psivchaz

I was in a position like this once. The first two or three months were great. TBH, I mostly played video games and cleaned the house. It felt like free money. By the six month mark, I quit to go to something else. It's surprising how mentally draining it is to just do nothing.

I think I took two things away from that experience: One, I think people generally have an innate need to produce something. We don't want to just sit around and entertain ourselves, we want to contribute. Two, I think the 40 hour work week isn't quite the right balance. Maybe 30 would be better.

This is legit the movie I shit on most. I hate it so very much. It's not the plot exactly, it's two things:

• The tech accuracy is so bad. I won't go into everything but they go out of their way to say shit that doesn't make sense. My favorite example is that the AI is just a big floating orb and they feed it data through infrared, the slowest communication method available. Like they didn't have to say infrared, they chose that.

• The product placement. Again, a lot of examples but my favorite is how at the end he shows up with Guitar Hero and the kids are like "Yay Guitar Hero that's the best game ever."

Contraception is not perfect. If you are on birth control, and you take it every day, you can still get pregnant, it's just unlikely. If you have an IUD, you can still get pregnant, and even worse every pregnancy is more likely to be life threatening. And of course, condoms can break.

As for having less sex ... that's an interesting thing to say ...

I think of it exactly in terms of the trolley problem. The whole premise is that if you do nothing (don't vote) more people die. By flipping the lever, fewer people die but you've taken an action that leads directly to their deaths. The philosophical question isn't just "is it better for fewer people to die" but "in pulling the lever, are you directly responsible for those deaths?"

My answer would be that inaction is itself an action. In this scenario, you have found yourself responsible either way. Suppose you pull the lever, though, to save as many lives as you can... Wouldn't the ones who die as a result of this have loved ones that absolutely do blame you?

So your argument is "it doesn't literally say that to the letter, so you're wrong?" At best it suggests that this relatively wide swath of the population shouldn't vote. What's your interpretation?

From the article...

These are the men swimming in the electoral pool. It’s not too late for it to be drained.

The article is cautious at first, pointing at facts and figures. At times, it almost seems to care. But when it comes to the final arguments, it is just: We gotta get rid of these men. Not even a viable solution, much less a sensible one.

It's everywhere. It's not hard to find, but it's not always overt. Usually, it is dismissive: "Well that's not what we're talking about right now." "Well feminism would fix those problems too." Or the person gets lumped in with Nazis, or misogynists, or whatever when what they've said doesn't really support that.

I'm going to say something that I fear will not go over well, but I think it would be said. The left has some culpability here. Not in who they chose, but in how they approach the problem.

One of the things that draws me to the left is that people are all supposed to be people. No one is beyond redemption, and much of the worst aspects of people are due to changeable circumstances and not some genetic defect.

Criminals probably do crime because of their circumstances so if we can improve those circumstances we can help rehabilitate them. Addicts who are treated with dignity and compassion are more likely to be able to get their lives together. We shouldn't paint over people with broad brush strokes, like assuming all Muslims are terrorists just because a few have done terrible things while claiming it is in the name of Islam.

But the left has a blind spot for men. The problem is solely with them, and they are garbage beyond redemption. They clearly are acting only out of hate, and not a result of their circumstances, so people seem to think. "It's not my job to educate you" became a trope in a society where educating others is literally the only way to make change.

I submit that these people can be changed and can be rehabilitated if they are shown a better way. If their problems are listened to, rather than dismissed. If their circumstances are improved, rather than belittled. There are valid concerns, valid reasons for them to be upset, but they are handwaved away: "Well feminism cares about that too (even if you don't see it)" or "The privileged feel like equality is oppression."

Anyway, I don't expect anyone will learn anything from this result. The left will say, "Man, misogyny just won't let a woman be President" while ignoring how few people actually even voted. The left will say, "Men are to blame" without ever questioning beyond "I guess they're just spiteful." And if we get another election, we'll have a Democratic candidate who moves right on everything except these problems.

This all interests me very much. In the analogy of the game developer, they are still bound by the rules of the computer system and the universe it runs in and potentially the programming language it is written in. Also, skill.

Taking that into the analogy, a God who is omniscient by our standards but limited by the capabilities of something outside of our understanding is honestly a more reasonable explanation to me than most conceptions about free will or whatever.

People are constantly underestinating Germany. Like half the food is fried in butter and is delicious.

This. It's not an election, it's what's next. Is every American election just going to be "Outright Fascism vs. Traditional Conservatism?" Is it always going to be this unrelenting and horrible from now on? Trump losing would be a good thing, but it doesn't fix the problem.

The way I see it, the problems are that we've lost trust in the concept of society. We don't trust expertise. That's not even a right vs left thing. I know it's unpopular to "both sides" these things, but in truth it's not even a matter of sides: Everyone of all political stripes just disregards what they don't want to hear.

At the same time, truth is getting harder to discern anyway. Botnets distributing and promoting misinformation, deepfakes making lies look real, and hordes of the financially incentivized pushing whatever their audience wants to hear over what is real.

Anyway, I try to be optimistic but I just don't see how things will actually get better.

I've had a few of those little gimmick penis candies and they are terrible. I mean, it's just some trash molded into a penis to be funny. Where are the gourmet candy penises?

Because it's probably bullshit. Elon Musk is a colossal problem, so people feel justified in whatever lies come to mind.

• The Cybertruck has steer by wire BUT NOT BRAKE BY WIRE. No other Tesla has any such system. The brakes in all Teslas are traditional.

• The question of who pays when you have an accident with autopilot has basically been settled in court: the normal rules of fault apply. If autopilot is at fault, then you're at fault. If you're in control, and you're at fault, then you're at fault.

The idea that an insurance company says, "Oh, we won't cover it because you deactivated autopilot" is outright silly. Ignore the autopilot thing for a second. What happens when you rear-end someone? Your insurance covers it based on your coverage, and your premiums probably go up significantly.

The driver was supposed to be in control, of a vehicle with traditional brakes, and hit a car. If they have coverage, it should be handled just as if autopilot weren't involved at all unless they can prove that Tesla is at fault.