LeroyRaz

Similarly, I think I would rather read a blog written by an expert on their area of expertise (for free) than read a newspaper's (sloppy) filtering of that.

And, if I care deeply enough about a topic, I would rather read a book about it. What service do these newspapers think they serve?

To corrupt an adage, I honestly think the best reporting is generally free (e.g. coffeezilla, e.g., excellent in-depth podcasts, e.g. many excellent articles and essays linked via HackerNews, etc...) and the second best is more expensive than most newspapers can afford to be (e.g., a book).

It's great they followed up! Very classy

Artist's rights, livelihoods, and incentives should all be protected. This protection should probably come from good regulation of AI, and not us merely asking or expecting corporations or entities like the BBC to conflict with their primary goals (without government or industry regulation forcing them to comply to a clearly articulated standard).

The UK has been eating fungus based meat replacements for decades.

I guess it might be a catch twenty two. Low quality -> low income -> low quality, but the sadness of such a dynamic does not make me want to pay for an inferior service.

Shrewd tactful negotiation can be valuable, but I think people are mainly emphasizing the need for strength and clear emphatic boundaries, not for being a "monster."

Provided, a woman does it safely, and can partition their emotions well, I don't think individual women are really harmed by, for example, running an only fans account. I think the male population is massively harmed by substituting bought commodified sexual attention/stimulation for genuine companionship with a woman.

In a healthy relationship, both partners receive more than they sacrifice in 'costs.' This is the whole point of all mutually entered into relationships...

While you can't ensure an individual does their job, market forces and competition can ensure the job gets done (by someone).

I also find the protagonists leveling up mockable (but not particularly funny). Personal growth in any characteristic takes time and major effort, but maybe that is part of the satire?

I find it hard to workout what is being played straight, and what is being mocked, tbh, I just don't care, or find it that funny.

The tropes seem strongly tied to the rationality and EA communities, so maybe if one is part of those communities there is more to the satire?

A common spin is that the consumers are just having fun, but I imagine the stats tell a rather more depressing story.

Examples: Drinking disclaimers (drink responsibly). Cigarette disclaimers and off putting mandated packet visuals. The traffic light system in the UK (which displays a colour coded breakdown warning of unhealthy food macros on the front of all ready meals). Alcoholic beverages by law having to specify their alcohol percentages. Foods by law having to specify their nutritional content and ingredients.

All of these regulations have been introduced to ensure customers are not blind to unhealthy choices (e.g., the traffic light system warning against high sugar content designed to make cheap addictive food). While not always effective, I believe that on balance these regulations make society a better place to live in. Similarly one could envision mandated social media disclaimers and warnings, and to regulate this way would be entirely within the wider norm, rather than something unusual.

That both parties neglect the cause of black men is (in my opinion) an outcome of a two party system that is so divisive that it leaves no space for nuance (and poor policies and extra needless human misery is the result).

This experience of a researcher starting by caring deeply about inequality, and starting with feminism, and then identifying male issues and finding a total lack of community interest has occurred before. This is exactly what happened to Warren Farrell, who a was once a major figure in feminism (and then largely ignored once he started talking about the issues facing men) (see his Wikipedia page for details).

I think part of what makes getting sociatal buy in on men's issues is that one of the biases men face is a lack of care for men in need of help, and this relates to the idea of male disposability.

For reference, there is a quite shocking list of statistics where men have significantly worse outcomes than women: longer jail for the same crime, higher rates of homelessness, higher rates of suicide, lower educational outcomes, shorter life spans, less friends on average, ...

Obviously women suffer from other issues, but as Ezra Klein is keen to emphasize to any listeners of the interview, empathy is not a zero sum game.

The author is arguing that the rise of K-s is killing true debate (where anything can be advocated for and one wins based on the quality of arguments) with something else (clever appeal to authority and personal attacks).

The aim of debate is to foster people who form their own opinions, but the current structure instead fosters people who blithely subscribe to the current social norms. Critical theory is not revolutionary. Socially, it is dominant (particularly among that demographic). It is actually truly revolutionary to disagree with it, e.g., take the stance that capitalism is an effective way of organizing labour.

I also think a white elephant in the room, is that a) a lot of critical theory is incredibly badly reasoned / detached from reality and b) a significant amount of the use of it is done in bad faith (e.g., for virtue signalling, and to shoot others down, invalidate others rather than engage with their arguments and views)

E.g. at high school I learnt mathematics purely from reading textbooks, and found the requirement of needing to do homework and practice exercises in class hugely frustrating. For context, I did well and went on to do mathematics at university level, where my learning style more or less stayed the same.

While a great friend (who is quite possibly smarter than me) is the opposite, and they were greatly frustrated by the lack of putting things into practice, and felt it hindered their learning.

They note in the paper that they could be confounded by picture quality, e.g. successful and ambitious people bother to get good photos done / optimize that aspect.

Then they a) say well we don't think that picture quality will have much effect, cite cite and then they say b) it does have a small effect, but we control for it by controlling for picture size, dress code, and whether a person is smiling.

What a reductionist control, and b) contradicts a). There are lots of things like posture, style and conformance to fashions as to what successful economics academics look like that they do not control for

There are whole canons of theological thought which counter many of his arguments, as theologians raised those concerns ages ago and have been thinking about them for literally thousands of years.

I think maybe he served a role though. An unreasonable voice can still be a valuable one, however much I might dislike that fact

Article: https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/scientists-glean-new...

I do not think our current social policies are ready for that.

My understanding is that for a man, getting a move almost right can be worse than not making the move at all, for example attempting to move in for a kiss at almost but not quite the right moment. And errors are currently harshly socially judged. Hence a lot of men, particularly sensitive men who worry about making women uncomfortable, are inexperienced and feel stuck and trapped in that inexperience.

I think this unkindness of environment is a societal issue and one that cannot be levied as a failure of young men. Ultimately it is costly for all, men and women, as both would be better of and happier if the men knew what they were doing, and knew how to appeal to women.