It seems to me that the studying is focusing on the extent to which the life of mothers affects the life of children, particularly looking at multiple stages of life including menopause whereupon the mothers of mothers can directly contribute. It isn’t really about K vs. R, but rather understanding that primate mammals are already type K (investing more heavily in fewer offspring) what the effects of self-preservation on the mother are.

Regarding the comment on “weird conservative ‘women are for breeding’ undertones”

That seems like a strangely anthropocentric viewpoint. For most primates other than humans, breeding and childrearing are dominated by the females because the successful strategy for males is often to try to impregnate as many females as possible, and the successful strategy for females is often to try to have sex with as many males as possible to help reduce the chances of infanticide.

It was with the homo sapiens larger brain and the greater negative effect on females that cooperative reproduction strategies became particularly important.

I think this speaks to a specific thing that can be transferred to human beings. We often focus on the sacrifice for children which is true and real, but the study shows that parents need to take care of themselves because having your parents alive has an impact on you beyond your weaning stage. I think that even though this study is about primates, that’s a truth that also applies to humans.

The article looks at females because it’s using datasets from primates, but I also believe this would apply to some degree to both parents in human populations. There is data supporting the fact that the 2-parent household is more ideal than a single parent household (and a household with no surviving parents would be worse than that, even after the weaning period is over for a variety of reasons)

Primate societies would likely help tribemates who are not direct kin the same as humans do, but both primate societies and human societies see people helping others less than their direct kin. There’s studies showing that stepparents are not the same as parents statistically in this regard.

I don’t think that would be useful in the context of what the study was trying to understand, which is the effect of female survival on children of that female.

The question was about the biological mother, which can be tracked because the mother gives birth. If the biological mother dies but another female continues to behave in such a way to nurture the child, then that is relevant to the analysis only insofar as the primate society took care of the child anyway which would reduce the impact of losing the mother.

With respect to the father potentially taking on a maternal role, I don’t think the structure of many primate societies is conducive to such research, because primates are typically not monogamous. As a result, neither the researchers nor the primate fathers know who is the father of which baby, and so if a female presenting male were to “take a baby under its wing” after the death of a mother, I would expect that to be similar to a female presenting male who is not the father of the baby and so fit under the data set of death of a mother and just have the effect of flattening out the effects of the measurement.

It’s subtle, but they changed a lot of minor things, I think maybe because it’s using a different UI framework. Scrolling is worse (the scroll bar acts nuts and the scroll wheel usually doesn’t work very well, I these days tend to use the keyboard to scroll the middle plane) and the frame on the right doesn’t reset between stories.

It’s little things, but it makes reading through the days news a bit tougher.

Canada spends 7B in foreign aid by itself, and the US spends about 42B, not including the additional aid packages for Ukraine and Israel so we can help countries at war blow each other to bits.

So since the G7 is already paying more than that for foreign aid, global hunger must be over, right?

Glad I’m not the only one thinking that…

If you think about it, there have been poorly thought out inflationary policies for a long time. Between bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden, theyve increased the money supply massively and also massively increased the federal debt that was only 4 trillion around 1999. Anyone who is alive and uses money knows that things have gotten massively more expensive, but the calculation for consumer prices has been fiddled with enough to make the claim that inflation has barely broken 2%. It’s marking your own homework at that point, but they could find enough half marks to pass. The result of all this monetary policy for 20 years it’s been two make the economy and the aggregate look better by creating some of the richest people in the history of the world. Elon Musk wouldn’t be the richest man on earth in a sane world – his car company isn’t that good and people are finally starting to realize that, but people bought it because it went up, and it went up because people bought it, and all the extra money sloshing around helped.

Covid lockdowns did 3 things:

1. Shut down a lot of productive capacity by fiat. Inflation is often a self-limiting process because higher prices cause companies to spin up new productive capacity, but where the capacity is not allowed due to government, prices can go up an unlimited amount.

2. Hand out money to everyone. People who get money often spend it, leading to that product being accounted for. The rich invest, driving up assets, but the poor consume, driving up goods prices.

3. They funded the money that they gave to everyone with monetized debt. QE works by the central bank going to banks and buying their government debt from them for printed money. It replaces bonds on A bank’s balance sheet with cash, which can then be used to buy more bonds (because the banks need a certain amount of debt which is an asset for them since they lend the money). This means that of the trillions of dollars spent, many of them are effectively new dollars that were magiced into existence by the central bank. Compared to typical bond buying where somebody with money has to spend that money to lend the money to the government, meaning that the net amount of money in the system hasn’t really changed, here the money just comes to exist.

So while the inflationary policies before covid didn’t help, and I definitely would agree they helped set up a pile of wood to burn, and policies after covid haven’t helped, trying to make people’s lives more expensive when they need the opposite, it was the policies during covid that led to the inflation we are in right now.

Ironically, I’ve also come around to the idea that the worst predictions about the vax turned out to be wrong too.

We know it was by definition an untested experimental vaccine (since that was the point of project warp speed) and while there’s strong circumstantial evidence that some fatalities and injuries occurred due to the vaccine, it isn’t the apocalyptic worst case scenario many people feared, much in the same way covid turned out not to be the apocalyptic worst case scenario most people feared either.

Now that doesn’t mean that there were no measurable consequences to anything – for example the stagflation I warned about in early 2020 ended up coming exactly as I said and everyone can see that – it actually is a “bring out yer dead” scenario with tent cities popping up around the world in cities that typically never had them. We also saw many apocalypse scenarios with respect to childhood development and education.

I live by nextcloud news, but I don’t like the new interface.

The other nice thing is it syncs with apps on every platform.

They use two ways to measure inflation, neither of which are accurate.

“How can you say that?!?!?” Well, I’m a human who uses money for goods and services and I wasn’t born yesterday.

The rule of 72 is something investors and economists use to estimate how long it should take for something to double given a certain start price and a certain growth rate, you divide 72 by the percent rate of growth. For example, if the growth rate is 7.2% it should double every 10 years, and if the growth rate is 2% then it should double every 36 years.

Now the keen sighted among you might notice that if prices of a thing double in 36 years if it rises at 2% then many millennials and all of gen Z should have never seen a full doubling of prices.

That hasn’t been the experience of most people on a lot of things. Housing is quadruple what it was 20 years ago where I live, and rents similarly went up (but who needs a place to live?) gasoline has tripled since I pumped gas saving for college. Electricity has doubled. Bread (a simple staple food) has doubled. Forget about steak and chicken and pork chops! Internet has quadrupled easily. Used cars went into the stratosphere.

All while the state goes “don’t worry everyone! 2%! In fact we might not even hit 2% this year we better monetize more debt!”

It’s sad seeing the redditors pretending reality matches with their models.

But I guess they need to keep thinking that or the way they’ve treated people who disagree with them will have turned out to be absolutely terrible and they might have to apologize for how they acted instead of just apologizing for what other people did.

I think you’re flattening a multidimensional analysis of a problem, and it’s not helpful or interesting.

In response to a criticism of male aggression, I explained female aggression and how it is modified in a postmodern social media driven world, and potential impacts of that, which shows exactly the dangers of just going with the flow.

The correct answer isn’t that women ruin everything or that men ruin everything. The correct answer is that both male aggression and female aggression have negative effects on dating and the human race as a whole, and a nuanced multifaceted approach is required. Men who are more agreeable need to step out of that comfort zone and figure out how to approach and engage and eventually escalate in a respectful manner because history is written by those who show up, but you can’t automatically put women on a pedestal either because they’re flawed and fallible human beings too.

Most of the chapter I wrote for the graysonian ethic on attraction is warnings about various ways things can go bad, but ultimately both men and women will need to take some risks because dating is dangerous all around but the outcome is the meaning of life – lifelong partnerships, building families, raising kids, and giving the future a little piece of yourself and your partner.

Realistically, with the way that GSR (gossiping shaming and rallying) which is the female form of aggression has become prevalent, it’s having a big effect on dating in general, and it’s going to have long term effects on the human race. 45% of men between 18-25 have never approached a woman in the real world. Now you might go “good, we don’t want to be approached”, and fair enough, but there’s consequences. The remaining 55% are going to be less agreeable, less nice people than those 45% who listened. Now you might be wondering what GSR has to do with any of this, well in this postmodern world of ours, instead of just saying “sorry I’m not interested” some women will take it to social media, and suddenly millions of women could know that you just struck out. That’s a pretty big risk if it does happen, and all it takes is a threat to have that chilling effect.

So by default, we’re already selecting for men who are more aggressive, less agreeable, and considerably more risk tolerant. Most of those guys are going to be not very good guys to date. Of the remainder, we know from data like the okcupid study that the top 1% of men in terms of attractiveness are going to do just fine wherever they go, especially online dating. Assuming an even distribution, that means that about 0.45% of good guys will be doing fine based on attractiveness alone.

So you’ve got 55% of the more loutish men, and 0.45% of super attractive good guys (and yes I know I’m making some assumptions about that 45%, but pretty much all of this is predicated on some level of assumption), so it really is like looking like playing a lottery for young women.

Now in the past, we would have taught that other 45%, how to participate while still being prosocial, but in between constant societal messaging saying that women don’t want to be approached ever and the threat of GSR, many of those men just end up outside of the dating pool. And we see this in terms of plummeting amounts of men who have had sex, plummeting amounts of men who have been on dates, plummeting amounts of men who are getting married.

I’m lucky, I’ve been married for 15 years, and while I had to deal with some local gsr, it wasn’t the sort of all encompassing thing that it became in the last decade. But the one thing that I definitely believe is that the way things are right now is leading to the worst possible outcomes for everyone. A lot of those 45% of men are exactly the sort of men who some of those 77% of women who want to be approached more would like to be approached by, the sort of men who are going to care about with their partner thinks, and will respect boundaries. Not all, but a chunk of those 45% who end up never approaching a woman are downright marriage material, and if the women got a chance to meet them, they would want to date them and want to marry them. Back 15 years ago, that’s exactly what I discovered – that I was someone worth meeting – but it was a painful thing to do back then, and I think it’s even more painful now.

Now let’s consider the consequences of this over a number of generations. Fewer people are having kids in general, I think up to half of women in their thirties who wanted to have kids never have kids, and once you did have kids maybe had them with the 55% who are more aggressive, less pro-social, less nice. What does that do to the human race?

Anyway, I write a lot more about this in my book The graysonian ethic in the chapter on attraction. Human beings have a long lineage going back to this first single celled organism, it’s fascinating to look at the world from that perspective.

Your landline is a dominos pizza?

Cool!

I don’t think it was 1999, but St. Anger…

Bastards whined about Napster, then put out that piece of crap.

I made like 5 bucks an hour to earn that money, so that was hours of my life I was never going to get back.

Imo the future is federated and self-hosted. Maybe not for everyone, but for me.

I’ve got a 2013 MotoX, and it’s been many a moon, but I’m pretty sure I was able to get LineageOS onto it. It’s a small, thin phone with voice recognition built in. Quite distinct looking from any Moto Gs we’ve bought. Took Motorola forever to port Android M to it, and then the port was actually really shitty, so it was nice to eventually find a port.

I think I found the good version on xda. OTOH, I don’t think it was a cdma phone. I think the one I had supported LTE

Imagine thinking der fuhrer Trudeau would possibly do anything to help you saveguard your future.

He’s sold our future to whoever bought him. Doubled the national debt and we have no common goods to show for it after the same political party he’s head of painstakingly balanced the budget and even paid off 1/5th of it during their previous tenure (a process which took decades). Devastated our financial system and destroyed global trust in it because people were saying his policies weren’t good. Spent billions on organizations that didn’t produce anything whatsoever of value but did hire his family members. There’s tent cities in every major city in Canada, and he doesn’t even care – he just increased his pet project carbon taxes yet again because transportation and home heating are a luxury in his worldview.

If he thought he could get ahead hawking a crypto scam, he would. And he wouldn’t apologize for it, he’d get mad at you for having a problem with it.

I’m running nova, and the thing that sets it apart from rootless (as I recall, it’s been a while) is that you can set up whatever search engine for the search bar you want. I don’t use google, I only use my own searx instance on brave, and nova let me set everything up exactly the way I wanted it. Most other launchers assume you want google, and I think they assume you want chrome too.

I always debloat my phone, the difference is too massive to ignore.

My last 2 phones were a Galaxy S9 and a Galaxy S10, and I really found the samsungs to be insufferable at first, but with a strong debloat removing a bunch of ‘features’ nobody asked for and redundant apps, as well as changing the launcher (I use novalauncher, but rootless is also great and also FOSS) had a notable effect on the feel of the phone. I recall that some of the “features” specifically slow down responsiveness to button pushes because for example it ends up waiting on a home button press to see if you’re going to do a double or triple press.

If you mess it up too much, a factory restore will undo everything you did anyway, so don’t worry too much about it.

I’ve used the same technique on a number of different phones as well. My dad loves his LG phones, but it comes with a bunch of stuff he didn’t want, so we were able to disable it. His latest phones are rugged china phones, and he swears by them, especially once we were able to get rid of a bunch of stuff they added that you really don’t need.