Dear @sj_zero
Why does my number of followers barely change from day to day, despite how often I post and how clever and meaningful the comment? Please be advised, there is deep state at FBXL Social and, with all due respect, you are so busy and distracted you don't even know it.
Why does my number of followers barely change from day to day, despite how often I post and how clever and meaningful the comment? Please be advised, there is deep state at FBXL Social and, with all due respect, you are so busy and distracted you don't even know it.
People think it's post pandemic that's been hurting views, but I also think youtube has been hurting because becoming a tool of the corrupt establishment is only as good a strategy as long as the corrupt establishment is overwhelmingly dominant.
Ironically, there's also a lot of problems right now that mean that Nations really don't have the bandwidth to achieve many of these things unless they are authoritarian dictatorships.
World war I and to a lesser extent world war II where eras that were much different than today. These societies were young and vigorous, they were making things within their own countries, and even with the horrors of world war 1, people had pride in their countries and wanted to fight for them.
Contrast that with today, most of the societies that one world war II have converted from building stuff to stuff that technically makes money but doesn't produce anything of value such as banking or stock trading, or managing factories in places like China. Gen z already isn't signing up for the military, imagine if waves of American soldiers were being sent off to die on the other side of the planet. I have permitted with you really funny watching the boomers come full circle in that regard.
World war I and to a lesser extent world war II where eras that were much different than today. These societies were young and vigorous, they were making things within their own countries, and even with the horrors of world war 1, people had pride in their countries and wanted to fight for them.
Contrast that with today, most of the societies that one world war II have converted from building stuff to stuff that technically makes money but doesn't produce anything of value such as banking or stock trading, or managing factories in places like China. Gen z already isn't signing up for the military, imagine if waves of American soldiers were being sent off to die on the other side of the planet. I have permitted with you really funny watching the boomers come full circle in that regard.
Some of the conspiracy theories out there are so stupid that it makes me wonder if they were put out there intentionally to deflect from the actual conspiracies that turned out to be true.
Like the 5G causes covid conspiracy. I mean that's such an easily testable conspiracy, do people in places that don't have cell phone service get covid? If yes then probably 5G has nothing to do with it.
It just makes entirely way too much sense. Just take a look at the tactic that we see almost every time where someone brings up a perfectly reasonable prediction of a conspiracy at work and immediately the tractors go to the craziest shit you ever heard in your life.
Like the 5G causes covid conspiracy. I mean that's such an easily testable conspiracy, do people in places that don't have cell phone service get covid? If yes then probably 5G has nothing to do with it.
It just makes entirely way too much sense. Just take a look at the tactic that we see almost every time where someone brings up a perfectly reasonable prediction of a conspiracy at work and immediately the tractors go to the craziest shit you ever heard in your life.
Distributism seems to be like capitalism where many individuals own the productive assets instead of concentrating them in the hands of just a few.
I could get behind that tbh. Higher risks for the individual but more freedom for more people.
I'm not saying you completely eliminate the concept of a corporation or of a large venture, some important productive facilities may require years of work and millions of dollars of capital just to get off off the ground, and generally speaking you're not going to get that out of an individual. But if we consider there to be a slider today that is pegged almost exclusively at corporate capitalism, I think we could bring that slider way back down to make it often smarter to just have individuals owning stuff and doing stuff.
I could get behind that tbh. Higher risks for the individual but more freedom for more people.
I'm not saying you completely eliminate the concept of a corporation or of a large venture, some important productive facilities may require years of work and millions of dollars of capital just to get off off the ground, and generally speaking you're not going to get that out of an individual. But if we consider there to be a slider today that is pegged almost exclusively at corporate capitalism, I think we could bring that slider way back down to make it often smarter to just have individuals owning stuff and doing stuff.
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.