domain:bracero.substack.com
FiveHourMarathon
You can get anything here except red ink
1m ago
This seems kinda backwards from an organizational perspective. Being a doctor requires that you be really smart because they're all really busy because there aren't enough doctors, so we can only admit really smart candidates to medical school.
Wouldn't lowering standards and increasing the number of doctors improve things significantly if that's the argument?
there342
1m ago
There is a widespread conspiracy theory that black women are dying in childbirth due to a lack of black doctors. This will perpetually fuel the DEI push.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
1m ago
That’s already true if the robodog is made of the right materials :)
But to conventionally kill multiple men—or to do so without damaging everything in between them, too—is a good bit harder. I don’t think we pull it off within the decade.
thejdizzler
7m ago
Why Slaveholding interests did indeed cause the the Civil War
When America was founded, slavery was on the way out: turns out it wasn’t that profitable of a system for tobacco farming, and sugar couldn’t be grown in the continental US. Many northern states abolished slavery and then the south followed suit. If there was a time for the peaceful national abolition of slavery it was then. Most Southerners even saw slavery as a regrettable institution that would be phased out (Jefferson most famously).
Then Eli Whitney invented the Cotton Gin, and suddenly mass cotton agriculture became a profitable option for slave agriculture. With the old southwest open for settlement in the first decades of the 19th century, those territories filled with cotton slave plantations. Because of soil exhaustion, the states of the old south (Virginia, the Carolinas, Maryland) were not as suitable for cultivation of cotton, and so profited mainly from the selling of their excess slave population to plantations in Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missippi and Florida (later Missouri and Texas). In order for this to continue to be profitable, the territory under the yoke of slavery had to continually expand, which perhaps explains the growth of rabid pro-slavery ideology of politicians from these states in this era who started to justify slavery as a moral good).
Now of course this was not a sustainable system because a). there is only so much land that is suitable for cotton farming and b). plantations directly competed with free settlers for land (which explains some of the rivalry between the north and the south better than fringe abolitionism). This also doesn’t fit with the argument that if we had merely waited slavery would have fixed itself more peacefully. A large portion of the southern political class was heavily invested in the continued expansion of slavery (so they could make money selling slaves). This was one cause of the Mexican-American war (to acquire more land for growing cotton), and also resulted in schemes like that of the Knights of the Golden Circle’s plan to capture Central America and the Caribbean to make more slave states, and William Walker’s Filibuster War in Nicaragua. The compromise of 1820, the compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act all continued to give more power to slaveholding interests. You wouldn’t have needed to be an abolitionist to be resentful towards what seemed like the disproportionate power and influence of slaveholding interests in the elections leading up to the Civil War.
Then there’s the actual election of 1860. First of all, I want to note that Lincoln was not elected on a platform of sudden abolition, nor did he actually move to abolish slavery during the Civil War until 1863. All Lincoln promised to do was to prevent the expansion of the institution into new territories (few of which were suitable for plantation agriculture anyway).
Secondly, slave holding interests arguably lost that election because of running John Breckenridge as a third party candidate instead of backing Stephen Douglas. Southern Democrats refused to endorse Douglas at the party convention in Charleston because Douglas was not willing to endorse the maximalist position of allowing slaveholders to bring their slaves into any new territory (potentially against the wishes of the population). This was just a bridge too far for Northern voters after the Kansas Nebraska act opened territory that was supposed to be closed to slavery by the compromise of 1820 to slaveholders, and the Fugitive Slave Act forced Northern States to enforce the institution within their own borders where the population was opposed to it.
Both Douglas’s and Lincoln’s positions seem like reasonable ways of gradually phasing out slavery to me (especially Douglas, who didn’t tend to touch the right for new states to choose to allow slavery AT ALL). Instead the South chose secession and war. It also seems to me that the political impasse that led to the war was less caused by abolitionism, but rather the political extremism of the Southern Planters class.
I’d urge those who disagree to put yourself in the shoes of a northern farmer in the late 1850s/1860s. Wouldn’t you have been frustrated by the stranglehold that slaveholding interests seemed to have on the national government, preventing the opening of new lands in the West for settlement by your sons? Encouraging economic policies that were good for cotton plantations but not for your wheat crop? A vote for Lincoln was less of a vote for abolitionism, and more of a “fuck you” to the insidious and outsized influence of slaveholders on federal economic policies.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
8m ago
Perhaps I’m missing something, but what you’re describing with the units and the axioms sounds like sophistry. As in—sure, he can define whatever domain-specific operators or fields or rings or whatever the math term is. (Wow, it’s been a while). That doesn’t privilege his definition over the boring version that works on Peano numbers. Does he have a reason to go there other than scoring points in arguments?
Also, I don’t think that’s what “spin” means. But what do I know.
WhiningCoil
12m ago
When I dabbled in gold, and I still hold some in fact, I just bought 1 oz American Gold Eagles. Then when I wanted to sell them, I took them to my local dealer and got I think 97% of spot for them. I did this in 2020 in anticipation of buying a house (which didn't happen that year), and then again in 2021 (closed that year). I came out about $1000 ahead on $13,000 invest in 2020, and $3000 ahead on $7000 invested in 2021. On my remaining gold I'm $6000 ahead on $8000 invest.
Gold wouldn't be my first thing I'd invest in. But it worked out well enough as a hedge against inflation. That said, my BTC and my brokerage account have absolutely crushed my gold gains. But if BTC were scary to me, or I didn't have the fortitude to weather a stock crash without selling the bottom like a rube, gold has never been worth nothing. Harder to panic sell too.
OneTimesOneIsTwo
17m ago
I can't speak for the science, but his math is retarded for a variety of reasons. The most obvious: If 1x1=2, then 2÷1=1.
He also lies in his book about talking to a mathematician. He "quotes" the mathematician as saying
2rafa
17m ago
It doesn’t matter in an emergency situation. Teenagers in Detroit or Atlanta gangs aren’t the Houthis, the US government could easily pacify lawless parts of the country in minutes, not even hours.
MaiqTheTrue
Zensunni Wanderer
18m ago
I kinda hope he’s not being that literal as I think a life with no feelings would be one with little joy or connection or compassion. If I can kill without feeling anything, I’m capable of being a moral monster.
KMC
26m ago
I watched it, I liked it.
If you want to listen to someone who doesn't say 1x1 = 2, then much of what he was talking about reminded me of Eric P Dollard. If you can stomach a two hour podcast, maybe consider this three-and-a-half hour lecture, History and Theory of Electricity.
The real meat and potatoes of his views are not new. He's deep into the waves/frequencies/spin is everything method of analysis, which makes sense. This is also part of his criticism of 1x1=1, in that it assumes axiomatically a rectilinear universe, which is not the way the actual universe exists. The most interesting parts were when he was talking about the periodic table and the solar system.
For the periodic table, he claims that elements are essentially harmonics of one another, the same frequencies (spin) doubled can turn one element into another.
As for the 1x1=2, I'm very sympathetic. I distinctly remember my complex algebra course, where we rederived addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division such that they are consistent with what we see in a number line. It reminds me that these operators are axioms themselves, and that axioms are taken as true, not proved. Ultimately, I think he gets lost in the weeds of units. For example, he asks what is $1 x $1, and reports that people say $2, and don't want to accept $1. But of course, $1 x $1 is $^2 1 (one dollar-squared, or one square dollar). What the hell is a square dollar? The same thing as a square second, but with currency.
The other reason I dislike it is because you can derive multiplication from your fingers, in a similar manner to addition. Put one finger up on each hand, and count them, and you get to 2 (addition). Two fingers on each hand gets you 6, and three fingers gets you 9. Now, instead of counting them, cross the fingers of one hand against the other and count the overlaps. One finger and one finger, overlapped, gets one intersection. Two fingers on each hand, 4 intersections, and three fingers gets 9 intersections.
His problem is root 2. For our finger example, what combination of fingers gets you two intersections? You have to use different numbers on each hand.
But notice, we have changed units! We are counting intersections, not fingers! So again, I'm sympathetic in general, but in particular it breaks down.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
26m ago
That’s a great way to get staff cowed into making their courses less rigorous.
functor
29m ago
Peter zeihan should put his money where his mouth is and demonstrate how stable Detroit and Atlanta are by riding through them on a bicycle at 1 am.
Oopz
36m ago
I live in peace and tranquillity, beholden to none. With no loyalty to bind me, I have nothing to defend. With nothing to defend I have no need to attack.
Do you think if I threaten his kid or his wife that he wouldn't jump to their defence? Or at least have the impulse to do something
Or am I reading his words incorrectly/too literally?
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
40m ago
We allow all kinds of hot takes, including "slavery was good, actually," as long as you can argue the case civilly and in accordance with our rules.
You've broken a few of those rules, notably "Be no more antagonistic than is absolutely necessary for your argument" and "Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion."
Sometimes people really want to say something about a particular group of people, because this is what they really, honestly believe. Things like "Jews are vermin," "Women aren't sentient," or "Black people are animals." And when we mod them for saying these things, they complain that we are "protecting the feelings" of the group they despise. Well, no, we don't care that you might hurt someone's feelings (arguing that blacks have lower IQs and higher criminality, or that women are hypergamous, or that Jews have disproportionate power in Hollywood, likely hurts some people's feelings, but you are allowed to say that). But it's one thing to describe your grievances with the behavior of a group, and quite another to declare they are less than human and should be treated as such.
Assuming you are not just trolling, pretend there are black people participating here (sometimes there are) and that you aren't trying to insult and denigrate them (even if that's what you do want to do - you may not).
KMC
41m ago
ebrso
47m ago
I think if you'd framed it in these terms originally, then I wouldn't have objected.
I agree. Failing your medical licensing exam (as 2% of test takers do) limits your ability to earn $1M/year as an LA plastic surgeon.
jeroboam
50m ago
Right on. I rode the silver train in 2020 and did okay.
Gold is trading at like 80 times silver which is much greater than its historical ratio and also "God's ratio" of 10-1. It's also apparently useful in some green energy shit, not sure what. Maybe the silver bulls will have their day again.
aardvark2
52m ago
About half of those reserves, $300 billion, were held in the West.
USD in USA were a little fraction of it (about $10 billion IIRC), most were Euro-nominated in EU. Total value estimate in USD is just a convenience.
jeroboam
53m ago
My question is, so what? What do I, a retail investor pleb with barely six figures saved, mostly in things like equities and 401k, do with this information?
Not much. We're probably just all going to have to be poorer for awhile as stagflation bites.
Here's what I'd do. Over time, I'd stop putting new money into bonds. While I'm actually somewhat bullish on treasuries in the 2-5 year time frame, they are doomed to suck in the long run due to the massive U.S. deficits. Personally, I think a 10% allocation into precious metals (either physical or in funds) make sense and will diversify your portfolio. But over time equities have outperformed gold.
And for the love of God, do NOT buy gold miners.
ebrso
54m ago
you have yet to acknowledge that American doctors don't make what you think they do. The average American doctor probably has a lower net worth than the average Australian doctor . . . Doctors have relatively low net worths into their 50s, here's a citation. https://www.bfadvisors.com/net-worth-by-age-for-doctors/
This is grossly misleading. The first line of the article is literally, "When it comes to wealth-generating occupations, physicians usually make the top of the list." The graph shows that 50% of doctors ages 45-49 have a net worth of at least $1M, and that average physician comp is $350k/year. I appreciate that American doctors choose partners at Goldman Sachs as their peer cohort for compensation comparisons, but this is not based in reality.
Decreasing doctor salaries also does nothing substantial to decrease U.S. health care costs.
Physician compensation is roughly 9% of U.S. health care costs per here. If you slashed physician comp 50% (so that physicians were "only" averaging $175K/year), U.S health care costs would be reduced by 4.5%, or about $250B across the U.S. per year (4.5% of $5T total annual health care spend). A few $250B here, a few $250B there . . . pretty soon we're talking about real money.
And your solution [of importing physicians from other countries in order to drive down physician costs] seems to me to be wildly immoral and you make no effort to defend it.
Again, Is that your true rejection? If so, would you be satisfied with importing international physicians if those physicians pledged to remit some of their American comp to their countries of origin? Because I'm sure they'd be happy to do so.
hydroacetylene
56m ago
Im pretty heavily invested in natural gas stocks, although not as futures.
Really more interested in pointing out weird shit in the silver market consonant with a shift away from the dollar, not trying to sell anyone.
Gaashk
58m ago
In the case of restaurants, I'm not sure having different priorities, other than authenticity, is a mistake. Unless people are getting food poisoning, people are allowed to like what they like, whether or not it's the same as the preferences of the people in the cuisine's country of origin. Restaurant owners should go ahead and optimize for that, offering enchiladas at their Chinese buffet or whatever if that's popular. Unless the reviews literally say "this is extremely authentic!" I wouldn't read any opinion on the authenticity into the review.
I would expect Google reviews of various other businesses to mostly be about their customer service, there probably isn't any way around that.
jeroboam
1hr ago
If you like excitement, can I recommend natural gas futures?
Seriously, though, silver is very volatile. On average, I'd expect silver to increase by 7% a year as it has done since they stopped making coins out of silver. But the volatility will be very high, and I can easily see drawdowns of 50% at various points.
No_one
1hr ago
Haven't, really.
Some links:
https://cdrsalamander.substack.com/ (retired officer, chronicled the entire dismal saga of US navy forgetting how to build and operate warships
Steve Hsu, a physicist, posts about ASBMs a lot.
https://stevehsu.substack.com/p/machine-intelligence-threatens-overpriced-aircraft-carriers-search
Basically, it's believe Chinese procurement is much more effective, they're rapidly catching up in technology too. So they're going to have more weapons, more ships, and there's also a reasonable suspicion that US which has had a large navy for a long time suffers from institutional inertia that makes it impossible to adapt fast enough. Meanwhile Chinese are building their navy to counter the US one.
So when China attempts to take Taiwan, US will either give up Taiwan and massively lose prestige and likely influence, or fight a war and lose it.
If one of them had, say, 5 % of African-derived ancestry, would you know it? That's what assimilation largely meant in the Latin American context.
More options
Context Copy link