Exercise:

• Set a timer for 1 minute.

• Sit down and do nothing.

Do that every day. After a while, you’ll adjust and it wont be painful. Then do 2 minutes. Then do 5. Then do 15. Every day.

Here’s what happened:

You’ve lived your entire life in a bowl of cocaine. You were born into it. When your parents wanted a break, they gave you some coke. When you were good, they gave you some coke. After you completed your homework, you were allowed a little coke. When you grew up, if you feel tired, or feel like you don’t want to do something, you can have a little nose candy to recharge.

If you want to stop using so much cocaine, you can’t just go cold turkey. You need to start by being able to survive one minute at a time without it.

It’s easy to just remove the bowl of cocaine and not use cocaine. But that’s not going to help you practice choosing not to do cocaine when it is available.

Only mostly. Obviously there are a shitton of productions studios prioritizing profit over all else, so they will always gravitate toward “safe” options like reboots and sequels and ripoffs.

But then occasionally you get a movie like Obsession, which was made for less than $1 million, and is actually reasonably unique. Or Flow, which was made for €3.5 million using open source graphics software, and is also unique.

Just because Hollywood mostly runs on regurgitated slop, doesn’t mean there aren’t successful movies which are more art than commercial.

“Weffy”

LLMs are terrible at math.

Mathematician chiming in: they’re not nearly as bad as they used to be. Straight up to differential equations and linear algebra, they’re pretty accurate. The writing is on the wall for some serious problems in the very near future, because basically every student in college right now is just offloading their math abilities to the machines.

Some of the seniors are good. Most of the rest of them are not.

It might even be one of those things that they can’t fix, simply due to how LLMs operate.

For high-level math, there are some flaws, yes. They often come up with wrong answers if you ask questions about problems that there aren’t very many sources on. There are hundreds of thousands, and maybe millions of differential equations papers… but there are only tens of thousands of Algebraic Topology papers. It’s simply a smaller training set.

However, they’re still giving right answers most of the time. I’ve only had one situation where someone in a group said “bUt cHatGPT sAiD…” and I had to give them the bad news that it was wrong.

In any case, we’ve had calculators for a long time, yet children are still taught math in school because society recognizes that understanding as crucial.

I think that the fundamental difference is that the tools replace different things. A calculator makes it so that you don’t need to algorithmically process 5 sig-fig numbers without error, several times per problem, in order to have your answer be “correct”. You still have to understand that you do, in fact, need to multiple the length of the field by the width to find the area of a rectangular field.

LLMs are replacing the need to actually understand anything about how a rectangle works.

Absolutely.

Fundamentally, only reading about ideas that you already agree with is bad for you. You will learn less about your beliefs than if you had read something that challenges your beliefs.

Let’s say you’re very pro-capitalist, and you want to know everything about capitalism, so you read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Great! You learned some things about the historical basis of your beliefs, and there’s value in that. So then you read Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman. Okay! So you’re tripling down on the same ideas. You probably already know most of those ideas, though, right? There will be some new stuff, but ultimately it’s more of the same stuff you already know.

So you try some more recent authors, and give a shrug to Ayn Rand, and you give Lions and Scavengers a shot. And maybe you pick up a new thing or two. But mostly, it’s the same ideas that you’re already familiar with.

Do you know what none of these books have? An angle of critique (except Smith, sort of). They’re all just listing all of the good things about capitalism, and they’re not telling you the bad things. Do you believe that Capitalism is a perfect system to organize a nation’s economic policy, with no flaws? No? Then you should be interested in someone who elaborates on some of the negative aspects of capitalism, and what can be done to address those flaws, right? Because if there are flaws, you want to know what they are, so they can be fixed, right?

That’s why you should read Das Kapital.

Factually, using AI in your education means you get less value out of that education. In every math class ever, you’ve probably heard some version of,

“I don’t care that you got the right answer. I already know that 2x^2 - 5x -3 factors into (2x + 1)(x - 3) and I already know that this information is freely available. What I care about is making sure that you can figure that out without anyone helping you.”

If you use AI to do a problem, you’re training your ability to do something that everyone else on the planet can do. If you force yourself to do it, you’re training your ability to actually think.

You actually WON’T have to do more work in the long run. Think of it as an investment. If you spend the time learning it now, properly, so that you actually understand it, then every test that your study for, for the rest of your life, will be easier, and you’ll get higher grades. Measurably.

https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt/

https://www.media.mit.edu/articles/ai-s-impact-on-cognitive-ability-mit-study-reveals-more-troubling-data/

Keep it up.

Well that’s true, though, right?

If you call yourself a centrist, but then support an interventionist policy that makes trans healthcare more difficult… you’re probably just wrong about being a centrist.

The same applies the other way. If you support governmental protections for trans healthcare (broadly), and enshrining basic protections across state lines, you’re, again, not a centrist.

The difference is that the latter group isn’t ashamed, so they aren’t hiding their opinions for the sake of being less controversial. We’re proudly supporting our trans friends because good people don’t take the middle ground when one side wants to e.g. prosecute their friends’ doctors for providing healthcare across state lines.

Voting Dems to protect people is equally pointless, or didn’t you read the OP?

I wouldn’t say “equally”. This is for sure a bad thing… but for every anti-trans thing Newsom does, any given Republican does two. And voting third party is functionally equivalent to not voting.

Your first priority should be being organized enough to ensure safety for your trans friends, anyway. Second is voting in the primaries so that you have a better choice than Fascist vs Diet Fascist.

After that, just be honest with yourself about the impact of your General Election vote. It’s far less important, on average, than having a single conversation with your neighbors.

So this is why people don’t like your comment:

• It’s vague. You’re not actually taking a specific stance on anything; you’re just vaguely complaining about “things” that the left will not address, and “stubbornness”, so that someone can fill in the gaps with something it would be reasonable to complain about.

• It has the appearance of someone conflating “Leftism” with “The Democratic Party of the United States.” That’s generally bad form.

• The context of this post is a worldwide rise in right-wing views, so the above point is even worse than normal. Whatever issue you’re thinking of (which we don’t know, because you’re not actually taking a position, per the first point), it’s possible it isn’t associated with Leftism outside of the US at all.

No one can tell you that you’re wrong if you never actually make a specific claim, right?

Yeah, but how do you get 10 million dollars?

It doesn’t matter. Investments do not care where the money comes from.

You worked as a surgeon for 20 years while living with parents and not paying bills? $10 million.

Your great great grandfather was a plumber and built up some wealth and your great grandfather was an electrician and built up more wealth, and… your father works in real estate and all of these people set you up with a trust fund and you start out with $2 million, and then you withdraw 100k per year to live on, doing nothig else for 17 years, and your fund slowly climbs to $10 million. Well, that’s also $10 million.

You’re one of Nancy Pelosi’s kids and she gives you a $10 million fund on your 18th birthday? Thats $10 million.

Do you see now how having $10 million doesn’t reward the traits of any of these people? It only rewards having $10 million. It does not matter how you acquired it.

Median salary for a surgeon is $450,000/year.

Someone with $10,000,000 in VOO can withdraw $450,000/year, and still compound their wealth year over year, without working at all. The absolute worst case scenario is that they start doing this at the start of a recession, like mid 2007, in which case, they would STILL be compounding their wealth year over year, with the exception of the short time it took to dip.

Simply having $10,000,000 and sitting on your ass > Being a surgeon.

Oh yeah, and that’s all before taxes.

So yes, to some extent, society rewards skill. But it is FAR more rewarding to the people who already have wealth.

If they were paid $0.01 per hour, would you say they were being paid?

If yes, then clearly, “being paid” is not the dividing line between slavery and freedom, so you should establish how much you think someone should be paid for it to not be slavery.

It’s not a marketing problem. It’s a problem with who gets to control all of the marketing narratives.

‘Not a marketing problem, it’s a problem with markeing’…

It’s clear to me that I said two different things. Is there anything about either that you would like me to clarify?

Compare: “It’s not a strategy problem; it’s a game-design problem.”

You are referencing a 70 year old political movement as if we haven’t had 70 years of history happen since then.

I’m explicitly referring to it because of the 79 years of history. 79 years of history tends to have an effect on the public consciousness.

We surely don’t believe that the average person formed their “socialist → bad” association from exposure to socialism, right? Then, why do they believe that? Most Americans can’t even accurately describe what socialism is. How did it come to pass that they are so convinced that “socialist → bad”? If this is about the USSR, then surely the organic version of this is that everyone would be convinced “USSR → bad” instead, right?

The only reason it’s worth mentioning in this context is the resulting 79 years of shaping public opinion.

We have a crazy unbelieveable opportunity happening right now, actively, in New York, where someone openly referring to themselves as socialist is making massive moves

Yes, that’s great. I’m happy that people have the opportunity to see the impact that well-managed social policies can have. I would say that the marketing is quite good.

and D’s are actively campaigning against ‘themselves’ with more effert than we’ve seen them use in 10 years against Trump.

Yes, and that’s part of what I’m referring to when I say that it’s a problem with who gets to control all of the marketing narratives. We have a two-party system, and both parties are actively stacking the deck against anyone campaigning on good social policy.

Consider how the average person gets their political information. If both major parties have decided that it’s better if everyone believes “socialist → bad”, that’s simply what most people are going to be exposed to, and what most people are going to believe.

Mamdani is an anomaly: he happens to be so likeable, with ideas that are so popular, that this didn’t stop him from winning anyway. It also helps that paying a few thousand influencers to spam anti-leftist content can be somewhat counterbalanced by paying 200 influencers to spam pro-Mamdani content.

https://campaignlegal.org/update/campaign-finance-regulations-must-address-influencers-and-streaming-platforms-protect-voters

Hopefully driving this point home: the marketing strategy for these ideas is good, because people generally like good social policy. However, the marketing environment is biased toward whoever spends the most money.

But, I think we need a banner to gather under, don’t we?

Your typical American family hasn’t a clue… They know “socialist bad”…

This is why the specific banner probably doesn’t matter very much. The association “socialist → bad” just comes from a long-running campaign by Western Capitalists to make sure that the peasants make that association. It basically goes,

1. The USSR is bad, and
2. they are socialists, and therefore
3. socialism is bad.

And that’s enough for most people. It’s easy to highlight a country’s flaws and convince someone that the country is bad, so 1 took hold, for reasons both reasonable and unreasonable. And 2 is free because they have socialism in the name. And 3 is a common logical fallacy, but it works, because it turns out people aren’t very rational.

If we picked up the “Proletariat” banner instead, the same thing would happen.

1. The USSR is bad, and
2. they implemented some of Karl Marx’s ideas, and so
3. Karl Marx is bad, and so
4. the proletariat are bad.

It’s not a marketing problem. It’s a problem with who gets to control all of the marketing narratives.

Bad math.

1. $25 for a 50lb bag
2. Buy two.
3. Mistakenly believe that adds up to 200lb.

For practical purposes, it’s a judgement call:

-If they’re under 30, I say I’m pansexual.

-If they’re over 40, I say I’m bisexual.

-In between, I pick one based on vibes.

For theory purposes:

Studies on sexual attraction predate studies on gender identity. “Bisexual” hails from a day that we just considered the physical presentation of the people a study participant is attracted to, with the options of 1: Same, 2: Different. The studies allowed for people to be homosexual, heterosexual, or both-sexual.

“Pansexual” has had different definitions in the 1920s, 1970s, 2020s, and presumably the years in between. The current popular definition of “attraction to all genders” or “attraction regardless of gender” is basically a subset of “bisexual”, since this includes both people of the same sex, and people of different sex.

It’s more inclusive in the aspect of rejecting the gender binary at the start. But also, I believe that words are for communication, so at the end of the day, I’m using the most useful word based on the information I’m trying to communicate.

You’re twisting my words, I said whether or not someone is safe, not that they’re unsafe.

To be pedantic… “Whether or not someone is safe” introduces two options: Safe or not safe. Unsafe and “not safe” are more interchangeable than pansexual and bisexual.

I understand it’s not what you meant… but I dont think they’re twisting your words. I think it’s an honest attempt at faithfully interpreting your words. It’s just that the language isn’t really built for the kind of distinction you’re trying to make.

For anyone struggling with food prices, first, I empathize. I’ve been there. It fucking sucks. Second, when desperate, I put together a plan much like the following, and it helped me get through some hard times.

USA prices 2026-09-16

26 oz salt: $1, 0 calories, 0 protein

200 lb dry beans: $120, 300000 Cal, 20000g protein

200 lb rice: $50 $100, 330000 Cal, 2400g protein

360 tablets multivitamin: $37.50

Annual cost: $258.50 Daily calories: 1726 (suitable for a sedentary person.) Daily protein: 61 g

You can get even higher protein and lower cost if you have access to bulk soybeans. Multiply by whatever values you like to hit your calorie or protein needs.

You don’t have to eat JUST this. But if this is the majority of your meals, you have enough to survive, and in the US, you’ll actually be healthier than most of the people around you.

EDIT: updated the numbers because I’m an idiot who forgot that you need 4, 50lb bags to get to 200lb, rather than 2.

If tiktok never pushed this then Clancy would have went to prison and we wouldn’t even be having this conversation

Her lawyer was discussing the parameters of an insanity plea back in March. This was long before the case blew up on social media.

It’s entirely feasible that she would have gotten an insanity ruling without social media influence.

…

I’m going to acknowledge that you responded so that, when I don’t continue this conversation, you’ll know that it wasn’t because I decided to abandon my position.

You could say your response did not have a significant impact.