• 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 25th, 2023

help-circle
  • I’ve seen so many older couples where the woman was 100% dependent on the man. He never allowed her to manage finances, have access to the bank accounts, pay bills, etc. and then after 30-40 years he leaves or dies, and then she’s left without any life experience whatsoever and has no idea how to manage her own life.

    That’s the part that really kills it for me. Even if you have the absolute perfect couple, its got glaring flaws. It increases risk for higher… comfort? Because in high risk high reward, if it pays off you are more stable than you started. That doesn’t happen with a tradwife couple. You constantly have a higher risk, but a nicer house, a warmer family, better food, more involved community. (Again, I’m assuming the absolute perfect couple. I’m not even considering the power dynamics.) Which… it’s bizarre because that all should be worth it but… it topples so much easier. Even in the best case.

    Like… this seems straight up like a flaw in society.


  • This has always been my concern with the tradwife movement. I can certainly see why there would be appeal but you need to be very cautious of who you want to be a tradwife to. You create a lot of dependence on your partner, You sacrifice a lot of power, and once you start doing this it becomes increasingly difficult taking it back.

    Even with the perfect partner to be a tradwife to. You don’t remove the problems with dependence. You can argue that “well I have full faith my partner and I will stay together” but at any point it can all get taken away.

    With two partners a single layoff sucks, but you can stay afloat much better than two layoffs. It’s like a two engine and a single engine plane. A two engine has redundancy, it can limp. Single engine becomes a glider after failure.

    Speaking of failure, doesn’t matter how angelic your partner is, heart failure will kill them and wreck your life too. Then you have life insurance but no resume or job experience. Hope you saved.

    It’s genuinely kind of infuriating, because start mixing in handywork, house repair, landscaping, childcare, cooking, cleaning, organizing, with the recently added 3dprinting, searching online for 2nd hand goods, volunteering within your community, a LOT of value should be getting generated… but none of it gets recorded… or removes your dependency on your partner.



  • Well the entity system adds an entirely new branch of research, that works separately from workbenches. To make fast progress in the darker research you need mutliple sources of dark research in the form of trapped entities. A LOT can go into the containment of some of these entities, basically making sure you have a room that can actually hold some of this stuff. So from there I actually prefer the research loop to the main method. Not only that it doesn’t take AN ENTIRE PAWN’S DAY to actually perform. I haven’t caught anything SUPER nasty yet, but I see the pieces that will require a supermax of entity containment. I kinda feel like I could forgo research and move direct into the darker research. Make an army of ghouls.

    Honestly I feel like it’s definitely bigger than the royalty DLC, and I’m only about five hours in.



  • Perhaps the main use for technology is increasing the amount of inequality society can tolerate without collapse. I can’t fix inequality – that just seems to be what the humans want.

    However by investing in surveillance technology, computer vision, and AI I could perhaps help our society to bear unbounded amounts of inequality indefinitely, without collapse. Social collapse is a less-than-zero-sum game, whereas an unequal society is still generally more-than-zero-sum. So I posit that the latter is objectively better.

    … Are you suggesting that we increase inequality to make the world better? Like we need an overlord, be it robot or human, and the rest of the population needs to be placated, worked to the bone, and easily replaced?

    I gotta assume I am just vastly misunderstanding something in this argument, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what it is. Is it just sarcastic?





  • It’s because a person can crank out a deep fake in 3 hours, and a crappy one in one. It never cropped up because… well lets be real it was a couple of weirdos that were doing it, unless it bubbles up from the dark corners of the internet you risk the Streisand effect by bringing attention to it.

    AI can crank out 40 in a minute. 7200 in three hours. That’s an entirely different beast. The sheer mass and volume ramps up the odds of any image bubbling up from the dark corners of the web falling into the limelight and now this problem that wasn’t big enough to merit thought is rearing up it’s ugly head right in front of us.

    You can generate unique pictures of Taylor Swift faster than even Taylor swift can generate pictures of Taylor Swift. Within one hour of Taylor swift being seen with a man (and you have enough images of the man) you can create a dozen images of her on a date with that man and attempt to sell them to paparazzi.

    The problem is volume. Just like how email made everyone connected and allowed the Nigerian Prince scandal to occur.











  • Wait that was real?!? I thought that was satire!!!

    Jesus Christ that’s the kind of name an angsty teenager gives their life changing app.

    It’s the most milk toast edge you could possibly give a website.

    The only time that name is acceptable is for a website of nautical pirates.

    How did he even get the domain from the edgelord who had it before who refused to get into myspace and decided to build his own website from scratch?

    How many times did he have to misspell twitter before he put his foot down like this?

    But if X is twitter, how will he mark his emerald mines on his map at home?