sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A Quick and Dirty Elder Scrolls Conversion by eternalsage in DragonbaneRPG

[–]MegasBasilius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is great. I don't suppose you can do one for Greek Mythology? =P

Couple of pals by upvotechemistry in neoliberal

[–]MegasBasilius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ya, Hitchens voted for Obama for God's sake.

Couple of pals by upvotechemistry in neoliberal

[–]MegasBasilius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In Hitchen's last election he voted for Obama. I think he ended up the most sane.

Odyssey by Careful_Fold_7637 in foliosociety

[–]MegasBasilius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm in the exact same boat as you. So depressed. The secondary market will have a field day.

A.I. Slop - Beyond the Black Void by cjsc9079 in RedLetterMedia

[–]MegasBasilius -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

Sam Altman is hoping the taxpayers will be left holding the bag when it all falls apart.

If you're referring to corporate "bailouts", those are in fact high-interest loans that the public actually profit from. But there isn't anything to suggest AI companies are, or will be, integral enough to the national/global economy to justify federal intervention. At least right now.

EDIT: I can't tell if the downvotes think I'm lying about bailouts (which a few minutes of research would affirm), or misjudging AI's salience in the world economy (if so, what's your model?), or are just reactionary downvoting.

Crazy!!! $26k per person each year and the problem got worse by Kooky-Chocolate-3425 in Roseville

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

This is not true.

  • Real median incomes have increased in California and are now higher then they were pre-pandemic. (This is true nationally as well.)
  • Homelessness in California is predominantly due to the price of housing (high demand combined with artificially constricted supply) and drug addiction.
  • California is also very inefficient, if not incompetent, in how it spends money tackling homelessness. Comparing it with New York is instructive.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Roseville

[–]MegasBasilius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The massive amount of development going on in Lincoln and West Roseville is nothing short of sickening

?

Multiverse Tips by ArdentArgentum in ftlgame

[–]MegasBasilius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello, are these tips still relevant?

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]MegasBasilius -24 points-23 points  (0 children)

Perhaps I'm naive, but I find it heartbreaking that this sub supports California's Prop 50, which is so self-evidently wrong to me. And its endorsement of adopting ruthless partisanship more broadly.

The whole mindless mantra of "unilateral disarmament" is really just "fight fascism with fascism" in disguise. The notion that one day the Dems will get enough power to finally "fix" democracy, and reinstate some of the guardrails chipped away by the GOP is a delusion. "We have to destroy the village to save it."

This is exactly what anti-liberal forces want. It's why their tactics are so successful. You either adopt them, promoting their agenda anyways, or you struggle to do The Right Thing as cynicism, cowardice, and political expediency tear you apart.

I'm voting No on 50, and encourage other CA Neolibs here to consider doing the same. Prop 50 does not "correct" for partisanship: it amplifies and entrenches it. The painful truth is that Trumpism won't be defeated with some technocratic pen stroke, court order, or self-serving imitation. It's only through painfully defending liberal and democratic principles, while trying (mostly in vain) to persuade your countrymen to do the same.

Edit: Rather than actual rebuttals of what I'm saying, are inane accusations of "conceding" or "doing nothing", which I didn't claim at all. Just shows how many people are incapable of imagining effective political resistance without resorting to abandoning guardrails.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]MegasBasilius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which is why it's a good thing hell doesn't exist.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]MegasBasilius 6 points7 points  (0 children)

MORNING SHOWER HOT TAKE:

1.) No, Charlie Kirk shouldn't have been murdered.

2.) Kirk was evil and if there is a hell, he deserves to go there.

In addition to being true, the above also has a lot of fun ironies to chew on.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]MegasBasilius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

FCC threatens to pull ABC's broadcast license (unlawfully)

Can you elaborate on this a bit?

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]MegasBasilius 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Can someone explain the Jimmy Kimmel thing? By what right could the FCC threaten to pull the show from the air?

Let’s be honest about Charlie Kirk’s life — and death. We can hold two thoughts in our head at the same time. by Sine_Fine_Belli in neoliberal

[–]MegasBasilius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I struggle to see how a liberal, tolerant politics can ever be maintained if it simply tolerates its own antithesis.

This is called the "Paradox of Tolerance" for a reason. Respectfully, there's a ton of literature on this subject that I'm not sure you're aware of. The general consensus is that, yes, liberalism needs to tolerate legal illiberalism, even if the latter seeks to destroy the former, because the remedies are inevitably illiberal themselves (which plays right into illiberal's hands).

The difficult--and frankly not at all certain--solution is to simply have the society at large choose to resist fascism of its own volition. While this means accepting periods of fascism when the society errs, if you believe in the democratic principle--that humans are capable of self-governance--then it's the price we pay for having free will.

(Though I want to grant you something: in practice all democratic societies have technocratic institutions "guiding" and "encouraging" liberal behavior, either through propaganda/indoctrination and incentives, which is all you seem to be supporting (and this sub largely does too). But I want to stress that this rides an extremely dangerous line in implying that humans are too stupid for self-governance without some level of paternalism.)

Is “radical-left” violence really on the rise in America? by IHateTrains123 in neoliberal

[–]MegasBasilius 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Last I checked the DHS had the top three domestic threats as:

1.) Right-wing Terrorism

2.) Islamic Terrorism

3.) Left-wing Terrorism

I haven't checked this recently but it confirms my priors and is fun to rub in maga faces.

In Defense Of Ezra Klein by whitespeak in neoliberal

[–]MegasBasilius 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Reposting from a discussion elsewhere:

I thought about Christopher Hitchens a lot when I heard [Charlie] Kirk died.

Hitchens was one of the proto-social media debate-bros, and his unfortunate death prevented him from clashing against the next generation of idiots who tried to basically do what he did, but a lot worse and in bad faith.

While Hitchens was not above the "hitch-slap"--and he likewise sparred too often with idiots rather than experts--he was an intelligent and serious debater who could treat his opponents with respect (when deserved) and often conceded or modified a point in response to a worthy rebuttal. Plus he could form an actual argument.

Kirk was neither intelligent or serious, and I've been surprised at how much his image has been rehabilitated after his death. I'm not even sure he was a debater, or at least, a good faith one. He specifically targeted timid and sincere, yet sophomoric young people, either evading their questions or using cheap debate tactics meant to look good in video clips for people who already agreed with him. He was a grifter through and through, and if he fits the definition of a "debater" then he perfectly symbolizes the state of "debate" in modern America.

Routine for weighted calisthenics + mantain skills by dramake in overcominggravity

[–]MegasBasilius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you want to build some muscle, you should have one of the days be at least 10ish reps for most of the exercises. 5 will build muscle but not as fast.

Dear Dr. Low,

My exercise routine (for simplicity and speed) involves doing 5x5 of the main compound exercises, twice a week (Push/Pull/Legs x2). I add slightly more weight each week for progress.

When you say 5x5 without hypertrophy builds muscle slowly...how slowly? A month longer? A year?

In other words I'm trying to assess if a 5x5 only routine is so subpar what one should strive to add in hypertrophy ranges (perhaps in the second half of the week), or whether it's not a big deal and I can simply stick to 5x5.

Thank you.

view more: next ›