site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 1881 results for

domain:nunosempere.com

I think you have your causality backwards. It's not that people don't bother asking people out in person anymore because they'd rather use the apps: it's that Western society has become massively atomised as a result of technological progress, which is a void that the apps have stepped in to inexpertly fill.

In the past, where would you typically ask out a girl in person? Common examples included i) a nice girl you met at church ii) a colleague at work iii) a friend of a friend. Why i) is no longer viable is self-explanatory. Why ii) no longer works is explicable by the same dynamics Scott complained about in "Untitled": yes, workplace sexual harassment policies are written in an extremely sweeping fashion, and yes, men who are charming and socially adept will probably just ask one of their colleagues out if they like her without worrying about whether it's technically in violation of the policy or not. But conscientious socially awkward men will worry about this, as well they should given that they're the only men likely to be reported for violating it. (Yes I'm trotting out this meme again, I don't care - I was effectively shunned from an entire community and industry for the crime of politely asking a girl if she wanted to get coffee sometime and I'm still mad about it - anyone saying "just ask her bro, the worst she can say is no" is full of shit.)

That leaves iii). It's impossible to ask a friend of a friend on a date if a) you don't have any friends, or all of your friends are online friends; or b) all of your friends are people you met through an extremely sex-segregated common interest (Warhammer, D&D, coding, esports etc.).

So you're left with cold approaches: going up to girls in bars or nightclubs. Again, not a problem for charming and socially adept men; big problem for the socially awkward millennials/zoomers you're criticising. Hard to blame them for making a beeline for the apps instead.

And all of this hinges on the presumption that Millennial/Gen Z women are exactly as receptive to a stranger asking them out as Gen X women. But I don't think they are, and I think this is part of the problem. See this great article:

I mentioned to several of the people I interviewed for this piece that I’d met my husband in an elevator, in 2001. (We worked on different floors of the same institution, and over the months that followed struck up many more conversations—in the elevator, in the break room, on the walk to the subway.) I was fascinated by the extent to which this prompted other women to sigh and say that they’d just love to meet someone that way. And yet quite a few of them suggested that if a random guy started talking to them in an elevator, they would be weirded out. “Creeper! Get away from me,” one woman imagined thinking. “Anytime we’re in silence, we look at our phones,” explained her friend, nodding. Another woman fantasized to me about what it would be like to have a man hit on her in a bookstore. (She’d be holding a copy of her favorite book. “What’s that book?” he’d say.) But then she seemed to snap out of her reverie, and changed the subject to Sex and the City reruns and how hopelessly dated they seem. “Miranda meets Steve at a bar,” she said, in a tone suggesting that the scenario might as well be out of a Jane Austen novel, for all the relevance it had to her life.

That's probably true for many. I recently got my buddy back home to stop drinking sodas. Whether he has kept up the abstinence I obviously don't know. I avoid drinking anything sweet, and only rarely even drink orange juice, which I remember I used to love. I can't even remember the last time I had it. I live in Japan with a Japanese wife and have Japanese in-laws though so my diet is dramatically different from what it used to be. Hopefully I am getting some of the acquired/acquirable health benefits of living here.

You're both right. At the end, this is what all this eventually boils down to.

I prefer the Peterson deepfake version.

I don't know if it's true or not but I feel as if living here in Japan for the last two decades really changed my diet. Like I haven't bought any sort of jarred pasta sauce since around 1999, but as a kid my mom served the Ragu weekly, and as a youth and young man I wouldn't think twice about it. I make my own salsa, guacamole, etc. But this is also largely because you just can't find that stuff regularly where I am. I have been known to make pot pies from scratch, simply because I get nostalgic for the frozen food of my childhood in the South.

Unlike what you're saying I eat many more vegetables now, as well as fruit. Probably at least part of that is because of my wife's skill in preparation.

I'd be a blob of walking triglycerides if I still lived in the states. Maybe.

I'd argue your father, brothers and uncles are actually supposed to provide you with a safety net if you get into a bad situation with your fiancé/husband by giving him a severe beating.

Solution isn’t simple. Countries have tried economic incentives and mostly failed or slowed the decline.

So I've heard a sort of interesting argument regarding these incentives in general. What they are mostly designed to do anywhere they are enacted is convince couples in stable marriages with one child to have a second one. That's it. It's because it's the one incentive the majority of citizens are still willing to support, because just handing out wads of cash to women for birthing babies isn't politically acceptable anywhere. So of course they won't end up doing much, because the people they're meant to help are not the majority to begin with.

Cool, thanks. I don't think I can get API access though. I use LLMs through openrouter.ai. Anthropic haven't launched their shit in my country.

Will take note of this for later. The docs on prompt engineering on Anthrophic's site might be useful. Gonna take a look.

I guess in the end it all boils down to the simple advice that "you should have your first child while you're still young". You can imagine how popular that is among women anywhere.

You said it was a simple solution to just pay women to have kids.

I imagine there's actually no society anywhere that'd even want to do this. And for good reasons.

It wouldn't happen if the guaranteed subsidy to mothers was calculated according to their actual income before conception.

Indeed. You can't have one half of a child. If you have a child, it's at least one. (I'm so smart, right?) It's a relatively small change in the life of the mother only if she has 3 or more children already, assuming there are zero health complications, which is not realistic in many cases sadly.

Relative differences in TFR between different social groups matter a lot even in circumstances of demographic implosion. If, say, the Turkish minority in Germany has a TFR of 1.8 while that of legacy Germans (or whatever we call them) is 1.2, then, all else being equal, the number of the former will be decreasing at a pace 33% slower than that of the latter. (I guess I did the math right.) If, however, all else is not equal, which is probably the case indeed, and the Turkish minority is relatively younger on average, with a lower average age at motherhood, the difference may be 50%, 60% or more.

This is why irreversible demographic trends exist in modern Western societies. The bullet has been fired a long time ago and cannot be stopped, it's just that most people haven't realized it yet. (Yeah, I just stole that phrase from another commenter, sorry.)

Medical school places are limited and handed out based on intelligence and conscientiousness, that isn’t a flaw with the system at all.

Applying at one bar and hoping they respond is like hoping to get married after talking to one girl. Do this twenty more times and then see. Also, don't do this when the bar is busy. The scrap of toilet paper that your number was incorrectly scrawled on was probably thrown away by accident. Bring a one page cv with your contact details and job history and nothing else. Go at 5pm, when there's no work to do, because the actual manager might still be around.

I think most women explicitly prefer no interest to unwanted interest.

Both of you are correct. It depends. In very broad strokes, typical women want the attention from the men who instinctively understand they are playing the game, as long as it's in a safe environment. They don't want attention from the men who are trying to follow a twelve-step plan to sex with a woman. That's why they support measures that complicate this plan further, they weed out the guys who want to "politely try their luck".

I think a place is different than a purpose because it's a lot harder to disagree about a place. I mean, what is a mall? What if you're sitting in a tram wearing a funny hat and a cop says that the tram is actually a mall so you have to pay a fee? And what if a judge agrees? This scenario is not worrying because in this world sanity has clearly broken down. But replace the mall with "intent to conceal" and it starts looking a lot more plausible.

It's like when Greta Thunberg appeared in the media.

A [Quasi-normie leftist activist climate warrior soyboy]: OMG LOOK AT THIS STUNNING AND BRAVE YOUNG LADY! SO FIERCE! SHE'S NOT AFRAID TO STAND IN FRONT OF THE MIC AND MAKE HERSELF HEARD! YOU GO GRRL! STICK IT TO THE SYSTEM!

B [Average normie NPC griller]: "But dude, wait, it says in this article here that some handler wrote the speech for her, it was all pre-planned, rehearsed beforehand..."

A: WELL DUH, DUMBASS! WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?! IT'S COMPLETELY NORMAL FOR A PUBLIC FIGURE TO HAVE HER STAFF PREPARE SPEECHES FOR HER, AND REHEARSE THEM AND CAREFULLY PREPARE FOR THEM! IT'S ALL ABOUT YOUR IMAGE AND MAKING AN IMPRESSION! EVERYBODY DOES IT LIKE THIS! THAT'S HOW IT GOES EVERYWHERE!

I mean, it's funny but it makes no sense; if you swap genders, you still don't actually benefit. And once I realize that, I remember that people just don't raise children for "the benefit." I mean, I guess your progeny can look after you in your old age, but a daughter can do that just as well as a son. I guess the joke is entirely the subtext that women are only valuable sexually.

I feel like this is a little bit unfair on zoomers here. It's true that online applications are kind of a waste of time, the response rate is so poor. At the same time the boomer nostrum of "just go in and give them a firm handshake" might have worked for (white) men back in 1955, an age when people were happy to hand out junior executive positions to (white) dudes they just met, but it's just silly in this day and age. The old world is dead, but the new struggles to be born - in the meantime we have crappy online job boards.

Personally, looking for temporary work in New Zealand, I've gotten work through all of online applications, pavement pounding, agencies and word of mouth. There's value, too, in being aggressive - just asking people you meet if they know of any work going has some response rate. I think maybe some people worry they're being pushy but most managers do not like looking for new staff and are happy to see people who just want to work.

(More that all of this is for low wage/status work. The game is totally different if you want like, a real career)

I don't know. I was also really surprised that Red Lobster could somehow botch a standard all-you-can-eat deal to the point of bankrupcy. Restaurants have been doing all-you-can-eat deals since 1947, and Red Lobster has been successfully operating restaurants since 1968. Why would all-you-can-eat suddenly have become unenforceable to the degree that Red Lobster can go bankrupt from it, when this doesn't seem to be a previously established pattern? Did something change about the enforceability of such deals? Something really does smell fishy, here.

Indeed, I don't doubt that your general understanding of the situation was on point; I just wanted to clarify that the rules you were following were immediately based in the UCMJ and the relevant ROEs for your situation, not the international treaties and conventions concerning actions in war.

I think this is an important distinction because I've found that many people think the Convention-based laws of war are vastly more restrictive than they actually are, and this sometimes undermines the persuasive authority of those agreements. In actual fact, they are much more modest and practical documents that drew a great deal from the brutal lessons taught in the World Wars.

Relatedly, I think a lot of people don't understand just how much more constraining the UCMJ and many ROEs are compared to the international Conventions, in terms of permissible actions by members of the US armed forces. US military discipline is due nearly entirely to internal controls, and those controls could be relaxed a great deal before running afoul of those international agreements. I'd prefer it if we didn't need to explore that space, but it is available.

I’m not sure this is true. I think most women explicitly prefer no interest to unwanted interest. If female-centric outlets started saying loudly, “don’t punish men for politely trying their luck” then the dynamics might change quickly.

I don't know if I really agree that the "revealed preference" of women is to have no interest as opposed to unwanted interest. Women who have tons of unwanted interest may say that, because of status signalling, virtue signalling, and because they may not know what it's like to actually have no interest. But women who actually have no interest may reveal the preference. For a glimpse of this, look at how single women in their late 40s and 50s behave and how aging women tend to lament the lack of the previous unwanted advances.

I see. That's not quite what Google told me, but Google is only approximately accurate.

So that means someone could become a Canadian citizen with a grand total of 3 years in Canada. Which sounds really, really low. It's five years in the US after attaining permanent residency. Which is also rather low in my opinion.

Se my other comment for specifics on this particular incident, but in that sentence I was trying to speak more generally about how another country's court would rule compared to the US courts. I was thinking of things like death penalties for non-capital crimes, lack of due process, punishment for political or religious crimes, etc.