domain:betonit.substack.com
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
2hr ago
My first thought was I didn't even know he was pregnant!
Seriously though, it registered as kind of weird, but a man's got a right to his priorities and I wouldn't question him either way. I'm probably always going to have a soft spot for Gobert after people gave him so much shit for joking about Covid.
100ProofTollBooth
2hr ago
Both Hamm and Cavill are "face attractive" hall of famers, as well.
I agree with everything said about frame size. Add in above average height (that mythical 6' barrier). With those basic ingredients, your next step is building a social status and generally signalling competence and potential (good career, respected by beers, etc.) There are interesting memes that float around the gym-bro internet (these are my people) the hint at the enduring loneliness even after years of "looksmaxxing." Lots of this is tongue-in-cheek, however, the hinted at truth is that, beyond a basic level of fitness, you hit diminishing returns quickly save for those women who really geek out over biceps or something. Especially as you round 30, you need to have all of the "longer term" attributes going as well - career, social life, etc.
But then there are the likes of Cavill and Hamm. These dudes won the genetic lottery. Hamm is notorious for his dad bod. But his face is so epically GOAT'ed (as the kids say) that I think he's largely responsible for the phenomenon of women saying they like dad bods. Think about it - it's not so much a woman saying she wants a dad bod as saying "If he looks like John Hamm, I don't care about him going to the gym." Pretty girl privilege is real, but I also believe that four-standard-deviations-of-handsome privilege is also real for men. I mean, that's the whole plot of John Hamm on 30 rock
FistfullOfCrows
2hr ago
In the feminist mindset, rape is an expression of power, not an act of lust, and hence it is quite disconnected with a woman's attractiveness.
Yeah but like, they're wrong.
2rafa
2hr ago
Recently found out that Zuck’s kids are named Maxima, August and Aurelia. The LARP is real.
FistfullOfCrows
2hr ago
The pot bellies are a result of HGH abuse.
2rafa
2hr ago
Unlike you, I’m not a never-Trumper! But I’d want a conservative President with the kind of deep congressional connections and sleazy lobbying ability to actually be able to pass things, especially in the event of a trifecta. That is the primary way of achieving anything in the American political system that isn’t bipartisan. A President who deeply understands and can manipulate the congressional GOP, plus a trifecta, plus abolishing the filibuster are the necessary ingredients for civil service reform in the US.
Trump’s problem isn’t really fecklessness or his personal lack of convictions. It’s that he doesn’t seem to be able to wrangle his own faction in congress. If the US had a party-led system where Trump was head of a party and could fire/deselect reps and senators at will, that would be fine. But open primaries, no term limits and various other factors mean that he’s at the mercy of congress.
100ProofTollBooth
2hr ago
Yes, that's the one.
I take your reply as meaning "Because the Schedule F reforms were done at the end of the term and, further, that they stand a reasonable chance of being undone by SCOTUS, one can't count that as striking back at the civil service."
That's a perfectly fine position to take. Let me ask, then, what is the rubric for a successful strike against the civil service? And how does a President get there in one fell swoop?
To me, this feels like goalpost shifting and unrealistically high expectations. As an aside, I"m saying all of this as a never-Trumper. I don't like advocating for DJT for really any reason. Still, I do see things like the Schedule F effort to me meaningful attempts to root out what is perhaps the most entrenched self-serving bureaucratic mechanism in American history.
2rafa
2hr ago
Some good writing this month. I enjoyed @coffee_enjoyer and @FiveHourMarathon’s brief discussion of the Amish Question. There’s a risk when discussing isolated and backward tribes that one projects the way that we do today onto hunter gatherers in the Amazon or the Sentinelese, where we assume that we were like them instead of acknowledging that they - for not having settled, for not having advanced - are the unusual ones and so may not tell us as much about our ancestors as we think. Similarly, the Amish aren’t necessarily a fair or accurate example of most traditional civilizations in many ways, or of what ‘we’ could be if we attempted to restore some of those institutions.
A second issue is the peculiarity of the group. I think it unambiguously true that the Amish probably are happier and have higher QOL than most modern westerners, but the degree to which this is the product of trad-ness is hard to measure. Consider those Mennonites who stayed in the Alps and assimilated into normal mountain Swiss society. Today they live in one of the richest and highest functioning countries on earth, a place bus drivers make a hundred thousand dollars a year, where the median household wealth is among (possibly the) highest in the world. A clean and exceptionally safe country, an ordered country, a place in which one’s neighbors will indeed send the police to tell you to stop playing music after 9.30pm. A place where the recycling is always sorted (God help you if it isn’t). Possibly, alongside Denmark (which has its disadvantages) the final remaining civilized country in the West.
It is hard to compare the Amish with their assimilated cousins in Switzerland because Swiss statistics are muddied by lower performing French and Italians (and others). But a lot of the ‘Amish QOL advantage’ might just be HBD.
shakenvac
2hr ago
State criminal courts don't do constitutional debates. He broke NY law. Whether that law is unconstitutional (probably yes) is outside the remit of that court.
FistfullOfCrows
2hr ago
I'm not keen on watching the billionaires all raise 12 little versions of "Chadius Maximus Esq. the IIIrd."
functor
3hr ago
DEI is the natural state of humanity, the 90s was an extreme outlier. Throughout history humans have always been tribal and worked for their group interests. A group of people working as a group will easily outcompete individuals. Tribes, clans, nations etc exist for a reason. The US is well over 400 years old, not ignoring the first half and ethnic interests were a central part of conflicts throughout nearly all of that. The 90s were an outlier, not the norm even in the US. Go to other parts of the world and democracy simply doesn't work since people vote for their ethnic candidate.
The 90s required the US to be so white enough for white culture to be the norm. The whiteness was implicit and black people were seen as white people with brown skin. This level of implicit whiteness no longer exists.
The 90s came after decades of rising living standards and a high point of the American empire. There was less competitiveness.
The cat is out of the bag and lots of groups have realized that their lobbying gives results. Good luck convincing black people to adopt meritocracy and opposing government transfers of wealth from haves to have nots. If fighting for your group delivers big results, people will do it. Historically people have been more than willing to die for it so expect people to continue to do so.
FistfullOfCrows
3hr ago
While we're dreaming can we get omnibus bills to be banned? Also make a law where anyone in congress/the house can put anyone else present on the spot for knowing the bill's text from memory. If he doesn't know it verbatim then the bill is delayed until everyone involved( yes every single one) learns what it says.
Further make it so you can't add random bullshit to a bill in an amendment.
Moofy
Chacrinha of Cold Brazil
3hr ago
Thank you for sharing. I have a jaded view of arts magnet schools because my wife attended one where she experienced bullying and a generally poisonous atmosphere. It seemed like each student wanted to undermine the others. It's reassuring to know that this isn't always the case.
zeke5123a
3hr ago
The provision also needs read in connection with the militia clause of art 1
Moofy
Chacrinha of Cold Brazil
3hr ago
In the US public schools I attended, we were restricted to eating lunch in the cafeteria. We were only granted liberty to leave the campus for lunch during our senior year. In suburban/rural districts most students are bussed and walking home and back within a 45 minute period isn't practicable (and at many schools, walking isn't an option at all).
Do you think that this is enough to also say that no major IoT startup success is likely to be based in California any time soon?
Nah
Ok, cool. Then epsilon regulation doesn't instantly kill 100% of innovation.
I think we're talking past each other. This regulation in and of itself is a nothingburger. It's the tendency I'm speaking to, which is what was alluded to in the OP.
Regulation is a dynamic process, it never stops at one law and very few of its slopes are not slippery.
Well, then we can probably dig back into the history books to find the first actual regulation that was placed on the tech industry. Whenever it was, it was in the past. The complaint that if we have epsilon regulation, it will definitely be a slippery slope to infinite regulation was valid then, but we're past that threshold now. Now, regulation is a dynamic process; the question is whether this regulation is part of a slippery slope toward infinite regulation, or if it's actually mostly basic shit that everyone has already known they should be doing anyway.
In this house we discuss the Bailey, not the Motte.
I mean, no? It's literally TheMotte. And this betrays that your reasoning doesn't even follow the Motte/Bailey dynamics. It was:
So the motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you retreat to an obvious, uncontroversial statement, and say that was what you meant all along, so you’re clearly right and they’re silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement.
If anything, you're the one who is making bold, controversial statements (that innovation will grind to a halt, that no innovation happens anymore in any other industry that has any regulation). There's nothing comparable happening in the other direction. What even is the Bailey that you speak of?
EDIT: Your Bailey seems to be "an epsilon regulation grinds innovation down to zero". When someone challenges you on this, you retreat to an obvious, uncontroversial statement, like, "Regulation is dynamic," but try to sneak in some not-fleshed-out argument about a slippery slope implying infinite regulation. When pulled back to reality, and you're challenged to engage with actually-existing regulation, you're actually pretty silent, unlike at least gattsuru, who at least engages with what's actually going on rather than fever dreams. Why isn't the vastly more reasonable view that you're engaging in a Motte/Bailey argument, while not being able to point to any sort of Bailey from the other side?
2rafa
4hr ago
Tradcaths are extremely overrepresented on the far right which does on occasion advocate for political violence. Seems very cringe for the GOP to spend years being completely fine with the FBI spending billions infiltrating random mosques and then get upset when they target extremist tradcaths who openly advocate for violent revolution online. Obviously it isn’t any substantial percentage of tradcaths, but the same is true for Muslim extremists.
ControlsFreak
4hr ago
There are of course substantial technical barriers to flying cars, but almost no one is even interested in trying to overcome them because the regulatory barriers to marketing them and getting the general public to be allowed to fly them are obviously insurmountable.
Here is where we get to the BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT part. Every couple years, I see another flying car concept from some start-up. Every couple years, it's technologically fucking absurd, because "there are of course substantial technical barriers to flying cars".
You have zero reason for anyone to believe that the core reason why we don't have flying cars is regulatory and not technological/cultural/practical, especially when I can see with my own two eyes that every proposal that comes up is obscenely whack from a technological/cultural/practical standpoint. Don't get me wrong, I'm no FAA-lover, and they would almost certainly get in the way, but they're the reason we don't have flying cars in the same way that Space Force is the reason we don't have aliens invading earth.
ControlsFreak
4hr ago
Ok, so California required default passwords four years ago. Your nightmare world has already arrived. We've already crossed over the epsilon threshold. The boot has already eternally stomped the artist, and you should have already exited the terminally ill tech sector. I don't know why you're complaining now.
ControlsFreak
4hr ago
Now this is the type of response I was hoping for! Actually engaging with the substance!
FRAM
Perhaps they'll issue a clarification, but from the note in this section, I think someone could read this as "memory"; it has "memory" right in the name! In general, I do expect there to be some clarifications along these lines as folks like you bring up additional concerns.
5.4-2 (unique IDs)
This one is conditional, and I imagine ultra-small or ultra-disposable devices won't qualify in the first place.
5.3.4/6/10 (updates)
Same here; conditional. We'd at least have to get down to the level of thinking about each of the devices you've mentioned in terms of the conditions.
Mandating that "For constrained devices that cannot have their software updated, the product should be isolable and the hardware replaceable" (5.3-15) could mean almost nothing, or it could require vendors to commit to support any optional part of a product until they retire an entire series.
Notice how they define isolable:
isolable: able to be removed from the network it is connected to, where any functionality loss caused is related only to that connectivity and not to its main function; alternatively, able to be placed in a self-contained environment with other devices if and only if the integrity of devices within that environment can be ensured
EXAMPLE: A Smart Fridge has a touchscreen-based interface that is network-connected. This interface can be removed without stopping the fridge from keeping the contents chilled.
In the section describing the rule, they continue:
There are some situations where devices cannot be patched. For constrained devices a replacement plan needs to be in place and be clearly communicated to the consumer. This plan would typically detail a schedule for when technologies will need to be replaced and, where applicable, when support for hardware and software ends
I think I would interpret this as, sure, you need to support any part of a product until you tell the customer that you're not supporting it anymore, and the type of support can vary.
SecureBoot (5.7-1), hardware memory access controls (5.6-8)
Yeah, I have a feeling that these aren't going to pop into the Mandatory category for a while. The real good news is that concerns are really of the type, "Will they at some point make these Mandatory, when it is still too soon?" Because pre-rule-dropping, I imagine the worry would have been of the type, "Will they make this stuff Mandatory now?" And, they, uh, didn't. I think this document shows a pretty decent level of care in getting some of the really basic stuff right and showing the industry the direction they'd like to go in the future. There's no telling at this point whether it'll all actually go that way; one has to imagine that there are differing worlds where it seems more/less plausible to upgrayyyed these Recommendatations into Mandatory.
guaranteeing cryptographic updates for the life cycle of the product (5.5-3)
Whereas this one, I think is fine, given their explanation:
For devices that cannot be updated, it is important that the intended lifetime of the device does not exceed the recommended usage lifetime of cryptographic algorithms used by the device (including key sizes).
How easy is that? You don't even have to update it at all. But if you do, then at least make sure your shit isn't trivially broken, at least so long as you're telling the customer that you're still supporting it.
ControlsFreak
4hr ago
Irrelevant. Obviously, people can choose to regulate something specific away. The question is whether there has been "any" innovation in "any" other industry (that is, the non-bits ones that have more regulation). Unless you're claiming that the US has no regulation on the oil/gas industry, the shale revolution, which literally has changed the world at a geopolitical scale, is a huge counterexample.
But there are many others. Space X. Ozempic. Etc. It's really hilarious to have all the huge techno-optimists, who think that AI and tech more broadly is going to revolutionize literally everything, and at the same time, they imagine that the tiniest amount of regulation on fucking light bulbs will grind literally everything to a halt.
OliveTapenade
5hr ago
In an attempt to broaden access to the program, Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) have held trainings to help other faith groups improve their grant applications, including hosting a joint webinar with the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO). JFNA and the Orthodox Union joined with the USCMO, the Sikh Council for Interfaith Relations, and several Christian denominations to call for increased funding to the program. The joint lobbying effort resulted in Congress appropriating twice the previous year's funding for 2021.[17]
This seems like an odd thing to do if the whole thing is a Jewish scam.
OliveTapenade
5hr ago
Synagogues in Australia do this - I believe the guards are mostly volunteers who are trained on the synagogue's own payroll.
In the past I found it a bit odd, since noticeably mosques and gurdwaras don't do this, despite Muslims and Sikhs also being religious groups that are widely hated, and which are actually more publicly identifiable than Jews due to their headscarves and turbans, but since October 7 I have re-evaluated a little and am more understanding of Jews feeling a need for special security.
I suspect socio-economic factors also play a role - Australian Jews are on average wealthier than Muslims or Sikhs, and thus more able to pay for security. It's also possible that the fact that Jews are indistinguishable in everyday life makes synagogues more vulnerable to random attacks, not less. If I want to attack a Muslim or Sikh, it's relatively easy to identify one on the street and then attack them when they're most vulnerable. (To be fair, most attacks on Sikhs are a result of people mistaking them for Muslims - actual anti-Sikh sentiment is quite rare.) However, if I want to attack a Jew, I need to go to a bit more effort to identify who's Jewish, and observing people going to synagogue is a good way to do that.
Harlequin5942
5hr ago
I'm illustrating the motte-and-bailey by analogy.
"I don't want CP in video games" is the motte. "This particular censorship is desirable, at a minimum" is the bailey.
I think this toy model misses and important dynamic that seems to happen somewhat regularly. Instead of policy changes that are at two ends of the spectrum, instead imagine one group that thinks the status quo is basically fine and one group that wants to make a change. Any compromise at all, literally any agreement to do something will be in the direction that the party of change prefers. The specific issue that I see this on is firearms, where there are just almost never actually any meaningful compromises that include tradeoffs, it's just one side winning and getting more of what they want while declaring it a compromise.
Of course, there are paths to tradeoffs even on these sorts of things because issues aren't necessary monofactorial and logrolling other policy preferences is also an option, but in practice, a compromise on "gun safety" is going to look an awful lot like an unmitigated win for that side of things.
More options
Context Copy link