kibiz0r @ kibiz0r @midwest.social

Posts

2

Comments

1,532

Joined

2 yr. ago

This way lies madness

I get the premise, it just seems silly. If a foreign company wants to give you steeply-discounted stuff, it seems like you ought to take the cheap stuff and enjoy it rather than worry about being unable to sell the same stuff as cheaply.

Why would you want to reduce imports anyway?

“China is sending us cheap cars! What are we gonna do?!”

Idk man, drive the cars and use the money you saved for something else? Seems like a good deal to me.

What the dumbwaiter hides

Way larger than I imagined, too. And yeah, I would also suspect they’re pretty messy and occassionally traumatic. But so are monogamous relationships.

I wouldn’t worry about eating your hat here. And also, I’m not digging the downvotes you’ve been catching. I think you presented a pretty reasonable take based on your own experience. That’s not the same experience everyone has, but that’s kinda the whole point of this thread, isn’t it?

Results show that 1 out of 6 people (16.8%) desire to engage in polyamory, and 1 out of 9 people (10.7%) have engaged in polyamory at some point during their life. Approximately 1 out of 15 people (6.5%) reported that they knew someone who has been or is currently engaged in polyamory.

Seems like it’s fairly common.

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.619640/full

It’s as normal as dyeing your hair blue. It’s not the go-to for everybody, but if you go to the supermarket it’s right there on the shelf with all the other options.

Guys, not cool! You don’t do this part publicly. You have each company petition privately.

If Trump likes them, they get an exemption and get to raise prices anyway while going “Hoo boy, those tariffs, huh? Real shame. But what can you do?”

Functionex: because a monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors.

I got it from You Are Not So Smart, but yes — same study.

I take your point, but I’ll offer a couple other things to consider:

All social science findings are, to at least some degree, propaganda¹. Everything about them is steeped in social influence, and they only make sense in context of a given society.

That’s why I think the socio-economic finding is actually more true than the delayed gratification finding. It broadens the scope of the considered influences, beyond the individual.

—

¹ I say this with respect. Because here I am, doing propaganda. Seriously. I don’t like how our society acts like individuals have immutable traits and the world sorts them fairly according to their evaluated worth. Meritocracy is a joke, and we’d all be better off to consider material conditions and moral luck.

those who used ChatGPT for "personal" reasons — like discussing emotions and memories — were less emotionally dependent upon it than those who used it for "non-personal" reasons, like brainstorming or asking for advice.

That’s not what I would expect. But I guess that’s cuz you’re not actively thinking about your emotional state, so you’re just passively letting it manipulate you.

Kinda like how ads have a stronger impact if you don’t pay conscious attention to them.

thousand’s*

The most disappointing timeline.

(Peter Thiel)

That’s basically the whole economy.

Cory Doctorow:

If you take the Big Tech stocks out of the S&P 500, you’ve got a stock market that has been in decline for a decade. And when you decompose their balance sheets and you see where they get all their money, it’s from price gouging on repairs, service, parts, consumables, software.

You know, if you’re angry at Elon Musk, don’t just get performatively offended about his Nazi salutes. Make it legal for mechanics all over the world to jailbreak Teslas, so that every subscription feature in that Tesla that generates the recurring revenue source that creates Tesla’s ridiculous earnings-to-valuation ratio — all of those car owners can just for one price get all that service unlocked. Elon Musk never gets another dime from them. That really hits him where it hurts. He loves the attention that he gets from the Nazi salute. He’s going to be a lot less happy if he can’t get, you know, a couple hundred bucks every month from every Tesla owner for access to the full battery or the acceleration curve or any of the other things that he sells as a subscription in his cars.

Neo-cons: Man, I wish we could just liquidate the entire country.

MMT: We’ve been looking at the national debt all wrong. It’s not a burden, it’s a measure of all the assets in the country. The only way to “pay off” the national debt would be to liquidate the entire country.

Neo-cons: Repeat that last part? … Guys, I have an idea. I really, really care about the national debt. It’s a big problem. We gotta solve it. Who’s with me?

GOP: His only real crime was spending money in Europe.

Guy on the right should be pointing at the dumb fuck

And then say that source is discredited, without providing a source for that claim.

It’s all part of it.

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.

When you complain about Big Balls at DOGE, it makes you sound ridiculous, which makes it easier to dismiss your concerns.