wirehead

So, there's a lot of things to unpack here.

First, the idea that your spouse is your primary sole emotional connection is a relatively weird new concept on the scale of things. There's been a huge period of history where your primary emotional connection was your male companions and your spouse was infantalized by comparison. If you were well-off you might be so lucky and have your group of emotional companions, your group of romantic companions, and the person who bears your legitimate children.

Second, there's really not much of a good underlying working model for actual modern conservatism. The frontiersman/"house on the prairie" sort of rugged independence was never actually a thing back then and a lot of big issues like medical bills were a lot simpler when the answer to having any sort of illness was that you either get over it after relatively inexpensive and simple treatments or you die. So the conservative movement must necessarily sell you a false bill of goods. US politics are such that there is no actual fully-left political party, so that by default makes you a democrat.

There's also a bunch of added uniquely christian baggage. So there are left-wing christians who also have their own set of weird baggage.

Third, mostly irrespective of politics, there's a lot of cultural programming for males that they can't actually worthwhile work though their emotions in a productive fashion. Movies, TV shows, books, literally everything in the media creates this idea of maleness and the writers are just trying to write a catchy story and seldom have time to think about what kind of male they are creating. This is, overall, a relatively recent concept.

Fourth, "things men need emotionally that women cannot provide" is actually pretty silly. Outside of practical advice about what to do with specific pieces of anatomy where maybe it would be nice to have some reference, the things people do is a pretty wide field. "Oh, someone to watch football with" ignores female football fans, et al. This ties in a lot with right wing men because they can't necessarily have an emotional connection with someone not-male because that's equivalent to messing around with someone's property. And it also ties in with the social programming that created a stereotype for how men are supposed to relate to each other that's just a writer trying to put a good story together without thinking of the social implications.

Radicalization doesn't work on people who are emotionally connected and comfortable. Part of why we are where we are is that there's a whole class of people whose happiness has been precluded by the structure of their lives and the best people who can take advantage of this are fraudsters selling a false bill of goods. And I don't even really feel sympathy for those people anymore because they are hurting people who I do very much care about and after a point it doesn't matter if they are just too dumb to see it.

But, I guess, to return to your initial point, the idea that if you find a person and get married to them that you have "solved" connection, that's the road to unhappiness. Partially because marriage generally requires a commitment and effort to stay together as things happen and people change... but also because relying on one single person without other social connectivity is not a stable equilibrium.

Nothing would change, ironically.

In 2006, the band Stefy released the Orange Album. They were amazing electro-pop but after they completely failed to make themselves a presence, they got dropped from Wind Up Records and Stefy went off into obscurity.

If you listen to it now, you can kinda place it into a whole genre of electro-pop music that really started to catch on a few years later. People weren't ready for it yet.

A few years ago now I was thinking that it was about time for me to upgrade my desktop (with a case that dates back to 2000 or so, I guess they call them "sleepers" these days?) because some of my usual computer things were taking too long.

And I realized that Intel was selling the 12th generation of the Core at that point, which means the next one was a 13th generation and I dono, I'm not superstitious but I figured if anything went wrong I'd feel pretty darn silly. So I pulled the trigger and got a 12th gen core processor and motherboard and a few other bits.

This is quite amusing in retrospect.

A giant swath of 80s-90s teenagers thought that anarchism was “chaos everywhere and no homework!!11” it's just that thankfully most of them didn't collect a bunch of questionable advice into a book, LOL.

But, good connection that cryptobros are the modern version thereof, I hadn't quite realized that until you posted.

CrimethInc published some years ago a book entitled Recipes for Disaster: An Anarchist Cookbook that covers their Anarchist view of revolutionary action which they explicitly titled in reference to the old one.

And I think I also saw at one point, someone had collected a bunch of recipes from actual capital-A Anarchists to make an Anarchist Bookbook full of yummy food recipes but I can't find it right now.

From the article: "Tesla began delivering the Blade Runner-inspired truck in November 2023"

Me: Fuck you. That is an insult to Syd Mead's legacy.

I hope that, at some point in the series, they reference his prized bottle of Chateau Picard that he's been saving for a special occasion.

It's the Pravda of the VC-centric tech scene and has been for a very very long time.

(I am referencing the Soviet Union implementation thereof, for clarity)

It's never going to bite the hand that feeds it, where people will voting-ring or the owners will just force-edit it to prevent that from happening. Outside of that, sometimes it might say something useful. The problem is that today's problems are not because of a lack of advanced mathematics understanding or new programming languages.

I mean, I think he's a textbook example of why not to do drugs and why we need to eat the rich, but I can understand the logic here.

When you navigate a car as a human, you are using vision, not LIDAR. Outside of a few edge cases, you aren't even using parallax to judge distances. Ergo, a LIDAR is not going to see the text on a sign, the reflective stripes on a truck, etc. And it gets confused differently than the eye, absorbed by different wavelengths, etc. And you can jam LIDAR if you want. Thus, if we were content to wait until the self-driving-car is actually safe before throwing it out into the world, we'd probably want the standard to be that it navigates as well as a human in all situations using only visual sensors.

Except, there's some huge problems that the human visual cortex makes look real easy. Because "all situations" means "understanding that there's a kid playing in the street from visual cues so I'm going to assume they are going to do something dumb" or "some guy put a warning sign on the road and it's got really bad handwriting"

Thus, the real problem is that he's not using LIDAR as harm reduction for a patently unsafe product, where the various failure modes of the LIDAR-equipped self-driving cars show that those aren't safe either.

It's important to realize that the nerd you saw on the news has always been someone wearing nerd as a costume and the entire history of technology is loaded with examples of the real nerd being marginalized. It's just that in ages past the VC's would give a smaller amount of money and require the startup to go through concrete milestones to unlock all of it so there was more of a chance for the founder's dreams to smack up against reality before they were $230m in the hole with no product worth selling.

... you mean the skies are looking Fantastic tonight?

More to the point, the company using shady means to collect the data does not need to care if the data is useful, just that it's marketable.