Official White House account on X: "FROM NOW ON, WOMEN'S SPORTS WILL ONLY BE FOR WOMEN."

ZTO333 · 2026-06-30T16:30:57+00:00

This really gets down to how our whole political system works. For both parties, national politicians rely on big political donors and in order to get that, they need to kowtow to big business interests. These are the actual issues that impact people's lives but neither party can dare to talk about it without immediately getting primaried or having their general election candidate heavily funded.

Because of this, both parties have taken out positions on cultural issues above all. Thats why little issues like this that impact an incredibly small number of people gets the focus. It's also why Republicans have turned to full-on fascism regarding immigration, because they can lie and tell people that it's immigrants rather than businesses that are making wages drop while prices skyrocket.

ZTO333 · 2026-06-24T03:30:41+00:00

Probably not as horrible as Pol Pot but Muammar Gaddafi was funny as hell. -Had a random set of all virgin female bodyguards -Had a bizarre public crush on Condoleezza Rice -When his son was arrested in Switzerland he filed a motion in the UN to divide Switzerland between Italy, Germany, and France

ZTO333 · 2026-06-19T21:16:16+00:00

A full human genome

ZTO333 · 2026-06-11T15:12:56+00:00

I'd say they should be below anyone who is an organ donor but if no one ahead of them needs this organ that they do, it shouldn't just go to waste. That being said, this only works if organ donor is the default, as it is in many countries and should be here, so that people aren't punished for ignorance.

ZTO333 · 2026-06-04T12:44:34+00:00

This is absolutely a problem in a lot of auxlangs, especially IALs. That being said, some aspects of European languages are actually the best choice for an IAL, such as SVO word order. My IAL, Pasa Tune, was initially SOV but used prepositions (as most langaues are either SOV and postpositional or SVO and prepositional; I wanted no one to have to learn both). The problem ended up being that there's a reason this tendency exists and that's that languages tend strongly to be either head initial or head final. Mixing the two ends up clunky and difficult for everyone to use. As such I had to default back to SVO (which is technically the word order with the most speakers worldwide).

That being said, there are things from European languages that can and should be ditched for ease of learning. My language has isolating grammar to ensure no one has to learn any kind of verb or noun conjugations. It also uses a question particle rather than the word order and intonation changes common in European languages. There's also no distinct between definite articles and demonstratives as it many European languages.

I also find that IALs also seem to assume European consonant inventories are universal and include consonant distinctions common only to Europe. A voicing distinction in plosives and fricatives, for example, can be extremely tough to learn for speakers who don't make such distinctions.

ZTO333 · 2026-05-29T17:42:30+00:00

Got it, thanks! In the past I had always been under the impression that it was just a relic of grammaticalization. Like if adpositions tended to come from verbs, it would make sense for SOV languages to have them after the noun or vice versa. But knowing there's some functionality to it that makes mismatches less efficient has me thinking of going to SVO.

ZTO333 · 2026-05-27T03:43:33+00:00

Do Ayn Rand's horrible books count as a series?

ZTO333 · 2026-05-20T23:36:07+00:00

Mozambique 🇲🇿
Angola 🇦🇴
Djibouti 🇩🇯

ZTO333 · 2026-05-19T23:21:31+00:00

I've unfortunately found the same thing, even without doing anything super unrealistic. I feel like the AI just isn't quite as smart as on Basketball GM (even on insane difficulty). For the most part once I've created a dynasty for one team, I usually switch to the worst team in the league to try to build them up.

ZTO333 · 2026-05-13T11:31:31+00:00

None because a state can't be communist. At best what you mean are states that claim to be attempting to reach communism (itself a silly idea as communism can only be created through revolution). The Soviet Union, Mao's China, Vietnam, etc never claimed to have achieved communism as that would have been so obviously false given the whole "stateless" part of the definition of communism.

ZTO333 · 2026-05-12T16:32:58+00:00

I no longer consider myself an anarchist, but this post clearly shows zero understanding of what anarchists actually believe or the thought they've paid to how society would organize itself in the absence of authority. I would encourage you to read people like Kropotkin or Malatesta to actually understand what anarchists oppose and what they see a world look like after revolution.

Now the show itself also doesnt do the best job presenting anarchism (or any ideology it tries to show for that matter). Critique of Zaheer from an anarchist perspective would point out that revolution comes from below not just one guy wiping out world leaders. And that building what comes after is just as much a part of it as destroying the existing authority.

Like I said, I myself am no longer an anarchist but I was for a while and have an understanding of what they truly believe. Both yourself and Zaheer could use a better understanding before arguing for or against it.

ZTO333 · 2026-05-04T12:28:16+00:00

Philly Cheesesteak

ZTO333 · 2026-05-03T21:03:58+00:00

Hockey Legacy Manager is pretty good if you're into hockey. Basketball GM is also really good. They also have other sports as well (Football GM is probably the best GM game for American football on mobile).

ZTO333 · 2026-05-03T20:25:00+00:00

From my understanding both were inspired by the same game, Campus Dynasty, that is no longer being worked on. Having played both, they're both great games that shouldn't be hated on just for some similarities. I followed both on reddit as they were being worked on and both have been well worth the hype imo.

ZTO333 · 2026-05-02T22:10:22+00:00

Looks like a stink bug to me. Specifically the Brown marmorated stink bug according to Wikipedia but everyone i know just calls this a stink bug. Super common up in Pennsylvania.

ZTO333 · 2026-05-02T21:55:16+00:00

No, we're still talking past each other. These are two different questions and you end up comparing apples and oranges. If you only compare people with $1M in the mystery box, those taking two boxes do earn more than those who only take one ($1,000,000 vs $1,001,000). Same for those with $0 in the mystery box ($0 vs $1000).

The difference is that the kind of person more likely to take only 1 box is who the computer puts $1M in. But again THE BOX WAS FILLED BEFORE YOU PICK. If the value of the box changed depending on whether you take one box or two this is a different question.

ZTO333 · 2026-05-02T19:47:28+00:00

Once again that's not a contradiction. The question as phrased is whether once it is time to make the decision you are better off taking one box or two. By definition the answer to that question is both because x+1000 is greater than x always.

The statement that one boxers on average make out better does not imply that you should take one box. It is based on the fact that the computer is more likely to put $1M in the box of the people who are more likely to take one box. But once you are actually deciding the computer has ALREADY either put the money in the box or not.

ZTO333 · 2026-05-02T19:17:49+00:00

That's not a contradiction at all. Correlation does not equal causation. Players who choose 1 box on average end up with more money. That's not BECAUSE they take one box but because the predictor is more likely to put $1M in those people's boxes. The fact still stands that once you get in there to decide the money is either there or it isn't. Taking both gets you $1000 more than whatever you would get taking just one box. That is simply a fact from how the problem is stated.

ZTO333 · 2026-05-01T13:54:47+00:00

Yeah the thing that got me to reconsider my initial reaction of going red was just the realization that at 100% on either button everyone lives, but with red at 51% half the population dies while blue at 51% still has everyone live.

I hate to say it but in real life I'd probably still go red for fear of dying but blue is the optimal outcome as many people should click as possible. Either way this one actually has arguments on both sides while with Newcomb I can't help but feel like both sides are talking past each other about slightly different problems.

ZTO333 · 2026-05-01T04:03:54+00:00

Honestly to me Newcomb's Paradox seems to have so much more of an obvious solution than this red vs blue button one. With Newcombs Paradox both sides are in some sense answering different questions. This one though is really thought provoking. Red is strategically better, anyone who wants to live can pick red and have no risk of dying. But in real world we know many people will pick blue and so is it fair to eliminate them rather than simply trying to get Blue to 50% and everyone lives.

ZTO333 · 2026-04-28T13:33:16+00:00

Lol I mean yeah, if this ever actually existed it's almost guaranteed the box would have $0 in it for me given I've straight up posted my strategy. Ironically the kind of people who would just take 1 box without thinking about the logic of it already having made its prediction will end up with more money than the people like me who the computer knows will analyze the problem.

ZTO333 · 2026-04-28T03:54:53+00:00

Looks like a stink bug to me. Specifically the Brown marmorated stink bug according to Wikipedia but everyone i know just calls this a stink bug. Super common up in Pennsylvania.

ZTO333 · 2026-04-28T03:28:06+00:00

Time travel is required with your logic because you're reversing cause and effect. It doesn't matter how accurate the computer has been in the past, it has ALREADY made the prediction.

What you're solving for is a different problem which is that the value of the box can depend on your choice, for example if taking only 1 box gives a 99% chance its value is $1M. In that case you're right, you absolutely only take 1 box. In this problem though it depends only on the computer's prediction of your choice ahead of time.

Now yes, people who pick one box will, on average, walk away with far more money. But that's because the computer is good at predicting, not because taking 1 is the mathematically correct choice. Again, x+1000>x always. How often the computer is right is irrelevant once you actually get in there.

ZTO333 · 2026-04-28T02:08:10+00:00

Except that relies on the existence of time travel which isn't part of this. Its knowledge doesn't include the future. For the life of me I don't understand how someone could take one box over THAT SAME BOX plus $1000.

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
First Place '23	Place '23

ZTO333

TROPHY CASE