• 12 Posts
  • 741 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 1st, 2023

help-circle



  • Gender segregation is usually done to encourage less dominant groups in sports. Like chess, for instance (good comparison to video games).

    Women have higher avg IQ than men. Sex based physiological differences have zero impact. Women are in theory just as good as men at chess.

    In practice, women do not perform well at chess compared to men in high level competitive play. Why? Fewer women play chess because of sociological/cultural reasons, therefore by the law of large numbers we don’t yet have a Magnussy Carlsen.

    The solution? Create womens leagues where they can compete against other women in the game and see more success. If womens chess leagues continue to gain traction, inspire more women to play chess, increase the size of the talent pool, then eventually womens leagues won’t be necessary - the talent pools between genders will homogenize.

    Another example is football (soccer), but between countries. American atheletes have dominated a great many sports at various times - basketball, american football, track and field, swimming, tennis. Why has the USA never won the world cup? Relatively few Americans play football compared to other countries, so the talent pool is smaller and the USA doesn’t have major global talents like other countries do. The answer? Build the domestic competitive infrastructure needed to produce talent. If the US does this, eventually it will not suck at football because the talent pool will be larger and it will have global talents.


  • Additionally, in times when the crops required less care (so not planting or harvesting) peasants were required by their lords to do various amounts of labor. Like “build X feet of fences per year, mend Y feet of fences, serve Z days of conscripted labor”, etc.

    So on the one hand, peasants weren’t ruled by the tyranny of the clock like we are, but on the other: work still had to get done, was much less efficient than today (bc technology), and was often unpaid








  • And additionally, looking at the emails he actually sent and received from Epstein, they seem totally innocuous. Until I see actual evidence of wrongdoing, I’m going to withhold judgement. None about anything untoward, just literally stuff about politics and linguistics. Chomsky seemed to be corresponding with a similar rushed tone like he does in other correspondence - man answers a lot of emails.

    By contrast, Trump has many accounts of sexual harrassment and assault perpetrated by him, lots of circumstantial evidence tying him to the shady side of Epstein’s dealings, emails about him blowing bubba, etc.


  • My wife is on the ace spectrum. She enjoys sex, but only experiences reactive sexual desire (i.e. she’ll get in the mood once sex is basically already happening). Effectively she does not experience sexual desire in the way people typically mean that.

    That’s been a struggle for us. We don’t do scheduled sex, but it’s something we’ve considered. Even though we have very good (if infrequent) sex, the frequency isn’t the thing that’s hard for me to deal with. The hardest thing is not feeling desired in ways I am used to in relationships. That has made me feel insecure and just overall is not great. But it’s something we’ve had to work through.

    So all that goes to say: yes, if you find the right person you’ll be able to make it work. The key, in my opinion, is talking about it and being very clear about how you’re wired and that it isn’t anything wrong with them.


  • Well sure. CEOs’ main job is to coordinate the functions of major business units with the wishes of shareholders/the board of directors. Ultimately they’re a middleman on the hook for the results of the business without actual direct control of day to day operations.

    Effectively that means they give broad goals and direction to named execs, who translate those goals into actions for their organizations, that middle managers direct their teams to achieve. Then middle managers report success/failure to named execs, who report back to the CEO who (in conjunction with the other named execs) reports success/failure to shareholders & the board along with financial results.

    The execs all are basically on the hook for the results of the decisions made by those below them, but they only decide the broad strokes of the actions of the business.

    LLMs could do most of that. The only problem is they can’t really make decisions properly. But they could pretty easily turn what is said by the board & shareholders into goals for others to enact - and maybe determine if actions taken by the business support the goals to some degree.

    That is like 80% of the job of a CEO.