sprachspieler

[derinthescarletpescatarian]

[sprachspieler]

suppose someone said we ought to ban matches due to the arson ring

[sprachspieler]

nationalist vegetarian who only eats imported meat (foreigners are due lesser moral consideration)

[etirabys]

New friends' regression to the mean: if you meet someone who is cool/wise/etc and make bids on that basis, you probably saw them at an unusually good time or at their strongest domain. As the friendship builds, you'll discover more worse-than-initial things about them than better-than-initial things.

[etirabys]

addenda

Expanding on that last point:

I have a belief that change is hardest in the context of an established relationship (whether that's romantic or familial or what), and fastest in the early stages of a new relationship that starts soon after a previous one shattered due to your flaws.

You're yearning to be different; unfamiliar context makes it easier to try out new behaviors; new person who assumes your new behaviors are your natural behaviors makes it motivating not to let them down.

[discoursedrome]

This is basically the idea behind "familiarity breeds contempt", right? Well, I guess that also accounts for the fact that we tend to consciously present our best face and hide our faults. The trouble with being motivated to change is that you usually can't refine your character into a pure strain of the person they met and first came to like; you can shift the weight in that direction, but they'll still have to confront your bad qualities eventually, and in the meantime it's a bit like living a lie. It seems like celebrities with a strong brand identity are the pure form of that -- they really are living a lie as their actual job, but it works because the people that image is "for" only know them superficially.

Maybe the better equilibrium is to just try to make mildly negative first impressions so that people can be surprised when you do something cool, and to mainly pursue deeper friendships with people you found uninteresting at first. My understanding is that both these strategies were more popular historically because they relied heavily on declining social institutions like the "neighbourhood dive bar".

[fahbee]

(source)

Bonus:

[sprachspieler]

it does not seem necessarily inconsistent for a pro-life person to say that an embryo is worth less than 0.1% of a child, though it might make a hardline anti-abortion stance more difficult to maintain

of course, that is a consequentialist view, and a (Christian or specifically Catholic) religious view probably would reject this; my guess is it would be permissible to save either the child or the thousand embryos

[nohoperadio]

The Wikipedia page on the Janet Jackson Superbowl "nipplegate" incident is 13666 words long, which is about a third longer than the Wikipedia page on Homer. The page cites 203 unique sources and includes a section headed "2004 presidential election" and another section on the public reaction in New Zealand.

[sprachspieler]

more Wikipedia pages should have a section on our reaction

[sprachspieler]

weird that my university's finance department/club keep advertising competitions about picking which stocks will do well

surely they should know better than anyone else it'll just come down to luck and variance?

[sprachspieler]

when did prediction markets get so controversial? I feel like no one knew what they were a year ago (even a few months ago?)

[squareallworthy]

Suggested Alternatives to the One China Policy

Currently, the policy of the United States on the Taiwan question is that the US recognizes that polities on both sides of the Taiwan Strait hold that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China. In the current tense international climate, it may be useful to considers alternatives to that policy.

Two Chinas Policy: The United States recognizes the independence of Taiwan as a sovereign state, separate from the People's Republic of China.

Three Chinas Policy: The US recognizes Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the mainland as independent states.

Four Chinas Policy: The US recognizes Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, and the mainland as independent states.

One China Policy (Retro 1978): The US switches its diplomatic recognition back from the PRC to the ROC.

One China Policy (Retro 1911): The US recognizes the Qing Dynasty as the legitimate government of China and finds some schmuck to play Emperor-in-Exile.

Many Chinas Policy: The US recognizes the sovereign independence of every Chinese province.

Too Many Chinas Policy: Hong Kong makes a perfectly fine city-state, so why not let everyone do that? The US recognizes every Chinese municipality as its own independent state.

1436506450 Chinas Policy: The US recognizes the sovereign independence of every Chinese person.

2^1436506450 Chinas Policy: The US recognizes the sovereign independence of every subset of of the set of all Chinese persons.

2^1436506450-1 Chinas Policy: Same as above, but not including the empty set, because that doesn't even make sense because it's already claimed by Germany.

Infinite Chinas Policy (Countable): The US recognizes that (1) The PRC is a China and (2) for every China c, the successor S(c) is also a China, and (3) for every China c, c != S(c).

Infinite Chinas Policy (Uncountable): The US recognizes that the set C of all Chinas is an ordered field, and that every non-empty subset of C with an upper bound in C has a least upper bound in C.

No Chinas Policy: The United States embraces mereological nihilism and recognizes only atoms and the void.

[sprachspieler]

witless repartee

[sprachspieler]

says that people don't understand the IVT

applies it to explicitly discontinuous functions

[errorschacha]

Lotta babies are genuinely not even somewhat cute. We need to be more honest as a society.

[niiwa-angel]

You don't tell people their babies are cute because you mean it, you tell people their babies are cute because a woman just spent nine months and God knows how much labour gestating and birthing the damn thing. It's like a participation trophy.

It's the same reason we tell pregnant women they're "glowing" no pregnant woman I've ever met or seen has been anywhere close to glowing. But they're swollen, achy, likely suffering from some sort of nausea, unbalanced, hormonal, and exhausted. You tell them they're glowing to boost confidence and support them, not because it's true.

[errorschacha]

Read theory (Immanuel Kant).

[sprachspieler]

unfortunately the categorical imperative has been cancelled

it is now permissible to lie if it is utility-maximising

[geyfrog]

Why is Christmas celebrated on December 25th when all the gifts and decorations become discounted on the 26th? It would be much cheaper to celebrate Christmas later in the month so that you can buy gifts and decorations on sale. Market cannot explain this. Is everybody stupid?

[chkq-deactivated20260531]

"i like your dress" your aesthetic values are of no concern to me.

"that's a beautiful dress" you are making a category mistake (aesthetic error theory).

"you are wearing a dress" thank you for noticing.

[tim-official]

quick update. I've decided to also blockade the strait of Hormuz. so when you talk about the status of the strait please say that it is blockaded by Iran, the USA, and Timothy. Thanks

[markovchaingang]

libertarian jesus is fine with the whole betrayal thing because judas was simply acting in his own rational self-interest but suddenly becomes agitated upon hearing he got sold out for less than market rate

[sprachspieler]

[sprachspieler]

cool

[mckitterick]

I've never understood why anyone who isn't a millionaire (or billionaire) cares about the Dow or NASDAC or any stock market. why does the news report on it? bigtime stockholders don't go to NPR or CNN or whatever to make investment decisions, so why bother us with rich people problems?

[sprachspieler]

What Percentage of Americans Own Stock?

Since 2023, an average of 62% of Americans report owning stock, a rebound after more than a decade of lower readings.

most Americans own stocks

the stock market is about the valuations of companies, i.e., how much money they are expected to make, which depends on employment, output, prices, etc, which are broadly relevant

[mckitterick]

well, yes, that's not technically untrue, because most retirement savings accounts - like the typical 401(k) - put a significant amount into stocks

but that's kinda like saying that most Americans own F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jets, because the program will cost every US citizen (including children) about $6500

I have a retirement account, though I don't really own any stocks, myself, just as I don't own any fighter jets

but, yeah, I see what you're getting at: getting everyone "invested" in the stock market makes it easier for billionaires and other rich & powerful (aka "the Epstein class") to manipulate the 99% of the citizenry who work for a living. don't threaten the economic system that enriches the Epstein class or you'll also endanger your own retirement

[sprachspieler]

I think you do own the stocks in your retirement account in a meaningful sense, namely that you can sell them and withdraw the money (albeit under certain conditions)

as for the last paragraph, I wouldn't say that's what I'm getting at