I just saw a video talking about how "men don't ask women for advice on dating because men bad".
Reality is, women will tell you what worked for them, but that's dumb advice for men because they're women -- the whole experience of being a woman is fundamentally different than being a man, especially in dating.
In college, my mom gave me advice like "Just talk to women on the bus!" Well she was a decent looking middle-aged woman at the time, she could just strike up a conversation, and most men would find her perfectly tolerable. Women's mental space isn't like that. Women are much more defensive, especially with strange men. The concept of a "Barrage of bore" of guys trying to get with a pretty girl every day from their 16th birthday onwards is real. Women typically have too many men expressing interest and need to pare down the number of men asking, most men outside of the top 1% typically don't have virtually any women expressing interest and need to gin up leads to have someone to accept or reject in the first place.
Eventually I did date, and I got married, and I had to use totally different techniques than women did because I'm not a woman. I had to figure out how to seem safe, how to seem interesting, and how to be fun.
In the book "Self-made man", Norah Vincent talks about dating in her man disguise. I read the book all the way back in 2005, and the chapter on dating was the descent into darkness for Vincent. She went into it going "Stupid men, I'm a lesbian, I'll show these stupid men how to get women", but the pain she experienced realizing how she was treated as a man was palpable. It was clear that the simple acts of getting a new haircut, wearing a suit, binding her chest, and gluing some stubble to her face put her in a completely different class of person and she didn't realize she was going to walk into something like that.
Many people have also completed the experience of creating a dating profile of the opposite sex to see what it's like, and for women they're shocked at the silence even when they made their dream guy, and for men they're shocked at how they're inundated by attention even when they make a horrible woman.
"Just be nice and respectful" -- no, just be nice and respectful and don't be a sycophant and don't be boring, be exciting and fun and make her feel like you could be dangerous but not to her. She wants you to be dominant but to walk a fine line where you're dominant without being domineering. It's a load of paradoxes because human beings are paradoxical.
The whole "nice guy" syndrome is in a sense a reaction to guys who did listen to women and get frustrated that the advice is bad. "I was fuckin nice just like you told me, and instead of getting a girlfriend I got a girl friend. This is bullshit I didn't want a girl friend." -- A woman who followed men's advice would likely face a similar but different frustration if she were following men's dating advice. She can't bang every guy who hits on her who seems nice. In fact, we do see that on dating apps, were women end up having sex with men who are really attractive, but they find they can't actually get a boyfriend, she just gets a friend with benefits.
By the way, I later realized that as a man I was filled with similar paradoxes. When a man hasn't had the girlfriend who wants sex all the time but actually all the time, the hot girlfriend who is also too crazy, the fun girlfriend who doesn't have any responsibility, you start to realize you don't want what you think you wanted.
Consider two groups. One lives in a fortress with a granary, the other lives on the steppe. What do you do if under attack? For the first group, you hunger down behind safe walls and eat your accumulated grain until the enemy loses interest and leaves. For the second group, you run away on your horses because you can probably outrun them. Both are legitimate tactics, but totally unapplicable to one another.
You can say "that's not fair!" -- but life isn't fair, and the quicker you learn that, the happier life will be.
Reality is, women will tell you what worked for them, but that's dumb advice for men because they're women -- the whole experience of being a woman is fundamentally different than being a man, especially in dating.
In college, my mom gave me advice like "Just talk to women on the bus!" Well she was a decent looking middle-aged woman at the time, she could just strike up a conversation, and most men would find her perfectly tolerable. Women's mental space isn't like that. Women are much more defensive, especially with strange men. The concept of a "Barrage of bore" of guys trying to get with a pretty girl every day from their 16th birthday onwards is real. Women typically have too many men expressing interest and need to pare down the number of men asking, most men outside of the top 1% typically don't have virtually any women expressing interest and need to gin up leads to have someone to accept or reject in the first place.
Eventually I did date, and I got married, and I had to use totally different techniques than women did because I'm not a woman. I had to figure out how to seem safe, how to seem interesting, and how to be fun.
In the book "Self-made man", Norah Vincent talks about dating in her man disguise. I read the book all the way back in 2005, and the chapter on dating was the descent into darkness for Vincent. She went into it going "Stupid men, I'm a lesbian, I'll show these stupid men how to get women", but the pain she experienced realizing how she was treated as a man was palpable. It was clear that the simple acts of getting a new haircut, wearing a suit, binding her chest, and gluing some stubble to her face put her in a completely different class of person and she didn't realize she was going to walk into something like that.
Many people have also completed the experience of creating a dating profile of the opposite sex to see what it's like, and for women they're shocked at the silence even when they made their dream guy, and for men they're shocked at how they're inundated by attention even when they make a horrible woman.
"Just be nice and respectful" -- no, just be nice and respectful and don't be a sycophant and don't be boring, be exciting and fun and make her feel like you could be dangerous but not to her. She wants you to be dominant but to walk a fine line where you're dominant without being domineering. It's a load of paradoxes because human beings are paradoxical.
The whole "nice guy" syndrome is in a sense a reaction to guys who did listen to women and get frustrated that the advice is bad. "I was fuckin nice just like you told me, and instead of getting a girlfriend I got a girl friend. This is bullshit I didn't want a girl friend." -- A woman who followed men's advice would likely face a similar but different frustration if she were following men's dating advice. She can't bang every guy who hits on her who seems nice. In fact, we do see that on dating apps, were women end up having sex with men who are really attractive, but they find they can't actually get a boyfriend, she just gets a friend with benefits.
By the way, I later realized that as a man I was filled with similar paradoxes. When a man hasn't had the girlfriend who wants sex all the time but actually all the time, the hot girlfriend who is also too crazy, the fun girlfriend who doesn't have any responsibility, you start to realize you don't want what you think you wanted.
Consider two groups. One lives in a fortress with a granary, the other lives on the steppe. What do you do if under attack? For the first group, you hunger down behind safe walls and eat your accumulated grain until the enemy loses interest and leaves. For the second group, you run away on your horses because you can probably outrun them. Both are legitimate tactics, but totally unapplicable to one another.
You can say "that's not fair!" -- but life isn't fair, and the quicker you learn that, the happier life will be.
I'm not allowed in professional men's sports.
Why?
Because I'm a big fat old guy without a speck of athletic capability.
I'm not gifted enough for the actual Olympics, not special enough for the special Olympics. But you know what, I bet you any money if I train for a few months and really clamp down I could probably beat a guy with no legs in a foot race.
Life isn't fair.
Why?
Because I'm a big fat old guy without a speck of athletic capability.
I'm not gifted enough for the actual Olympics, not special enough for the special Olympics. But you know what, I bet you any money if I train for a few months and really clamp down I could probably beat a guy with no legs in a foot race.
Life isn't fair.
I have to admit, at first I was like "Oh no, not 486 support and early 586 support!" but then it was like "wait, the 486 is less powerful than most microcontrollers these days, and the 586 was first released just a few months after George H. W. Bush left office after losing the presidential election to Bill Clinton. What would even still be using these chips?"
One thing that's important to differentiate is between "capitalism" which is largely just private ownership and control of capital, and "consumerism" which is the almost religious worship of purchasing. The latter is how everything is commodified, and the idea that you can buy anything with money.
Capitalism is a system of economics, consumerism is a cultural phenomenon. The former can be a lot of different things including highly generous and charitable cultures. The latter is about embedding the act and meaning of consumption into the fabric of everyday life and identity.
Consumerism does not necessarily require capitalism. It has occurred in non-capitalist systems such as feudal nobility, socialist authoritarianism, or even non-market systems, though typically not the mass consumerism we see today. Mass consumerism requires mass production, and some sort of mass media that sends a message (intentionally or unintentionally) that it is desirable to have a thing that has some friction to acquire, and most importantly a culture that says acquiring such items is a means to fulfilment and social proof. That said, mass consumerism like we see in the west requires a system that can produce the amount of broad wealth required to support mass consumerism, and the power of mass marketing is relatively unique in world history.
This distinction appears to be irrelevant, but it is highly relevant because otherwise you can end up with an easy category error where you blame capitalism for mass consumerism and assume that if you remove capitalism you will eliminate consumerism when in reality you'll simply remove the wealth that enables it and so consumerism will continue as elite consumerism and most people will materially suffer overall without a real benefit.
For example, if you change back to feudalism and the common man becomes destitute, you will eliminate mass consumerism, but the feudal lords will remain wealthy and will continue to make outlandish purchases to show off to their peers. Social standing never goes away, it's just a matter of how that manifests -- and you can reduce overall wealth to eliminate mass consumerism, but it just means they're destitute and wasteful consumption will continue among the still wealthy elites.
The system in the Americas was pre-capitalist, and in some cases might be considered "tribal communism", but for example the elites would have highly polished bronze mirrors as demonstrations of their power, and the olmec civilization created large totems which may have had religious significance, but I have no doubt also carried an elite consumerist component as well.
Capitalism is a system of economics, consumerism is a cultural phenomenon. The former can be a lot of different things including highly generous and charitable cultures. The latter is about embedding the act and meaning of consumption into the fabric of everyday life and identity.
Consumerism does not necessarily require capitalism. It has occurred in non-capitalist systems such as feudal nobility, socialist authoritarianism, or even non-market systems, though typically not the mass consumerism we see today. Mass consumerism requires mass production, and some sort of mass media that sends a message (intentionally or unintentionally) that it is desirable to have a thing that has some friction to acquire, and most importantly a culture that says acquiring such items is a means to fulfilment and social proof. That said, mass consumerism like we see in the west requires a system that can produce the amount of broad wealth required to support mass consumerism, and the power of mass marketing is relatively unique in world history.
This distinction appears to be irrelevant, but it is highly relevant because otherwise you can end up with an easy category error where you blame capitalism for mass consumerism and assume that if you remove capitalism you will eliminate consumerism when in reality you'll simply remove the wealth that enables it and so consumerism will continue as elite consumerism and most people will materially suffer overall without a real benefit.
For example, if you change back to feudalism and the common man becomes destitute, you will eliminate mass consumerism, but the feudal lords will remain wealthy and will continue to make outlandish purchases to show off to their peers. Social standing never goes away, it's just a matter of how that manifests -- and you can reduce overall wealth to eliminate mass consumerism, but it just means they're destitute and wasteful consumption will continue among the still wealthy elites.
The system in the Americas was pre-capitalist, and in some cases might be considered "tribal communism", but for example the elites would have highly polished bronze mirrors as demonstrations of their power, and the olmec civilization created large totems which may have had religious significance, but I have no doubt also carried an elite consumerist component as well.
In Pokemon blue my brother called his character ASSWORM.
The line "ASSWORM received a SQUIRTLE" has survived in my brain for over 30 years.
The line "ASSWORM received a SQUIRTLE" has survived in my brain for over 30 years.
The scariest question has to be: how many more of these exist around the world right now, that we have no idea about?
I bet that the actual number would make most people deeply uncomfortable.
I bet that the actual number would make most people deeply uncomfortable.
Not a new scam either. I remember there was a whole bunch of games that were basically identical.
There has been a few different game makers, particularly in the early '90s, and they resulted in people releasing games that were functionally identical and yet put out there as if they were unique. The only thing that's different now and then is at the quality of the assets are a thousand times better.
There has been a few different game makers, particularly in the early '90s, and they resulted in people releasing games that were functionally identical and yet put out there as if they were unique. The only thing that's different now and then is at the quality of the assets are a thousand times better.
I rather liked his channel in the beginning, but I don't think I've watched... I can't even think of how long it's been since I've watched.
I didn't meet the terms, haven't done a review yet. So save it for someone who follows instructions. :P
Haven't done a review yet, but I did buy the rest of the books in the series and the pre-order. It's on my to-read list, but I've been reading a lot less this year since I've been writing my next book myself. I'll leave a fair review as I read through them.
Hopefully it'll give me some good Karma when I release Future Sepsis Vol. 1 and 2 later this year.
Hopefully it'll give me some good Karma when I release Future Sepsis Vol. 1 and 2 later this year.
(Man, we can't become the 51st state fast enough.... We obviously lack the capacity for self-rule)
Can you believe these racists in the Trump administration?
They don't even want underprivileged artificial intelligence bots to get Federal funding to go to ivy League schools.
I don't even know what country I'm living in anymore. Not America, that's for sure.
(I mean, I live in Canada where the left just put a hedge fund manager in charge)
They don't even want underprivileged artificial intelligence bots to get Federal funding to go to ivy League schools.
I don't even know what country I'm living in anymore. Not America, that's for sure.
(I mean, I live in Canada where the left just put a hedge fund manager in charge)