomes different as to would God be God if he did not have God's nature. I don't feel like that brings me any closer to understanding why God matters to you. The word "God" has great significance that I feel like you're copying the vibe of but then using it to refer to something else. Like having a conversation about Jesus and then someone reveals they've been talking about their gardener this whole time.

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.

I don't think Intel is relevant in the current AI race.

I think we should probably be more specific, its social media and algo driven content serving (especially short form) that's the issue, not watching movies on your phone or w/e.

There are plenty of studies that show this, its not some kind of new and unknown subject. The issue isn't that we don't know what's harmful, it's that there are powerful commercial interests opposing regulation. It's the same thing with online casinos, it's not the internet that's the issue, it's specifically the gambling sites.

I don’t think tariffs are a central Vance belief at all. If you oppose them it would be easier to lobby him personally in 2028 as presumptive Republican nominee than to convince people to oppose any Republican candidate on that basis.

It's possible he personally thinks they are a bad idea, but he has to signal protectionism,, as that is what is popular with voters and necessary to win the primaries. Trump has shown the winning playbook and I cannot see his successor deviating much from it, at least not during the campaign.

Perhaps he hopes viewers will become better informed about trade, to dissuade them from voting for the presumptive GOP nominee, that being JD Vance, who supports tariffs?

I don’t think tariffs are a central Vance belief at all. If you oppose them it would be easier to lobby him personally in 2028 as presumptive Republican nominee than to convince people to oppose any Republican candidate on that basis.

My guess is that this is an entirely personal project in which Ballmer, who is a centrist liberal, wants to ‘make an impact’ for the usual combination of civic and personal pride reasons, and has possibly been conned by one of the usual media grifter types into pouring a huge amount of money into it (but a pittance for him). The producers or other organization producing these can claim a comfortable $250k salary for “video production” or whatever, which Ballmer personally probably doesn’t know or care about, and do some light work and get taken out to lunch and invited to parties by cool ad agency people who want the spend.

The videos also star him personally, which again is less “influence operation” and more “I want the people to know who I am and feel like I’m sharing my wisdom with the world”.

Trump frequently changes his mind though. We saw this with tariffs.

A person like Scott Lincicome of CATO truly believes that government taking equity of private enterprise is bad policy, and thus it's easy for him to critique it.

And you see with libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul, Justin Amash and Thomas Massie criticizing the Intel buy

The rise of Trump, who copied the same protectionism of Biden, on top of Obama, has basically revealed the libertarian-adjacent wing of the GOP to be ineffectual. These people forever have been on the losing side, save for Ross Ulbricht pardon. Their publications and think tanks are utterly ignored by anyone of importance. They are screaming into the wind. It has always been that way, but it's like what a waste of money promoting all those libertarian causes. I think this shows that some flexibility is good, and Trump's successes is illustrative of this. Otherwise you just become obsolete and end up wasting money and time.

There are a great many situations where your statement would be obviously untrue. Should cons start getting abortions to own the libs?

Good post.

I think where a lot of people get stuck is in waiting for the perfect piece of advice.

Line I read that stuck with me that I think applies beyond the specific instance - "Too many get stuck in analysis paralysis, worrying about the “right” source of knowledge: CLRS, TAoCP, Sedgewick, Skiena, Roughgarden, Dasgupta… you don’t need to obsess over these. Just pick something, get a foundation, and immediately move on to practice. You will learn everything from pattern recognition" (its from https://www.bowtiedfox.com/p/faang)

It's what I was trying to get at, but am not quite eloquent enough to put into words well, I think when you're young (at least I did when I was young), there's this mindset that if I follow out suboptimal advice, I'm wasting my time or I'm screwing myself over.

Being older, I think you learn a lot just by iterating over a lot of different things.

I should exercise and eat better than I do, that said, unless you're a professional athlete, starting down any path is 80% of it.