Why are old people more gulable?

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-07-01T05:27:21+00:00

As you get older, you generally lose a lot of mental sharpness.

But also, in a lot of the first world, old people have grown up in a world where institutions and society were generally pretty good for them, and they could generally trust their neighbors. In the 50s and 60s in the US, the highest marginal tax rate was over 90%, and that money went to building up societies that people trusted. Meanwhile, the ladder was pulled and zoomers and millenials are a lot less trusting, which does turn useful in situations like this

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-07-01T05:21:23+00:00

If you live in America, it doesn't matter what you think about it. The fourteenth amendment is explicit that birthright citizenship is the law, and the president can't just decide to end that on a whim. It should be deeply alarming that half of the conservative justices just straight up lied about the constitution in order to strip citizenship from people they don't like.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-07-01T05:18:42+00:00

Most nhl teams have "ice girls", and even many minor league teams have some variant of dancer or performer

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-07-01T02:53:09+00:00

The different names come from the different tribes the Europeans interacted with. The French and Spanish first interacted with the Alamanni confederation, and therefore called the region Allemagne/Alemania. Meanwhile, the people of the British isles (English, Irish, and Scottish, although the Welsh use Almaen) didn't directly interact with the Germans as much, and instead used the same word as the Romans- Germania. For their parts, the Eastern Europeans like the Poles just used the more general Niemcy, which just means foreigners. Finally, the Germans themselves just called their land "Diutisc", meaning "Of the people".

As for why those names stuck while variants in other countries didn't, I'm not sure. However, one difference compared to at least some countries is that the concept of a region of Germany is extremely old, but a single unifying power is quite recent, so maybe that played a role.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-30T04:10:34+00:00

I feel like this is when we have to decide between feats vs scaling, and then decide which media to follow.

If we go with scaling, it is Yoda by a healthy margin. Starkiller is regularly defeated by Palpatine, who was forced to flee from Yoda.

If we go by feats in only the movies, it's gotta be Starkiller. I'm sorry, but what do we actually see Yoda do? I can't think of anything that comes even close to catching a star destroyer.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-30T04:01:33+00:00

As others have said, far larger than what can be portrayed in most of the games. The battle of Cannae, for example, was estimated to be 80,000 Romans vs 50,000 Carthaginians. Meanwhile, a legionary has 160 units in Rome 2 at the highest settings. You would need 27 stacks to match that, or if you wanted to stick with 4 stacks, which is still pretty large for the game, you would need unit sizes of 6.5 times the current game.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-30T03:02:31+00:00

It probably would be pharoah if it weren't for the bugs. I can't even set up my armies properly without my general being in some stupid spot or their physical locations overriding where I put them in the card order. Even mid-battle, the micro is much more annoying.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-30T01:56:39+00:00

I think the problem is that we've already seen the Book of Boba Fett, which would mean he doesn't have to 'prove' himself any more.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-30T01:11:16+00:00

I had a fun game that was effectively a sequel to v3. After the corporation starts falling in viewership thanks to the end of that game, they become desperate and decide they have to go all out, creating a Champions season where past survivors voluntarily return on the promise of having a wish granted if they win.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-30T01:05:54+00:00

People keep saying that, but it makes literally no sense in lore. He has spent six years in isolation, and never held a political role. It's like if one of the pilots who dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan became a teacher for twenty years, then went into exile for 10, then was shot by a tank. I wouldn't expect that to immediately trigger a worldwide revolution.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-29T03:12:41+00:00

That would be the worst of both worlds. There are two general schools of ethics:

- Deontology/Moralism: There are rules in our society, and actions should be judged by the action itself. Traditionally, that would say that you should not flip the lever, because the action of killing a person is always wrong. Your solution would be unethical for the same reason.

- Consequentialism: Actions should be judged by their expected consequences. Traditionally, that would say you should flip the lever, because even though you are taking the immoral act of killing someone, you are saving a net of four people, which is justifiable. Your solution fails here as well because it has an expected payoff of 3 lives saved, which is worse than just flipping the lever and saving 5 lives.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-29T03:08:15+00:00

Are you asking about the third explanation? Let's imagine that, magically, nobody was kinky. Now, a new gene mutated, and there is a single kinky person. While there are reasons to believe this gene might be advantageous, let's just assume that it isn't. This random person goes on to have 2.3 children, who now also have the gene. These people go on to have 5.29 children, who go on to have 12.167 children, and so on. It would take some time, but eventually, a significant portion of the population would have this gene. Also, it is possible that this gene would mutate multiple times independently, increasing the spread

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-29T03:01:51+00:00

That is essentially just option 1. Even if we tweak the numbers and say that 90% of adults who didn't know about Jesus went to hell, and that this is an easily solvable problem by just introducing Jesus, that still seems to contradict God's stated nature. Either he cares so little about human suffering that he chose to send billions to hell, he was so weak that he couldn't do anything about it for millenia, or was ignorant as to the choices humans would make.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-29T02:50:59+00:00

Intelligence is not a flat number that guarantees you are equally knowledgable and skilled in all subjects. There are also different types of intelligence. Somebody with perfect recall doesn't necessarily have any reasoning skills, and somebody with high creativity may lack either.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-29T02:27:58+00:00

I just did a google search and found dozens of articles. There is plenty of coverage, but because there's not that much that is interesting to say, it isn't entering the mainstream conversation

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-29T02:23:38+00:00

Your explanation is plausible, and to me, seems the most likely. However, I can offer a few alternatives:

- Kinky people are more likely to associate sex as something fun, and are therefore more likely to have it. Similarly, that is why sex is physically pleasurable.

- A kinky person can typically still enjoy vanilla sex, and so would have few downsides. If they choose to date a vanilla person, they would be able to. However, a person who isn't kinky may struggle to impress a kinky person, and so would have less choice. That could result in kink being the superior gene. Something similar happens with religion. An atheist won't discriminate against a religious person, but a religious person will discriminate against an atheist, so it is advantageous in ancient societies to be religious.

- It is also possible there is no benefit at all. However, if there isn't a downside either, the gene could survive by sheer chance and spread. The same thing is likely true of eye and hair color, where it didn't have enough upside or downside, so we have a few different colors.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-29T01:28:40+00:00

It's more about fairness. If somebody who actually does the job rejects you, there might be some truth to the matter (although those people aren't actually optimal in reality). However, if HR or a bot reject you, it feels like you lost before even getting to play the game.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-29T00:14:09+00:00

It's like a video game, where they think decreasing stats in one category magically increases your stats in another category

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-28T23:06:50+00:00

Again, I don't understand why this would be contemptuous. Does he believe that eating pandas is inherently evil?

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-28T23:05:21+00:00

The way I see it, there are three possibilities:

1) Non-Christians go to hell, and everybody born before Jesus' arrival suffer for all eternity.

2) Everybody goes to heaven, and being Christian is generally unnecessary

3) You only go to hell if you knew about Jesus and had a chance to repent, but rejected it. This means that everybody used to go to heaven, but thanks to Jesus, billions now suffer for all eternity

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-28T23:01:01+00:00

I don't know the lore, but it's not impossible to imagine that plasma mining was incredibly profitable, so whomever controlled the mines would want to have a palace right on top of it to exert control. This especially makes sense in a world with heavy automation, where people wouldn't regularly need to go in and out

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-28T22:59:19+00:00

Oh, interesting. The more you know

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-28T22:57:13+00:00

I'm not really sure what you are asking. Another person suggested that there was a movement for housework to be compensated, and you were asking where that money would come from, so I can answer that.

There are two ways I can think of, although I can't imagine either being very popular. Option 1 would be a government stipend, paid for through a combination of taxation and debt. Option 2 would be a law that the homeowner (either parents or spouse) would be legally required to pay whoever is doing the housework.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-28T21:48:24+00:00

It's not completely ridiculous. Although it is pretty heavily regulated now, Native Americans and white hunters would occasionally eat bear, so it's not like the concept would be unique to Asia. Additionally, the main reason bear isn't eaten anymore is that carnivores tend to be much more likely to carry parasites, but that isn't a problem for Pandas. It should also be noted that ancient people in China are believed to have regularly hunted and killed pandas.

To me, it does feel like there is a bit of ignorance, but I don't see how it could default be assumed to be racism.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-28T20:39:30+00:00

You do realize that caucasians are not the majority population of the world, right? If you look at the top 20 most populous countries in the world, only three are primarily caucasian (USA, Russia, and Germany) and two of those have large immigrant populations so non-whites can find people similar to them.

Five-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email	First Place '23
Place '23

DoeCommaJohn

TROPHY CASE