corethree

If I was dying of cancer which there's a good chance this would happen to any of us and cloned monkeys helps with cancer research I would welcome it because I don't want to die.

Honestly I would welcome human cloning too if it meant a cure for cancer.

The choice only seems controversial because none of you are dying yet. Once you're dying then the answer becomes more clear.

Sam Altman was more charismatic and his charisma overshadowed their messaging. That's the type of person who becomes leader.. Not people who make good decisions but people who are charismatic.

There is no clear marker that a evil person is evil until the crime is committed, but you can know someone is not a good person simply by knowing them and talking to that person. It's clear they knew what kind of person Sam Altman was but they had no clear marker because there is no crime, yet.

Sam was fired from ycombinator by Paul Graham. That should be enough evidence something is not right with his character, but his firing was kept private and not publicly advertised out of respect.

Sam Altman. There was an attempted fix and that fix failed. Evil prevailed because of public misunderstanding and mob mentality. Be real, who else would permit this? Paul Graham fired him from ycombinator.

I'm pretty sure if the public didn't support Sam he wouldn't have been reinstated.

Unions exist so that employees can collectively negotiate with the company and balance negotiation because a company is essentially a collective of shareholders.

This is a blatant mischaracterization. There is a legal formation of a union according to US law which requires voting. That's not what I'm talking about. There can be collective negotiation where all employees can simply threaten to quit if demands aren't met. The government doesn't have to legally acknowledge your union hence why I used the term "legal definition of union"

This isn't some cooking eggs and not calling it frying. This is more you not understanding. Failure to comprehend and being mean is what's going on with you. The term is ass hole. Because let's face it, there's no failure to comprehend here, just deliberate pedantism and mischaracterization.

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...

It is this legal definition of a union that has the ability to characterize your membership in the legal union as having paid union dues.

This legal formation of a union which is required to even sue the company isn't required for employees to act collectively.

But you know this. It's obvious. Stop being deliberately pedantic. Just move on man.

Thanks for not understanding. I mean there's other things associated with a union that people don't like about it. Why do I have to pay to have collaborative negotiation? I'm just saying I acknowledge those parts and I want to avoid it.

I think in theory people can band together and collectively negotiate without actually forming a legal union.

I think Godel might be lying to his mother. A white lie.

To be able to prove incompleteness with such deep formality and technicality then suddenly assert the existence of an after life some very broad, general, qualitative surface level reasoning is inconsistent reasoning coming from such a formidable mind.

The logic behind why there is no after life is quite clear. All human behavior and existence is tied to physical interactions between atoms. This is as far as we know. When your brain is damaged or part of it is removed, part of your thought and personality is damaged/removed as well. This is observed through stroke patients and hundreds of other people who've had brain injuries. Consciousness is tied to matter, it is, as far as we know a physical phenomena.

Chemicals, imbalances and other physical things you ingest or inject effect your consciousness as well. It is a physical thing, not a spiritual thing independent of the physical being as some people would like to believe.

The concept of an after life is clearly not tied in any way to any physical phenomena we know of, thus in all probability, it's likely made up. We don't even have an explanation for what happens to the soul during a hemispherectomy where one half of the brain is removed. Does one half of your soul go to the after life? We don't know because hemispherectomies were invented AFTER we made up the concept of an after life.

I'm not a smart dude. I'm an idiot. If I can arrive to this most likely conclusion from this simplistic logic, then for sure Godel can as well. I think he's lying, but I could be wrong.

Many geniuses can be inconsistent with their rationality. Certain topics that they don't think too deeply about could have faulty logic simply because they choose not to think deeper. But for this simplistic stuff, my guess it that Godel was lying. He's just stating the answer he thinks his mother would like to hear.

That was my strategy for the last decade. The problem with it is it gets tiring. I'd like to switch because I want to switch, not because I want to get paid what I'm worth.

Additionally in the current market for the past year, software engineers aren't getting hired as fast anymore. The crazy hiring has slowed down and many companies are actually offering lower salaries. It's much harder to land a job.

Yeah. That's stupid right? Companies should prevent you from shopping around in the first place. They are exploiting your laziness and under confidence.

That's why swes need something union like. Not a union according to the legal definition, but some way to do collaborative negotiation so they get paid what they are worth.

It's not a better bargaining chip. It's just a more "believable" bargaining chip.

A company loses far more, far more if an existing employee quits, versus losing a potential new hire.

This is just one of the illogical things about life. Either the company is illogical, or employee behavior is illogical in that the threat of quitting with a better bargaining chip is just lower.

You know of couples who talk about how their partners aren't their first choice openly or how they think other people are more attractive? If it exists it's incredibly rare.

>What stands out to me from your comment is the extreme differentiation of men & women as if they were different species

Sexual dimorphism within species can be extreme. See the angler fish: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/565905509399387626. The physical and behavioral differences at the macrolevel can be equivalent to different species. There is zero fundamental mechanism stopping this from happening.

>It’s just a genetic bit-flip in the womb - let’s not get carried away. We are in the same league just drafted into different teams.

It is not a genetic bit-flip. It's an entire chromosome. About 1000 genes on the X and about 50 on the Y chromosome that encode for proteins. The side effects arising from these proteins propagate exponentially into actual macro differences.

>Your post catastrophizes and over-generalizes to reach a worst case outcome >- Man unable to care for his family: Temporarily? Forever? How many men can’t get a job ever again ? Not many

There's no over generalization here. I am talking about an extreme where the man is permanently out of job. That's where the differences between male and female psychology become readily apparent. If a woman becomes incapable of getting a job ever again, the male will not leave her solely FOR that reason. If the opposing extreme happens, the female WILL leave him.

There's no point in talking about things that aren't extreme. Because our normal operating mode is in an area that isn't extreme anyway. We understand ordinary daily life because we live it everyday. We don't understand the extremities as well.

I can tell you what I brought up here is a topic that often women and men don't understand about each other. The women doesn't fully understand how impractical, deep and romantic a mans love for her is... a man often doesn't understand how practical and conditional a womens love for him is. The love is indeed one sided. It is similar to maternal/paternal love as well. If a mother has one child, she will usually love that child more then that child loves her. There are exceptions to this rule and multiple children can complicate the matter but the generality remains true.

>Reality: people have ups and downs. Wherever you are in life there’s people doing fine with less than you

Yeah so? this is orthogonal to my point. Women are the practical sex. Men are the romantic sex. Couples may never hit this extreme long enough for the differences to show and thus never fully elucidate the true inner psychology of their partners. Your point here doesn't offer anything to the argument. It's just an off topic fact. I agree with it, but so what?

>Reality: free people meet, and break up all the time for a multitude of reasons. Not the end of the world.

So? I don't disagree with this statement. How does this build on any of our respective points? All I am saying is that the man will be less likely to leave for practical reasons. Not leaving is ALSO a free market decision. If a women is out of a job, she needn't worry about the man leaving her. If a man is out of job, he's on a timer, the women will leave him eventually if he doesn't contribute anything practical. As a man, I personally would wish I were just as rational and logical as women are, but I'm not and that's just a fact of reality.

The women will usually characterize the reason for leaving as the man not doing his "fair share" of the work and just staying at home all day. Something of that nature. There are tons of relationships that end this way.

What women need to understand is that a man will not leave a women for this reason. There are other dark reasons that can cause a man to leave but THIS is not one of them.

>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion

This applies to you more than me as you have demonstrated with several orthogonal points that lend zero relevancy to your point. I actually agreed with several of those points without effecting my initial stance.

Maybe, but that's hardly a big deal. It's like overestimating the importance of keeping your eyes open while driving.

I would argue that the majority of people underestimate or even lie about the importance of looks.

My approach saves more energy. This one has the camera continuously running and feeding light to the sensor or film.

Mine is just taking a picture once per day.

A smarter project is to make a video then merge the frames.

Apologies I thought that response was meant for me rather then an actual request to listen to counter examples.

>I don't think you're going to see a lot of hardcore studies.

There are ways around it. Not all studies are done by asking women and men questions about their own behavior. Psychologists are certainly aware of the biases when doing that.

For example: https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success

Of course the logical implication of the above where 17 women reproduce for every 1 man means that 1 man sires 17 children (or more) with 17 women.

Do female preferences cause this where they seek a single alpha? Or is it forced? One thing is for sure though. This outcome certainly does align with theory where the "performative disdain" by a number of women isn't actually a performance. Nothing conclusive here.

Additionally your theory here implies imitation via actual existence. Women and men create such performances to be put on display for "someone" or what's the point of the performance? Therefore enough "someones" with those preferences actually exist for such performances to become widespread.

I definitely think your theory is real. I think it's wide spread too. But I do think the performance only influences the general result by something like 30%. Roughly 30% of women are putting on a performance for the majority who do have these darker desires.

Additionally here's an interesting thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs_zs8qQGXk&t=185s

are these answers a performance? Certainly a portion. I would say though as a man if the reverse question was asked whether or not it was cheating if a woman used a male prostitute, almost every man would call it cheating and that answer is NOT a performance.

A shell is where a turtle lives.

Interesting. "Performative disdain." Is there an actual formal study that accounts for it? Doesn't it actually look worse for a woman if she acts like she cares about height?

I think your claim has merit. But I want to see studies that bypass the psychological bias. Are there any? What did you see with your data? Not just the divide in general but actual trends and actual examples.

This is true. I'm assuming disagreement in general because my post has negative karma.

I therefore think it's more realistic to assume that he disagrees. But you're right I could be wrong.

Anyway my comment was very general. And I offered a anecdotal counter point. Falsification only needs a single piece of evidence as proof.

A single example of a sub contractor who is both cheap and high quality will falsify the general quotation here. There is literally no stronger argument in existence. So not surprised that people can't find a counter point as what I offered is literal proof.

Other then dismissing the quality of iPhones coming out of china, At best one can counter by changing the topic of the debate. You could say that in general there's a trend of lower quality associated with lower cost and that while it's not strictly true, it could be generally true. But that's not the argument.

In fact on that topic i am not making such a strong claim that it isn't true. For that topic I literally don't know.

Haha. This is an illustration of human bias.

You can't find a counter point on your own so instead of building a conclusion based off of evidence you call out to others to provide you with evidence so you can support your desired conclusion.

I don't like the word incel and I've been labeled as that by people for simply having unconventional opinions which is ironic given the fact that I'm married.

Incels are real and they are extremist. But in the dating game and in the world of relationships things are fundamentally unequal. Women have many many advantages and they have things a lot easier in many cases. This is real and even hinting at this gets you labeled as an incel. The current status quo of what people assume to be true as implied in the article is wrong. Incels have noticed this and taken it to the extreme.

The problem is most people really buy into this idealistic narrative of relationships and these descriptions that are flat out wrong.

Here's a common example and this will actually trigger most people because it's so unconventional:

When it comes to relationships men are the more romantic and emotional sex while women are the more logical and practical sex.

Think about it. Men do all these irrational things that are "romantic" in the form of gifts and tribute and they offer all this to a woman almost unconditionally. The women on the other hand makes a practical choice. She chooses the man based off a multitude of attributes including income which is highly, highly practical and logical.

For men, did the income of a woman ever matter? Does her job even really matter? It's illogical not to factor that in as it influenced the relationship. But as all men know, income and occupation and even status isn't even part of the criteria. Men are illogical when it comes to relationships.

Also think about it. If a man loses his job or becomes in capable of supporting a family. What does a woman with options do? She will leave. Her relationship with a man is conditioned on practicality. If It is practical for her to leave most women will. What if a woman becomes unemployed and unable to support the family? No problem there. Because the man loves her romantically, not practically.

Any man reading this will know what I'm saying is true. But this goes against the modern narrative. You can get attacked and labeled for saying such a thing. It sounds bad but it is what it is. It's just the way things are.

Overall what I'm trying to say here is that the word incel has been weaponized and over used. Incels do exist. But the worst thing that's happening here is not the concept of an incel. The status quo of what most men and women understand about male or female behavior is just fundamentally wrong and way too idealistic. There are dark truths here that we don't want to face and a lot of people who throw around the word "incel" are such people who are afraid.

This is reality: Men and women are not equal. They are different physically, mentally, intellectually, emotionally and psychologically and many of these differences are biological in nature. This unequality is not fair and balanced either... there's no black magic that says for every male weakness there's a female strength and counterpart to make up for it or vice versa. There are real reasons why there are more men in tech than women other than "oppression" and If you can't accept this and if you think this is an "incel" mentality, then I'm sorry to say you're not in touch with reality.

If you ever been married you'll know an aspect of this is true. You can't be fully honest and open with your partner.

A simple example demonstrates the case. It's unlikely for your partner to be your top choice. It's just a statistical given... But you can never reveal that. That's where the dishonesty and "pretend" comes in. And this is just one example of many.

There is always going to be an aspect of "pretend" in every relationship.

Sure Incels are extreme in one end of the spectrum. But the status quo is also a bit extreme in the sense that its description of relationships is a little too idealistic.

I'm an evo psych guy. But isn't the top 3 preferences of women to be income and height completely inline with what the eco psych people claim? And you're saying people self reported height and income as a preference but the behavior doesn't play out with what people actually do?

>These costs do not vanish merely because the work itself is out-of-sight.

This quotation isn't technically true. There are actual costs that do vanish depending on who you contract to. This is completely independent of quality. They are orthogonal.

The sacrifice is characterized as a guaranteed drop in quality if costs are lowered. No. When you sub contract quality is just harder to control. You are rolling the dice. But depending on the sub contractor there can even be an increase in quality along with a cost drop.

For example: iPhones. Subcontracted to china. But pretty high quality. Of course apple had to move over qc to china but there was still overall an up in quality with a cost drop.

It's not "more" tech. It's different tech. Lockheed makes the f-35.

If Lockheed were to try to make a drone equivalent to the best that DJI has to offer they would make that drone more expensive and actually much worse in performance, size and technology then the Chinese counter part.

One isn't more advanced then the other but each respective country is more advanced then the other in both of these technologies.

Yeah it's not clear. But it still remains an extremely viable possibility.

Additionally china has already surpassed the US in overall manufacturing.

China already dominates manufacturing without a regime change. They have surpassed "western levels". There's only a few remaining areas that the US still dominates. Those areas include aviation, and JavaScript. The US has basically moved up the stack while China has taken over the entire bottom of the stack.

The final choice for starting a war is basically in the hands of the US. By not joining the fight for Ukraine and by not joining the fight between Israel and Hamas it shows that the US doesn't typically join foreign wars that aren't it's business.

The West will not be "choosing to defend Taiwan" because the West doesn't actually truly care about Taiwan, Ukraine, gaza or Israel.

The West cares about being the number one power and to this end it will be the US "choosing" to engage in war with china.

I'm Taiwanese, china isn't being coy with words here. They will invade Taiwan to force reunification in the same way the north forced reunification in the US civil war. They truly believe this.

This is entirely different from how the US is hiding behind the "defense of Taiwan". No the Taiwanese know the US doesn't care about Taiwan. They care about staying number one economically and they will may use the "defense of Taiwan" as an excuse to use war to stop Chinas economic advancement.