something_else

Yea, it's pretty insane how good it is at coding. It does still make incredibly stupid decisions sometimes and definitely still needs human direction and oversight. But overall it has completely changed how I work as a software engineer.

Pretty scary. Seems Anthropic are going about it the right way though.

I'm painfully sensitive to weed, to the point where I simply don't understand how people smoke it and go about their normal lives. When I've been out partying on nights out and somebody offers me some, if I have even a tiny draw I will be completely fucked for the rest of the night. Yet some people seem to smoke an entire joint and have a great time. It just makes me go completely non-verbal. It's great as a psychedelic taken on my own at home, but the way I see most people use it does not work for me at all.

The counter-example is that there are some butt-fuck ugly billionaires out there. In fact none of the world's top 10 richest people are particularly good looking. I don't think anybody denies that being good looking helps you a lot in life, but stating that success in life is entirely dependent on how you look is categorically wrong.

Go to South East Asia without much of a plan and just wing it. It's hard to get it wrong. Stay in hostels, and make sure you go to at least Thailand and Vietnam. But every country there is amazing.

Yea, I do get that. It helps if you get into the habit of taking photos of your life a bit more regularly, not just specifically for online dating

I've posted this in a few online dating threads, but if you need a rough template to follow for a solid dating profile here is my advice for building a solid profile:

I don’t think the redpill vs incel distinction really ultimately matters here. That 'redpill' framing seems to come more from the guy in the video than the actual legislation. From what I’ve seen, the law is aimed at content that’s explicitly misogynistic, promotes male superiority, or incites harm towards women, which is a much more reasonable and enforceable target. I also don’t think this is some conspiracy against men from the Brazilian government. There are legitimate concerns about what happens when large numbers of young boys are exposed to and shaped by these kinds of ideas. We’re probably still early in terms of seeing the long-term effects. Even when it doesn’t lead directly to violence, it can still drive more hostility and resentment towards women, which isn’t exactly a desirable outcome. Again, I don't think this is actually what the brazillian govt. did. It seems like their goal was preventing the spread of violent / misogynistic content. Yeah, different orgs use different definitions. I don’t really see it as a big deal though. We already break homicide down into categories when there are clear patterns (gang violence, terrorism, domestic abuse etc), this is just another example of that. From what I can see, the term is mainly used in two ways: women killed by partners or family women killed explicitly because they’re women The second one is obviously a distinct category. The first also makes sense to track, because even if men are killed more overall, women’s risk is much more concentrated in intimate and family contexts (around 50–60% vs ~15% for men).

I'm not 100% sure that's the case, but even assuming that it is, at a bear minimum it fosters hostility between the genders. Especially when consumed by 12 year old boys in school who don't have the critical thinking or life experience to question the content they consume online. It isn't a huge leap to see how that could lead to women being hurt or even killed in extreme cases, especially as this kind of content gets more prevalent. In the context of this video about criminalising redpill, I suspect 'redpill' is being used as an umbrella term for all of the manosphere content including incel / blackpill. Differentiating between all of these terms is hard, the lines are blurry. At a high level they are all in the same vein and produce similar end results. It has an objectively distinct meaning, which is killing of a woman specifically because she is a woman. I think that is a distinction worth making. We do similar things with racially motivated killing (hate crime). Somebody being killed because they are black is something notably distinct from a black person being killed for revenge, money or any of the standard motives for murder.

This is true for lots of things that are fine in moderation. Beyond spreading awareness of that, it's not really clear what else you can do. Banning porn or sugary sweets is extreme and impractical

All valid points, I did mention earlier that I don't think it's healthy when used as a coping mechanism to avoid actually finding a partner or having sex.

You say it isn't healthy, but can you point to anything concretely unhealthy about it?

Just because some people cannot moderate themselves does not make the thing itself bad. Take other addictive things like heroin, cigarettes, sugary sweets, for each of these you can point to concrete health problems that occur as a result of excess consumption. With porn are there really any concrete health issues you can point to? Probably the biggest issues are the ethical implications of funding the porn industry, and causing strain on relationships. The porn industry isn't super ethical, but you can consume amateur porn to bypass that. If your partner isn't happy with you watching porn I can see it causing strain on your relationship, but if they don't care then it's a moot point. Most couples I've met don't really seem to care if their partner watches porn. Aside from that I can't really think of anything else. Maybe causing people to have unrealistic views on sex? But again I don't really think that's universally true. I've found that porn has actually improved my sex life if anything.

I would argue social media addiction is much more prevalent. There are a lot more people spending 4-5+ hours a day scrolling on social media than there are people spending 4-5+ hours per day watching porn. For most people who watch porn it's like 30 mins per day, if that.

This is definitely a fair point. I would argue that cigarettes are worse because they will actually kill you, but I get your point. I mean are any of these things objectively bad in moderation? There isn't really anything inherently wrong with novelty and easy dopamine unless you indulge to excess.