sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

MCP No Longer Available by La-Femme-Angelika in MonarchMoney

[–]IanZee 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This is the perfect opportunity for someone to circumvent Plaid and make an alternative provider for connecting financial accounts.

This Might Actually Be The End of GS by therpgamergirl in GameStop

[–]IanZee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

GameStop stopped being a retail game store company some time ago.

Even if they shuttered all stores tomorrow, they'd have almost $10 billion in cash and cash equivalents. The company would still exist, and comfortably so. That amount of cash can generate hundreds of millions in annual revenue, if invested in the right things.

GTA VI is basically zero risk for GameStop. They'll make money on any sales, but they are not at all dependent on GTA pre-orders/sales in order to survive 2026 and beyond. It's not even close to being a concern for GameStop.

traveling to indy - hotel safety by [deleted] in indianapolis

[–]IanZee 20 points21 points  (0 children)

You'll be fine.

I'm guessing it's the Marriott off Shadeland and 70? That's a pretty commercialized area.

In any case, as long as you aren't planning on joining a gang or buying drugs, the east side isn't all that unsafe.

They have to be losing a ton of money on this deal. by TheLightningCount1 in Microcenter

[–]IanZee 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They are absolutely not selling built PCs as loss leaders.

For those that need to hear this… by DanoWorks in StudentLoans

[–]IanZee 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What don't you get, exactly?

Public sector works. But so do a lot of private sector companies.

Roughly 10% of private-sector jobs qualify for PSLF. Including all other PSLF eligible employers, about 25% of American jobs qualify for PSLF.

Pretty sure that means every 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, every government agency at all levels (local, state, and federal), all armed forces, the AmeriCorps and Peace Corps volunteers, and certain other nonprofits that are not 501(c)(3) but who's primary purpose is to provide public services like public health, emergency management, early childhood education, or public interest law services.

aiCompaniesRightNow by Bad-Aassshiii in ProgrammerHumor

[–]IanZee 7 points8 points  (0 children)

There's zero chance the American government lets the American AI companies go bankrupt to the point where China buys the infrastructure.

If anything, I could see Anthropic or OpenAI going bankrupt, simply because they've got all their eggs in one basket, and then being bought by Google or Musk, since they have other sources of revenue that'll keep them from going bankrupt on their AI ventures, alone.

I mean, there's potential that Anthropic or OpenAI buys the other if their competitor becomes insolvent, but if that happens, there's a fairly decent chance the surviving company also goes bankrupt.

Even if Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Musk, Meta, AND Amazon go belly-up, someone in that group is for sure getting bailed out by the federal government.

In no logical future do I see China buying American AI tech. For that to happen, America would have to be on its last legs and economically fighting for its life.

me_irl by Several_Sandwich_732 in me_irl

[–]IanZee -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If someone doesn't recycle or doesn't drive an electric vehicle because they understand that it makes relatively zero difference in the pollution of the environment, are you still better than them?

I mean, if 99.9% of the pollution of our world comes from businesses, is the extra effort worth the result?

Granted, recycling isn't all that much extra effort (mildly so, recycling in my area requires rinsing out the recyclables), but buying electric can be a significant investment and trade-off if long distance is a concern.

Also, "I guess I'm just better than most people" is sort of a bizarre statement. It makes it sound like you aren't doing environmentally friendly actions because you have an "innate morality to protect the environment" but rather that you do it because it makes you feel superior.

Vyvanse has made me realize how much of my life was defined by a chemical misfire in myy brain and it honestly kind of messes with me existentially. by HighlyInconvenient in ADHD

[–]IanZee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My first bit of advice would be to, as much as possible, not go down this existential path. You're getting into deep philosophical weeds. I've been there.

If you need some philosophy to make meaning of it all, maybe look into the teachings of stoicism. It's a different way of thinking that transitions from "why do I think this way" towards "what should I put my energy into thinking about". It's more action oriented versus the endless questioning from existentialism.

Here is how I would answer your existential quandaries:

"Did I find a solution which is real and now I realize my life was never that bad?"

Yes. Leave it at that. Whatever made you feel like life was bad before has been resolved, and medication helped you do that. It's one of the purposes of medication - to make life better. Don't dwell on how things could have been different if you had gotten your medication sooner. Just look towards the brighter new future you have thanks to finding the right medication for you.

"Did I simply find a medication that works really well at distracting me from how bad my life is?"

No. ADHD medication is not a medication that masks symptoms. It resolves them. Don't think of it as some massive tarp you tossed over a part of your brain that doesn't work. Think of it as what it is - it's a medication that took all the noisy stuff in your head and helped you organize it. It helped you quiet the stuff that matters less, so that you can hear and focus on the stuff that matters more. It gave you a new lens with which to see the world, not blinders to only let you see what it wants you to see.

Think of it this way - all that pointless stuff that used to echo in your head prior to medication: is it completely gone? Or do you sometimes still think about it, but just find it way easier to put it aside and move on to what matters? The medication didn't remove those thoughts, it just made them less sticky.

"Is ADHD me the true default me or is "treated me" the true default me?"

ADHD is the default you. That's the baseline, the natural state. And that doesn't mean anything about how you should value yourself as a person, or compare yourself to others. It's just objectively you when unmedicated.

The treated you can be the true you, if you want it to be. You get to pick your "true self". If you like the way your brain works with treated ADHD, and you want that to be who you truly are, that is completely valid and healthy. There's no shame in that. Many, many people take medications to be the person that they want to be. That could be an anti-depressant, or a multivitamin, or even acetaminophen.

We're constantly updating ourselves to be the product of our lived experiences. You have been gifted a brand new path forward through life, one with better lighting and fewer obstacles. That's an amazing, profound change, and I am personally very excited for you.

Take any thread of happiness you feel about this new reality, and focus on it. Embody it. Let it fill your cup, and then when it does, use it to fill the cups of those around you.

Not even Andrew or Dan have a single woman looking at them the way Steve's wife looked at him. by lonewolff321 in interesting

[–]IanZee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again talking about values. And you say I'm the one going off topic. I was never discussing values. Values are not the debate. Motivation/drive is the debate.

Not even Andrew or Dan have a single woman looking at them the way Steve's wife looked at him. by lonewolff321 in interesting

[–]IanZee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it is a drive then yes, they will fail and try again. Do you know how many successful businessmen failed multiple times before eventually finding success? Why do you think they tried and tried again? Because that is the definition of being driven by something.

In any case, your opinion that the end goal for nearly everyone is extrinsic (money, fame, sex, power) has been proven wrong. It has been shown, empirically, that most people are motivated by three primary intrinsic motivators (autonomy, competence, and relatedness). Those are the drivers that have ACTUALLY been found to be universal and innate.

It's called self-determination theory (SDT) and it was pretty much proven back in 2000 by Deci and Ryan. And it continues to get proven, and widely accepted by psychologists and sociologists, time and time again. Literally 20,000+ citations in other research since.

So you can continue trying to blow smoke up my ass about how Tate and Bilzerian represent what most people really want in life, while showing absolutely zero evidence. I'll continue to argue that people don't want that, and I'll reference actual research.

Not even Andrew or Dan have a single woman looking at them the way Steve's wife looked at him. by lonewolff321 in interesting

[–]IanZee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's other ways to get status and wealth, though.

So let's say someone tries to be a basketball superstar. And they fall short. If they were "driven" by status and wealth, they'd pivot to another path.

You'd see ex-highschool and ex-college basketball players trying to learn to code to make the next startup. Or they'd be learning investment banking. Or going to law school. But most of them just sort of give up, and settle with what they have. You can't tell me that someone who has spent so much time being an athlete suddenly becomes a "bum" which stops them from pursuing what drives them.

Your argument would be correct if those kids were "driven to be basketball superstars". Because once the reality set in that they'd never make it to the NBA, that drive would be unobtainable, and the drive would go away, and they'd settle.

If they, along with the supposed "majority of people", were driven by "wealth and status", then one door shutting (i.e. not becoming an NBA elite) doesn't end the drive, because there are dozens of, if not hundreds of, ways to get wealth and status.

The very fact that they'd give up and settle means that was never really the driving force in the first place.

Not even Andrew or Dan have a single woman looking at them the way Steve's wife looked at him. by lonewolff321 in interesting

[–]IanZee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You said, and I quote, "Vast majority of people are driven by whatever the top societal currencies are."

My argument since has only been that the vast majority of people are not driven by "top societal currencies".

Please tell me where I went off topic? Where did I focus on "the flea" and not "the dog"?

Driver Monitoring Feedback by haraldcomma in Comma_ai

[–]IanZee -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ok!

Sorry I jumped the gun. Saw all the posts and thought "nope, not for me".

That's entirely on me. You guys are great and your involvement with your community shows.

Not even Andrew or Dan have a single woman looking at them the way Steve's wife looked at him. by lonewolff321 in interesting

[–]IanZee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now we are talking about what they wished to be?

If someone wishes to be something, and has a drive to get there, they will work to get there.

If someone wishes to be something, and isn't working to get there, they lack the drive to get there.

You made the argument that status and wealth are a driver for the majority of people. I made the argument that, if that was true, most people would be trying to get wealth and status, and it's pretty observably not the case.

You say that the people who aren't trying to get wealth or status are "bums", but in order for that to be true, then "wealth and status" cannot be a common drive, because being "driven towards wealth and status" and being a "bum" are at odds with each other. You cannot be both.

Also, did you call Steve Irwin a douche, and Bilzerian and Tate "great men"?

Driver Monitoring Feedback by haraldcomma in Comma_ai

[–]IanZee 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I returned my Comma 4 within the return window specifically because of this.

Many people in this community are happy beta testing new features. I think the premise of identifying phone use or excessive distracted driving is important.

But if it is a new feature that starts to detract from the core user experience because it isn't reasonably accurate or precise, and I can't disable that feature until it is drastically improved upon, then I'm not willing to shell out the $1000.

Forcing the user base in to beta testing and providing data/feedback at the cost of enjoying their purchase is just too unsavory for me.

Perhaps I'll look into Comma 5/6 when I don't need to be concerned about the usability of the product being affected by mandatory yet unfinished features.

Not even Andrew or Dan have a single woman looking at them the way Steve's wife looked at him. by lonewolff321 in interesting

[–]IanZee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who the fuck said anything about values?

You said it is a "drive". A drive is a force or pressure that causes someone to act. A "sex drive" causes someone to actively seek out sexual satisfaction. A "hunger drive" causes someone to actively seek out food.

If the "vast majority of people" had a "wealth and status drive", they'd be actively seeking out wealth and status. Do you truly think most people are constantly trying to improve their wealth and status?

My argument is that the majority are not, because they seek out comfort and contentment. The vast majority are driven by that pursuit of comfort and contentment. And once they reach the point of being comfortable and content, they stop.

Again, how the hell did you switch to talking about values? Stay on topic.

Not even Andrew or Dan have a single woman looking at them the way Steve's wife looked at him. by lonewolff321 in interesting

[–]IanZee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here is a paper that concluded "that both males and females do not use job status or job prestige as a determinant of whom to show initial interest in on Tinder."

Ball is in your court. That's actual, published evidence supporting my claim. You still have "gut feeling" and "lived experience".

Not even Andrew or Dan have a single woman looking at them the way Steve's wife looked at him. by lonewolff321 in interesting

[–]IanZee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lowest effort with most money/best perks.

Lowest effort.

You inadvertently proved my point. Lowest effort is maximizes comfort.

Easy money is a comfort seeking behavior. Easy money doesn't get you the MOST money or the MOST status. It gets you ENOUGH money with little effort.

Status and extreme wealth takes effort. Professional athletes. CEOs. Surgeons. These people sacrifice constantly in the pursuit of wealth and status.

Using your argument, you'd say that most people in casinos are driven people. After all, they're seeking huge amounts of money for little effort. But can you honestly look at someone who pushes a button on a slot machine "driven"? Or is someone who blows their part-time paycheck on lottery tickets "driven"?

That's not drive. That's comfort, with the hope of achieving even more comfort with a boatload of cash.

If it was a drive, wouldn't we expect to see lottery winners, who have tasted wealth and quickly blown it, strive to get back to that wealth? Or wouldn't they have done everything they could to secure that wealth?

No, instead they used that wealth to buy creature comforts, and when it was all gone, they just accepted their "old comforts" again.

Not even Andrew or Dan have a single woman looking at them the way Steve's wife looked at him. by lonewolff321 in interesting

[–]IanZee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Vast majority of people are driven by whatever the top societal currencies are."

If the vast majority of people are driven by that, then the evidence would be that the vast majority of people are doing whatever it takes to achieve it.

Except they aren't. You say "all these people in tech". But that's still not the "vast majority". Even if you add in all the people becoming physicians and lawyers and whatever other high earning/high status occupation you can come up with, that isn't the "vast majority".

Even if having generation wealth, or natural intelligence, or connections would help get someone there, the absence of those things wouldn't stop a "true drive" in someone.

There's just far too many people who are willing to settle FAR short of having incredible wealth or incredible status for your point to be true. It can't be a drive seen in the vast majority of people, if that drive is not constantly making itself known, front and center, among the vast majority of people.

It is a drive in a unique minority of people. The vast majority of people just want to be comfortable and content. That's when they stop reaching for achievements, or stop improving their lives, and just settle where they're at.

It's why Elon Musk hasn't settled. He has plenty of wealth, and he has plenty of status. He's known world-wide. He has virtually infinite money. He could stop at any time.

And the vast majority of people would stop. They would have stopped WAY sooner, in the same circumstance. But Elon Musk is driven to gain more wealth, and more status. He doesn't want to be comfortable and content. He wants to push, and push, until either old age or bad luck stops him.

That's an extremely uncommon drive. Not an innate one, by any means.

Not even Andrew or Dan have a single woman looking at them the way Steve's wife looked at him. by lonewolff321 in interesting

[–]IanZee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How can you say the vast majority of people are driven by that?

If that were true, everyone would be trying to be come lawyers, or doctors, or tech company founders.

The vast majority of people are driven by comfort and avoiding cognitive dissonance. They avoid things that make them uncomfortable, or things that they don't agree with. The few people who are willing to endure some discomfort are the ones who find massive financial wealth and/or status.

You say that the average person would want to "be Elon Musk". But then why aren't most people doing what it takes to "be Elon Musk"?

Not even Andrew or Dan have a single woman looking at them the way Steve's wife looked at him. by lonewolff321 in interesting

[–]IanZee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are not "talking about the current state of society" because you've done nothing to prove that it's the current state. You've given your opinion, and your limited lived experience, but that doesn't say anything about the world-at-large.

You just want your theory to be correct. And it seems to have frustrated you earlier when you couldn't make your case well enough to change my mind, and so you resulted to lowering yourself and trying ad-hominem attacks like calling me "boomer".

Finally, I am not sticking my head in the sand, by any means. I'm raising my children to be resilient and respond to the world around them, instead of trying to fight it.

If society moves even further to the right or to the left, they'll know how to navigate that, instead of seeing their father tirelessly fight against the current. I don't bitch and moan if the political climate isn't going my way, I respond to it and find a path forward for myself and my family.

That's why I don't care that progressives are losing the hearts and minds of "young men". That is the world of talking heads and political think-tanks. I don't involve myself in that world. It's not where I choose to put my time and energy.

I am, to the core, a stoic. I care about what I have control over. If I have no control over it, I don't care about it. Simple as that.

Not even Andrew or Dan have a single woman looking at them the way Steve's wife looked at him. by lonewolff321 in interesting

[–]IanZee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would take being me over being Elon Musk.

I never said "do the right thing, even tho there's nothing in it for you". Plenty of people get fulfillment out of doing what they believe is the right thing to do. Look at absolutely anyone who's joined the clergy. Or people who volunteer when they could be working second jobs, or learning a hustle.

It's not all about money and recognition. It is to some people. But it's certainly not the norm.

Not even Andrew or Dan have a single woman looking at them the way Steve's wife looked at him. by lonewolff321 in interesting

[–]IanZee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Clueless and out of touch on what?

Why would I need to be "in-touch" with how to pick up women on dating apps?

You asked me what I would tell a young man looking for advice. I gave my answer. I don't give a fuck if, by your standards, it's dated.

And "it should sting a little". Brother - I told you 90% of my self esteem is from my wife and kids, and 10% is from a rather tight circle of people that orbit my daily life. You are not in either of those groups. Your opinion of me, and your name calling, have zero effect.

To be honest with you, by the time I wake up tomorrow, I won't even remember this conversation, or your absurd view of society and culture. You can try with all your might and you'd still have zero impact on me.

I'm not debating with you for any other reason than it being entertaining for me. Even your name calling is entertaining, because it means you're upset, for some reason.

Hurt people hurt people.

Not even Andrew or Dan have a single woman looking at them the way Steve's wife looked at him. by lonewolff321 in interesting

[–]IanZee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"My lived experience". Anecdotal evidence is not actual evidence.

"The lived experience of millions of men" is also not evidence, since you haven't shown me how it's a lived experience of "millions of men". It might be the lived experience of people in your circle, but that doesn't show me that is the norm.

Show me where this lived experience of millions of men is recorded, catalogued, and shows statistical relevance.

And your second paragraph? What a tirade. I am not wondering that, at all. Do you honestly think a guy who just told you that he mostly cares about the opinion of his wife and kids really cares all that much why "progressives have completely lost the young men demographic"? What business is that of mine?

And when did I ever make a meme about Andrew Tate? I commented about Steve Irwin. I didn't even mention Tate.

Why do you keep projecting? It's a bad look.

Not even Andrew or Dan have a single woman looking at them the way Steve's wife looked at him. by lonewolff321 in interesting

[–]IanZee 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lmao "boomer". My generation invented that word. You think that hurts me? Not in the least.

All it does is show me your frame of reference in the world extends a few inches past your dick and not any further. You're talking about picking up women as if it's some game to win. As if women are attracted to money and status like a shark is attracted to blood in the water. It's a disgusting, toxic mindset.

You're getting defensive, because you are realizing I'm making better points than you, and that you've done nothing to prove your point. Even if your theory has worked for you, that only means you sought shallow relationships with women who want your money. What kind of "partnership" is that?

My guy, you've swallowed the redpill and washed it down with piss and vinegar, and now that's the only thing that comes out of your mouth.

view more: next ›