andrewclunn

Obesity epidemic. I mean, when so many people are that unattractive, it's not exactly rocket science why we're having less sex.

EDIT -

The number of replies by people in denial that being horribly out of shape and having excessive body fat isn't related to attractiveness and sexual enjoyment is... well not surprising. Though it is indicative of how in denial our infantilizing culture is and how effectively it enables people to live out slothful, narcissistic, and self-destructive lifestyles, while blaming others for not accepting them.

Did you want an exhaustive breakdown of the evidence compiled for you? You stated what you thought the "conspiracy" was, I showed that it wasn't at all what people who doubt the Helen Keller story are claiming. Also you've done nothing to argue against any of the claims being made in the video or the comments section of it, just that it seemed like random people ranting. That's what we're doing. That's what the internet is. Only take your arguments from people through approved venues or a flashy TED talk? Here you go, have fun being a big brained critical thinker:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cflCyyEA2I

The "conspiracy" is always an over exaggerated form of the claim, so that it can be "debunked." Hellen Keller was a real person, who was really deaf and blind, but she wasn't actually communicating. She was performing like a trained animal, unaware of what words she was approximating. Those all came from Anne Sullivan, using Keller as a front to promote her ideas.

Here's the real "conspiracy," but what you see when you do a google search is teenagers claiming she never existed, or wasn't really blind because taking down a straw men is all these "fact checkers" are about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UMDG_qH_RU

I think to the many farces regarding "facilitated communication." I mean nobody who is informed still believes that Hellen Keller's story was anything other than a manipulative scam by her supposed "teacher." This "AI ethicist" and attorney will certainly make some money or catch some fame off this one.

Okay, but the Bill Gates Pregnant Man NFTs have value beyond their monetary worth.

How are we supposed to optimize coding languages, when the underlying hardware architecture keeps changing? I mean you don't write assembly anymore, you would right in the LLVM. Optimization was done because it was required. It will come back when complete commoditization of cpus occur. Enforcement of standards and consistent targets allow for high optimizations. Just see what people are able to do with outdated hardware in the demo and homebrew scene for old game consoles! We don't need better computers, but so long as we keep getting them, we will get unoptimized software, which will necessitate better computers. The vicious cycle of consumerism continues.

This is one of those situations where the details definitely matter, so I reserve judgement until that hinted at article comes out, which I assume will also then get a posting here on hacker news.

Posterity will be the ultimate judge of whether this proxy battle strategy can hold. Regardless of the actual outcome, you can bet it will be spun as a win or loss by the predictable players.

This just seems like the next evolution in undeclared war. Considering what happened with Afghanistan, the way in which cheap portable weapons are being used to take out tanks, ships, and aircraft, and the way in which minimizing civilian casualties seems to be the norm now... I wonder if large military forces don't have the force they once did. Perhaps the top brass in the US know this, and realize that exposing it with open warfare. Russia certainly didn't do as well as most people expected. now they, China, the US... we may all be paper tigers needing to pretend like we have any power to conquer, when all we can really do is blow stuff up, which hardly makes for a successful occupation.

"Rent seeking" used to be an economic pejorative. Much like "regulatory capture." Now the system is such that those practices which are considered more corrupt, less productive, and less pro-social are the only ways to "make it" let alone make it big. I don't buy into the notion of rebellion by the "wage slaves" though. They're so at each other's throats, divided by arbitrary identity and cultural distinctions to make any cohesive political change impossible, even in nations where they (supposedly) have the ability to do so via elections. You'll own nothing and you'll (pretend to be) happy... or else.

EDIT FOR TYPO

It's much like the Monte Hall problem, in that people often forget to include the portion about the revealed door ALWAYS being a loser. If it were a randomly opened door then the option to switch would actually just be 50/50. This can be shown by just running the simulation over thousands of iterations. The same is true here. It's not actually going to yield better outcomes to switch. Sometimes logicians just need to own up to the fact that empiricism and applied mathematics is where the rubber meets the road.

Considering that the Hispanic vote has shifted politically as of late, I don't buy into the demographics as destiny political implications. Pander to people based on race all you want, but people are wising up to that as empty rhetoric.

I mean, if you let "culture" be defined by corporate media and advertisements, then yeah the culture is stagnant. But at least half of the population (at least in the US) spends a non-insignificant amount of time outside of that and in other cultural spheres. It almost seems like the author is hoping for the same corporate sponsors to feed them a prepackaged "alternative" in the vein of the Coke Pepsi non-choice.

So Elon made an offer, Twitter lying about how many boys they had came out, stock price fell. Much like crypto, you should have sold after Elon bought.

Rank choice voting allows flooding the ballot with candidates to downrank another. Approval based voting is far simpler and superior.

I will be honest, I assumed it was something akin to a "Won't someone rid me of this priest?" situation. Plausible deniability is a huge factor, and the Clintons are connected enough (and smart enough) to know this. To be willing to do this, directly, can only speak to an arrogance that one is in fact above the law and cannot ever face consequences. That it "worked" is another issue entirely. I guess this is just another moment where despite being jaded, cynical, and untrusting of authority figures or institutions, I simply need to make a note, and be more pessimistic in the future.

The distinction is the legal entity. If an individual speaks, and has liability for that speech, it is entirely different from if an individual speaks, but only as a representative for a company, union, etc... This is simple and easy to enforce, but would give a huge advantage to individuals and small privately held business over large corporations in terms of rights, while corporations would benefit from scale and limited liability. As it stand, large companies get ALL the perks and none of the costs, and effectively have MORE rights than individuals.

How I wish that there were something in the Bill of Rights that said "these rights are for INDIVIDUALS only, and not collective legal entities." It's up there with getting election day off as a holiday for things that should happen, but don't because the powers that be WANT the system rigged in that way.

People don't want to understand. Earnestly listening means you might change your mind. There is nothing to be gained "strategically" by listening. Claiming to want open discourse and free discussion is a tactic promoted by those who would lose any popular poll or vote. Further, most people don't hold their opinions because they've thought things through. They are told "good people believe A," and they want to be seen as (and think of them self as) a good person, so they espouse A.

It's one thing to wish people were more rational and less tribal. But to really not understand human nature after the last decade? The author is either naive beyond absurdity or feigning ignorance as a different form of virtue signaling.

Does anyone else remember when the Amy Schumer comedy special got panned, and then Netflix got rid of the star ratings? They put placating Hollywood and traditional creators over serving customers. When you focus on securing supply over meeting demand, you lose touch with the customer. These poison seeds were planted long ago, and only now are we seeing them bloom.

Are you suggesting that there's no phenotypical relationship between appearance and psychology? I mean hormones effect both fairly directly. The notion that we can't identify patterns based on outwardly visible aspects of people is a factual claim propped up on MORAL grounds, and not empirical validation.

The idea that people who "hit the gym" might differ from those who don't psychologically, precisely because of either the physiological results of working out, or the resulting social standing that results from being judged as attractive or dominant, scares some people. And to engage my own personal pattern recognition, the people it scares the most are those who are judged as not physically appealing or imposing, and perhaps would benefit from "hitting the gym."

YouTube is a video hosting site, not a video discovery site. The sooner we all come to terms with that the better.

People assume this is a bad outcome, but in a society where "being true to one's authentic self" is promoted as the main virtue, one would be expected to embrace selfish behaviors if they reflect. It's a low-brow blending of Nietzsche and Rand, but marketed as proto-communist mysticism. Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what the world owes you!

How did I miss that? Thank you.

It's heavily implied that the twin who was lost, diagnosed with measles, and raised in the US has the lower IQ, but never actually stated in the article.

The "see how easy it can be" gave me impression you were not, but if you are being genuine, then I apologize.

If there is a position which is novel, where there is no known advocate (either individually or as a group) to represent it, then imagining why a theoretical person might take that view can be helpful. However, this is the age of the internet, where finding people who genuinely hold the most outlandish of positions is really quite simple. Why do I need to imagine or speak on behalf of another person to present their argument for them? If they are not an adequate representative, and are merely parroting ideas, then surely they will be able to point me in the direction to the source of those ideas.

There is a lot of discussion regarding appropriation thrown around these days. I find that it's often applied to situations where empathy is very possible, and there's nothing keeping many of us from understanding other's positions. But if instead of genuinely asking them to represent their own, and feeling that my attempts to speak for them are just as sufficient, or an even better means of expressing an idea, which I freely admit I disagree with... that's some arrogant shit right there.

If one is so egotistical that they believe only they can adequately present opposing views, instead of allowing people who actually hold those views to do so, then what chance do they leave themselves to grow and learn? And that is putting aside the card stacking tactics playing at steelmanning, which is perhaps even more common.

I am not a flat Earther. I think they're wrong about reality. I can explain why I think they're wrong, but I would not presume to know why someone might or ought to be one. There is no way for me to honestly do so. Pretending like I could would not help me to convince, learn from, or relate to anyone holding said position. Merely playing at being an advocate for an idea as a thought experiment is not a heuristic that bestows enlightenment. It gives one the false impression that they understand people and ideas which they do not.

Steelmanning is the process of imagining the "best" arguments for a position you don't hold. The term requires both that the person expressing the arguments doesn't hold them them self and that they do so intending to strengthen that position.

The meaning of the term is not in dispute. Rhetorical questions about definitions are not clever.

EDIT - typo fixed.

Trying to "steelman" a position you don't know the real arguments for is to "strawman" it with good intentions. How about asking people who actually hold the position who the best advocates for it are, and listen to them? This pretending at fairly representing an idea you disagree with is more about signaling, feigning objectivity, and ego stroking than an earnest attempt to grapple with the idea.

So there is an issue where women's agency is actually at the forefront, where their preferences and decisions are considered paramount, and... it's an example of sexism. Does that word even mean anything anymore?

Who is the gatekeeper of sex? The woman. Who has to carry the child to term and has the option to terminate the pregnancy? The woman. Who can get a sperm donor and decide to reproduce effectively on their own? The woman. Oh why is reproduction seen as a female issue?? SEXISM!

Completely changing your post, after it's been replied to, without an indication it was edited, is dishonest. You are not arguing in good faith.

You break out a poll to cast a group as fringe. Other people bring up other polls (more recent ones) to counter that argument, and then you shift to a different line of evidence citing "historical trends." Please, take this advice to heart, you are clearly trying to justify a conclusion with whatever evidence you can grab at hand. Take a step back and ask yourself if tribal loyalty is clouding your judgement.

We are all allowed (at least in the United States) to change our minds on things, but we can get in our own way. Lots of people seem to be changing their minds these days based on recognizing that their trust in some institution, process, or brand was misplaced. That might be you in a little while, and if it is, don't hate who you once were or once believed. Here's wishing you a good journey on your search for truth.