domain:x.com
self_made_human
Sajjano durjano bhūyāt, durjano badhyatāṃ sadā, baddho'nyān nibandhāyet
10m ago
Perhaps I oversold it. Her brother is highly intelligent and competent. Her dad is a reasonably successful businessman. Her mom is a housewife. I can expect that the brother is the smartest, though I'm sure the dad is no idiot. I don't know enough about her mom to really comment.
self_made_human
Sajjano durjano bhūyāt, durjano badhyatāṃ sadā, baddho'nyān nibandhāyet
11m ago
You're welcome to say a prayer for her, I'm sure she'd be touched if she knew, and I might well tell her if you do.
I do pity the lady. Her situation isn't the best, and she's stuck in the very common trap of being used to romantic relationships and feeling unwilling to settle for a more pragmatic arranged marriage; all while a pit of dread forms in her gut telling her the former isn't working out. She's not a bad person, even if I'm not seeking to marry anyone until, at the very least, I'm done with my current training.
(It's not that arranged marriages are bad, even I don't really think so. But they're usually seen as unromantic, even if, in my experience, the people involved do quickly become very fond of each other. A hot woman used to a great deal of male attention might feel let down by one - and if the guy was a real catch, he likely wouldn't be looking)
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
13m ago
It's a meme from 4chan's /biz/ board. The most common phrasings are "He sold? Pump it." and "He bought? Dump it.", superimposed on an image of a Bogdanoff holding a cell phone to his ear. The implication is that there is a Bogdanoff-led conspiracy to ensure that your investments do poorly by manipulating stock prices. (Note the French accent in this version—"ze" for "the". The Bogdanoffs were French.)
faceh
13m ago
This won't fully answer your question but will put you in the right rabbit hole:
zeke5123a
15m ago
True but a majority of the court would’ve voted to vacate or overturn the entire conviction. But they couldn’t agree on vacate v overturn.
faceh
19m ago
O’Neil cylinders would enable space farming, but again, we have the difficulty of sourcing the materials
Yeah, hence:
At current launch costs, you’d have to bring back a lot of minerals to break even.
Would be part of a two-pronged strategy. Get as many materials as you can that are already in orbit, and convert those to productive uses in orbit.
Transferring foodstuffs to the ground is a lot cheaper, once you've already grown them. Or to the nearest actual colony, if we get that far.
Fuel costs is probably the only truly unavoidable one, it is possible to be 'stuck' in space in a way that's not quite true in the ocean, if you have no more energy or no more materials that can be used to transfer momentum.
But there are options that are less reliant on bringing fuel with you (railguns/space cannons, solar sails, space elevators, to name a few). Massive engineering challenges for each, though.
HighResolutionSleep
21m ago
I asked Grok what I meant, here's what he had to say:
The post you provided, "He sold? Annouce ze rate couts," appears to be a cryptic or humorous message that may combine intentional misspellings, internet slang, or references to specific contexts. Let’s break it down based on the text and potential interpretations, including insights from the provided search results and general internet culture. Breakdown of the Post
"He sold?"
This phrase likely references someone selling something, possibly in the context of stocks, cryptocurrency, or another asset. In online communities, particularly on platforms like X, "sold" is often used in trading or investing contexts to indicate someone has sold their holdings, sometimes implying they sold too early or at a loss (a term like "paper hands" might be associated, meaning someone who sells quickly out of fear). It could also be a meme-like expression of surprise or disbelief, questioning whether someone actually sold something valuable. This phrase is common in financial meme culture, especially in crypto or stock trading communities on X or Reddit, where users mock or question others’ trading decisions.
"Annouce ze rate couts"
This part is less straightforward due to the apparent misspellings and unusual phrasing. It seems to be a playful or exaggerated way of saying "Announce the rate cuts" or something similar, possibly mimicking a non-native English speaker or a specific character’s accent (e.g., "ze" instead of "the" suggests a comedic or stylized tone, like a reference to a movie or meme). The phrase "rate couts" likely refers to "rate cuts," which are reductions in interest rates by a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve. This interpretation is supported by a recent X post mentioning Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell signaling openness to cutting rates without specifying timing. The misspelling of "announce" as "annouce" and "cuts" as "couts" could be intentional for comedic effect, a typo, or a reference to a meme where misspellings are part of the humor (common in internet culture, e.g., "Doge" memes or exaggerated accents).
Possible Reference
The phrase "Annouce ze rate couts" might be a humorous reference to a specific meme, movie, or internet culture trope where a character with a distinct accent demands an announcement. For example, it could evoke a comedic or exaggerated tone similar to characters in films like Inglourious Basterds, where accents and miscommunications are played for laughs (e.g., a post mentions a scene where a character’s gesture reveals they’re not German). Alternatively, it could be mimicking the style of internet memes where broken English or exaggerated accents are used to mock or highlight financial news, especially in trading communities reacting to economic announcements like Federal Reserve rate decisions.
Contextual Clues
The mention of "rate cuts" aligns with economic discussions, particularly in 2025, where Federal Reserve policies are a hot topic. The post might be reacting to speculation or news about interest rate changes, which impact markets like stocks and cryptocurrencies. The phrase "He sold?" could imply someone sold assets in anticipation of or reaction to rate cut news, a common topic in financial circles on X, where users often discuss market moves with a mix of humor and critique.
Potential Meaning The post likely combines financial slang with meme humor to comment on someone selling assets (possibly prematurely) in the context of anticipated Federal Reserve rate cuts. The exaggerated spelling and phrasing ("ze rate couts") suggest it’s not meant to be taken literally but is instead a playful or sarcastic jab, possibly referencing:
A trader who sold assets expecting rate cuts that haven’t been confirmed. A meme trope where economic announcements are mocked with exaggerated language or accents. A specific cultural reference (e.g., a movie or viral post) that uses similar phrasing for comedic effect.
Is It a Reference to Something? While the post doesn’t directly quote a specific source, it likely draws on:
Internet Meme Culture: The misspelled "annouce ze rate couts" resembles the style of memes that use broken English or mock accents for humor, common in financial meme communities like WallStreetBets or crypto X posts. Financial Context: The mention of rate cuts points to real-world economic discussions, particularly around Federal Reserve actions in 2025. Possible Media Reference: The use of "ze" could be a nod to a character or trope from a movie or show (e.g., Inglourious Basterds or similar), though no exact match is confirmed.
Final Interpretation The post is likely a humorous or sarcastic comment on someone selling assets (stocks, crypto, etc.) in anticipation of Federal Reserve interest rate cuts, using exaggerated or misspelled language for comedic effect. It reflects the tone of financial meme culture on platforms like X, where users blend market commentary with internet humor. Without more context about the poster or specific event, it’s hard to pinpoint an exact reference, but it’s probably riffing on trading behavior and economic news with a playful twist. If you have more context (e.g., the X post’s replies, the user’s other posts, or the date it was posted), I can refine the explanation further. Would you like me to search X for related posts or check for specific references to clarify?
benmmurphy
23m ago
when it comes to IQs the testing is done so the population mean for men and women are both 100. i assume you could alter the composition of questions so men or women as a group had a higher mean than the other group. so your impression of women's IQs being lower than what a test might show could be because you are measuring based on aspects that men generally do better than women.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
24m ago
All investors know that when the moment one sells one's investments, a secret signal is sent to the shadowy figures who control the market to immediately send those assets through the roof. You sell, they announce rate cuts, what you sold massively increases in price just in time for you not to profit.
ThenElection
25m ago
The number of people who don't show up because they think it will be ineffectual (I somewhat agree) is dwarfed by the number of people who don't show up because they don't really care. Because however ineffectual it is, it's still more effectual than updating a profile pic with a slogan, retweeting something, or liking a TikTok short, which far more people do.
JarJarJedi
34m ago
They think they're going about their day doing boring and uncontroversial things like protesting for trans rights
That does not compute. Protesting is by definition controversial - if it weren't, it's not a protest, it's at most solidarity march. The whole point though is that the left has been actively in search of culture war since the civil rights movement largely achieved its initial goals (legal equality and high legal barriers to deter any attempt to discriminate). Gay rights, trans rights, BLM, immigrants, vaccines, abortions, whatever it takes. And to crown that, in modern US culture you don't call your opponent a Nazi if you want to hash out policy differences. Everybody knows what you do with the Nazis - you destroy them. So there's no doubt what this framing means.
The right is in full "We're aiming to crush you" mode.
Gee, maybe that's because the Left has been calling them Nazis and promising to crush them for a couple of decades now? May that be where they got the suspicion? I'm seeing the "Nazi bar" metaphor repeated daily on virtually every corner in the left discourse, and they never even explain it - everybody in their audience already knows what it means, they are just confirming, yes, we can't tolerate even the slightest sign of anybody on the right being allowed in the spaces we control. And we can't tolerate any spaces we don't control because all those are "Nazi bars". The right is in this mode because they are aiming to crush the right. Only now, finally, the right starts to wake up and wonder "oh, they are trying to crush us, maybe we should push back?" And then we hear the complaints "how undignified, you are fighting back, people would think you are the same! They will reject you for stooping so low as to fight back! You should just roll over and take it, then you'd have all our sympathies - everybody loves losers!"
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
38m ago
To be fair, there's not a correct answer to how districts should be drawn. One view is that districts should be competitive, as this encourages moderation and tends to be more proportional. Another is that districts should do their best to represent communities of interest, as that will make it more straightforward for elected officials to represent their constituents coherently. Yet another is simple compactness: districts should be as regular as possible.
There are arguments for and against all of them, but none of them is obviously right and not all are amenable to algorithmic solutions.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
43m ago
You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
44m ago
The defense of the legislature was best read as “you don’t have the right to tell us what to do, only we can decide whether we have this power (or Congress with an amendment), and we say no.”
Given this, what recourse would the voters have? They’d have to make this a single issue or else give up. And I’m really not sympathetic to the idea that a certain class - and politicians are by now definitely a class - deserves inalienable privileges over the rest.
You're in good company since 5 of the Justices thought this way. They thought the result was good policy (as opposed to the many, many times the Supreme Court dislikes ballot initiatives, as Thomas lists in his dissent) and therefore the actual language of the Constitution didn't matter.
As to your other points, I suspect you didn't read Roberts' full dissent since he addresses some of your concerns. Not that you have to; there are better things in life than reading random SC decisions from 10 years ago about election laws.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
48m ago
Calling a random civil engineer who reads court opinions for fun and summarizes them for karma "lawyer-brained" is an insult to the multiple actual lawyer denizens of this forum.
If anything, it's a compliment to the actual lawyer denizens here. Or at least compared to the many other insults I've heard.
TournamentFishing
58m ago
There have been mathematicians that brag about how their work has no application.
Ironically, some of those were number theorists...
faceh
59m ago
Hi, one of the 'actual lawyer' denizens speaking, you're doing great, please keep that up.
Being able to summarize legalese in human-readable terms is probably the most immediately useful part of being a lawyer.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1hr ago
Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?
Corvos
1hr ago
Apologies if you find the metaphor specious. It's deliberately extreme, of course. Although interestingly an inability to draw these kinds of conclusions about the actual mafia is apparently wreaking havok in Germany.
But given that everyone making the "leap of logic" to assume it is true just happens to be someone who hates Jews, I find it reasonable to be skeptical and demand more evidence
Doesn't it make at least as much sense to reverse this? I suggested before that the main factor determining whether one believes or disbelieves in foul play about these kinds of incidents is:
- Do I have a prior that individuals belonging to Group X is extremely influential.
- Do I have a prior that individuals belonging to Group X often use their influence inappropriately to benefit their ingroup?
Then it would make total sense that individuals who believe both these things dislike Group X. It would be kind of weird not to. Chicken, egg. Egg, chicken.
The Princeton site does have individual report card data in JSON format. There is a download button slightly inconspicuous.
How gerrymandered is difficult to score in a single metric, but the largest tell tail is probably a step jump in the "District by average partisan win percentage" chart. It is evidence that the districts are being arranged to isolate one party in fewer districts. Especially if the jump spans the "competitive" line. Shape irregularity is the most common "look at this map it must be gerrymandered," but is not a necessary or sufficient condition to show a map is gerrymandered. That video cites openprecincts(dot)org, but it seems to be down now.
Some of the step jumps are also simply the results of people "gerrymandering" themselves. e.g. Drawing a box around metro-Miami could be chosen based off of pure geographic considerations, but if all the Ds in Florida move to Miami they have secured on "safe" district but given up contesting every other district. It seems this a natural result of choosing to draw the boundaries based on geography, but there being clear partisan differences in geographic distribution. Maybe someone has a clear counter example, but shouldn't there be a trivial lemma as a result of Arrow's impossibility theorem where you just substitute candidates with candidate map. Essentially saying there is not perfectly "fair" map. Or if you substitute candidate representation system for candidates to show that there is no perfectly "fair" representative system.
Edit: To add an example of why you can't just take the grade from Princeton. VA gets an A because it is fair in the sense of proportionate. The jump around the competitive zone on the average partisan win percentage chart is still there. This is probably so that the vote is proportionate for court intervention prevention, but locks in a strong gerrymandered incumbency advantage.
benmmurphy
1hr ago
i've always wondered instead of a commission you could just agree ahead of time on some rules on how redistricting would be performed and then just have the rules execute at a fixed time period. i assume one problem with this is people would try and simulate the rules in the future and try to choose rules that would benefit them. i guess maybe the current districting is so ridiculous that it would be difficult to come up with rules that can handle that as an initial state and be somewhat stable.
TheDemonRazgriz
1hr ago
Not sure I'm following you correctly -- do you mean the turning point of average people's trust in the lockdown regime? If so, that's relevant, but not really what I was trying to get at.
I don't think there was any one singular turning point as relates to the public's trust in science & medicine writ large, more of a death-by-a-thousand-cuts scenario. There were countless examples of public-facing scientists, and crucially actual public health officials either blatantly making things up as they went along while pretending they had a plan, or outright lying for naked partisan gamesmanship. I suspect I don't really need to remind you of these times. And every time an official said something obviously false it killed the institutional trust of another chunk of average everyday people. Add this up over many, many examples of lying and flagrant idiocy and you get the crisis of trust we have today.
A lot of scientists and doctors at the time (and seemingly a fair number still today) seemed to believe that because they were trusted by the public, they could make pronouncements on social issues and be taken seriously, basically lending their gravitas to the cause of the day. This started relatively rationally with the pandemic measures and then rapidly metastasized into the "racial justice" situation. The problem was they had the flow of authority exactly backwards. People trusted scientists and doctors because they were apolitical. The trustworthiness of scientists comes from their being fixated on their particular field of interest -- "those eggheads might be weirdos, but they sure know their stuff when it comes to biochemistry/astrophysics/[insert niche interest]" is the longstanding popular image of science.
The whole point is that they're dealing with something way over the head of Joe Sixpack, but it's clear that they've devoted their lives to it, so they can be trusted when they talk about that particular thing. This trust does not -- and in fact cannot -- generalize outside of their one particular domain. If anything it anti-generalizes. In other words if a bunch of chemists start talking about structures of intersectional oppression instead of chemistry, people start to question how much they really cared about chemistry in the first place.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
1hr ago
Go to any school board or planning committee meeting — these are things that have a real and lasting impact on community life — and nobody shows up and you’d have a hard time to find anyone who knows one out of 5-6 members of that board.
People sometimes do show up for those things. The boards then move to private session or otherwise make their decisions where the public can't interfere. Or on some occasions have people arrested for trying to speak; consider the infamous beating and pantsing of the Loudoun County VA father who spoke up against his daughter's sexual assault in school. People don't show up because they correctly conclude that if their showing up could change anything, it wouldn't be permitted.
Good geographic district boundaries wouldn't matter if we expanded the House properly. The entire need to mess around with district borders is downstream of them being so huge that the decision has to be made, but fundamentally there's no good reason why the House shouldn't have a membership in the thousands, and it's the most straightforward solution we could have to a number of issues; it wouldn't require overturning SCOTUS precedents, it wouldn't require overturning CRA district rules (the smaller districts would be easy to make compliant), we wouldn't have to spend years in a domestic political fight about whether Americans would go for multi-member districts, and so on.
More options
Context Copy link