Archimedes

It's nice to imagine what will be possible once automation really sets off. Right now we don't know if what kind of actions can be automated in the future. What we left with are just speculations. If humanity ever reaches the point where it can create life like robots, things will become very interesting. Even parents may be replaced by robots. Not by choice, but because kids raised by robots who employ the best parenting, will out-compete kids of even the most good hearted parents. Robots never slip up, robots don't suffer from the abuse handed down through generation, robots always process reality. They may even be able to calculate the outcome of every conceivable action toward the child at a given moment and select the action, which maximizes well-being of the child. Given that many humans lack the IQ to employ peaceful parenting, it may only be robots that will allow humanity to finally abolish child abuse. Those who insist on still raising their children will slowly die off. It will probably result in an environment more suitable for r-selected individuals as K-selected individuals will still want to raise their children, while r-selected people who can't be bothered to care about their children in the first place, will no longer face the consequences of this behavior when robots raise their children.

I don't understand. Does her ability to affect the future mean she has free will? In the story there are aliens who have a teleological worldview. They perceive time non-linear way. Since they perceive past present and future simultaneously, they don't really have a will but instead act in order to realize a purpose. The protagonists learns the language of aliens and the story assumes that the Sapir-Whorf-hypothesis is true, which results in the protagonist gaining awareness of future events. She never really learns to perceive the world like the aliens do, she just remembers events of the future. She then remembers that her unborn baby will die in the future. Knowing this, she goes through with having that baby. She can't change the fact that she will have a baby, nor that that child will die. However, she's still glad that she has that baby, because through her memories she started to love her and wants to experience the joyful moments she know will happen in the future.

I read the short story „Story of Your Life“ by Ted Chiang last week after watching Arrival and the story stayed with me for a while. The thread talks about small spoilers regarding the theme of the short story. In the short story the protagonist ends up remembering the future and thus is not free to alter it. However, the story concludes that she has free will in that she follows through with a choice she already knows she's will make in the future. By choosing not to alter the future, she is creating it and actively affirming it. While she makes the choice to not alter the future, she also doesn't really have any choice but to go through with what she knows will happen. The author assumes that knowledge of the future would change you in a way, so you wouldn't want to change it. So basically the author says that free will exists in an deterministic universe in the form of not affecting the outcome of future events. But if you are not free to affect the future, how free can your choice to not alter that future really be? Or am I wrong in assuming choice is required for free will to exists?

What stops you from creating a new email address and never speak to them again?

I'm currently employed at an entry level position as an software consultant and am currently looking to get into another company. The job offer is for the same kind of position. However, what attracted me to this company is its commitment to build up high quality workers. Something that my current company is lacking in. I've already had a phone interview with the CEO (it's a small company) and it went really well. He seemed like an emphatic guy who cares about his people and he is also highly competent in his field, since he's a computer scientist as well. He also showed great interest in me, because of my very good computer science degree and my one year work experience (the later wasn't required in the job offer). I am scheduled for a face-to-face interview this week and hopefully can close the deal. However, one of the biggest problem to overcome is the fact that the new company wants me to work two weeks for free, so they can judge my abilities before hiring me. Making sure that they only hire competent people is something they have listed on their website, so it's important to them. My contract with my current employer clearly states that work on the side, be it paid or not, must be allowed by them. I don't think they would allow it and I also don't want to quit at my current employer without having something else lined up. Therefore, I'm brainstorming for alternatives that I can offer during the job interview. The things I've come up with so far are: extend the trial period to the legal maximum time. Only works if it isn't required already Offer 3-weeks of free work, if I'm hired. If I don't make it, they can fire me within a notice period of two weeks during the trial period. The additional week is a trade off. The CEO of the new company already told me that my degree is one of the best among the people he hired. Because of this and my one year working experience in the same field I estimate the likelihood of me passing the two weeks at 80-90%. Meaning the risk of losing out on somebody with good potential to add value to their company is higher than the risk of hiring a misfit for a short period of time.

I think this is what PUA's call a shit test.

I can recommend Evidence Based Technical Analysis by David Aronson, which teaches you how to apply the scientific method on trading. But be warned, it will crush your outlook, since it's very hard to develop a useful strategy. The same guy also offers a program to test your strategy. Overall, I think trading isn't really a good option for the average person. Competition is too tough.

Nothing, but it implies childhood issues, which I think he has yet to resolve based on what he says from time to time. You know those weird moments when somebody says something that makes you go "Wait, what?"? I've come across too many of those moments after having listening to him for several months. It's hard to make this case on a simple forum post without spending hours to go through all his videos again, which is why I am not going to make it here. It's just my impression of him.

With vetting he means figuring out her values before you get to have sex with her. Spend time talking about what is important with each other and also check if her actions are consistent with what she claims to value. Honestly, I wouldn't waste my time with a woman that claims to have a boyfriend. Either she is dishonest and wants to test you, or she is honest and not relationship material. I also avoid women who are sexually agressive. Those women usually lack self worth and think they have to offer sex in order to keep you interested. I think the reason why she stopped pursuing you is because you didn't fall for her sexual manipulation. Good for you.

I can't give you any advice. I'm currently going through childhood issues regarding my mom and don't really think I'm ready for a relationship. However, I do want to use the principles described in Real-Time Relationships once I enter the dating market. Have you read that? Seems like good stuff.

Your goal is to be in a healthy relationship, possible with kids. Is that right? If this is the case, approaching random women and having hookups is the wrong way to make that happen. You are pursuing an r-selected strategy in hopes of an K-selected outcome. It's true that you have adapted to your environment, but in this case it still doesn't get you the thing you want. That's because your environment is highly r-selected. What I think you have to do is to look at people in healthy relationships for guidance. I think you should take what MGTOWs have to say with a grain of salt. I am listening to what I consider the crème de la crème of MGTOW, which are Stardusk, Colttaine and Alex on Life among others. What all these guys have in common is that they are not in healthy monogamous relationships. Colttaine recently admitted that he sleeps with married women and has no moral problems with it. Alex on Life pursued a relationship with an older crazy woman in another country while still being married. It failed and he suffered emotional pain due to it. Stardusk often goes on about the crazy antics of his “ex-wives” and is currently stuck in an empty void. He also said that there was a time in his past where he didn't spoke to his parents for years. What these guys say makes sense, but sometimes you can see glitches that reveal deeper issues about themselves and their views of the world. For example in a discussion with Colttaine about sleeping with married women, Stardusk said that he doesn't see how women couldn't be 'good mothers' while having an affair on the side. Or he cites cheating forums as evidence for the fact that if you are married you may end up with a wife that has gangbangs while you are providing for her. In his last video he had a discussion about how woman are love-bombing you in the initial dating stages. In this discussion he talks with a womanizer who's last romantic involvement was with a psychopath. They come to the conclusion that all women are displaying similar behaviours of psychopaths (albeit in a lesser form). The best thing you could do is to shut yourself down emotionally and just have casual relationships with women. Alex on Life often says in his videos that all women are operating as sociopaths. These guys often go on about how they are able to see the depressing truth about women and how other men, particular those in LTRs and marriages, are lying to themselves. Compare them to guys like Stefan and Mike. Do you think Stefan and Mike are lying to themselves? Do you think they don't show and share emotions with their wives? Do you think their wives are out sleeping with other men? Do you think they had a string of abusive relationships in their past that made them think all women are sociopaths? Do you think they got where they are by trying to find a diamond in an r-selected environment? Both of them pursued self knowledge, overcame their trauma and provide value for other people. The only way to attract health is to be healthy yourself. I still think MGTOW can be valuable by teaching you what you have to avoid. But it is obvious that they have a need to confirm their biases about women by only focusing on toxic examples. I know it's sounds like a cliche, but I really do think they suffer from unresolved trauma. If you think you have to shut yourself down emotionally to be with other people, then something is very wrong. You are essentially abusing yourself. They have to tell themselves that it's impossible to have a healthy relationship so they can absolves themselves from the mistakes they made that caused them to end up with a history of toxic relationships. In short. Listen to guys who have what you want. You may or may not end up in a healthy relationship that way. If you follow people who have failed to get what you want, than you will also fail to get what you want.

The recent video about Carrie Fisher really made me think about my own value consistency when it comes to media. I like the old Star Wars films, particular because they are about fate vs free will in the context of an abusive family structure. This is explored through Luke who fears that he may turn into his father but ultimately makes the decision to commit to the light side of the force. It's obvious that the dark side represents the forces in life that make us repeat our own family history, if we not fight against them. I think the story itself focuses on healthy values that are consistent with my value system. However, as Stefan has pointed out in his video, at least two of the actors (Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford) have taken actions in their lives that are fundamentally add odds with my morals and values. In Fishers case, it's her own complacency and decision to remain in the cycle of her abuse. And in Fords case, it's the fact that he drugged a 19 year and had sex with her when he was in his mid-thirties and married with two kids. Both of these people acted in selfish and abhorrent ways that caused great pains to others and themselves. I don't think I can watch the old movies without forcing myself into a cognitive dissonance. I used to enjoy the romantic scenes in Empire Strikes Back between Han and Leia, but now I think I have to puke everytime Ford makes a move. I am really conflicted, because on the one hand I value entertainment that explores the values that are important to me. But on the other hand I value self-respect and honesty. I think my self-respect is violated, because the movies make me root for characters that hold values that are congruent with my values, but are played by actors who have acted against those values. This means when I watch the movies, I agree to be manipulated by those actors who I previously thought played those roles, because they aligned with their personal values. Lying to myself is a violation against my values of self-respect and honesty, which are more important than entertainment. I am still conflicted. I really like those movies and watched them at least once a year. Not watching them anymore will be a loss. What do you guys think? Is there a way to still watch those movies in good conscience?

Personal boundaries don't cease to exist, just because you married someone.

Donald Trump

Honestly, I don't like that kind of reasoning. It's used in several moral topics and it always seems manipulative to me. It always boils down to this: "Having this reaction towards X means that you care about your ego to much. And you don't want to be an egomanic, don't you?" It's usually used to distract from X.