FrontierPsych

>Humans are, for better or worse, extremely driven to procreate and have families and communities.

But in reality, marriage has fallen off a cliff. It's the lowest ever.

And women are much more money-oriented than men - men want a hot young woman, women want a provider - even if they work themselves, they want a man to make as much or more. Men don't care - they will marry a broke waitress if she looks good to him. And the reality is that men ar dropping out of society - women are earning 60% of undergrad degrees, and I've read that it will be 70-75% in 10-15 years. These women are not going to want to marry men not at their level.

If any woman disagrees here, I'll gladly be the stay-at-home partner while you go work and I play video games all day.

August 2020 Pew report (describing data from 2019): "Half of all solo single people don’t want a romantic relationship or even a date."

A long, long time ago I made the decision not to get married because marriage is a really, really bad deal for the man. I feel that no man should get married, not one. You may say "what would happen to the human race, then?" Well, the world might not be flamed baked like Venus if the human race was to die out in the next 100 years.

If there's a simple product that costs $35/month and does one single function, then it is stupid to contact sales.

However, if it is a complex sale with multiple optional parts that require custom solutions, then you need to talk to a salesperson.

I totally agree with you if it is a simple product.

Railroads served in the military? Are the engines the generals? The caboose is the privates? Do the rail cars wear war ribbons on their chests???

I don't get what you're saying. I didn't even know railroads were people, but you learn something new every day, I guess.

The times we live in.

That's not the correct question.

The correct question is if homeless people sleeping on the concrete - would they want to live in that. And probably a good many of them wouldn't.

Sounds good, let's do it.

Yes, please.

My friend and I have been talking about this for a long time.

It would cost a lot less to buy these highrises and build them out for homeless, rather than the mess we pay for now.

>It's not because something is private that suddenly no regulations apply.

So you're saying that Catholic seminaries are required to admit muslims that want to become imams, and therefore the Catholic seminaries will be required to start a islamic department to train muslims to become imams? (rhetorical question).

So as far as the fairness of the admission process goes, all applicants should apply with no name, race, creed, or any type of way to identify who and where someone comes from? Do away with essays as they are super easy way to identify the background of an applicant? Pure test scores only?

I totally disagree with your saying that the issue isn't with some categories are over-represented. That's just not the case at all.

huh...My domain is with you.

I didn't even know this was a thing.

I easily could not look at my emails for a few weeks - on vacation or whatever.

Wow that sucks.

>As old Bob Dylan said, you gotta serve somebody.

This is misleading.

It's not about not wanting to serve someone. It's about how much you have to serve. Serving someone 90 hours per week at $15/hour with no benefits, vs serving someone 3 hours per week and making millions of dollars and being able to do two chicks at the same time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiuZIno6KPA Actually, there's a lot of wisdom in that video clip.

They are private universities, why does it matter in the first place?

Should Catholic seminaries be forced to admit islamic students? Jeff Bezos has a $150 million house in Los Angeles, should he be forced to allow the homeless to live there?

There are a lot of other universities.

But if we are going to be strict about it, then it should be strict. We have to look at the exact makeup of every single group of people in the USA and make everything is exact. So that means Jewish students should make up only 2% of elite schools, Catholics should make up 22% of the student body, 1.1% should be muslims, 14% of students must be black, hispanics must be 18.7%, 58% must be white, 7.2% of students Asian and of course must divide it more and more. We have to figure out how many left handed students must be allowed to be in elite universities, how many with crooked vs straight teeth. This is all wonderful stuff.

Of course at universities, 50% should be men and 50% should be women. Right now, 60% of students are women and 40% are men, universities must stop admitting so many women, that is very clear. Universities should only allow 50/50.

At the premier public university of UC Berkeley, 36% are Asian and so that must be adjusted downwards to 7.2%. 23.8% of Cal Berkeley students are white, so of course, the white student population must be increased to 58%. A lot less Asians should be admitted.

At UCLA, 58.6% are women, so that has to come down so it is 50%. 28% of the student body are Asian, so that has to come down to 7.2%. White are 26.3% so that has to be adjusted up to 58%. Hispanics are 22.6%, that has to come down to 18.7%.

Of course, this must happen at every single university.

I am starting to see how this game should be played now.

My expertise and academic background on this is zero.

But I'll add my own uninformed opinion just like everyone else.

I think it is because we live such an unhealthy indoor life.

Nobody goes out to play anymore. When I was a kid, there were other children swarming all over the streets. No longer. Instead, everyone is inside, glued to the tv or mobile apps.

Losing touch with the dirt, with the grass, playing, hiking - we lose touch with "mother earth." Maybe that means that as animals, we have been directly on the ground for all existence until now. It means that the negative ion charge from the ground was part of all of our existence. you get negative electrons when you put your bare foot or body on the ground.

Now, we are inundated with positive ions - cell phones, tvs, pollution, wifi. So our bodies collect positive ions and they stay in our bodies. Postive ions are removed when we step on the ground with our bare feet. Or during recess when we used to sit on the ground or fall on the ground doing various activities.

We also ground a gas tank to keep it from exploding...

Negative ions:

Reduce inflammation, which contributes to chronic disease Improved sleep Reduced cortisol levels Relieve pain Faster healing Calms the sympathetic nervous system

The Earth’s surface is “the ‘battery’ for all planetary life.”

Shoes are insulators from the ground.

Feet are major portals to the natural world - our whole evolution we had mostly bare feet, or at least a lot of it.

Farming also connected us to the earth, even if wearing shoes, you get down into the dirt. Most of the population in even as soon as 120 years ago or so, 80 or 90% of people were involved in agriculture.

In addition to grounding, we also have removed much of sunshine, clean air and water, nutritious food, and physical activity.

Physical activity is also extraordinarily important. About 70% of the entire population in the USA is overweight or obese.

We have been growing slowly fatter but this has really escalated starting in the 1980s. I myself have noticed this. https://i1.wp.com/boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/...

This chart is so accurate and I personally noticed the EXACT same thing during this time period. Also, this graph is only for the obese and morbidly obese. Overweight is not included, but I'm sure that will be the same, if not more of a accelleration.

I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s and nobody was fat then. I remember the fattest person I ever saw, he was monsterous then. Now he would be on the slim side of fat.

We were not made to be this fat. It is so incredibly unhealthy on so many fronts, and there are SO many terrible side effects from being overweight or obese. It's not just one or two things. There are multitudes of being fat. It messes up all the hormones, creates all kinds of mental issues.

Shoot, I bet if we all got to our correct body fat percentages, the mental health epidemic would drop like a rock.

Put the phone down, get outside and walk for 2 hours per day. Exercise 2 hours a day.

And finally, food. Food is garbage today. Ice cream, cookies, candy, white flour, salt, white rice, potato chips, soda. You know what the unhealthy foods are. You should only shop on the "outside" aisle of the grocery store and not go up and down each aisle. Just the outside aisle - that is where they keep the veggies, fruits, dairy, meat - all the healthy stuff. The sole exception being if they have a bakery/donuts/etc on the outside wall.

I guarantee you that 2 hours outdoors, every day, will immediately dispell anxiety, depression, and the rest of the stuff by a great deal. Maybe not 100%, but maybe you will have only 10% of your stress and depression left in your body instead of 100%. Of course, not saying it will cure clinical depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, or any of that knind of mental illness.

Conceptually, it is the simplest, easiest fix in the world. But it is the most difficult to do. Because nobody wants to get out into the world and walk or hike. Nobody wants to put the donuts down.

I think it dependson one's personality type.

All those things didn't affect me because I didn't care about any of it. I made barely enough grades to barely squeeze into university. I just didn't care, not too much.

I would think that college admissions is too narrow of a reason as to why. Only about 35% of high school graduates go on to university. I'm sure a significant number of university attendees don't have these issues to the extent that they have to go to a therapist. It's great that you went, wonderful that you did, but I am not convinced that anywhere near the majority of university students had that much pressure - to the extent of having their life break down.

I do agree that everyone needs a healthier lifestyle.

>A Sudden Stratospheric Warming is coming, collapsing the Polar Vortex

I kept reading and reading and kept wondering and wondering when the heck the conclusion would come.

It was very disappointing that it wasn't going to be a total global collapse of the environment spawing hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, volcanos, zombies and all kinds of end-of-the-world stuff. I'm so bitterly disappointed.

I am responding again today, I left another post to you under another post you made further down this thread..

Today, the House voted UNANIMOUSLY, 419-0, to condemn China's balloon surveillance program as a “brazen violation” of U.S. sovereignty, a rare and swift bipartisan rebuke of Beijing as questions mount about the craft the U.S. says was part of a vast aerial spy program.

“This resolution, I believe, sends a clear bipartisan signal to the CCP and our adversaries around the world that this action will not be tolerated,” said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, referring to the Chinese Communist Party.

Are every single one of the House, D and R, wrong and you are right? I'm pretty sure the Senate would vote the same way.

"In a Congress riven by partisan splits, the shared anxiety over China's stealthy balloon surveillance program and the reach of the Beijing's global military and economic force provided an unusual opening for bipartisan agreement in the debate."

I am extremely interested in your response, especially your comment that pertains to the Brooklyn Bridge. Are you going to sell that Bridge to every member of the House? Everyone but you does not understand things?

https://news.yahoo.com/us-house-votes-condemn-china-16553744...

I am responding again today, one day after I left my other post under this response that I made to you.

Today, the House voted UNANIMOUSLY, 419-0, to condemn China's balloon surveillance program as a “brazen violation” of U.S. sovereignty, a rare and swift bipartisan rebuke of Beijing as questions mount about the craft the U.S. says was part of a vast aerial spy program.

“This resolution, I believe, sends a clear bipartisan signal to the CCP and our adversaries around the world that this action will not be tolerated,” said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, referring to the Chinese Communist Party.

Are every single one of the House, D and R, wrong and you are right? I'm pretty sure the Senate would vote the same way.

"In a Congress riven by partisan splits, the shared anxiety over China's stealthy balloon surveillance program and the reach of the Beijing's global military and economic force provided an unusual opening for bipartisan agreement in the debate."

I am extremely interested in your response.

"culture/family etc"

That's really just a veneer for "transactional and performance based"

Whenever I hear a company say that they are like a family, I run. In a family, you don't lay off family members. As a matter-of-fact, if it is a family run business, and there's a business downturn, they will lay off all workers and leave their actual family members working.

In reality, saying it is "family" is just a machiavellian ploy to pretend a business actually cares about the employees, in order to make them loyal to the company, without the loyalty going the other way. I've read so many stories about how owners were always talking about the company being "family" but when push came to shove, they shoved the employee out the door. But like so many companies, all the ones that are shedding employees, they never seem to fire the C-suite, somehow.

As far as culture goes, all companies want to create a culture that is maximal efficiency for the company. That's all the culture is in a corporate world. It's transactional. No company is going to have a culture of 5 hour picnic lunches every day, followed by an hour foot massage for everyone so that only 2 hours of work get done a day. That would be silly. ALL business cultures exist to maximize shareholder investments. To the extent that cultures are different is just a different way of trying to maximize employee output. Nothing is wrong with it, but it actually is transactional. To the extent people talk about "culture" that is really just trying to polish the turd.

I agree with everythinig else you wrote.

Personally I don't see any difference at all in being in the same building vs on online zoom/video meeting.

I find it very strange that being in a room with someone is somehow different than being on a video call.

You can see the peoples' faces...what are you going to do in person? Touch peoples' naughty bits? Fart so everyone can enjoy? I don't get it. You are there to exchange ideas. Being face-to-face in person allows you to see the person's face and non-verbals. But you get that in a video conference.

I don't understand.

What you say may or may not be true, but it is beside the point.

The point is that the USA, or any country, has the right to deny it's airspace to anyone. There is no rule that just because we let it fly through Montana that means the USA has to let it fly anywhere.

There are all kinds of instances of the USA being denied use of another country's airspace. I'm not quite sure on the exact situation as it was a while ago, but I think during Gulf War I, or maybe II, Turkey would not let the USA take off from Incerirlick Air Base to bomb Iraq.

Ah, here it is,they closed their airspace for a while in Gulf War II - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/20/iraq.helenasmi...

It seems like you are giving China a pass to me.

>If it was a serious threat to US national security, it would have been blown up over Alaska

Nope. USA has the right to do it anywhere. We don't know the strategy. Maybe there was some global strategic reason or tactical reason, or who knows? Neither of us is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or are the Secretary of Defense. What do we know? All I know is that the USA can shoot down any aircraft, at any time, for any reason, if it doesn't file a flight plan and let the USA know the purpose. That I know. But you saying "If it was a serious threat to US national security..." is silly. You are not the Secretary of Defense. How would you know? Or anyone know, unless privy to that information?

That's how it works.

I swear all these articles on weight loss are created by the food companies to confuse people, and then people see so many conflicting report that they just give up. 6 small meals per day, keto, mediterranean, do this, do that, it is never ending.

Of course, the answer is to only eat natural foods - fruit, vegetables, dairy (except eggs, fuck them at least for now), a bit of meat. A well rounded diet. Don't eat ice cream, candy, cookies, pototo chips...junk food. Do not eat pre-prepared foods - make everything from scratch. It's easy, there are all kinds of recipies on google search you can make ANYTHING. And all kinds of cooking videos. If you don't know what a term means, you look it up online.

And exercise is good, yes.

If you eat 500 calories less per week, and exercise 500 calories more per week, this means you will lose on the average, 2 pounds per week, or 8 pounds per month. After 10 months, that would be 80 pounds.

So if you only need to lose 40 pounds, then that is 4 months.

It's super easy to lose weight...if you don't cram your mouth full of shitty foods like pizza and cookies and candy. Just eat real actual natural foods.

But, people don't want to do that, so they will never lose weight.

In 1960, "a United States U-2 spy plane was shot down by the Soviet Air Defence Forces"

It's ok to try, but expect your shit to be shot down if you're a dick about it.

Nothing happened when the U2 was shot down. But I personally am ok with the Soviet Union shooting it out of the sky.

Why should the USA do nothing when a balloon, by a massive military power and the USA's new competitor, fly over the USA without a polite, "Hey, do you mind if we fly this "weather balloon" with cameras over your military installations?"

I admit Americans have, and have been shot down. Why is it so weird the other way around? Why are you defending China indirectly by trying to equate it with the USA? If the USA gets shot down, why is that not mentioned by you and others? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

And, China certainly is getting weird about not having people sail ships through the South China Sea, despite it being ruled as international waters.

You left the important part out:

"a United States U-2 spy plane was *shot down* by the Soviet Air Defence Forces"

I have zero idea why people are defending China, while the USA gets their aircraft shot down. Each country has sovereignty over their own airspace.

And China is all weird about not wanting ships in the South China Sea despite it being ruled international waters.

Why are you giving China a pass and holding the USA to different rules?

Light 'em up.

You can't send huge flying things across another country's airspace without permission and flight plans.

I don't know, maybe the USA should start flying planes over Moscow and Beijing. How do you think they'd react?

I don't get what the pushback against blowing up a balloon would be.

If I was president, I'd make sure I'd be flying balloons over China all the time, see how they like it.

shit, they are getting pissy about ships being in the South China Sea.

Fuck China.

All the things that you listed are uniform. Refrigerators use the same mechanical stuff to keep stuff cold using some kinds of equations that measure it all and it is the same every time - equations don't change. For airplanes, the airflow and lift equations will always be the same. Microwave ovens only microwave, it always heats the same. Basic carpentry tools for building have not changed for thousands of years. A hammer today is the same basic thing as a hammer 2000 years ago.

However, software is different. It responds to real life changes in real time. Governmental regulations change, new types of taxes, new optimized ways of doing business develop, demand rises and falls, competitors try to outflank you and you have to meet the competition. You can't plan. You cannot foresee. You can look at trends and extrapolate but you never know for sure. But you for sure know what the number for gravity is, or Ohm's Law or all that other kinds of shit. For example, insurance. All 50 states have their own insurance rules and regulations and change them all the time. A national insurance company has to understand the rules of all 50 states and make changes to their software for 50 states. Plus actuarial tables change all the time. Are 30 year olds all of a sudden getting in a lot more accidents, statistically? why? Is in an anomoly or a trend, and what's causing it? Do we as a company need to raise rates on 30-year-olds? Wildfires with global warming - insurance companies will not insure now in wildfire areas. Same with hurricane areas - good luck with finding affordable insurance in F.orida for your home. This is just the very smallest not even scratching the surface of all the changes in insurance industry. And all industries are the same issues. Shit continuously changes in a business environment. What can you do??? How can you make software one time for that? It's impossible.

Sofware is released earlier now because of a completely different competitive landscape. Back in the 1980s, and to some extent the 1990s, there was no competition, not like today. Not even close. Apple Computer in the 1980s was barely a blip compared to IBM or any other Fortune 500 company - it was laughably small. Now it is bigger revenue than most nations. And that is just one company. The industry is vast, vast, vast and people are always looking for niches, niches, niches. People always say if you want to start a business, find a niche...unfortunately, unlike the 1980s, everyone knows that, and there are hardcore competitors in every niche you can think of and a shitload that you can't think of.

So, because there is so much competition, you have to come to market fast, otherwise someone else will eat your lunch. First to market is a thing, if you don't fuck it up by deliver utter shite.

Secdurity fixes and updates are probably the most obvious. With the advent of internet as it is now is nowhere near like it was in the 1980s or 1990s. Trillions of dollars are being shot all over the internet. Corporate plans are kept on computers - competitors would love to see your plans. So cybercrime is an issue because of trillions of dollars at stake. So security updates must happen all the time. Social engineering training must be constant.

You can't really change anything. It's like saying to change whether you eat or not. I suppose if there was some genetic engineering to clone us with photosynthesis from plants and it turned us green and we could get energy from the sun, that would make it change, but anything short of that, there's no change possible.

What would I mandate if I was in a position to enact laws??? Really??? I would enact a law that said two supermodels have to be with me in bed every night with blow and snort it off their asses. Hookers and blow, hookers and blow. That's the standard joke, but I guess the real answer is to pass a law for people to be excellent to each other.

The bad stuff is always easy to ignore.

The question is - which is the funnest time? The most interesting?

The 1980s. I've been around from the 1970s to 2023. Easily 1980s were the best. Maybe they were not if you lived out in the middle of Nebraska in a town of 200 people, but in that case, no decade is great. Options are limited. You watch the grass grow, or you watch the paint dry.

I was very young in the 1960s, but I always thought that the women of the late 1960s were the most attractive. More natural, more open. Starting in the 1980s, very, very slowly, women became more and more closed off, building shells around themselves. Now they are hard beetle carapaces. Guys pretty much have stayed the same. I've had many work interactions with people in their late teens to mid 20s, where I have been by far the oldest. We get along great, but that's what I've noticed. But like any era, there are sweet people, too. It's just the proportions have changed.

Wow, was that person ever wrong.

The 1970s were the third best time to be alive, the 1960s were the second best time, and the first best was the 1980s.

The first 2 or 3 years of the 1990s were ok, but after that, everything turned to shit. I don't hate the 1993 to 2023, it is just that they are sooooo boring and derivative. Nothing new, nothing exciting. The internet and iphones, yawn. I was on the internet (ARPAnet) back in the 1980s. iphones are just a delivery system. the underlying stuff was around way before then and I was using it.

Rap music? Rappers Delight in 1979, and Rapture by Blondie in 1980.

I'd LOVE something to be new and innovative. Sure, there is *some* innovation. SaaS is great. But really not too much new.

Truer words have never been spoken.

You want loyalty? Get a dog.

Right, the Jack Welch (General Electric) school of management.

This is a strategy best done as a regular ongoing culling of the "worst" employees. This way, you are always a better workforce.

When you have a mass layoff due to massively missing revenue goals, you have to start wholesale hacking of people to get rid of payroll. Payroll is the biggest cost to a company, so you have to shed employees fast, before the end of this quarter. There is no time to fire that many people at once, even with delegation. You have to chop all the non-performing or underperforming units/product lines/etc and everyone in them, be they the bottom 10% of the top 10%. If you have 750 people working in a product line that is losing money, they're zapped.

Depends.

If you have a large Fortune 1000, or 5000 corporation and they have a horrible quarter and need to lay off people, they will cut departments, groups, willy-nilly. They will see if a group of 1000 people is really necessary to the main strategic goals of the firm, and if they are not, they will slash everyone, good or not. There's nothing that you can do about it unless you are the CEO's son or daughter.

When you get down to mid-size or smaller companies, where they look at individuals, the reality is that "the employee that has good relations with the people in charge of layoffs never get laid off."

This is a theme I've mentioned many times - at any company, you should find the people who have the power and develop strong relations with them. Make them happy.

And be easy to get along with - don't whine and complain. Smile and be genuinely friendly (do not be unctuous).

Nothing at all will 100% guarantee you never get laid off, but that's the best way to maximize your not being laid off.

Also, be in the revenue generating part of the company if you can.

Probably the opposing vew to this is that if you keep your employees happy first, then they will be happy and keep your customers happy. If you have unhappy employees, they might not give a shit about customers and piss the customers off.

We've all been to those places where the employees don't give a fuck about customers, and basically tell you with their body language and tone of voice to fuck off.

Here's an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7lGqmZprx0

You have to 1) break the egg first, then 2) put it in the pan and cook it, then 3) put it on a plate, then 4) eat it.

You can't do all those things simultaneously, you have to do them in sequential order.

1) Keep employee happy ==> then 2) you have a happy customer ==> then 3) the customer buys more shit from you

Employees come before the customer.

I've said this before, but if you steal $300 from the store, you go to jail.

If a company steals $300 from the employee, the people in charge - the CEO - should have the same fate. It would solve the problem pretty quickly.