Bobby_2021

Yes. Please do some research before subscribing to such harmful stereotypes.

I don't care. I just wanted some drama. Also all war lords will eventually be killed by other war lords. This is the gane they signed up for.

I was talking about the Elo Rating. On top of that high testosterone has a huge impact on your ability to sit and concentrate for hours on end in high stress situations.

Update: A 300 page document made by the prosecution was accessed by the BBC and reports some of it here. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66581218 If this document becomes public, it's so over. They wouldn't need the court hearing. They would lose in the court of public opinion even before that. The only way they can get out is if they bribe the Judge. Even that is ruled out since this matter is already the subject of international attention and more traffickers (Vlad Obu, a war room members and students of Tate) has been arrested and Tate case would set the precedent. In short, it's so over.

It would have been really amazing if he managed to go through with the coup. Now he is dead. Honestly I didn't think he was this naive. Some other forces were at play the moment he retracted from the coup.

Isn't the human memory itself being hallucinated? There is no reason to accurately remember all the details from the 30 years of experience he had hallucinated. You probably do not remember all the details of your nightly dreams.

@Sidra khan did you understand anything for real? ?

There is some Truth to this. But its not true that you will never be addicted to anything ever again. You gain a lot more control over your own existence because you learn a lot more about your existence. Even a dog barking has enough stimulation as much as watching a move. You learn to find so many things in simple things, that watch stimulation overloaded entertainment becomes overwhelming. In spite of all this, you can still get addicted to videos and chocolate. But your baseline awareness will be higher even when you get addicted so that the intensity of your attachment to the addiction is lower and it gives you a lot of control if you want to break out of it. At the end of the day, even addictions is life. There is nothing fundamentally wrong even with addiction, existentially speaking.

It would be nice if we could implement a nice decentralised transparent protocol for government institutions. Of course not all govt institutes, but a subset of them

There is no risk or hazards if you are referring to explosions. Only a few explosions happened throughout history only due to severe lapse of judgement or/and extreme circumstances. We have solved all these problems and technology has advanced enough to deem these risks as trivial. We need to talk in terms of what works and stop running on patterns. What's the status of hydrogen powered cars? I thought it was impossible.

Typical SD green kind of move. Get rich by oppression. Blame others for getting rich by oppression.

What's the alternative. Renewable energy could not scale to provide energy to all people, even if they had the money and resources to opt for it. Not to mention all the implications of waste that is generated by the renewable energy infrastructure and the cost of maintenance. It's a dead end. Doubling down on nuclear energy is the only thing that has the remote possibility of saving us. It makes sense to invest in places where you get huge returns as opposed to minimal returns. Simple. Solving energy crisis within decades, say 2050, is a pretty good goal to set, even if it is bloody expensive. It's their problem that they didn't invest in it early and fear mongered against it. Acknowledge the mistake and rectify it as soon as possible. With renewables what you get after decades is a shit ton of junk waste to manage while giving no significant return on investment either. It's a dead end if you are serious.

Go Nuclear. ?

@hoodrow trillson I can confirm this. The Indian right wing has been pretty aggressively denying climate change until some of them changed their minds last year when literal hot winds have been blowing up their face. Last summer was so unbelievably hot. Rain patterns are disrupted as well. Sometimes it's too much rain and sometimes it's too less rain. And we have old dams near our place that could wipe us off the map if too much rain falls at the wrong time. When the consequences are right in their face and threatens their life, people are willing to accept the Truth of climate change. However transitioning to renewables is not the right strategy. Only nuclear energy can satisfy the current energy demands. It's unreasonable to expect people to give up cars all of a sudden.

Show me the math. The math clearly states that participation rates have no impact on performance at top levels. You can verify this with stats from countries with relatively high participation if women, poland for example. ---- Also, have you considered that people are likely to do the things that they are good at? You will endure sacrifices and participate only if you expect yourself to win big. You are starting with the assumption. "If there are 100 judit polgars..." Well, there are not.

You are imagining effort. Not just at God levels, but even at human and personal level.

Yes. Reality should be effortless. Effort is just a concept in your mind that has relevance only if you think about it. You can do it effortlessly or with huge amount of effort. But the default case scenario is that we don't know how to do things effortlessly. Once we break the illusion, those things that required effort become second nature to us.

??

We should be doubling down on nuclear energy for 80%. And put the rest of effort into renewables if you are serious. I am getting the feeling that people are not serious. They want to feel like they are doing something rather than get tangible results. Nuclear energy is the only thing that can save us. Renewable energy is a fad.

That hundred 147 points has more in value compared to a 1000 points at sub 2000 levels. That last 100 points requires as much work as getting 1000 points at some lower levels. And 16 year old kids from china break the 2700 rating mark as if it nothing. As far as I can remember, I have never seen a female player break 2700 mark except for Judit Polgar. ----- Here is what you need to understand: The best female chess players on the planet already most probably are playing chess at professional level. The best male chess players on the planet are already played chess at professional level. Adding more female/male players into the mix will NOT significantly change the environment at the top. The top is full of outliers and they do not represent normies and you are only talking about adding more normies into the mix. Men as a whole are far more interested to play chess even for fun because of their logical nature. The whole study starts with the assumption that men and women are equal in logical capacity to begin with. With that assumption, you go looking for explanations to confirm that World view and pick on participation rates. In fact the participation theory has been disproved by studies which took countries with different proportion of women who play chess and found that it has minimal impact on performance at the top.

The idea that participation rates affect difference in performance has been tested and found to be true in the sample size they took from India. Here is a twitter thread explaining it. Another guy did manage to replicate the results in the case of India. But that doesn't hold up for other countries. https://followtheargument.org/gender-differences-among-top-performers-in-chess Difference in participation do not explain difference in performance overall. I remember reading a much better technical refutation of the claim, but I couldn't manage to find that paper. ---- You can take a preferred sample size as you want. Take the women chess player across the whole world (bigger participation) and take the male chess players from any country( smaller participation) and measure the difference in performance. Partition rates and top performance are a whole different things.

First of all, what kinds of PHDs, in what kinds of domain are you talking about. There is a phd course for everything nowadays. A lot of it is pure BS. College has been degrading in value since everyone had access to them. A lot of men who are more than capable of earning a PHD simply choose not to.

You can measure the freedom of choice. There are countries that offers more freedom of choice and we can measu the outcomes in such countries. In India there is a higher % of women in stem compared to united states or Scandinavia. Apparently sociological factors have been forcing women to choose jobs/degrees that were not in alignment with their interests. I can personally confirm this.

Why more men play chess than women? Why more men watch philosophy videos than women? Why more men choose STEM than women? Why women in countries with high freedom index choose less stem subjects compared to women in countries with less freedom? Obviously women don't proactively take an interest in logical things. And it's ok. It's not sexiest by any means. And if observing differences makes you sexist, then I am sexist.

1. Are all differences, the same? I am not talking about a specific distinction, but the abstract nature of a distinction/difference. What is the abstract level nature of a difference and how does it relate to other differences? Here Leo says that there is more to reality than distinctions. How can that be possible? There should only be more distinctions. Right? Thoughts??