yes_really

I saw a lot of people justifying Trump's moves because "the US shouldn't be spending so much money helping Ukraine in the war."

I understand that argument, but what about security guarantees? Zelensky has been simply asking for security guarantees so that Putin doesn't start another war in a few years (like he did in 2014 and 2022). Why can't Trump provide that? Why should we just trust Putin's word? Or is there something I'm missing here?

I saw a lot of people justifying Trump's moves because "the US shouldn't be spending so much money helping Ukraine in the war".

I understand that argument, but what about security guarantees? Zelensky has been simply asking for security guarantees so that Putin doesn't start another war in a few years (like he did in 2014 and 2022). Why can't Trump provide that? Why should we just trust Putin's word? Or is there something I'm missing?

> "woke" [...] is about being aware of the past 500 years of global history, systematic systems of oppression, racism, discrimination, religious wars, a reasonable understanding of the root causes of the major wars of the past 100 years and their aftermath, various genocides, pogroms, assassinations, coup d'etat, economic disparities between wealthy nations and developing nations, global patterns of push and pull factors for immigration, the role that major international organizations like the UN, NATO, EU play in global politics, culturally specific implementations and practices of non-binary and non-heterosexual gender norms in cultures very alien to western european cultural backgrounds, I could go on for quite some time.

Ben Shapiro is aware of all those things you wrote on your wall of text. Is he woke? The same is true for Jordan Peterson, Roger Scruton, Curtis Yarvin. Are all of those people woke?

No, It's not my "personal definition" of woke. I wrote "woke is well understood to be about identity politics.". Do you deny that "woke" is well understood to be about identity politics?

It is hard to believe you were not aware of how the term is used. I believe you are being deliberately obtuse.

Is this post an instance of that?

The following requirements were part of the program [1]. Are you really unable to see how this can fairly be described as "woke"?

> In addition, states had to prove that they promoted participation from minority-owned businesses, women-owned businesses, and “other socially or economically disadvantaged individual-owned businesses.” They also had to create a Five-Year Action Plan that required collaborating with unions and “underrepresented communities,” including prisoners, LGBTQI+ individuals, women, and people of color.

[1] https://www.thefp.com/p/inside-biden-broadband-boondoggle-tr...

No, woke is well understood to be about identity politics.

The following requirements were part of the program [1]. Are you really unable to see how this can be described as "woke"?

> In addition, states had to prove that they promoted participation from minority-owned businesses, women-owned businesses, and “other socially or economically disadvantaged individual-owned businesses.” They also had to create a Five-Year Action Plan that required collaborating with unions and “underrepresented communities,” including prisoners, LGBTQI+ individuals, women, and people of color.

[1] https://www.thefp.com/p/inside-biden-broadband-boondoggle-tr...

No. It seems very clear that his problem is with the guy paying lower rent than him for a better apartment.

If the subsidy is done by the government (though regulations, direct subsidy, rent-control, etc), and if he pays those taxes, then his feeling of injustice are perfectly valid.

It's one thing for the government to take your money to feed people that are in need. It's another thing for the government to take your money to give someone living conditions better than your own!

Pitt has an endowment of 5.5 BILLION dollars [1].

It really does not seem like they paused all PhD admissions as an honest way to optimize their money. It seems like they are using their institutional power to protest Trump's policies, to create a sad state of academic research so that Trump is blamed for it until he reverts his policies.

I feel sad for the rejected PhD students that were caught in the crossfire of Pitt's protest.

[1] https://www.utimes.pitt.edu/news/pitt-s-endowment-2022-23

I think it depends. In the US, denser cities are more expensive than lower density ones. If a city doubles in population, it will probably generate more demand due to the extra jobs opportunities/amenities/culture/etc, so people from other parts of the country will want to move there.

The exception is if everywhere in the country increases in size at the same time. For example, Japan has cheap rent at the most populous city at Earth (Tokyo). But one quarter of the whole country lives there.

If the US had something equivalent, with 80 million people in NYC, and plenty of high-rises and missing middle in every city that is currently mostly single-family-homes, then we could have cheap rents everywhere. But if just one city increases density alone, it seems it will just attract people from elsewhere in the country

For example, consider "more supply can generate more demand". I agree. In many cases, when a city starts to densify, the simple fact that the city is denser can generate more demand by attracting more people that want to live in it due to job opportunities, culture, etc that develop due to the new density.

But that doesn't contradict supply and demand. And, for example, if the prices stay the same while both supply and demand increase, that still has a positive side. It means that the city is becoming attractive while still permitting more people to live in it for the same price.

> Supply and demand are worse. They [...] almost always break down in real world situations.

> For example: more supply can generate more demand. Demand can be inflexible with respect to supply. Supply and demand are unstable and can change unpredictably. In a monopoly situation price can be manipulated. Short term large supply can hamper long term.

Supply and demand do not "break down" in any of your examples. You literally wrote how supply and demand apply in each of your examples. It is simply wrong to say they "break down".

That's not a neighborhood. That's an apartment complex! It covers roughly 200 by 300 meters.

For comparison, the average officially recognized neighborhood in San Francisco is around 3.3 km². That "neighborhood" covers around 0.07 km².

Interesting. I didn't know they were so focused on the most sought-after men. In some cultures, a large fraction of men is matched by matchmakers.

Did you try a professional matchmaker? There must be matchmakers specialized in professionally successful singles in NYC.

You cannot seriously think that Hamas did not try to kill people on Oct 7th. Flagged.

Why are you using scare quotes for "terrorists"? Do you dispute that Hamas are terrorists?

Do you think that the Hamas' attacks aimed at civilians, such as Oct 7th, or indiscriminate launching of missiles it performed for decades, are not terror attacks?

What level are you applying to? Do you think it's hard because you are applying to a high level and there are fewer openings the higher level it is?

> I think that the idea is not to "dumb down" the kids, but to have a goal that everyone can achieve instead of a goal that is impossible to achieve for some [...]

You don't need to have a unified "goal". Just let the faster students learn more. Note California public schools started *removing* optional classes for faster students.

California: one of the richest regions on Earth, with the highest taxes in the US, and math education worse than third-world countries.

> I mean, being invisible and rightless, but allowed to work and get a tiny fraction of the value your work represents, until someone just murders you and then makes it out you were such a danger to them? [...] I would burn things down, too.

What are you talking about? Literally everything you are complaining about is false.

> being invisible

They are not invisible. There are riots with extreme violence when one of their criminals is shot by police, even though the cop is facing a murder trial. In contrast, Muslims in France committed multiple attacks against ethnic French people and there were zero riots. If the Muslims in France are invisible, how come a death of one of their criminals causes such indignation to result in a violent riot? But multiple terrorist attacks / targeted assassinations / stabbing / shootings / murders perpetrated by Muslim in France against the ethnic French population don't cause enough indignation to result in a riot?

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Samuel_Paty

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Marseille_stabbing

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Paris_knife_attack

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_police_headquarters_stab...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nice_stabbing

> being rightless

Tell me, what rights do ethnic French people have that Muslim French citizens don't?

> allowed to work and get a tiny fraction of the value your work represents

You must not be familiar with the French welfare state. I guarantee that the Muslim immigrants and their children receive MUCH more from the government than the work they produce.

> until someone just murders you

And is prosecuted for it!

> I would burn things down, too

Consider you don't know what is happening in France before you proclaim support for riots and violence.

The difference is that employers at least *try* to pick the best candidate by ignoring characteristics such as attractiveness and height. For race and gender, it's the opposite: employers actively give preference to certain races and to women.

Remember the first thing women did when they got the right to vote in the US was to ban alcohol.

There is no principled reasoning from those politicians. The rule is basically "Sign any law that advantages women. Be neutral or against any law that advantages men."

Usually prostitutes are women and buyers are men. So they legalized the part where there are more women. That's either because women have more sympathy from society or for ideological reasons. Fixing crime was way below those reasons on those politicians priorities.

There is no principled reasoning from those politicians. The rule is basically "Sign any law that advantages women. Be neutral or against any law that advantages men."

Ask these politicians how they are respecting men's body autonomy. They will look at you confused thinking "body autonomy" applies only to women or outright get angry and say you are arguing in bad faith.

> Simply put, being exposed to a a rich, diverse student body is good for everyone, not just minorities.

Why does the student body need to replace part of its Whites and Asians with minorities to be "rich and diverse"? Can't it be rich and diverse by having different people which are each his own individual not defined by his race?

Also, aren't you worried about how getting denied admission to a college because of your race will have a very negative effect for "society"?

> the red states are MUCH more reliant on federal government handouts that the blue states have to pay for, BECAUSE of their "conservative" policy choices.

Do you have any economics paper indicating that? The much more likely explanation is that red states are more rural and blue states are more urban (so have higher income). Florida and Texas' economies are doing great. Notice even California had a Republican governor until 2011.

Not only you are wrong, you are wrong and arrogant.

The UC system has 170 billion dollars in assets and an endowment of 20 billion dollars.

How come they can't afford to put students in a lecture room and pay TAs a few hours of work?

> Amazon has introduced a new weapon in the battle against internet trolls: delays.

What a bunch of BS. Their product was received very negatively by the users and they would rather call them "trolls" than admit they screwed up.

Let's say Cloudfare had not banned KF because they consider themselves a utility, what liability does Cloudfare really have?

> It's not just about people posting offensive shit in their own little corner of the internet - what happens there spreads out, by design, into the mainstream web and real life too.

During the Black Lives Matter riots, we had a full summer of looting, destruction, violence and riots. The BLM ideas also "spread out, by design, into the mainstream web and real life too". And they resulted in violence in a scale much, much larger than Kiwifarms.

Should DDoS-protecting companies have banned the BLM websites?