newbie789

To be a dedicated fan of Nintendo's franchises is to be a masochist.

For example I am a Zelda and Metroid fan (by “fan” I mean “someone that enjoys playing those games”), but I don’t think I’ve ever cared about any video game to the point of actually subjecting myself to any suffering. I know even more diehard friends than me that happily use emulators for games that they can’t find/afford.

Maybe there is a masochistic style of being a fan that someone can choose to subscribe to, but it’s not clear that it’s Nintendo’s fault that one would make such a choice.

I’m glad to hear people discussing this! I love how most of the hippies that love “natural psychedelics” have a loophole for LSD. Just because a drug has a precursor found in nature doesn’t make the drug itself natural.

As somebody that experimented heavily with psychedelics when I was much younger, my opinion is that the 2C-B/E/I group have definite possible therapeutic value, and the main thing causing stagnation is the ridiculous hippy mindset that it’s ~synthetic~ and therefore bad. It’s ridiculous.

Over the past few years it’s been interesting watching polite society “discovering” psychedelics. I really can’t wait for these people to find the therapeutic value of smoked/IV DMT, especially considering that it’s WAY safer than ayahuasca.

I would love to see a study on the possible therapeutic value of dextromethorphan, but as far as I’ve seen it’s not really on the radar. I know it seems weird, but from subjective experience I found it to be very helpful a few times as a teenager. I used to jokingly call it “therapy in a bottle.” It’s a real shame that most DXM-containing products nowadays in the US come mixed with other compounds that make it dangerous to take at a recreational/therapeutic dose.

Is there one for hidden posts? I have accidentally clicked “Hide” on mobile SO MANY times.

Is a chat function a social network?

Is the Bloomberg terminal a social network?

This is the funniest post.

Devil’s advocate, hear me out (thought experiment), what if the economy is made up of people other than business owners? What if economic function needs both businesses and individuals to survive?

Where, out of curiosity, did you find the objective fact that the free money giveaway wasn’t meant to be welfare? It certainly helped a lot of people… fare… better?

Is it possible that a person could be made so averse to the idea of “welfare” through conditioning that, when they see it plainly in front of them, their knee-jerk reaction is to invent a whole new reality to justify making sure the biggest benefactors of society remains squarely “those who need it least“?

If you took your stimulus, or a PPP loan, or avoided eviction due to moratorium, or were in any way given a tiny sliver of help directly or indirectly using government funds, you are a welfare recipient. You can no longer claim having pulled yourself up by your bootstraps! Ever!

The thought is so painful to so many Americans that they literally would rather just starve at the feet of the rich out of some fever-dream version of earned righteousness.

You have as much fun as the poster you’re replying to? How do you know that?

To expose it directly here would likely have little effect generally, but would have an outsized effect personally (damaging trust). If it did have an impact it would likely expose those involved (many careers). I am not in the command chain, I have seen the evidence and it's overwhelming. But I'm not in a position to enact the requisite change.

Sorry, I don’t mean to pick at you but… what?

If you were to anonymously post the name of an academic fraud, you personally would necessarily be found out, and it would ruin multiple careers?

The powers that be know who you are, know of the fraud and its nature and those involved? You’ve been privy to this big juicy secret that’s shared by many, but if its content were to be revealed, you would certainly be the one pointed out?

Are you the only person that could reasonably know about and publicly object to this fraud? If so, is it a necessary function of your social or professional life to cover up this fraud? If so, I’ll go back to “why did you post?” (“Sharing anecdotes” isn’t really an answer to “Why did you share this anecdote?”)

This website is pretty easy to post on anonymously. It takes five seconds to make a throwaway and another three to post a name.

While I agree that there are frauds out there in academia and elsewhere, I have no reason to believe that you’re not yourself some sort of fraud. You’ve essentially posted “I have direct knowledge of [unspecified academic fraud in which somebody claimed to have direct knowledge of [unspecified academic fraudulent conclusion] but can’t back it up] but won’t back it up”

Your overall point is… what? Fraud of perpetuated by cowardice? Self interest? An overall sense of apathy towards the truth? Your comment could be construed as any of those.

There are people that love to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt without having to rely on being truthful. People that are intentionally misleading with the sole intent of leveraging people’s biases and emotions to confirm folks notions and whip people up into an artificially-created frenzy make statements yours.

Serious questions: 1. Do you actually give a shit about this big fraud you’ve brought up but not revealed? And 2. Why did you post?

This is hilarious! I’m sure Elbert’s cutting wit and no-nonsense method of sniffing out true cinema mastery and creative rot saved dozens of eight year olds from watching this film, thus preserving their intellectual cinematic palate for better works, such as Das Boot.

What a terrible day. Meatloaf, Louie Anderson, and Thich Nhat Hanh all at once.

:(

* Drinking alone helps you understand yourself better.

- No it doesn't. It distracts you from that endeavor. If you sit at a table with no TV or phone and do nothing, you will have a significantly more interesting and honest dialog with yourself if you are sober.

I don’t think that the fact that you disagree with a statement qualifies that statement as a syllogism.

I read those three statements as being distinct (for example “preferred cocktail” is a different subject from “comfortable silence”) though I will concede that all three statements do share a general theme of “the author enjoys drinking alone.” However, discussing various reasons for enjoying something does not qualify a statement as a syllogism.

While I also do not generally agree with the author, I’m not a big fan of “things I disagree with are Wrong in terms of fundamental logic. Anything I don’t like but Others do is wrong because those Others lack the fundamental Brain Power to Understand The World(tm) like me. To disagree with me is to commit an Aristotelian error of the highest order.”

It’s honestly an incredibly depressing attitude to come across, and it’s pretty much universally held by people that spend a lot of energy being “Not Mad” at not getting invited to parties.

Maybe you might feel differently about who is the arbiter of logic if you cracked open a nice beer?

This sort of stuff is abhorrent.

Anecdotally, I went to a high school in Utah where the librarian would use a sharpie to censor sexual content. The weird thing was that she’d only censor consensual sexual content. I remember reading a book (I think it was maybe one of the Bourne novels?) that had big paragraphs redacted, but it included quite a few very graphic rape scenes that were left in.

This sort of censorship is why I think it’s absolutely critical that young people learn how to pirate stuff as early as possible. I think that self-directed learning is important to avoid children failing victim to the brainwashing of this ~culture war~.

This kind of reads like Mayor Breed will be handing over a whole lot of power and funding to SFPD and whatever tech contractors they’ve partnered with on the basis of… what?

The violent crime and open drug use in San Francisco has been famous for a very, very long time. Am I to believe that the open air drug market at the corner of Turk and Hyde was impervious to police intervention for a decade because… the police didn’t have enough money? But now that they’re getting more money, they’re confident that they’ll be able to make it more difficult to buy drugs in an area that’s walkable on foot in like 15 minutes?

This whole thing really seems like police grift. A long time ago (back when I used to do drugs), I actually remember patrol cars regularly cruising around that group of blocks and doing NOTHING to interfere with these activities.

I’m quite skeptical that handing full control of a big chunk of the city to (what sounds like) cops with a blank check and whatever city personnel that feel like pulling up Palantir or whatever is a good idea. This kind of sounds like a giveaway to cops that have demonstrated for years that they haven’t been intrinsically motivated to clean up anything, ever.

Good luck, San Francisco residents!

This is a funny article. While it admits that crime is going down, it cherry picks a handful of egregious crimes to make the city look like some lawless hellscape, while offering little in way of concrete suggestions to improve things.

By playing up the lawlessness angle, it kind of seems like the author is advocating for more cops?

As somebody that has been homeless in, and consumed enormous amounts of drugs in that city, I find it absolutely hilarious that the homeless people get demonized every time people talk about SF.

Maybe the fact that the cartels have made it so that San Francisco has some of the cheapest and highest quality methamphetamine and opiates, as well as one of the most accessible pill markets on the west coast contributes more to the city going downhill more than “spending tax money on homelessness programs.”

So many SF rich people sneer at the meth dealer that lives in a tent on their corner, but love their meth dealers that deliver product to them in a BMW.

https://futurism.com/the-byte/spacex-building-military-rocke...

I’ll upvote that. Being a mod is a difficult and nearly completely thankless (but utterly necessary) job, he’s got a good attitude and consistent enforcement of the rules. Cheers dang!

I haven’t hired one, but I’ve been one for a couple (very) different people. In my experience, the factors that lead to success are clear communication and mutual respect. If you’re expecting a telepath but aren’t willing to spend a little while clearly defining your needs (and crucially, what is a successful response to a prompt and what isn’t) early on, there’s a reduced chance of a successful arrangement.

When the U.S sells arms by the billions to despot regimes is it also a state-sponsored terrorism around the world?

Yeah

This largely upon skimming seems pretty boring ideas like “it’s possible to teach math better in high school.”

It’s a trip that it’s couched in language that apparently is pissing a lot of people off (and bringing up some resentment about race in a direction that I find somewhat surprising.)

A lot of folks seem to be posting that if kids have to wait a little longer, it’ll somehow negatively impact all of the super smart 13 year olds’ ability to learn at maximum speed and adversely affect the talented and bright students that just want to learn math due to the fact that the school is somehow withholding knowledge from these poor kids!

I was a VERY gifted young student that was on to trig in 8th grade, pretty much entirely self taught with what I could find online (in the mid 2000s). It turns out that the fact that something wasn’t taught at school didn’t “hold me down” or “delay my education.”

The anger around this seems… weird. The insistence that this is actually harming 8th graders sounds like somebody who hasn’t actually asked an 8th grader if they give a shit, while pearl clutching about the status quo not being exactly maintained.

What -ism doesn’t suggest or prescribe change in behavior?

This is genuinely impressive and a wonderful write up! Dear lord, what a Herculean task

Hahaha

Love how nobody has interacted with this post at all.

Hey why do you feel so uncomfortable saying anything whatsoever about race science while full-throatedly defending a person that ostensibly engages in that?

It’s a simple question: What do you think about this race science guy that you’re defending? “Good” would be an answer, “Bad but I support his speech” would be an answer, but a refusal to respond at all while still attacking me kind of reads as “I agree with race science but do not want to admit so publicly”

But you’re way smarter than me, so clearly your response is something so fancy that not even text posted on the internet could convey your nuanced definitely-not-racist opinion. It’s so fancy and nuanced that only folks of your… “caliber” could understand?

Ah yes, the hallmark of somebody acknowledging wrongdoing: saying that criticism of him is “unambiguous lies”

I forgot to buy this book! Thanks for the reminder, Gary!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paraphrase

Rather than answering the question about your opinion about “the whole race/IQ debate” (your words), you’re going out of your way to… what? Admonish me for being rude for bringing up the literal topic at hand (a public writer and possible reasons why he would have negative attention)?

Also, I don’t think “the whole race/IQ debate” is a real thing that people engage in for germane reasons, so you didn’t do a stellar job not answering the question :)

Wait. What?

He publicly holds very polarizing (and ridiculous) views on issues that directly affect people’s day to day lives, but I’m not thinking straight because I don’t immediately buy the idea that he’s _just_ being bullied for other reasons?

Maybe folks that he victimized during his psychotic break could also hate him for his opinions, but that’s not really a possibility that he mentions. The tone of good article is such that he implies that the main thing that contributes to people not wanting to consume his writing is a singular event 4 years ago. People seem really averse to admitting that maybe, as a human being, he’s not only a victim of bullying from an old event, but also just experiencing the predictable professional fallout from having ghoulish ideals and peddling truly harmful nonsense.

Or am I supposed to care more about the arbitrary, possibly imagined bullying than the plain-as-day “yeah I can see why folks would hate this guy” thought that occurred to me as soon as I read his stuff?

This whole blog post is a petulant child stamping his feet and crying out that it’s unfair that he’s not as well liked as he feels entitled to be. Sorry if that’s not something that I feel overwhelmed with the urge to capitulate to.