Brazilian Jiu Jitsu has been very useful to me. My cardio has improved dramatically, I am much stronger than I used to be, and I’ve gotten a lot of enjoyment out of going from absolute trash to slightly less trash over 2 years.

But I don’t expect it to really help me in a fight. If I did get into a fight, I certainly would do better than if I hadn’t trained; but one thing I’ve learned from fighting people for like 8hrs a week is that it is REALLY easy to fuck up and get hurt in ways you wouldn’t expect. The outcome of a fight is unpredictable - especially when the other person could have a weapon. The best martial art for self defense would be running.

Yeah those LIEbrals are always pRoJeCtInG! Probably because they’re fascists.

It’s always projection. They pre-empt criticism by taking whatever words are (rightly) being directed at them or could be used against them in the future and just flipping them around, making them lose their original meaning in the eyes of their adherents.

If you’re actually serious, literally just google voter turnout numbers in texas. Also look at how close some races were and compare that to the nonvoting registered voter population. I’ve seen several analyses of that recently

Here is the TX government record of voter turnout: https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/70-92.shtml

Here is the TX government reporting of election results: https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/presidential.shtml

2020 Presidential: 66% turnout, 52% of the VAP (voting age population) voted. Trump won by 600k votes, 4.5M of VAP was not registered.

2018 Senatorial: 53% turnout, 42% of VAP turned out. Ted “I posted incest porn on twitter on 9/11” Cruz won by 215k, 4.1M of VAP was not registered.

2018 Gubernatorial: 53% turnout, 42% of VAP turned out. Abbott won by 1.1M, 4.1M of VAP was not registered.

2016 Presidential: 59% turnout, 46% of VAP turned out. Trump won by 800k votes, 4.2M of VAP was not registered.

2012 Presidential: 59% turnout, 44% of VAP turned out. Romney won by 1.2M, 4.6M of VAP was not registered.

2008 Presidential: 60% turnout, 46% of VAP turned out. McCain won by 900k, 4.2M of VAP was not registered.

2004 Presidential: 56% turnout, 47% of VAP turned out. Bush won by 1.7M, 3M of VAP was not registered

2000 Presidential: total blowout for Bush, no two ways about it. He might have plunged us in to a 20 year long war and completely ravished innocent civilians in the middle east, but dont you just want to have a beer with the guy?

44% do not care, 27% intended to register but didn’t, 11% are paranoid about voter roles, 9% say it isn’t convenient (and Republicans sure have made it inconvenient), and 6% literally don’t know how to register. From that same article and polling data, 35% of unregistered voters do not believe their vote will affect the political process, and 30% don’t think it’ll change election results. AND 40% of these care who wins political races, but don’t vote.

These races are not close compared to the number of non-registered VAP. Young people are more left-leaning and show up to the polls at shockingly low rates. Minorities are typically more likely to vote Dem, but turn out at lower rates (partially due to disenfranchisement). If the non-voters voted, many races of the past 30+ years would’ve been close or Dem.

Not everyone with sense. The question was if Harris is electable, if the dems would rally behind her instead of infighting, and if there was enough time to spin up a campaign. Biden was previously electable, had the majority of dems supporting him, and didn’t need to spin up a campaign.

Now, in hindsight, Kamala was the right choice. She’s been great and people have responded well. But that was by no means a sure thing

They’re only worth that if people buy the shares

/*grabs a screwdriver and a flash drive and runs to nearest korean tank */

Nah. Obviously, you’d talk beforehand, and no one would be forced to use it. It’s no different than arranged dates through a matchmaker. Now, there’d be valid privacy and ethics concerns - especially if your ML model is racist. But that’s a whole different thing. People are often quite bad at picking good matches for themselves, and computers are great at pattern ID and so potentially good at finding matches.

I mean… maybe in this case? I feel like profile/picture based matchmaking is something an ML model could be pretty good at in theory. Match people based on physical preferences and attractiveness (get head scans and frontal & profile full body shots), basic demographic/location/financial info, fill out a questionnaire with hobbies, political views, sexual preferences, etc.

Do that for groups of satisfied pre-existing couples first to train the model on, then continue training the model on the successful matches from the app. Have it spit out X number of matches that have the highest ratings for all users, limit it to X matches per time period to limit “swiping” behaviors, then let users talk/date and provide feedback to the app about what they did/didn’t like.

Obviously, it would need major privacy protections given how sensitive the info is, but that’d be a way better system than Tinder and the like. Like a super powered robo matchmaker serving up the highest probability matches.

I didn’t realize how cheap the big hdds had gotten. Definitely looking into 2 bays.

You might be right. The Synology products look really good. I didn’t see that they actually have a sub-$400 4-bay NAS… DS423. Not sure if it’ll meet my performance needs. But the $600 4 bay doesn’t look too bad either really.

Amazing. You don’t think that a system for individualized pricing would take demographics into account? Brilliant! You should take your thesis on how demographics don’t affect consumers’ willingness to pay to every ad agency on earth. They’ll be riveted. Or is it that you don’t think race and SES are correlated? In that case you should hurry to publish a book on economics before someone steals your idea.

It’d probably be the opposite. I bet they’d charge more to specific demographics - and common convenience store beverage brands would probably cost more for poorer people.

Plus, without controls, they’d probably end up charging different ethnic groups more for specific goods - they’d probably obfuscate it somehow, like to charge white people more for something they’d probably say they were doing it because you’re a model train enthusiast or something. Or like “our consultants have told us that Tejano music fans are willing to pay a premium for coca cola” and so they jack up the price of coca cola for Mexicans without saying it’s because they’re mexican.

But yeah, I bet poorer people who have less free time would be “willing” to pay more for essentials because they often have less choice in where they get groceries. In other words you could force poor people with fewer options to accept jacked up prices whereas non-poor people may have the luxury of shopping around or paying someone else to get their groceries.

Also, if poor people were charged less there’d be a whole industry of personal grocery shoppers who’d get discounted prices for rich people and charge them a service fee in exchange.

That isn’t really how the judging worked though. First they had a huge panel of judges - 9 of them. And they judge them on 5 criteria: technique, vocabulary, execution, musicality, and originality. It is qualitative, but it’s a comparative rating system with actual guidelines - so they each simply have to decide who did each thing better:

Maintaining physiological control while focusing on athleticism, form and spatial awareness.

The range of moves that display variation and the quantity of moves, ideally with minimal repetition.

The ability to land and perform moves smoothly, without falls or slips and while maintaining consistency and flow.

The ability to stay on beat, syncing movements to the rhythm of the music.

The capacity for improvisation, creativity and maintaining spontaneity with style and personality.

I don’t think breaking necessarily needs to be in the olympics, but we’re past the point of only allowing sports (looking at you, dressage) and we do have other artistic events (rhythmic gymanstics and synchro swimming). And, the scoring system for breaking was reasonable and able to determine valid winners.

Afaik the IOC did all the standard testing on her and didn’t find any issues (no doping, normal testosterone levels, etc). Idk if they did a genetic sex test - I’d imagine that isn’t standard. Is that correct? Regardless of the Russian-run boxing federation’s intentions, I’d still trust the IOC’s findings over theirs.

Plus, even if she was XXY or something, does that actually have any impact on athletic performance? I’d imagine not

Edi: yep. Looks like it is widely believed that having a y chromosome is unfair, but the science doesn’t necessarily back that up.

“improved understanding about genetic factors that lead to selection in sport should offer reassurance that female athletes with hyperandrogenism do not possess any physical attribute relevant to athletic performance that is neither attainable, nor present in other women.”

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-014-0249-8

I don’t think he’s ever had a plan - so while that’s his schtick, I don’t think it’s like a smokescreen or anything. He’s just some dumbass who wanted to start a show to interview interesting people and smoke weed. But, when you’re interviewing fringe political figures, racists, snake oil salesmen, etc. you have a journalistic duty that Joe Rogan: dumbass, was not prepared for and didn’t understand. Now he’s in over his head. People take him seriously, and he agrees with some of the crazy people he’s brought on because he’s a dumbass

Oh of course. Never meant to imply otherwise

Should be her version of trump derangement syndrome. For all the crazy critiques leveled at her - they’re just exhibiting symptoms of kamala chaos

That’s… just her face

Nope. I’m actually being good faith. Genuinely. Check my post history if you want. You can disagree with someone and acknowledge they aren’t arguing in bad faith. Like I think you’re good faith even though you’re coming across with a bunch of ad hominems and stuff, but I think you believe what you’re saying.

And I’m not being condescending. I think people can absolutely understand my point. Otherwise, I wouldn’t waste time trying to communicate it. I’m saying I think people are mischaracterizing my position.

Literally, all I’m saying is: when we make criticisms of the other side, those criticisms are usually stronger in the long run if they’re based on the actual positions they take rather than straw-manned ones. And I think this is a strawmanned critique. That’s my whole point.