hackyhacky

> It’s glaringly weird and annoying for those of us who are apathetic

Do you think being apathetic is a good thing?

You may not care about politics, but politics definitely cares about you.

Do you really think OpenAI's leadership are as stridently, overtly political as Musk? OK.

Not sure you put "wrong" in quotes. Much of what he's done, both in election interference, and subsequently in DOGE, is illegal.

> many of us don’t want to be repeatedly beaten over the head with other people’s politics

I agree completely. That's why I won't use Grok: its owner repeatedly beats us over the head with his politics, and I won't encourage it.

> before the current university system,

When was that? Harvard was founded in 1636.

No, we don't, but the alternatives are worse.

Universities at least apply some meritocratic standards. If we bypass universities, there will be some other gatekeeper, it will be worse: mostly an "old boys network" and corrupt, pay-to-play advancement.

> why despite having so much more wealth they often really do feel like they are in real poverty.

Why are you so concerned about the feelings of the rich who choose feel stress despite suffering little to no actual risk to their lifestyle, and so unconcerned about the poor, who suffer very real material risks?

> they have desires and aversions which lead them to stress and suffering like everyone else.

That's the point: they don't stress "like everyone else." Stressing over whether you'll be able to afford your fifth home is not the same as stressing over whether you're going to lose your only home.

When you're rich, stress is a lifestyle choice. Some people thrive on that kind of pressure. But the actual, real-world risks between the rich and the poor are not comparable.

Teachers and school districts are often sued by irate parents when their little golden angel gets a bad grade. Schools are therefore incentivized to allow all students to pass, regardless of ability.

https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/suing-over-bad-gra...

https://www.npr.org/2007/03/13/8278150/parent-sues-school-ov...

Sure. And just like with a martial arts student, if you kick their butt too hard, you will lose the customer and might get sued.

It's not a metaphor. They are literally the customer.

> completely ignoring his entire argument

You didn't make an "argument." All I heard from you is whining about how you're upset that women have sex that doesn't involve you. You're allowed to be upset about that, but it's a silly thing to be upset about.

> Is that your way of shaming men for preferring virgins?

Yes, it is. Also for generally being misogynistic by holding women to a different standard that you hold yourself.

> It's in our DNA.

Lots of things in our DNA are not part of civilized society.

> The males who genuinely didn't care were killed off by natural selection.

Cool. I'll just go and have lots of children with a series of non-virgins, while you can cry yourself to sleep alone in an onanistic frenzy.

> There's no shortage of promiscuous young women, but there are so few wives nowadays that it all feels rather pointless.

Do you know the definition of "wife"? It's a married woman. There are plenty of women who are willing to be married, but one of two things is preventing that: (a) you are disqualifying them for silly and capricious reasons, or (b) they are disqualifying you because you're a misogynist who thinks you're entitled to dictate what women do with their bodies before they've even met you.

> Yes, everyone is.

Plainly false.

> I've had my fair share of women in the sack.

The more I listen to you, the more clear it is to me why you can't find a partner.

I don't understand the point of your comment. Am I supposed to feel sorry for the irresponsible upper middle class who spent themselves into debt? Do you think that equates at all to actually poverty?

> They have other things they're stressed about.

Sorry, but I don't buy this. Equating stress about whether my company's stock price stays about $200 with stress about whether I will be able to afford a meal for my children is simply not on the same level.

Billionaires may choose to be emotionally involved in their financial situation, but a person in poverty has no choice. A bit of mindful meditation will solve the former problem; only money can solve the latter.

Thanks. I knew that I had read about that thought experiment somewhere but couldn't recall the name.

The more accurate version is "Money does not bring happiness, but poverty really sucks."

A billionaire is not orders of magnitude happier than a millionaire. But a millionaire is much happier than someone who is worried about being able to pay rent, afford food, etc.

Thus, the solution to maximize happiness is to distribute wealth evenly.

This is an insightful article but it misses the elephant in the room, which is wealth inequality. In Shanghai, there is vastly more wealth inequality than in Netherlands.

The reason why nannies are affordable in China is because those nannies aren't paid very much, and consequently enjoy a much lower standard of living than their employers. In Netherlands, nannies are relatively expensive, but you the employee is much closer to the socioeconomic stratum to that of their employer.

Same goes for the other examples in the article. The author, having a fancy car, modern phone, etc, clearly enjoys a high level of wealth and is able to leverage that wealth to acquire goods and services at a high level. But that only works if there are people willing to provide those goods and services for a price that he can afford. The author didn't mention that the people who provide these goods and services do not enjoy the same benefits of those goods and services: their nanny cannot afford to hire a nanny, nor a Chinese EV, nor a giant smartphone.

The Netherlands has made the intentional decision to reduce wealth inequality and to achieve a fairer society. You can agree or disagree with that decision. But if I had to choose between NL and China, being cast into one country or the other without any choice about where in that society or what level of wealth, NL would be a much better option.

> But aren't you also "count-shaming" parent comment

I prefer the term "misogyny-shaming."

> Also, in Muslim countries

Really, Muslim countries? Muslim countries that are world-famous for denying women even basic legal rights? Muslim countries that treat women strictly as men's property? You're telling me that those same countries have strong cultural norms about controlling women's sexuality? I am truly shocked.

> that would still make them a unicorn in the dating market nowadays.

Are you having trouble in the dating market? Perhaps you're frustrated by frequently meeting women who are experienced enough to recognize your inadequacy.

The solution is to improve yourself, not to shame women.

> was as ran through as your typical young woman you'll find on the apps nowadays?

I'm not saying you are one, but using this kind of language really makes you sound like a full on incel misogynist, who has sublimated his sexual frustration into antiquated paternalistic views of women's sexuality. But I'm sure that's not accurate.

> Isn't there simpler explanation in terms of evolution: taller men look more intimidating and can provide better safety for their offspring?

That is certainly a simpler explanation, but it doesn't mean that it's a correct explanation.

* "Looking intimidating" doesn't necessarily mean that they are better at providing safety

* Providing safety isn't necessarily the sole responsibility of a sexual partner

* Other factors may be more important than height in selecting a sexual partner

* Evolution selects for attributes other than mate suitability

Given the wide variety of preferences across the human species, I find it highly reductive when someone asserts a simplistic reason for such a human behavior, ignoring the many cases when humans do not follow that behavior.

> Men want to know that the children they raise are their own.

You realize that the number (>0) of prior sexual partners has nothing to do with the parentage of one's children, right? You can marry a virgin and still be a cuckold; or you can marry a prostitute and sire a large family.

> Our great grandfathers were practically guaranteed to be marrying virgins,

Is that what your great-grandma told you?

Cultural prohibitions on discussing sexual matters didn't actual limit in pursuing sexual matters.

I didn't mention peer review. The bare minimum for scientific analysis is conclusion drawn from observations based on data points. This article is more like a rant occasionally augmented by pictures of anime boobs. There is no attempt at scientific rigor. A serious presentation could have maintained the rigor even outside the peer-review process (which, despite your assertion, would likely have no objection to the subject matter).

No one claimed that height is the only or the most important metric; simply that it is a metric by which partners can be judged.

I was alive in the 1990s. "Heroic chic" was definitely a thing.

I'm also alive now. It's not hard to find big butts being idolized.

Your linked article is not very scientific. For example, it cites porn-store purchasing preference as evidence of actual male taste in partner selection.

> The answer is "evolved intuition", like it or not.

Maybe. A lot of what we assume are innate sexual preferences are actually determined socially.

No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago.

These days, a full-figure on a woman is considered attractive, but in the 1990s, being skinny was in vogue.

Insofar as an attractive partner is a status symbol, the definition of "attractive" changes with fashion.

> I am curious why is height important?

It's a common aesthetic preference, similar to liking large breasts.

> Also, why those who care about height so much do not go for basketball players?

Some of them certainly do. But there aren't very many professional basketball players.

Yet another "anti-woke, anti-political correct" screed, whining about how it isn't cool to be racist anymore. I guess this felt edgy in 2022, but in the current political climate this essay is utterly redundant.