domain:tracingwoodgrains.com
jkf
17m ago
Even if she's (probably) lying, Alice likely isn't stupid enough to pull the same trick on the next turn, so in the short-term, Bob's best bet is to hit cooperate on the next turn too.
If Bob thinks Alice is more likely to cooperate immediately after her defection, isn't his short term best bet to also defect immediately since there's less risk of accidentally aligning his defection with one of Alice's random ones and ending up at defect-defect?
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
19m ago
The Venn diagram between “thinks SJ is existentially dangerous” and “has given up on liberalism” is damn close to a circle.
Much of SJ is in the latter but not the former.
Killing some percentage of the population is not in the liberal Overton window.
I will cop to being a serial breaker of Overton windows. It's really quite hilarious the things people say when one does so; "are you Darkseid" and "what's next, revealing your family's secret rape dungeon" are some of the more memorable (though I've gotten really, really sick of "you're a child molestor").
Throwaway05
37m ago
Physical books or kindle + libgen. I find reading on the phone to be terrible, and really, kindle isn't great either.
Some of this is different strokes for different folks - I would never in a million years ago back to a separate music player.
I will say that I have a kindle and used it over my phone for a long time until I got an oversized phone and then suddenly reading on the phone didn't bother me.
hydroacetylene
38m ago
The government is neither owning intel, nor directing policy there. The government is owning ten percent of intel’s stock and voting with the board of directors.
That’s perfectly reasonable as a condition of government grants(which were already going). This way the government at least gets dividend revenue.
MadMonzer
Pedo! Pedo! Pedo! Out! Out! Out!
42m ago
Actual, formal criminal investigations of prominent political opponents announced by law enforcement agencies? Three - James Comey, John Brennan, and John Bolton, versus zero at this stage of the Biden administration. Part of the reason why I described the Biden administration's response to Trump's election antics as milquetoast was that Merrick Garland slow-walked things to the point where Trump could and did delay any trials until after the 2024 election.
Targetted investigations of prominent political opponents intended (based on public statements by the White House or Congressional leadership) to lead to formal criminal referrals in the future - lots (the exact number is unclear because I don't know how many of the investigations Trump announces on social media actually happen) , versus one federal investigation at this stage of the Biden administration (the House Jan 6th committee). There was also the NY State investigation into the Trump organisation.
Given how slowly the justice system works (and did work against Trump, and will work for him), the claim that Trump is doing less lawfare than Biden is a claim that he is incompetent or unserious and the lawfare he is announcing won't actually happen over the next three and a half years. I agree this is plausible.
Tiber727
44m ago
Oh no, "encroachments" stage was decades before. The last 20 years was "the walls are breached, time to burn and pillage!" stage.
Must everything be so over-dramatic? Berlin is not burning. Hirohoto has not announced surrender. Trump is not the last hurrah of the right. Trump is one of the least popular presidents in history, but the Democrats are even less popular. Gen Z is shifting right. The pendulum swung too far, and is now swinging back. It will swing again and again, as it has the entirety of history.
Like what? Let's take the inventory. The mass culture is about 90%, it's not that right-coded entertainment doesn't come out, but it comes out maybe once a year or less, and is always a huge controversy...
Mass culture is 90% left? Sure, agreed. Right-coded entertainment causes controversy? Eh. Your usual leftists on Reddit and some websites, mostly many small ones, complain about it, but does that really amount to anything?
I work for a woke company you've heard of. What's it like day-to-day? The once a year HR training has some eye-rolling sections. I get some emails about whatever group's day or month it is that I delete. I don't talk politics at work, which is good advice always. That's about it. Completely anecdotal, but I've heard one guy say he reviews applications at a university, and the only attention he pays to the mandatory "what have you done to promote diversity?" question is judging their writing ability. Whether he was lying or all professors do, I can't tell you. I'm making the argument that life is often pretty banal. Supposedly the students are more woke than many of the professors.
With regards to big business, to some degree yes. A decent number of them are scaling it back. Disney is realizing that young men have stopped watching and that's a massive amount of money being left on the table. Billionaires tend towards the woke when it doesn't notably affect their bottom line. They aren't rushing to implement socialism or raise the minimum wage.
If we can't find any, or can't find a list as comprehensive and powerful, then demanding the right stops fighting back - without any history of prior consistent and prolonged demand to do the same from the left, at least - can not be read as anything but telling the right "why can't you just lose quietly so we all can stop this unpleasantness?". It is not hard to see why the right wouldn't look favorably on such approach.
I'm not asking the right to lose, or to stop fighting. I'm saying the left lost themselves to BLM and became a parody of themselves because everything was so awful they had to do this and that. I think the right is becoming the party of nothing but political grievances and emotional overreactions in much the same way. Political parties always fight. The fight over slavery would probably make today's fight over "wokeness" a joke even aside from the literal civil war era.
What I am saying is maybe get off the internet and step back a bit. Things aren't great but America isn't collapsing either. "Burn the institutions and salt the Earth!" is cringe and could possibly cost you the normie vote in future elections. A lot of wokeness is nothing more than people being sanctimonious on the internet and then individual actors being blown up on the national stage. In a country of 350 million, you can find no shortage of idiots even if they don't matter at the end of the day. You should fight it, but that doesn't mean you need to shape your personality to "REACT" to it.
And that's true. They were, when the right had institutional power and tried to shut down all kinds of leftist speech. And lost (mostly)...
Not everything is national. "Fire in a crowded theater" was a government decision and we're mostly talking about private organizations. As for private organizations, welcome to At-Will hiring. It's always been the case that you have no real job safety in America. You can be fired or refused a job because your boss woke up one morning and decided he didn't like you. And there are plenty of times this happens to left leaning people and you don't hear about it. Lots of America is red-coded rural areas.
Free Speech can mean both the willingness to tolerate opposing ideas and the freedom to choose not to deal with other people. The left was cheering for banks cutting off the right from oil pipeline funding, now they're complaining about Valve removing LGBT games because Visa went on a porn crusade. It's the same power in both cases, both sides just cheer when it gets the outcome they want and jeer when it cuts them. But unless you want government czars deciding how individuals relate to each other, what are you going to do about it?
hydroacetylene
45m ago
How many political opponents has HE sicced the criminal apparatus of government on?
At least two- Letitia James and also the federal reserve governor lady.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
45m ago
My claim was that the price, charge, and cost are all highly different from each other, often have minimal relationship to each other, have little value to the patient, and are highly misleading and hard to understand.
The claim I was originally responding to:
Ultimately the problem is that it's hard to give numbers in general, it's harder to make them accurate, nothing the hospital can do can guarantee the numbers are accurate, they are therefore not very useful in the vast majority of situations and also have a very real cost to deliver to a patient.
The part I was questioning was about how hard it is to give the numbers, how hard it is to make them accurate, and how costly it would be. None of it was about how little value they have for the patient, or how difficult to understand they might be for them.
Well yes healthcare is different. That's important.
It's yet to be demonstrated in ways relevant to the question of the difficulty of providing patient with the price information.
Two posters in this thread neatly outlined the problem with what you are talking about.
If you charge people for what they use and only what they use and try and give them an answer in advance they get pissed when their hot dog costs 1 million dollars instead of 5.
You can argue that this is not what the average American wants, but you haven't shown that it's impossible to show them those numbers. I already told you that, and you never addressed it.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
48m ago
How old are you?
Middle aged. I remember all the way back to the world where normies had no internet, and then the later world when more cutting-edge weirdos had home dialup internet.
I love that I can pull out and read any book I want,
Physical books or kindle + libgen. I find reading on the phone to be terrible, and really, kindle isn't great either.
I love that I don't need a separate device for music
I recently bought an mp3 player again so I can run or hike with music without having my phone along. It's wonderful.
I love that I can research anything anytime instead of writing it down and searching through my encyclopedia at home.
This part is certainly convenient. I'm not sure I really learn more or retain more, though, compared to writing notes down and then internet searching at home.
Have you ever tried a long road trip with a physical map?
Yep, I moved across several states to a completely unknown city using physical maps. It was fine. My goal now on long road trips is to look up directions before I leave and then not look at maps again.
Tenaz
50m ago
Let's say you have a wife who you love. Imagine saying, "I don't need to know more about her, I love her! Asking her questions about how her day went or what she's thinking right now would be getting in the way of the personal relationship I have with her." It doesn't work that way! Instead, love generates a desire to learn more about the beloved. Philosophy is one means of truth finding.
I absolutely agree, but I would never in a million years try to figure out how her day went from first principles. Philosophy can inform religion but in the end I think it's just harder and less easily falsifiable than most other methods. I wouldn't even try to identify her from first principles. My wife is my wife, not "the woman who I must have married, given that I am a married man and so must have married a woman."
You aren't sure about our ability to come up with satisfactory axioms. That's not uncommon. You are creating philosophical axioms in your comments that I do not believe hold water - but you are likely unaware that you are doing so. Rejection of philosophy does not mean you can get away from doing philosophy. Instead it just means you are doing bad philosophy.
Everything is "philosophy" in the sense that there are underlying truth claims and axioms, yes. When I say philosophy I'm referring to the most esoteric extreme of logic where you rely on first principles as much as possible. The cosmological argument is a towering edifice of logic constructed atop many sub-arguments, which again, most people (including philosophers) simply don't find convincing; whereas arguments like the one you've just made are more simple and can be addressed directly (as I'm doing now) without delving into unfathomable philosophical depths.
What do you define God to be? My definition of what God is is the Classical definition.
And this gets to the crux of the question. I consider my definition of God imperfect and incomplete, the same way that I can't wholly define my dad. At best I can identify him. If my dad (we'll call him John) were to tell me his name is actually Jake he would still be the same person. Even if he were to tell me he was an alien all along, not human, he would still be the same person I identify as John. If he were secretly evil he wouldn't actually cease to be John; I would just be wrong about who John was.
Saying "if the entity who sent Christ for me doesn't conform to my definition, it's not the same entity" is treating God like an idea rather than a real person. It's placing your definition of God above reality. My dad could be wholly different from the person who I think he is and still be the same person. He could even not be my actual father and still be the same person. "My dad," "John," etc. are all identifiers for the person, not definitions.
That's not to say I don't have a definition of God, but as I hope I've made clear, even if I'm wrong about the very most fundamental elements of that definition, he's still God; he just may not be worthy of worship.
hydroacetylene
52m ago
Full disclosure I just hate the government and have no libertarian biases.
But this isn’t really ‘interfering’ in the economy. The government is specifically forbidding itself from being an activist investor.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
56m ago
The Venn diagram between “thinks SJ is existentially dangerous” and “has given up on liberalism” is damn close to a circle. Killing some percentage of the population is not in the liberal Overton window. You can thank the Nazis and the Soviets and maybe the television for that cultural antibody.
No, game-theoretic excuses for genocide are limited to a really tiny subset of the conversation. The kind of subset that hangs around on Internet forums. I’d go as far as to suggest it’s mostly branding, signaling, a Molochian race to the bottom for viewers and clout. The Venn diagram between these people and actual capacity for violence is, thankfully, even smaller. Incentives work, and the liberal social order makes random violence deeply unappealing.
There is a much larger constituency which wouldn’t piss on their enemies if they were on fire. That’s not a response suited to an existential threat. It’s bog-standard tribalism, the sort that liberalism kind of sort of suborned.
hydroacetylene
59m ago
State ownership of enterprise, specifically? Nothing in particular. The trumpian process of punishing and crippling thé democrats and deep state? Very much so.
A "sucker" is a victim of one's own credulity or benevolence. This is an objective category in instrumental terms. A cooperate-bot in a population that contains defectors is a sucker, this is not a value judgement, it's a purely analytic statement of fact.
You either are putting yourself at the mercy of your enemies thereby threatening your ability to effect your agenda or you are not.
You can only argue this is subjective if you're willing to say that engaging in effective politics is not your goal, which is axiomatically excluded from this discussion given effective politics is the topic.
More options
Context Copy link