Matt Walsh is working on a new movie, "what is a leftist?"
Probably won't go see it, ngl...
Probably won't go see it, ngl...
I used to work for a company that has saw mills, and they weren't even pretending. They wrote right in the company newsletter that they were taking production offline to raise prices.
I got one guy I follow that I really like but he reposts stuff I deeply disagree with on a regular basis. Sometimes I write up some huge response to a clearly stupid post then go "why am I doing this? I should just keep scrolling" and so I do.
What do I have to learn from people who got their opinions from the same TV we were all watching?
What do I have to learn from people who got their opinions from the same TV we were all watching?
I remember right after h1n1 there was a horribly lethal stain of flu out there. It immediately killed everyone who had it and fizzled out.
"No human is illegal"
I present to you, my army of clone Adolf Hitler/giant scorpion chimeras with nuclear bombs instead of hands. Checkmate.
I present to you, my army of clone Adolf Hitler/giant scorpion chimeras with nuclear bombs instead of hands. Checkmate.
I need to start this thought with the idea that evolution never stops.
Humans are evolving right now, and they're affected by selection pressures right now. In a world where 60% of young men aren't in relationships and the number of women age 40-44 who have no kids has doubled, there's quite a powerful selection pressure towards whatever drives people to have kids. There could be ways where people who don't have kids help survival and replication of their kin and so help their bloodline, but far from seeing that, I'm seeing an increasingly atomized society where individuals are lonely and not involved with family or friends.
We know that humans evolve because we can see many ways human beings are evolved to their environment. Westerners have a high tolerance for lactose and alcohol, Chinese people tend to be lactose intolerant, Native Americans tend to be intolerant of alcohol. Some populations of Africa uniquely hold the sickle cell trait that confers protection against malaria. Even skin color is an adaption based on the environments these people find themselves in over milennia.
The reason for these differences is different selection pressures. Sickle Cell traits are harmful and lethal if you get too much, but confer protections against malaria. Producing lactase is only a good idea if you're regularly drinking milk and otherwise is a waste of effort. Skin color is a balance between letting in enough sun to produce Vitamin D and preventing skin cancer.
The thing is, in the same way that skin color is a balance of different factors in an environment, so is risk tolerance. And risk tolerance can have wide ranging effects. A man who is intensely risk averse might never have sex because they're too afraid to approach a girl. A woman who is intensely risk averse might never have children because they're too afraid to face the risks of childbirth or the risks of raising a child. A man who is too risk tolerant might die in a bar fight and a woman who is too risk tolerant might die snorting fentanyl off her drug dealer's ass.
There are many genes thought to have an effect on risk tolerance. One such gene hit popular media that produces a protien that regulates seratonin and dopamine levels, and between different populations have different expressions of this gene. That's possibly because different environments reward different behaviors. It means there is no single right answer and virtually nowhere is total risk aversion the right answer.
I have a nagging suspicion that stress responses are somewhat affected by genetics too, and so we have certain behaviors such as the increased crime in single parent households that remains in effect even after the parents remarry and thus lose the economic disparity. I imagine a past where less risky behaviors are beneficial in an era of plenty, and more risky behaviors are beneficial in an era of scarcity because when times are hard your biggest risk is not making it and when times are easy your biggest risk is screwing things up. It seems too sophisticated and too consistent to be simply learned behavior.
There's a lot of answers, different people will have different tolerance for risk and not just for genetic reasons, and anyone claiming to have the one single right answer is wrong.
Humans are evolving right now, and they're affected by selection pressures right now. In a world where 60% of young men aren't in relationships and the number of women age 40-44 who have no kids has doubled, there's quite a powerful selection pressure towards whatever drives people to have kids. There could be ways where people who don't have kids help survival and replication of their kin and so help their bloodline, but far from seeing that, I'm seeing an increasingly atomized society where individuals are lonely and not involved with family or friends.
We know that humans evolve because we can see many ways human beings are evolved to their environment. Westerners have a high tolerance for lactose and alcohol, Chinese people tend to be lactose intolerant, Native Americans tend to be intolerant of alcohol. Some populations of Africa uniquely hold the sickle cell trait that confers protection against malaria. Even skin color is an adaption based on the environments these people find themselves in over milennia.
The reason for these differences is different selection pressures. Sickle Cell traits are harmful and lethal if you get too much, but confer protections against malaria. Producing lactase is only a good idea if you're regularly drinking milk and otherwise is a waste of effort. Skin color is a balance between letting in enough sun to produce Vitamin D and preventing skin cancer.
The thing is, in the same way that skin color is a balance of different factors in an environment, so is risk tolerance. And risk tolerance can have wide ranging effects. A man who is intensely risk averse might never have sex because they're too afraid to approach a girl. A woman who is intensely risk averse might never have children because they're too afraid to face the risks of childbirth or the risks of raising a child. A man who is too risk tolerant might die in a bar fight and a woman who is too risk tolerant might die snorting fentanyl off her drug dealer's ass.
There are many genes thought to have an effect on risk tolerance. One such gene hit popular media that produces a protien that regulates seratonin and dopamine levels, and between different populations have different expressions of this gene. That's possibly because different environments reward different behaviors. It means there is no single right answer and virtually nowhere is total risk aversion the right answer.
I have a nagging suspicion that stress responses are somewhat affected by genetics too, and so we have certain behaviors such as the increased crime in single parent households that remains in effect even after the parents remarry and thus lose the economic disparity. I imagine a past where less risky behaviors are beneficial in an era of plenty, and more risky behaviors are beneficial in an era of scarcity because when times are hard your biggest risk is not making it and when times are easy your biggest risk is screwing things up. It seems too sophisticated and too consistent to be simply learned behavior.
There's a lot of answers, different people will have different tolerance for risk and not just for genetic reasons, and anyone claiming to have the one single right answer is wrong.
Even though in another thread I argued at length (and length... and length....) that there are clear benefits to the pure nuclear family that tends towards liberal democracy, it's also clear that there are drawbacks.
It isn't necessarily true that all cultures will trend towards that, especially since right now what we're seeing is the advanced technology of the day relies on massively powerful nation-states, which suggests we're going to continue to see more authoritarianism and at the rate we're going someone like a male version of Justin Trudeau will actually follow through and just end democracy.
It isn't necessarily true that all cultures will trend towards that, especially since right now what we're seeing is the advanced technology of the day relies on massively powerful nation-states, which suggests we're going to continue to see more authoritarianism and at the rate we're going someone like a male version of Justin Trudeau will actually follow through and just end democracy.
To be fair though, even really good techs make mistakes.
That's one reason why RCM analysis is important, to make sure you're doing the ideal amount of maintenance because too much maintenance is potentially more destructive than not enough.
That's one reason why RCM analysis is important, to make sure you're doing the ideal amount of maintenance because too much maintenance is potentially more destructive than not enough.
Every kid should grow up with "Ill mind of hopsin 5" in their playlist. Pretty sure that wouldn't be on a list of top songs.
Microsoft really messed up by going with the "cortana" branding on a crappy 2010s era "AI".
Actually, if they combined some of their current crappy chatbot technology with the crappy 2010s era "AI", maybe they could have made it work.
Actually, if they combined some of their current crappy chatbot technology with the crappy 2010s era "AI", maybe they could have made it work.
You're making some big assumptions that if I pursue either of these topics I'll hit exactly the same documents you did and I'll interpret them exactly the same way you did.
The untested experimental vaccine that was rolled out before testing was even completed is the safest vaccine in the history of the world, even safer than homoeopathic vaccines.
“[The show] was me responding to the world of Brexit and Trump and feeling, ‘Why hasn’t the Federation changed? Why hasn’t Starfleet changed?’ Maybe they’re not as reliable and trustworthy as we all thought,” Stewart said.
0/10 didn't watch one episode
0/10 didn't watch one episode
I used to run a UT99 server on fbxl.net, I think there's a script out there that takes care of 99% of the work for you.
I think this is the one.
https://linuxgsm.com/servers/ut99server/
I think this is the one.
https://linuxgsm.com/servers/ut99server/
I used to get visitors to my random-ass websites organically. Today I run a blog that's imo much better than anything I put together back then, and most of my traffic is russian spam bots.