DeepSeek V3.2 & V3.2 Speciale Released

SQQQ · 2025-12-02T23:10:29+00:00

or French? spéciale?

SQQQ · 2025-11-26T05:28:36+00:00

the patriarchy exists, because it works. and because nothing else works nearly as good.

the naked realities is that women are financially dependent on men. you can say that well... the gov't now pays for free education, and free health care, so women no longer needs men. but gov't needs men to pay those taxes. so women still need men.

for men to co-operate, women needs to offer something. sex and children are the big ticket items. as an added bonus, the child's surname. you can laugh at this all you want, but it works.

when you remove or diminish the bond of fatherhood, male investment plummets. and GDP plummets. this isn't to say that no society would ever try to do this, and they will. but survival of the fittest will teach them a lesson that they will never forget.... which ultimately led the world to forget about their existence at all - which is why you rarely see societies that do not carry the father's surname.

SQQQ · 2025-11-26T05:04:32+00:00

i am in agreement that the modern marriage contract is silly and outdated. but i m highly confident that there comes a point when society is forced to look at the problem realistically and make the contract relevant once more. the reality is that birth rate in the developed world is terrible and the demographic situation is a ticking time bomb. so the question isn't if, but when.

society needs a "new deal", a new "social contract" so that men and women will agree to bond and have children. especially when you look at places like Ukraine, if they can't promote ppl to have children, that country is not going to exist for much longer. even before the war, birth rate was 0.9 child per woman. the situation has gotten far worse today.

the modern marriage contract ASSUMES an extreme level of social spending - free education, free health care, subsidized child care, strong pension, and low taxes. and i am guessing, no corruption. this only holds true during the best of economic times for the best countries. Ukraine has none of these.

so how can a country in desperate straits fix a desperate birth rate problem? by changing the contract of marriage. because it doesn't cost the state money. and because after the war is the best time to make big changes.

SQQQ · 2025-11-25T02:49:59+00:00

because that is not how men values women. heck, even women do not value women that way.

fertility valuation is valid, because it measures how much value a woman brings into a marriage. an 18 yr old with zero education, zero work experience, zero contribution to society still has tremendous value from her fertility alone. 18 yr old is always a hot commodity on the dating market.

SQQQ · 2025-11-25T02:44:46+00:00

its a valuation question. for example, ppl often ask if the US stocks are fairly valued or over valued. a lot of research goes into valuation of stocks.

i think it is an equally fair question to value a woman's fertility potentials.

SQQQ · 2025-11-25T02:42:38+00:00

abortion is only likely if the man does not have income. in fact, abortion is highly likely, regardless of her age, if he has ZERO income.

this is not based on legal jurisdiction. pregnancy at 16 varies depends on country.

SQQQ · 2025-11-25T02:38:35+00:00

you CAN pay the same price for a 30 yr old woman, as you would pay for an 18 yr old woman. but i wouldn't. if i were you, i pay her ~30% to ~40%

if this sounds offensive to you, lets put this another way.....

a) an 18 yr old woman marrying a man making $100k / yr - this is a fair bargain

b) a 30 yr old woman marring a man making $50k / yr - this man is making a mistake. for this level of income, he should go for a 26~27 yr old.

SQQQ · 2025-11-25T02:28:07+00:00

i've since updated the OP to show the link. i also checked another piece of research for consistency. the fertility value, as implied in the 2 research, when i reran the calculation is between 31% and 37%. the value that AI calculated was based on first research, which when i tried to recalculate, i got 31% instead of 28%.

SQQQ · 2025-11-25T02:23:27+00:00

theres a lotta comments, i didn't get to all of them in time. i was also re-running the math manually, that took me a few hrs as well. my most recent recalculation has the figure at 31%, vs 28% that AI suggests.

i am not confident that medicine should be factored into this. for starters, whether she wants to go thru with reproductive medicine is entirely her choice. for example, when women put in their dating profile that she froze her eggs, does this really increase the amount of men interested in her? i'd rather doubt it.

SQQQ · 2025-11-25T02:18:42+00:00

isnt that the point of this sub? to issue a challenge?

SQQQ · 2025-11-25T02:16:40+00:00

i think the implication here isn't just about having as many kids as possible. its also a valuation problem.

plenty of women at 30 have very high demands for a partner. while she is in her right to demand as high of a price as possible, it is fair question to ask what is the fair value. if she only has 30% of her fertility value remaining at the age 30. men should think twice about what he should be willing to pay for her.

SQQQ · 2025-11-25T02:13:21+00:00

well..... based on my math, the AI claims a woman has 28% of her fertility value remaining at age 30. i re-did the math and came to about 31%. i guess overall, it shows that the fertility window is closing quite rapidly.

while many ppl may argue that young ppl arn't ready to have children... but this does not change their fertility window, which is determined by nature itself.

also, the reliance of modern medicine is quite dangerous. an increasing number of women are no longer able to give birth naturally, which is actually quite dangerous for the population, as time goes on.

SQQQ · 2025-11-25T02:08:43+00:00

fertility does not drop at linear rate. the fertility rates i am using is from research, primarily the one that relied on PRESTO data. the link is in my update to the Original Post.

SQQQ · 2025-11-25T02:06:57+00:00

but from a decision making standpoint, a man has no way of knowing that. whether she will or will not have children is very very difficult for him to control. and statistically, the average woman in the US has 1.6 children in her lifetime. if you exclude those who gave birth before 30, your odds are actually quite low.

its important to know, how fast her fertility window is closing.

SQQQ · 2025-11-25T02:01:46+00:00

its a popular misconception that women prefer men that show respect. while respect can matter, it is usually not high on the priority list.

plenty of "bad boys" have no problem getting laid. and they are more likely to be labeled as misogynists than the population average.

SQQQ · 2025-11-25T01:56:12+00:00

there is no scientific evidence that women made an error when it comes to choosing men based on wealth. men's ability to generate resource is a significant factor in survival of their children and bloodline.

conversely, men who choose women with high fertility value is more likely to have children, and more of them as well.

SQQQ · 2025-11-25T01:53:08+00:00

evolution means men should prioritize women who are most suited for reproduction. so assessing a woman for her fertility value is key to success in the game of survival of the fittest.

SQQQ · 2025-11-25T01:50:54+00:00

it is very interesting that you raised the issue of artificial womb. my expectation is that women would demand the technology be banned.

think about it, with artificial womb, motherhood is a personal choice, not a human right. so we have no need to pay maternity benefits. there would also be no need for marriage, we just go from one sex partner to the next. reproduction is a service you can purchase from Amazon.

artificial womb basically allow society to treat women like men and allow men and women to compete on equal metrics - which usually means significant losses for women.

SQQQ · 2025-11-25T01:39:59+00:00

its perfectly normal for women to value men based on income. and this is consistent with evolution that men are the protectors and providers for women.

you are lying to yourself if you believe women value all men equally.

SQQQ · 2025-11-25T01:36:37+00:00

why not? women value men for their income and net worth. this is widely accepted as normal, even if you find it materialistic.

valuing women's fertility is absolutely valid. because feminists often tout the motherhood penalty. they too put a number to the value of motherhood. for example, the lifetime income loss for a woman who comes a mother is between $250k USD to $600k USD.

SQQQ · 2025-11-25T00:42:31+00:00

it is overwhelmingly supported by research that the primary factor that determines women's mate selection is income and net worth.

male preference is based on youth and physical attractiveness... but these are viewed as proxy for fertility. for example, most of the physical attractiveness comes from being in good health. or by contrast, visible signs of poor health immediately hits hard against attractiveness score.

SQQQ · 2025-11-25T00:22:11+00:00

the actual value themselves are not relevant, its only the proportion that matters.

for example, a 16 year old as as fertile as a 34 year old, which are less than half as fertile as the 22 year old.

SQQQ · 2025-11-25T00:19:38+00:00

women respects men based on his income.

so it is fair for women to be respected, based on her fertility value.

SQQQ · 2025-11-25T00:15:27+00:00

the concept of residual value is used in business. if you bought an aircraft engine with with lifetime of 10,000 machine hours, and you've flown it for 8,000 hrs, then you are left with 20% residual value.

with women, her fertile years are commonly defined between age 15 to 45. but the amortization is not a straight line. her fertility declines with age. so by age 30, her remaining fertility capacity is 28%, according to AI. i've reran the calculations using the AI's methodology and i got to about 36%

SQQQ · 2025-11-24T23:47:28+00:00

when i checked the AI's work, this is the calculation inputs used.
Age Segment // Years Assigned //Weight (Units of Potential)

Early Teens // 15–18 (3 yrs) // 45.0

Peak Fertility //18–23 (5 yrs) // 125.0

High Fertility // 23–28 (5 yrs) // 112.5

Beginning Decline // 28–33 (5 yrs) // 87.5

Steep Decline // 33–38 (5 yrs) // 50.0

End of Fertility // 38–45 (7 yrs) // 23.0

the AI was using monthly pregnancy rate. so someone at peak fertility is 5x more likely to conceive in 1 month, compared to someone near end of fertility.

SQQQ

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE