domain:slatestarcodex.com
why you have an entire American film genre whose recurring central theme boils down to "police brutality is good"
You do? At least since High Obama we've had an entire American film genre whose recurring central theme boils down to "police brutality is bad", and even before that stuff like "Death Wish" with the moral of "VIGILANTE brutality is good, police are useless" tended to predominate.
Commander Riker beard
I call it the circle beard myself. I also call it a Van Dyck, but now I realize that's where the goatee is separate from the moustache.
Do you have a cleaner word for that type of person?
Some domains they struggle with wordplay for tokenization reasons, especially for matters like rhyming, counting syllables, so on. Dunno if this is one of them.
This may be an artifact of the LLMs you're using being trained to avoid the idea space you're working around, although like SubstantialFrivolity I'll admit I don't know the 'right' answer, either. Nevoria, which is trained on a lot of sexual chat, gave ""A Peter Puffer" and "A Rod Rocket", which doesn't seem awful even if I'd have gone with something like "Fred Fluffer", but I get the feeling that there's some specific domain knowledge that I'm missing.
I don't think this is necessarily true. Most dictators die peacefully in their sleep. Stalin left behind a Stalinist empire that outlived him by decades which was peacefully replaced by a 10 year halfhearted USA larp and finally the current dictator whose ideology is "OK maybe actually applied Stalinism doesn't work but it shouldn't diminish our love for the Stalin Who's In Our Hearts".
Speak for yourself, I want my output to be part of the machine god.
This. Yudkowsky and his followers are just worried they won't get their preferred version of the afterlife, that instead of techno-heaven-where-everyone-is-an-angel-living-in-the-clouds they will get techno-apokatastasis
Thanks, this is a good idea
Calling someone a shit-anything is clearly a boo-light.
It wasn't meant as a boo outgroup. I just thought it's a good shorthand descriptor that everyone here would understand. Apparently not.
The "shitlib" is the type of American Democrat, blue no matter who, woke, feminist, BLM, big fan of trans and Gaza at the same time, blank slatist, protects (favored) groups as legitimate victims but doesn't really protect individuals, hates the West and its capitalist system, favors anyone outside it, etc etc. It's a certain type of person, often blue-haired or gay and vegan, heavy on language policing, previously a verified check user on Twitter, now on bluesky. You get the picture.
Personally I've just never understood what that word is supposed to signify. Irritates me when I see it because I think, there has to be a better way to express whatever it is that you're trying to tell me.
Yeah I'm just used to having very explicit entry and exit stations from countries. I don't think I've ever seen anybody actually barred, but atleast a quick look at a passport before ushering people into international limbo.
Honestly vaguely worried I'm in some random DHS checklist as an overstayer even though I very much complied with my suggested itinerary.
A modest proposal: Replace all social science professors with economists.
They have the methodological training and interests to fully replace sociology, political science, and much of anthropology, psychology, etc.
They're only moderately left leaning instead of being dogmatically so.
And there's currently a surge of economists desperate for work thanks to the government hiring freezes. Now is the perfect time to strike!
Notre Dame supplies a template for purging marxists from the academy. They formed a new "econometrics" department, gave them the courses that students actually need to take. Then after enrollment in the old "heterodox" econ department withered, they binned the entire thing. (Tenure only protects individual faculty; entire departments can still be shut down if they aren't financially viable.)
In fairness I have no idea what your riddle is getting at either. But the answer to all the "why are they bad at X" questions is "because they aren't actually intelligent".
I really enjoyed my Agape Ring run of DS2.
In short, you run a particular sequence at the start of the game, get the Agape Ring early on, and permanently lock your progression at the lowest tier of matchmaking (<40k souls collected).
I found it much better than new game+ for a good challenge.
Yeah, this kind of game design annoys me (although I'm not entirely sure what to do about it). On the one hand, Souls games show you numeric stats -- in fact, you quite literally select which number to increase when you level up, which is a huge amount of freedom in control over numbers. So it looks like you're supposed to care about numbers. But on the other hand, the numbers often behave counterintuitively, and further, the games often hide numbers from you where the value of the number is the only thing of any relevance: e.g., you get an item that "boots fire damage". Ok, boosts by how much? Is it a 5% boost? A 50% boost? Double? It's like the game wants the player to think this is irrelevant, yet even 2 seconds of thought shows it cannot possibly be irrelevant: whether the item is good or not is entirely determined by how big that damn number is!
The especially silly thing is Souls gameplay in particular would be fine with all of this drastically simplified, or even eliminated. The fun part of Souls is learning boss routines and experimenting with new weapons and skills. You could almost get rid of the numbers entirely and still retain what makes the games fun.
This is happening in a society that is so culturally different as to make comparisons of that nature meaningless.
Amorphous Plus (downloadable as part of the Flashpoint Archive)
Anyone knows good games with top-down action gameplay like Last Stand Aftermath, Ruiner or The Ascent?
My first introduction to Soulslike games was Bloodborne. And it was a very short introduction due to me selecting the cane starting weapon and trying to make sense of it for several hours. Cane is an ASS of a starting weapon for someone not familiar with the gameplay. I was very pissed that day. Especially when I complained to a friend and he basically said "Yeah, everyone knows the saw is way better starting weapon, DUH".
Knock it off with "shitlibs." This isn't that kind of place even if the majority sentiment agrees with you.
I think that "hard status" is a terrible name for that axis. "physical status" and "body-inferred status" might be better.
I had a really hard time naming the two axes. First I had "male power" and "female power" but it became so conflated when I began to imagine two different charts. Then I thought of calling "hard status" "power" and "soft status" "status" but it wasn't exactly right either. I kept changing it, ended up with "hard status" and "soft status" and thought it worked well enough to illustrate the point and just went with it.
And social status is obviously contingent on the society you are considering. Plenty of cultures value Mohammed a lot more than Buddha.
I said as much in another comment here, I wasn't really claiming and omniscient point of view in my ranking, things are highly subjective in general even as I try to disentangle something universal
Why are LLMs so bad at wordplay? I asked them "What is the favorite sex toy of Linda Load and Diana Doll?", explicitly stating that it's a wordplay riddle, and none of them got it right.
The western shitlibs progressives are the only group in the world who don't favor their own group. Their favorite victim group, American blacks, have more ingroup/anti outgroup bias than anyone tested, if I remember correctly.
They are first conditioned not to notice ANY physical advantages of black people over whites
The progressive is trained to have a phobia reaction to intellectual or moral differences only. He is perfectly fine saying white people can’t dance or white people have no rhythm, but if you ask if this is genetic he will say no. And while it’s easy to train someone into believing that everyone has the same baseline genetic intelligence / morality, it’s next to impossible to persuade a human that athletic power doesn’t matter, because that’s a primal indicator of power that goes back millions of years to pre-human ancestors. And we live in a world that valorizes the athletic from the middle school level on. The big adolescence coming of age ritual for Americans revolves around sportsball homecoming. I’m not saying this on top of your theory, but just from an evpsych understanding: men are biased to respect men who are physically stronger and better at performing an athletic activity. Especially if they represent your school tribe. This is one of the reasons that we have an ingrained bias toward height. Culture can find ways to reduce this inclination, but in the West we don’t have that kind of culture, as even our Christians worship sports (they used to be banned). In China, where grades are so much more important and where academic success is honored in society-wide festivals, like doing well on the Gaonkao exam (definitely misspelling but won’t be googling), this bias is probably reduced.
this only strengthens their conviction that the poor blacks are ONLY victims in ANY circumstance because they do worse in every single category of soft status that they (the progressives) value- test scores, iq tests, academic achievement, wage payments, career advancement, you name it
The average progressive isn’t doing a 200iq/eq Magnus Carlson-think on the chess board of sociopolitics. They have been taught that everyone is genetically the same, and have been taught that Blacks are oppressed, and this works to induce the closely-guarded assumption that Blacks cannot be blamed for their intellectual or moral failings. A random teenager from the whitest town of Maine will think this just as much as a hyper-educated Ivy graduate who lives in gentrified Harlem. They are doing the same amount of thinking / unthinking.
If you believe in blank slate you believe that whites are exactly the same as blacks
Progressives retain a belief in free will. Everyone starts with the same genetic resources, but some people are good and some are bad. White people only have themselves to blame for their failure to do well in sports and rap. Especially when they have all the riches that they willingly and evilly stole from the rest of the world. This is approximately their belief.
I think white progressives only hold their beliefs out of a deep sense of arrogance and certainty in their own superiority
There are some studies showing that white progressives have a negative in-group preference, whereas white conservatives and blacks do not. They genuinely don’t like themselves and instead like minorities.
I defended your earlier posts against point-and-sputter sneering, but a lot of the peanut gallery's objections are starting to hit home. Why the repeated, winking reference to the color of the Hajnals vs. Tropicals' skin? If Tidus isn't earth because you want to sneak great truths into propagandized minds through metaphor, there's really no worse way to do this than raising the "That's Racist!" shields every westerner got drilled into his head in school.
In addition, you earlier replied to a comment of mine saying you'd address my critique of De Gobineau that all of the original 'Race of Kings' died off and were replaced with elevated commoners but I don't see how you did this. Maybe the bit about how the industrial revolution causes the laziest Hajnals to not reproduce? I remind you your original portrait of Tidus is of King-race nobles ruling over their fogheaded underlings regardless of skin color of the said underlings. Now we're supposed to believe a few decades of accidental eugenics have turned Hajnal factory-workers into Kings themselves, whereas the melinated Tropicals are irredeemably bad, stupid and violence-prone, immune to the same selection pressures of the industrial revolution?
More options
Context Copy link