Youtube comments of Jim Mcneal (@jimmcneal5292).
-
3700
-
1000
-
306
-
284
-
259
-
252
-
160
-
144
-
119
-
117
-
116
-
102
-
72
-
68
-
68
-
66
-
61
-
61
-
59
-
58
-
57
-
55
-
54
-
53
-
50
-
50
-
48
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
39
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
1)I think that it's extremely unlikely that Putin's regime will crumble. Ordinary russians are quite exhausted by the war, but for now there was no open mobilization for more than 2 years. Instead Russia offered money to people signing the contract, or forced conscripts to sign it.
2)People overestimate Surovikin's line. The biggest problem for Ukrainians was lack of firepower(Russia had air superiority, parity in artillery) and parity in manpower in the field. Plus Russia use mines a lot, including distance mining. Plus one of few good russian generals, Alexey Popov was in command of defense.
3)I don't think there's much point in Retaking Donbass or even Mariupol. First of all, it will be difficult. The terrain is quite defensible, with a lot of towns. Plus Russia has decent logistics there, unlike in Crimea, that can be cut off. Second of all, part of it is completely destroyed, and the rest has absolutely failed infrastructure(in Donetsk there's basically no water for 3 years or so). Plus population in LDPR is much less pro-Ukrainian, than in occupied parts of Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts.
What I think Ukraine should do is to bait Putin into thinking that everything is good, no new mobilization is needed, so he orders Russian army to continue advances. While at that time Ukraine will accumulate forces and maybe somewhere during summer will be able to counterattack. This of course is only unless Russia is already extremely exhausted and on a brink of collapse(from what I know it is not true and till now they were able to keep the parity in manpower in the field).
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Another important factor is EROI -- energy return on energy investment, i.e. how much energy you get per amount of energy you spent on mining required minerals, manufacturing, and refining fuel. Theoretically, EROI equal to 1 is enough to consider something an energy source, but in practice it should be higher, somewhere from 3 to 7. The thing is, solar power effectively has it below this threshold, unless you're pretty far down south, which makes it more of a battery rather than source of electricity. The wind power has EROI that is enough to make it a source of energy, but it's problem is that it dries the land behind it(which is not the problem if the wind turbine is installed in the sea)
However if we factor in requirement to store energy, then both solar and wind power would fall below or close to the threshold, all while hydroelectric and gen III/III+ nuclear would have it 5-7 and 11 times higher than even the maximum estimate for threshold.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
В конце камикадзе бред сказал. Рождаемость не вчера и не пару лет назад ниже уровня воспроизводства(2.1 ребенка на женщину в среднем, мб чуть выше) провалилась, в США это произошло в самом начале 70-х(!), и с тех пор несмотря на колебания, держится ниже. То же самое по европе. Так что уровень цен на жилье, социалки, наличие соцсетей и т.д. если и влияет, то незначительно.
Вообще аборты конечно ее особо не поднимут, это да. Total fertility rate главным образом коррелирует с образованием женщин(ну и соответственно с возрастом рождения первого ребенка), чем уровень их образования ниже, тем ТFR выше. Что как бы намекает что если хотите пофиксить рождаемость — придется понижать возраст согласия(ну или хотя бы брака, но тогда и законы регулирующие развод придется сильно менять)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This is both sad and infuriating. It's ok if normal cars got slower(like jet airliners got), customers buy them not because of speed, same goes for some jets(like f-35 which doesn't need to be fast, because it's anti-aa and land attacker, not suited for air combat at all). But sport cars, same as private jets(they got faster and will probably soon go supersonic due to new technologies), same as air superiority jets(F-15 is mach 2.5, F-22 is mach 2.5, NGAD will reportedly be mach 2.8) should either remain the same or get faster, them becoming slower is a spit to the face of the sport cars enthusiasts. Saying that "muh, we didn't want them to be fast in the first place" is an absolutely idiotic coping, and lap times are irrelevant, sport cars are being bought to speed on highways, not race on the track
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I disagree. 80%(or more) of men can't become attractive enough to make women really like them, and no amount of masculinity or achievements will create enough halo effect to make them appealing. Those 80% will NEVER get a genuine sexual interest from an opposite sex, and it always was a thing.
Let's talk about "traditional"(it's not traditional AT ALL actually) society structure of 50's in america. Most guys work and end up married. Families seem relatively stable with strong bond in couples. But wait a minute, if 80%(or more) of guys are unattractive(and don't make women go "wow"), how families are stable, why don't women just leave? Because of respect. The thing holding most husband and wives together was not passion, but societal norms and respect.
Now answer the question, do you, the reader of this comment, want to have relationship a girl who is not aroused by you, and only is with you because she respects you and doesn't want to be alone? When you're in bed she either fakes orgasms or imagines the Chad in your place.
I don't. I would rather be alone than date a girl who is not aroused by me. And let girls all date those 20%. Onlyfans is actually amazing, because it lets women make some additional money. The only thing left is to normalize dating OF models and one guy dating several girl, and we've got polygynyous families!(which actually are traditional)
"But how can OF be normalized, it's s*x work?" First thing to remember is that OF doesn't inherently mean having sexual contacts with men. But let's accept such classification, and consider it a s*x work. So what? Ask yourself, who would you prefer to date, 1)"traditional" girl without onlyfans, but who previously had s*xual contact with man, or 2)OF model who never have been with a man? Does those pics matter that much? Or may be it's number of men she's been with before you that does?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
А почему собственно такая аллергическая реакция на свастоны? "Правые" консервы со своим подходом про "ряяя, нацики плохие, коммунисты плохие, монархисты плохие, исламисты плохие, одни мы такие хорошие в белом пальто стоим(и нихрена полезного не делаем)" добьются того, что нацики объединятся с исламистами, которых завезли леваки, и установят халифат со свастонами и полумесяцами. И даже такое странное сочетание будет большей базой чем консервы, потому что последние могут только сидеть и попукивать в лужу, пока леваки уничтожают западную цивилизацию(ну еще немного бюрократию могут уменьшить, как показало избрание Трампа)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
#4 Listen here, girl. If you would be my wife(unofficially, because I am not a fool to marry officially considering modern laws), you would have to pop out not 1, 2 or 3, but at least 8 children, ideally 16, as I want to spread my seed far. And you would take care of them when they are toddlers, because I'm not changing diapers. And you would not be entitled to anything except what you earned yourself or what I would give you as a gift. And if you would disobey me, not even talking about flirting with other men or, gods forbid, cheating, you would get thrown away out of my house and I will make sure that you'd see kids only once per week at best. And you wouldn't be the only wife, because I'm polygamous. However you wouldn't have to really have a job, and taking care of kids would be easier since it will be divided into shifts between you and my other wives. I would also never leave you or throw you out of my house as long as you do as I say -- those are benefits of traditional marriage.
The problem is that I won't marry you even unofficially, because you're old and not a virgin, so the best you could hope for is to become a concubine. Don't like the terms? Then goodbye.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1) The position "both are wrong" is inherently flawed. It's either morally right to transfer wealth to kids before passing or not. If yes, then millenial guy is right to complain, if no, the his boomer dad is. Yes, morals are relative, but for different people, not inside your own worldview, so you have to pick a side.
2) Boomers did not earn their money by "working hard"(unless you mean chill 40h/week job is "hard work"), they did it by working when economic conditions were good and most of things were cheap but rising in price(like stocks and real estate).
3)Life is inherently unfair. Millenials just got screwed(same as for example people who fought in ww1), and it's up to society to decide if boomers will transfer their wealth to their kids(who are in their 40s) or to gen Z(who can use them, especially guys, to start their own families and have kids)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Okay, so it's middle of 2021 and it's time to take a stocks, using Wikipedia and google search as main sources. But let's travel back a little. So his first start up, even before Flogg, was some unsophisticated online game, which cost him few hours of coding. He managed to sell it for 85.000$ after some time. I suppose it was at this moment he decided to create full scale startup. And so Flogg was founded in april 2015, to let "young people to buy and sell". Rewinding to the end of 2016, however, we discover it was ultimately closed due to "lack of profitability". It is not the end of the story, nonetheless, and person reading this comment has to brace oneself in forefeeling of this tale's continuation.
So hero of our story decided to try again, this time creating app called Monkey, video chat similar to Omegle and Chatroulette. Flashforwarding 1 year later, to the end of 2017, he sold it to Holla app, rival videochat for and undisclosed sum(which likely was not very large). As a small digression, Holla (not confused with Hola, with one "l", which is similar, but separate videochat app) was created mainly for Apple Store(same as both of Ben Pasternak's apps — Flogg and Monkey). Nevertheless in 2020 it(together with Monkey) was removed from Apple Store due to multiple complaints of "unwanted sexual approaches", and now seems to exist as living dead company.
After selling his second start up Ben decided to concentrate his efforts on something more materialistic, and founded company with a goal of creating
an artificial food(particularly a chicken nugget from plant inputs), not stating however, what distinguishes his startup from projects done in big companies. He managed to harvest around 11 million dollars, but yet again, jumping to current date, we can hear no news from this company, marking another blank startup.
P.S. Thanks for reading, english is my second language and i spent some time writing this comment.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1)Мужчина на превью к п*дофилии отношения вообще не имеет, у него другие обвинения были.
2)Стоит уточнить, что в ходе тиндер-эксперимента, в описании у красивого мужчины описание было составлено так, что создавалось впечатление, что его привлекли за связь с 15-летней. Хотя формально это и незаконно, все адекватные люди понимают, что ничего плохого в такой связи нет.
Ну а в целом да, у нас в 2 раза больше женских предков, чем мужских, и на самом деле в традиционном, дохристианском обществе это было выражено еще сильнее(и с возвращением традиции, которое уже постепенно происходит, это вновь станет так). Это просто надо принять как норму, мужчины — движущая сила эволюции, а женщины осуществляют отбор и сохранение полезных черт.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1:35 Ничего не знаю про Бострома, но тут ты несешь ерунду. Не все утверждения, основанные на перцепции в симуляции ложны. Из того, что в нашем мире в принципе возможно создать симуляцию нашего мира, мы можем утверждать, что ВОЗМОЖНО создать симуляцию такую, как наш мир, как минимум в 1 случае - если реальный мир работает по тем же законам, что и наш. А значит, наш мир может быть симуляцией.
17:21 Ценность дешевых запусков в космос в том, что можно отправлять туда спутники, используемые в том числе для навигации и прогнозирования погоды. Да, полет на Луну был просто флексом США, чтобы показать СССР, кто в мире батя. Поэтому сейчас туда и не летают. В дальнейшем база на Луне может понадобиться для испытаний, невозможных на Земле(такие есть). Колонизация невозможна в ближайшее время, Илон Маск херню несет в этом вопросе. В вопросе космических ресурсов я недостаточно компетентен, поинтересуйся у специалистов, но как минимум один важный назову - гелий-3( хотя и есть сомнения в необходимости его добычи)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@foilhat1138 I think during current iteration of AI development it will only replace jobs that do not require special skills or estimating something on a basis of multiple factors. Yes, people a lot of people writing articles(about gender/race especially), entering data(honestly I thought this job was already replaced), filling forms etc. will be fired, and entry level for programmers, mathematicians and physicists will increase a bit, but that's all. The problem is that AI doesn't understand what it writes at all, it just regurgitates what was given to it, rearranging it to fit more or less decently. Because of that it needs to be supervised. So in 20 years it will only replace those repetitive professions.
It 200 years "AI" however will "replace" everyone, but not in the way you anticipate. By that time we will ourselves become AI, fusing our brain with some electronic modules or even transferring our mind to computer(neural network actually)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Как же смешно наблюдать за копиумом ваты в комментах. Да-да, еще чуть чуть, вот Авдеевку возьмете(губами) ценой еще нескольких десятков тысяч только убитыми, и Украина внезапно сдастся, а запад перестанет помогать. Вы там в россиянии кстати готовьтесь, пыня когда переизберется, вас могилизуют скорее всего, Славянск и Краматорск сами себя не возьмут, а контрактников, зэков, оставшихся в живых чмобиков и призывников явно не хватит🤣🤣🤣
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The problem is not that the food in your diet is processed, but rather that it contains almost no fats and proteins. Were the chicken at the first day and fish at the 14th the only sizable pieces of meat you've eaten during all this time? There are basically no proteins in cereal, cheese or pizza that you ate. Your body/brain was telling you to eat more not because of some magical chemicals in processed foods, but because you had almost no intake of proteins(so no aminoacids). And natural reaction of a body is to induce feeling of hunger in an attempt to make you eat actual normal food, processed or not(steak, eggs with bacon, burger with a lot of meat etc.) But you continued consuming mostly carbohydrates.
How about you retry the experiment, but this time you'll only eat high-protein stuff(the chicken from day one, mb some fish, burgers with a lot of meat, shawarma/kebab), only when you're actually hungry and maintain your training routine? My hypothesis is that results will be drastically different, despite food being processed
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@IvanTeslenko то, что мы не можем доказать их отсутствие. Дело в том, что аргумент "чайника рассела" крайне примитивен, и по сути в своем наивном виде постоянно опровергался с развитием науки. Например древние люди согласно ему должны были предположить, что звезд, помимо видимых нам, не существует(не говоря уж о галактиках), в средние века следовало с пеной у рта доказывать всем, что планет всего 3 или 4 и так далее.
Иными словами им можно пользоваться в повседневных ситуациях(и то не всегда), когда мы ограничиваемся хорошо изученным пространством, но во вселенском/мультивселенском масштабе он совершенно не работает
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When I was 6 I got lost in foreign country(Egypt, and I'm from Russia). Since it was our first day there, I didn't remember how my hotel looked just yet. I barely knew English, which exacerbated my plight.
But I didn't cry, I started walking back and forth along the street, since I knew that if I wandered on some other street my parents won't be able to find me. I hoped that they will go back to search for me, but they didn't. After something between 30 minutes and 1 hour I changed the plan and started looking for the police officer(street was quite crowded, it was one of the main ones in the city and it was evening). After some time I spotted one, approached him and explained my situation. Thanks to my parents notifying police, he managed to understand my beginner-level English, and escorted me back to the hotel(or my parents came and got me, I don't really remember)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lol either your financial advisor doesn't do his work or you don't follow his advices. Now let's go to your finances.
1)9,923×12=119,076 not 129,000 so 10k per year(btw basically my entire expenses for a year because I minmax) are lost right away. Maybe you get them as a bonus at the end of the year, idk.
2)I won't touch taxes(hard to minimize them, maybe even impossible without relocating to another country) and 401k, however I don't understand why you count dental and insurance twice, first right after taxes and later close to the end of the video.
3)Hard to tell, but those Venmo payments may be one of the sources of inefficiency
4)Obviously you should stop eating out. I don't do it and I live in a cheap motel without a stove and only cook with multicooker. Obviously your grocery expenses will grow, but overall you'll save some money.
5)On what clothing(and shopping) are you spending $600 usd PER MONTH? Are you sure it's not one time thing?
6)Why use subscriptions if almost everything can be p*rated? I know it's not a lot, but still.
7)$283 on random shopping again, so $883 per month on clothing and shopping. I spend this much per month in total by living in a second world country
I have to say two things — firstly, minmaxing like I do is not for everyone and almost always requires relocating, mayve even multiple times in life(and is a little bit risky); most of people would likely find it more comfortable to live a normal lifestyle. And without such minmaxing you only can save up $10-15k a year compared to your current situation. Does it worth it? I think to some extent yes.
Secondly, the problem is that after taxes and 401k(which can be considered a retirement payment) you only get $6,600 per month, which means $79,200 per year(maybe you get 10k at the end of the year as bonus), which is not that much and almost 40% less than "advertized" 130k a year.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@buoydix My whole point was that there's nothing wrong with being insecure or admitting it, because insecurity makes you improve yourself.
Imagine countries and companies acted "secure". "No, we won't buildup our military, we aren't insecure, are we?" Gets conquered. "No, we won't put huge efforts in improving our products, we are not some insecure boys." Goes bankrupt in a year.
Man needs determination, not confidence, as the latter is a recipe for defeat.
Upd. More than that, I actually think that you can't boost your confidence per se, as it's basically a derivative function from your perceived(by you) abilities vs your opponents perceived(also by you) abilities. So one can become more confident only in two ways: improve himself(not what most people mean when saying "become more confident") or become less aware of your or opponents' abilities(not a good idea really).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
По поводу 30 тысяч, может раз уж тут Руслан ведет сводку, то последует ответ или объяснение в последующих роликах.
30 тысяч вполне реальная цифра, учитывая высокие потери рф из-за мясных штурмов и тот факт, что некоторые контрактники не продлевают контракт(периодически мы видим их в криминальных сводках). И да, чтобы поддерживать темп приходится постоянно повышать выплаты, и даже несмотря на это он просел(по официальным данным за первые 3 месяца набрали 100к, что значит 400к за год, за 11 месяцев 2023 набрали 480к), возможно поэтому и начали переводить мобиков на контракт. Кроме всего прочего не очень понятно еще одно. Если Медведев врал, то почему выдуманные цифры подписывающих в день и за год не сходятся?(480к за 11 месяцев против 1.6-1.7к в день) Выглядит так, как в год — реальная цифра, а в день — просто максимум, а не среднее значение, и написано чтобы путин порадовался или чтобы выполнить какую-то названную им цифру
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andyman8630 nope. All of those categories are initially derived from those observed in animal kingdom. Alpha is a leader of the pack/tribe(in human society — CEO/politician(ideally)/captain of the school football team), betas are his wingmen — so other c-staff/other football players in human society(and common usage of this term as "low status male" is incorrect, basically just a label).
Below top males — alphas and betas, are normies. There three categories of them — gammas, deltas, and epsilons. Gammas are just top normies(example would be president/vice president in companies, cool science guys in school). Deltas are most numerous — they are just average guys. Epsilons are outcasts and have below average status — in human societies unemployed people and alcoholics/drug addicts belong to this category.
Finally(almost), there are two more categories that are quite rare. First, omega males(quite often there is only one) usually appears in hyper competitive, often male-only groups like army, jail, or schools in bad neighborhoods(example would be the bullied protagonist in 00's school movies; he's not just low, he is actively being harassed to show dominance of the alpha and betas over entire group in harsh conditions). Those are the lowest of the low, and often are used to let out the aggressive impulses of other males. Second, sigma male, is above alphas, but exists only in complex, very numerous human societies with lack of transparency and incomplete information, which lets sigma male play his game. If society is not complex enough, sigma will try to be alpha, but won't have particular advantages. The best examples of sigmas would be Sean Connery's James Bond or Voldemort from Harry Potter and Methods of Rationality(irl it would be some trader-billionaire in disguise).
There is also the last category, which is sort of a transit one — Zeta male. It is basically male who rejected societal structure in an attempt to drastically increase his level(which is impossible if you don't exit the hierarchy at least for some time). All sigmas were zetas at some point, before acquiring money/power.
The distinction you made about "taking the responsibility" is redundant as any alpha would never be too reckless or harm his group/pack/tribe, while defeating/subjugating other groups is his goal and a winning strategy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
По поводу пункта 2. Надо учитывать, что в разных странах рынок труда отличается. Например по США есть данные, указывающие на то что люди, меняющие работу в среднем раз в 2 года продвигаются по карьерной (и зарплатной) лестнице быстрее тех, кто сидит в одной компании. Учитывая что исследование проводилось в Австрии, а она, как и Германия, имеет более "консервативный"(по рассказам знакомых там буквально на собеседовании могут примерно назвать суммы, которые ты будешь получать в будущем, все распланировано) рынок труда, и видимо лояльность компании ценится, то далеко не факт, что тактика "сидения" будет работать лучше и в россии
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Если по поводу координации действий российских военных я согласен(запад по сути находится в состоянии войны с рф, хоть и холодной), то вот по поводу остального(торговля людьми, центральный процессор) я не согласен. Второе в некоторых случаях вообще должно быть разрешено(в той же франции ложиться в койку можно со всеми, старше 15, а вот видео делать только с 18, это полный бред, который в свое время продавили США со своей педоистерией). При этом без ключей шифрования/данных о пользователях поймать никого все равно не получится, вместо заблокированного просто будет создан еще один паблик. Это уж не говоря про то, что есть даркнет и в худшем(для полиции) случае активность перейдет туда. Ну а самое главное, что полиция скорее всего даже при наличии ключей шифрования все равно не будет ловить преступников, потому что приоритетом для них является борьба с противниками нелегальной миграции, а не самими мигрантами, занимающимися преступностью
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok, this video is somewhat woke so I'll argue with it.
4:25 it's not really true, more of a modernist simplification. It was not that dirty in the cities back then.
18:50 I do believe that they are relative. And answering to your statement, I do believe the thing you mentioned right afterwards is good as long as my en*my does it to his own k*ds. I don't view christ positively(don't know about buddha). And yes making your opponents "d*ssapear" is good if it's my opponents.
19:49 not sure about germany or even france. I mean yes, they believed that people can believe better world but I don't remember any complete rejection of religious beliefs.
20:19 whether they actually exist or not, demons are external beings with their own will, they don't identify as the person basically at any moment
27:22 it wouldn't be that much different if it was for something we could change. Imagine if west hated itself for any v*olent actions of having a m*litary. On top of that, seems counterintuitive, but if you have strong political opinions, you only can love who you are or hate. Far left hate who they are(g*nes), and far r*ght love.
28:30 you care too much about what other people say. In any society there will be some disagreement about if your t-shirt is good or not
30:50 that would probably advocate against societies of the past. I disagree and think that trying to figure out the general scheme of how the world works is inherently required for psychological comfort of the people
34:29 it's not all, left have a good reason to hate the great people or groups of people — envy. And therefore great have a strong reason to h*te and d*spise the meek, as the latter will always feel envious. This envy from the disadvantaged people is called ressentiment.
35:11 it can be argued that c*nnibalism is not immoral if it happens after person died and he specifically agreed to this.
35:16 here there doesn't seem to be any justification. Left picture argues that it is a illn*ss, center one talks about being t*rgeted by vigilants(could have been about different cr*me, like m*rder). The right picture is most likely about specific c*nviction process when the v*ctim is actually above the min @ge.
39:00 I don't see pr*blem with that. If it brings v*ctory and s*ves us and s*cures future for our ch*ldren, why not?
39:38 lol, this may be true. Guess they were architects of their own "doom"☕
42:17 gonna be fun
42:37 seeing demon worshippers would be interesting
48:37 "m*ce ut*pia" experiment seems a bit fishy. First of all, it seems conditions were somewhat crowded and unsanitary(it was cleaned rarely). Second of all, every article that I read about it, sounded like c*nservative pr*paganda.
49:43 I would advice to find GodS. As an advantage, p*ganism doesn't require you to reject your descent and consider all people br*thers. And no, religion doesn't require you to adopt universalist morals, probably only chr*stianity and isl*m do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is actually a good reason to believe in existense of multiverse(and even hyperverse and outerverse), but a philosophical one. Because ontologically speaking, with time, as we delve deeper into observing and researching our world, every time we find things out there, and in greater numbers. Once people believed that there's only one continent surrounded by water. Turned out there are 7. Then people believed that Sun is the only star, turned out that all of them are like sun(and even with naked eye we can see thousands, and 100 billion in milky way). Then people believed that there's only one galaxy, and turned out there are 2 trillion even in observable universe only(yes, more than stars in milky way).
So it's expected to find many other universes in very great numbers, later on find other multiverses in even greater ones, and so on to infinity
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I both agree and disagree.
1)Women and men are objectively better than each other when it comes too certain tasks. Men in STEM, philosophy, cooking, etc. Women in repetitive/boring tasks.
2)While I agree that woman trying to compete with men in workplace is weird, some will do it. What men need to understand is that such women are not really fit for marriage(even if you make more than her, and even if she declares herself as conservative).
3)There is still a way how hypergamy can be defined well(without single hierarchy), even in traditionalist society. Let us order all men by their positive characteristics(wealth, health, looks, fitness, masculine personality). Then let's order women by their positive characteristics(looks, feminity, youthfulness, health, obedience). We'll define someone of opposite sex as "equal match" if he/she is the same percentile, counting from the top. Hypergamy then will be women trying to date men from higher percentiles than them.
1
-
Not sure about 11 or twelve, but USA, China, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain, Poland and probably Turkey would win a defensive war easily, with first two winning offensive war without trouble too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Stupidity seems to be a power, because this video is idiotic.
But if we talk seriously, there's a one slight problem with stupidity -- it makes you vulnerable. If you are stupid and have money -- you won't have them soon, because you'll be fooled by other people. And if you don't have money, being stupid won't protect you from anything, because you're already have nothing to take away from you(except that stupidity will stand in the way if you decide to earn money).
Now about appearing stupid instead of actually being one. The problem here is that you position yourself as a victim, same as when you seem weak. In 1v1 fight yes, it's better to make people underestimate you, but life is not 1v1 fight. And those who are weak and stupid will be the first to become prey for others. And when your attackers realize that you aren't stupid, they may still carry out their plans because they already prepared(instead of luring you to the bad neighborhood they will just kidnap you, for example).
Now about nukes. Those are greatly overrated. They won't cause even a major damage to civilization, much less an apocalypse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cringy professor and cringy parallels.
Firstly, there wasn't fascism in Third Reich, there was nazism, a version of national-socialism. Fascism was in Italy(and it was more of a fuse between sindicalism and civic nationalism, while nazism had ethnic component).
Secondly, there was a historical context for resentiment in germans — they were defeated in WW1, some territories with german population were annexated and, most importantly, germany was forced to pay insane reparations to its former enemies. This bitterness was the main reason nazism had such an irrational form.
Thirdly, "nationalist-"(ethnic) part was absolutely natural — all healthy societies/groups try to keep together on the ethnic basis.
At the same time students in the experiment basically had nothing in common except for a leader and a made up on a common symbol sense of unity. This dynamic rather resembles left-wing ideologies, which usually are extremely collectivist and try to unite people on superficial reasons, usually stating that they are for everything that is "good" and against everything that is "evil".
Fourthly, nationalism(especially ethnic) absolutely doesn't automatically mean totalitarian/authoritarian form of government, while left-wing ideologies almost always lead to concentration of power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A lot of people think Saitama sneezed away Jupiters' atmosphere. But the thing is that Jupiter doesn't have a solid surface, but it has a solid core. So he sneezed away not only the top, gaseous layers, but also the liquid ones, which is most of Jupiter's mass. And since he can do that, he can punch away a star too(same as Garou and Boros' Collapsing star roaring cannon).
However both for Saitama and DBZ characters(late versions, earlier versions might struggle greatly) lifting 15 earth masses is quite easy, as DBZ characters can be considered confirmed planet busters(ok, in DBZ planets are small, but characters slowly get stronger). So something like ultra instinct Goku can punch away a planet for sure, which requires around 10^32 joules instead of 8*10^26 joules. For Saitama, who is star buster, which requires around 10^44 – 10^45 joules those black holes are almost unnoticeable weight. Makes sense that he's bored with fighting normal opponents.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrMarinus18 most of western Europe(for example UK, Ireland, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, somewhat Italy), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, maybe soon will Brazil, blue US states(not really countries, but still), Russia
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@David Well, of course one can't just make himself believe, there is no reason trying to do so. That's actually was discussed many times by Christian theologists, and some branches of protestants believe that it's already predestined who will achieve salvation. I'm myself being agnostic think that if there is God those who will be granted faith will be saved, others won't.
And about bevievers. Though i disagree with them, i don't actively dislike them as you do. First of all, not all of them are radicals. Secondly, since birth rates of non-believers are too low, we need those of them who are moderate in their beliefs. Because alternatively we will need to import migrants from 3rd world, who are even more religious. Also, as a benefit, those believers oppose modern "liberalism" which is actually more of a radical social justice communism.
P.S. People who talk about if God is good or bad seem all to make one assumption, which is not nessesarily true. Everyone assumes that God's understanding of love and being "good" is the same as common human one. But that isn't nessesarily true. I mean, i think a priest who "likes" young boys(if you know what i mean, thus being physically) also loves them, but in his own way. So there is may be no contradiction in statements like "God loves all people" and "those who do x, will go to Hell for eternal suffering and tortures"(that being masturbation, enjoying food etc), because for him it it can be true act of love.
P.P.S. Sorry for your story about girlfriend and church, she probably would be a good wife.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think that the last part of video failed to grasp that US already colonized Europe, with process starting after WW1. Before it Europe was on its peak, and after the war new powers emerged, with US becoming a "sleeping giant". But instead of throwing away their disputes, Europeans started a new war, which led to most European countries de-facto becoming colonies of US or USSR during Cold war. With fall of USSR, USA just included Eastern Europe in its sphere of influence. But now, with US being torn by radical left and moderate right, and China trying expansionism, drawing US efforts to the Pacific, Europe has chance to become free and stop being a colony.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'd say it's kinda incorrect to use PPP both to compare GDP and military spending, because it doesn't take into account difference in quality and heavily depends on the basket of goods. So for the same amount of money Russia may feed much more soldiers, but if they wanted to make FPV drones of the same quality, they can only save money on salaries, but not on details to make those drones.
However I think that you are completely correct that Europe needs to create at least parity even locally(in Finland, Baltics and Poland), since I simply can't imagine countries like Spain contributing much to the war if Russia attacks. Plus NATO needs to update its doctrines, air power is good, but FPV drones are almost equally important, and europe basically has no production of them. The best course of action I think is to dramatically increase military spending and help Ukraine as much as possible. And when Russia agrees to peace, start creating own stockpiles.
1
-
1)there is strong reason to believe that crime statistics are rigged because certain blue cities simply don't register them. I.e. from 80s there was a decrease, but then wokeness came in 10s and it rose back again.
2)There's long term observation of perceived inflation being higher than officially measured one. While most economists believe that it's because of people notice bad thing more than good ones, I have an alternative theory. I think it's because while officially measured inflation includes all things, perceived one is based on goods majority of people actually spend money on, i.e. groceries and rent(maybe cheap car and insurance payments too). If we account for perceived inflation I'm pretty sure wage growth will be zero if not negative.
3)While current situation is probably better than great depression(not sure if there was such an extensive welfare back then, if no it could explain hunger that happened back then but does not now or during covid), and definitely better than in some other countries like china, russia or north korea, I don't think majority of americans compare their situation to one in those countries, they compare it to US one in 2000s and 2010s, maybe 1950s-1990s. And from those years there definitely is a downgrade in terms of purchasing power of average and especially median american. After all there were times when there was large amount of people(middle class) who after few years of work could afford to buy a house, couple of cars and support a family of 4-5(husband, wife, 2-3 kids) on a single income
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
И mygap опять обосрался. Во-первых, в статистике "живущих за чертой бедности" смешиваются крестьяне и дикие племена прошлого, которые жили в достаточно хороших бытовых условиях, хоть и фактически без медицины, и современные бедняки(а в некоторых странах и не только бедняки), зачастую вынужденные жить крайне скученно — Бангладеш и в будущем Нигерия — живые примеры этого.
Во-вторых, результаты двух опросов из конца видео совершенно не противоречат друг другу — просто под "прошлым" в первом опросе люди понимают доиндустриальное аграрное общество, а во втором — конкретно индустриальное общество 50 лет назад. Есть причина, почему движения за права рабочих появились лишь после индустриализации — она привела к сильнейшему снижению качества жизни, поскольку тяжелая работа в поле не дает такую нагрузку на психику, как утомительная работа на заводе или в офисе.
Ну и в-третьих — отсутствие детской смертности хорошо только на первый взгляд. На практике это означает что вместо 2 более здоровых из условно 4 выношенных детей будет просто рождено 2 рандомных ребенка, что в среднем снизит здоровье популяции в следующем поколении при прочих равных.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'd say that one big disadvantage Chinese/Russians would have is that they will be aggressors. While South Korea, Taiwan, Ukraine, Baltics and India would be protecting themselves. I also think that nuclear weapons will be use on later stages of war, mostly against opponent's factories/nuclear launch sites.
My personal opinion is that Russia has very low cohesion and despite initial success will quickly collapse after crushing defeats in the middle of the war, loosing Kaliningrad to Poland, Crimea to Ukraine, Caucasus to Chechnya and Dagestan and Karelia to Finland, and probably will break into confederation(or a federation) of states.
War would be won by US coalition, with India playing major role and probably turning Burma, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Tibet into puppet states.
Taiwan has a chance of becoming independent again, drawing towards Japan. North Korea would be annexed by South Korea. China would be partitioned, with Sinkiang becoming independent, and mainland China breaking into several states. Hong Kong and Makau will become independent, probably annexing neighboring territories.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nickierainbow You are messing with me, trolling. Ok. I won't be raging or something.
It's just that I am perfectionist. I always strive to become better and gain new skills. And for me settling for someone who is not obsessed with me is humiliating. Will such girl abandon me later? Who knows, but statistic says -- most likely yes. Would I be special for a girl who had previous partners? Yes, I would be "special". Her ex-boyfriend was "special" too. But actually none of us were REALLY special, she just changed us like a pair of gloves. But I am not gloves. And I won't be chasing and courting girl who doesn't care(I mean REALLY care, more than about any other guy in the whole world) about me deep inside.
I understand when some other incels are being told to lower their standards. But why should I? I am taller than most, stronger than most, smarter than most, I am not fat and even my jawline is not that of an incel. My standards regarding beauty are not that strict, I consider attractive something like 20-40 percent of women in 18-40 age gap(including the woman on your user pic, whoever she is, just for reference). Where should I lower my standards? To the old, morbidly obese, ugly or disabled? No, my standards are reasonable, and I would rather be alone than lower them.
Why should I chase girl who is not interested in me initially? Yes there a lot of couples who formed this way, but their "love" is not genuine. In such couple any affection a girl has is just induced, like electric current induces magnetic field. I don't want that. I don't want to just be a betabuxx who some woman will use to secure her financial prospects. And I'm not desperate for sex. I have porn. Yes, real woman is much better, if you have emotional connection and trust, but for me this can not be one-sided. And I can survive without sex.
You can mock me as much as you want, it won't hurt my feelings, and you wouldn't be the first one. I always was mocked because I have self-respect, I don't like to make fool of myself, and I am inspired by great scientist and philosophers of the past, like Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton or John Locke(and many others). I will continue to aspire to new heights, and sorry I'm not gonna sacrifice my masculinity or become some girl's walking wallet just to get a girlfriend.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
10:08 yes and no. Firstly, I'll explain why "no". Technically, routine is unnatural, and seeking novelty is. For most of the history humans were hunter-gatherers and spent just around two hours a day searching for food. And it was the golden time for us(or actually we evolved to live like that and that's why it fits us so well). Even when we transitioned to agriculture, peasants rarely worked more than 6-7 hours a day even in summers(yes, they worked 7 days a week, but during winter they worked much less). The only time when humans worked more than now was for a short time at the beginning of industrial revolution. As for seeking of novelty, it've let us to spread through entire globe and colonize all the continents back in stone age.
One may ask "If being hunter-gatherer is so good, why did we transition to agriculture?" It definitely was not from a good life. The reason is that there was not enough space and food for everyone, and agriculture gave ability to support more people and maybe take neighbor's tribe land in future. Ted Kaczynski said that industrial revolution and its consequences were a disaster for human race. It is true, but in the same way transition to agriculture was. Imdustrial revolution just made it even worse. And I have no soothing words for you — you'll be forced to live such a drone lifestyle, be the cog in the industrial machine till the rest of your miserable life, and your children, and probably the children of your children will too. Try to find solace in the fact that in a hundred or a couple of hundred years humanity will invent genetic modification and finally "lobotomize" the majority of population except for the few rich, finally making life more bearable for the masses.
And now for why "yes". The thing is that all of this was absolutely inevitable. All living beings multiply exponentially, and humans spread with a finite speed on a certain level of technical progress. So it doesn't matter if earth was much bigger, even if it was infinite in all directions, even if it was like an infinite building going endlessly in three dimensions, or any finite amount of dimensions, the exponential growth of human population would still sooner or later outgrow the power function with which living space increases. In a certain way our sentience is a curse in itself, together with being a blessing. It makes us extremely strong as species, but also can easily bring us suffering
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I guess he talks about inflation of standards. One still can manage to afford necessary commodities, but now it requires being smart.
Guy got an IT job in Silicon Valley? No need to rent an apartment in expencive neighborhood, settle in the nearest ghetto or live in a car(shower in gym).
Don't have a lot of money and want to minimize food spending? Don't buy organic food, buy regular one and don't go to restaurants.
Having trouble to find enough money to raise kids and afford kindergarden, school and college for them? Not a big deal, universities and colleges are overrated and don't worth their price, they are just liberal indocrination facilities, young adults can learn almost anything themselves for free; schools are just educating your kids about genders, homeschool them instead; kindergardens are unnecessary at all.
Struggle to give attention and homeschool all the kids? There's a solution once again, just have several wives, who will care and homeschool your children.
Can't find women who want to raise children and not just live "for themselves"? There's a option too, just don't have kids, wait for society to crumble and hopefully you'll be able to have a family with young girls when you'll be in your middle ages. If not, at least you'll have quite a lot of money by this time.
But all of those solutions require one not to just blindly follow everyone else and have a little time thinking about how things work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@The_NonDescript Well, everyone means different stuff when saying 6-7, for some it's a high mid, for some it's low mid. But ok, let's assume you're medium in this regard.
You said you never dated, does it mean you're virgin? If yes, it gives some bonus points. Also, are you ok with polygamy(him sometimes safely sleeping around while you remain loyal)? But your biggest mistake is waiting for so long, you should have been searching for a man in his 30s back when you graduated from school, if you did that you could have scored a rich attractive guy.
Now your only option is an average guy(who probably makes less than you or the same). So basically try dating sites and list your strong sides right away(virginity, cooking skill if any, etc.) You have some chances, but I won't lie to you, it won't be easy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok, it's whether Bill Nye doesn't know, or purposefully lies about climate change.
0) "Authorities", "scientists" and etc. are not a reason to change opinion. Only reasonable evidence are such reason. If we have theory that contradicts undoubtful evidence, this is very likely a wrong theory.
1) Climate is changing all the time, and quite drastically. There were medieval warm period, during which grapes were common in Scotland(up till XII century) and oranges were common at the north of China. It was WARMER than now just one thousand years ago.
Then there were Little Ice Age which was very cold, so even rivers is France froze.
2) Water density does decrease with temperature, but I doubt that this effect can cause reasonable raise of ocean level. Ocean level can increase if glaciers melt, but only not floating ones.
3)If there were no carbon dioxide emissions climate wouldn't be like in 1750. Climate got warmer during second half of XIX century and the beginning of XX century. It also changed much more then, than it had changed in last few decades.
4) To prove that we need to stop using fossils scientists have to present evidence that:
a)climate gets warmer;
b)climate change accelerates;
c)it's human fault that this happens;
d) model should not contradict evidence of Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period(like hockey stick does).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Навряд ли инфляция понизится, ведь она вызвана конкретно санкциями и СВО, и ни то, ни другое, не похоже что будет прекращено в ближайщее время, учитывая что формально(в кв километрах) она идет типа успешно. Возможно вообще что Чемезов убедит что ставку надо снижать(а это так если есть желание не убить промышленность, в том числе военную), и тогда начнется гиперинфляция, и все миллионы рублей за очень короткий период будут стоить меньше чем бумага, на которой они напечатаны.
P. S. А вообще самое лучшее наверное это взять свои рубли, купить крипту(если боитесь риска - то стейблкоины), и делать стэйкинг. Ну а если вдруг есть доступ к западным фин инструментам, то вы наверное и так все знаете - облигации, etf'ы и все в таком духе в вашем распоряжении
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nikasznikasz8504 у него к сожалению большие проблемы с фактической частью. Я не все ролики смотрел, но например в роликах про перспективные российские вооружения были существенные ошибки(не помню какие точно, но помню, что были).
К сожалению практически все, даже плюс минус терпимые военные эксперты(а не просто шапкозакидательные) имеют некие косяки и предоставляют спорную информацию. На "Канал правда жизни" было бредовое видео про орешник(лучше про это оружие посмотреть СДЛ), у Стратега Диванного Легиона есть явная предвзятость против стелсов, в особенности Рэптора, у Sandboxx -- абсолютно бредовая предвзятость в пользу F-35, у LazerPig'а то же самое, плюс еще в добавок хейт против А-10 и бредовые заявления про Армату(хотя его наверное вообще можно к шапкозакидательным относить). Ну разве что RedEffect за таким не замечен, но он чисто по танкам, авиацию он не освещает
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Woefully I think that moderate conservatives will win in US against all odds(including their passiveness), while I would like ethnic nationalists(ideally pagan), or at least anti-black traditionalists to win. I however hope that those far-right factions will win in europe.
Upd. I think I need to clarify why I prefer pagan ethnonationalist traditionalists instead of civic nationalist conservatives(note the distinction I make between traditionalism and conservatism)
1)Pagans are less driven by disgust and more by machist masculinity. It is expressed in following:
a) Attitudes to polygamy(particularly polygyny) and having or not having children. While christians are against it since like vii century, pagans are mostly tolerant to it. I want polygamy for several reasons, both personal, and not.
Personal reason is very simple: as a man with a quite high testosterone, strength and ambition, I don't want just to have one girl. Actually, I would rather be alone and satisfy myself with ph, rather than have a conservative family with one woman.
There's however another arguments against monogamous conservative families. One is that it basically equalizes all men in amount of offspring they can produce(or actually there's a hard cap on it, since average woman barely can have more than 16 children, even if you start very early). My opinion is that there are men in society who deserve more children due to better genes.
Another is that while birth rates on the west need to be fixed, they can't really go up that high because low child mortality still exists. If christian conservatives win, they will likely enforce, either legislatively or culturally, requirement for almost all women to have children. You think it's good? Nah. If women would have copious(or just relatively high, for example 3-5 averagely) amount of children, we'll see insane population boom. It may sound nice(and will be good at the beginning), but in few generations will, ironically, lead to overpopulation.
Therefore the only way would be to somehow limit average birth rates so they won't much exceed 2.1 per woman. Now we get back to why I don't like christian conservative model. Such limitation(remember, almost all women need to get married and have children under conservative rule) will lead to very small(almost as small as now, or even smaller) families, usually with 2 or 3 children. And I think it's an idiotic idea, for any individual family it would be equivalent to putting all eggs in one basket(ok, two or three). While paganism is much less likely to force all women to have children, which will give those of them who wants chance to have really lot. Not to mention that not all women would want to have children at all, so requirement to start families would make them really unhappy, and that said requirement will hinder the natural selection.
b)Attitudes towards early marriages and especially marriages with significant age gap. I would expect christian conservatives to keep or even raise age of consent or minimal age of marriage. This, however, will lead to situation in which men have trouble finding virgin wives because nowadays girls mature quite early and won't wait 6 to 4 years to get married, but instead will date their peers. But their peers most likely wouldn't be able to support family unless there's a strong socialist welfare system. I think socialist option won't work. And without it we basically just going back to 80s or something, keeping all the problems that society had back then.
Pagans, however, are less prone to idealizing and infantilizing women and therefore probably won't be against couples like 34 yo male and 14 yo female.
c)Attitudes towards lgbtq and transgenders. There's high chance that conservative christians will not just outlaw propaganda/indocrination, but also same-sex relationships(including those between women) and changing gender(either documentally or medically) whatsoever.
2)Christianity has problem with treating different ethnic groups differently. Under christian assumption, all men are brothers, and ethnicity doesn't matter as much as faith. Needless to say that while such ideas are inseparably ingrained in christianity, for entire western history they basically were ignored, except for the last decades when leftist actually made this multiculturalism a practice.
Pagan faith is, conversely, not universalist, and doesn't require consider different populations as brothers or mix with them.
3)Christianity actually has strong socialist sentiment. While it's highly debated topic if christianity is a proto-communism, it's impossible to deny that in bible being poor is encouraged, same as sharing a lot of your resources. I would say that protestant work ethic existed rather despite christian values than because of them.
Together with the previous one this leads to idea that even if populations are not born or placed equally, west should be helping poorer countries(maybe even at its own expense).
4)General christian sentiment towards pacifism. While for most of the history christians were quite prone to conquests and wars, it's hard to deny that idea of "turning the other cheek" is ingrained in christianity. Ironically, modern leftist propaganda basically tells men to be ideal christians(almost) -- docile, non-aggressive, non-judging and non-masculine(yes, there's difference, since christianity preached asexuality and modern propaganda preaches femininity).
5)Constant preaching of guilt. Christianity's entire idea is that people are prone to sin, and the requirements of good behavior are so impossible that it basically makes all people guilty by default. That is actually quite similar to modern leftist ideologies, it's just that christianity considers a sin all desires: to eat good, to have sexual pleasure, to feel anger(which are impossible not to feel if you're healthy); and modern leftist ideologies consider a sin to not be black, female, lgbtq, disabled, etc.
These are the reasons I don't like the idea of conservative christian takeover.
*)Now let me explain my view on the difference between conservatism and traditionalism. Basically all conservatives that I've seen want just to return society to the stage somewhere between 1910s and 2000s(and usually after 50s), depending on their individual views. I think that it's a faulty idea, and will just lead us to repeating transformation to leftism once again. Traditionalism, on the contrary, seeks to return society to at least XIX century or maybe even much earlier.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Не либертарианец и не готов реально вывозить за него, но предположу, что ответом будет, что те communities, которые будут практиковать эту религию, проиграют нормальным в конкурентной борьбе ввиду потери молодых людей. А если это будут добровольные жертвоприношения стариков, и это будет эффективно, то почему это плохо?
Сложность с либертарианством не в том, что полная свобода плоха, а в том, как обеспечить стабильность и не скатиться обратно в авторитаризм. Хотя пример современных либеральных демократий показывает, что это проблема не только либертарианства.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arivuerta Различаются как минимум еще физическое силой и интеллектом(дисперсия у мужчин больше).
Существование линейной истории -- миф, она циклична. "Научно" доказать будущую победу традиции, как и существование Бога я, очевидно, не могу, но не очень понятно как вы победите, если имеете в среднем намного меньше 2 детей. Консервативные иудаисты, христиане, язычники и мусульмане имеют намного больше, и воспитывают сильных мужчин и покорных женщин, более пригодных для здорового и сильного общества.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok, let's be quick. Firstly, no one would give money to Pascal's mugger because propability of somebody being a mugger while being actually very rich is de-facto zero. Add to that the fact that he initially wanted to take your money without paying back, and if he's rich, he can just return home and use his money. For those who disagree, imagine that instead someone dressed as businessman would ask you to give him money because he forgot his wallet and phone, and ran out of gas. Most people would give money to such guy, as long as it's a reasonable amount.
Secondly, I think Longtermists overestimate the risk of certain things, like asteroids(all big ones are tracked), nuclear war(not enough bombs to destroy civilization) or AI(almost certainly won't exceed human performance before we learn how to digitalise our consciousness)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1) Сомнительна идея, что люди доверят принятие решения про предпочтительным генам/характеристикам компьютеру. Вероятно компьютер будет только считать.
2)Маргинал не понимает разницы между 'обычным' компьютером и нейросетью. Нейросеть можно смоделировать на обычном компьютере, но он заточен не под это, а под выполнение арифметических операций, зачастую однотипных. Просто прописать в алгоритме говорить "у меня есть сознание" - недостаточно.
Но да, у нейросети может быть сознание, и её можно смоделировать на машине Тьюринга.
3) Человек запоминает информацию не как жесткий диск/ssd, а как нейросеть, через образы
4) То, что сознание принципиально неверифицируемо - спорно, я бы сказал даже неверно.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
About sharks and lotteries: no, it's you who doesn't understand it. You see, winning a lottery is a ticket to a better life, it will substantially improve it. Conversely, if you just avoid buying lottery tickets and save up money, your quality of life won't really change because of those saved up money. So there is some reason behind buying lottery tickets. So unless you plan to get rich by trading or doing business, there's no reason to avoid lotteries.
As for sharks, the thing is that you can affect chances if you gonna drown. Learn to swim well and you won't drown unless you dive down into the underwater cave. Alternatively, don't swim too far and avoid rip currents. However for sharks, you can't control if it will attack, you can't even decrease chances of attack
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1