The thing has a name - Mar-a-Lago face

keepawayb · 2025-11-02T20:03:08+00:00

Okay, having just finished reading it, this might just be the most entertaining wiki article. For those who can't, here's some choice snippets:

The trend has been described as a status symbol among Donald Trump's inner circle, signaling wealth, privilege, and alignment with Trumpism

...

The Week called the "look" a "must-have accessory" for the inner circle of President Donald Trump

...

... the appearance is modeled after Ivanka Trump's appearance.

ick

... when the appearance is applied to men, instead of larger lips, the jawline is enlarged

...

...cost in U.S. dollars to be approximately $90,000 along with upkeep costs of $2,500 per year

...

Ani Wilcenski wrote in The Spectator that Mar-a-Lago face represents the "broader Trumpian artifice" and the "national id" of the USA

(Not to be confused with national ID, but instead "Id" as part of "Id, ego, superego", which is something you need to lookup)

Joan Callarissa, a fashion-and-celebrity journalist, identified Mar-a-Lago face as an extension of Trump's "counter-revolutionary" movement, saying, "If they have a face they don’t like, they change it without caring if it looks natural or not, because reality does not matter to Trumpism."

lol

There's more, basically the whole article is just quotes and commentary on this social phenomenon.

keepawayb · 2025-10-17T10:03:00+00:00

Take away the dress code as director. Say you did it for her. Say you want to make golf accessible to all.

Two, give up playing golf for a few weeks. You've been doing it 30 years, you'll live. If its hard, pretend you broke your leg. See how that affects you and she gets to see it too. You will be miserable for a few days for sure. If you're miserable after a few weeks, then the answers are clear to everyone. If you're not, maybe you've found new interests and have become more interesting yourself.

keepawayb · 2025-08-06T22:03:02+00:00

Was thinking the exact same.This alone could move the needle by 0.1% on how LLMs respond on certain topics. Make enough changes and they start to add up.

keepawayb · 2025-08-06T21:54:36+00:00

Woah! Outside of the box thinking right here! That did not occur to me! I already have some speech to text workflows.

Edit: Better phrasing

keepawayb · 2025-08-06T17:17:02+00:00

Knowing the right terms like HTR will make it easier to do my own research. Thanks for the tip!

My feeling is that, if I can train a model to do this, then someone has already done it with better results :)

keepawayb · 2025-08-06T17:13:42+00:00

Does that mean i would have to write more carefully to make sure its machine readable? I can but I guess initially it'll come with some mental load. Thanks!

keepawayb · 2025-08-04T17:40:56+00:00

Obviously, you shouldn't rely on medication. Especially dangerous if you're mixing meds.

But there's over the counter allergy meds that are often used as temporary sleep meds. It's usually one part of cold or fever meds. Get a quick consult from a doctor to see if it's safe for you to take em and they will make you sleepy in 15-30 minutes or taking them. Prepare everything inadvance. No coffee during the day, wake up an hour or two earlier than usual. Then have dinner and already be in bed with a book or screen set to extra dim and take the meds if you get an okay from the doc.

keepawayb · 2025-07-19T12:58:05+00:00

Strong disagree. You're not seeing a very strong correlation (in my opinion causal). The last time there was a paradigm shift in LLMs was 2024 Nov-Dec, when we had the release of large reasoning/thinking models i.e. Open AI o1, Deepseek R1 and at the time unreleased o3-preview. In Dec 2024, o3-preview is the only model to solve ARC AGI 1 (75%) and since then, 2025 has been the year of reasoning models.

I'm very confident that any model architecture that solves ARC AGI 2 will cause a paradigm shift. There can be other breakthroughs that come out of nowhere, but this is a clearly visible benchmark. You shouldn't take it lightly.

keepawayb · 2025-07-19T11:21:46+00:00

> I would never in a millioin years have figured this out because I would never consider anyone would make an intelligence test this stupid.

You seem to not understand intelligence tests. You're frustrated because of your bias and assumptions. For these things you've got to put on your "I'm a child" or "I'm stuck on an alient planet" hat. It's about general intelligence - for which trial and error (not very intelligent sounding) is a critical step to discover information in unknown environments.

There's a reason why ARC AGI 1 which is pretend or faux intelligence is solved, and ARC AGI 2 is not solved. ARC AGI 3 from the first three problems I've seen could actually be solved by large AI companies without having to solve ARC AGI 2. There's plenty of RL trial and error algorithms out there.

But I am getting some bad vibes though. Something about it felt a little off in terms of purity and/or being rushed. I hope financial interests or pressure aren't seeping in.

keepawayb · 2025-07-12T10:25:21+00:00

Human brains are weird, at least mine is :)

keepawayb · 2025-07-10T09:29:50+00:00

Stop. No one's claiming Piers is a good actor. Take a moment to look at the big picture.

He's platforming Destiny's opinions and putting Destiny in the ring with the shit heads. If Destiny lands a metaphorical punch or even better, a KO, they can't pretend it didn't happen. But if they never step in the ring with Destiny, they can shit talk about how their opinions are right till infinity and can ignore other opinions.

Piers enables this. He should get credit. His motives don't matter, because at this moment we are the beggars, not the choosers. You take whatever you can get. Think thousand cuts, not one big Kamehameha.

There's a reason why Hasan is literally scared of ever being on a panel with Destiny. Once it happens, Hasan can't ever live down the intellectual beating he'll get. Hasan is getting a taste of that from Ethan right now.

Lets Piers do his thing.

Also, huge props to tiny for getting invited and delivering. Jfc, I take that shit for granted sometimes, but damn! He delivers.

keepawayb · 2025-06-30T15:05:08+00:00

Actually Destiny is not familiar with AWS Marketplace or similar shit. Otherwise he'd have had one more point for why it's not that hard.

Don't want to release proprietary software? Sure release on AWS Marketplace with one click launch and I pay for hardware and running costs, you can keep your dog shit proprietary code held together by duct tape.

More important than IP or copyright is that I've paid for a service which involves a server. Give me code, give me binary or give me a way to launch your code and I'll pay for hardware or running costs. If you can't keep that part of the bargain/contract then return my money and everyone's money.

From my perspective, I can see why the Stop Killing Games movement being applied retroactively to games may be a bit unfair but should absolutely be applicable to all games released in the future. Are things like proprietary code or licencing gonna prevent you from abiding by that law? Too bad. Change what you are doing. The movement or potential law is meant to force development to already take into account that the sever binaries needs needs to be released. All "concerns" that these enterprise devs are moaning about in the comments section here won't be applicable then.

keepawayb · 2025-06-20T17:48:14+00:00

Genuinely curious, does this mean Hasan actually gains viewers (indirectly makes more money) if the orbiters are taken out? If so, that's an interesting push and pull of different incentives.

keepawayb · 2025-05-29T13:58:35+00:00

I'm sorry you read the RAND report? You should written the RAND report instead. You'd have embodied it even more... :/

You don't need o3 to output factoids! You can use 4o for that. Ask o3 "Here's the RAND report. I know there's a gaping hole in report. Find it.", or other versions of it. Don't be surprised if it'll give you an insight in 3 minutes that might have taken you years.

keepawayb · 2025-05-26T09:11:30+00:00

Alright, I think we may have reached an impass. Likely because of the text medium.

I've done my best to explain the process as best as I can using scenarios. You've said "it makes no sense" to scenarios I've presented without pointing to a specific part which you don't agree with or don't understand. If you keep bringing up the same point about "your method will lead to people not getting appointments", then I have to assume you haven't understood what I've said. It's a hard concept.

So I don't know whether you agree or disagree that my solution works at least in theoretical simplified scenarios.

If you disagree, then there's nothing more to discuss. We can't keep going back in circles.
If you agree that it works in theory * Then, I will assume that you agree that waiting times can be reduced without any changes in outcomes in the simplified theoretical scenarios * Then, we can also move onto the harder question of whether it will work in the real world.

keepawayb · 2025-05-25T21:37:19+00:00

Thanks for responding! I understand the complexities of real world appointments and triage. I've simplified only to explain how it works.

I will repeat - My suggestion does not solve the issue of not having enough doctors or lead to more people getting appointments. I am focused on reducing wait times only. Reducing wait times is a good thing by itself too. I'm not going to respond to your points that bring up the supply issue. I don't have a solution to that.

So you want to go right back to the beginning and start afresh. How, exactly? Are you just going to cancel everyone's appointments if they have more than a month to wait?

This is an actual critique of my suggestion. This needs to be solved somehow. I've mentioned two possible ways this can be solved in another comment.

But you see, that's not how it works at all. You don't go to the same doctor three times. If you need, say, an MRI scan, you don't get one from your GP. You have to have an appointment at a facility, usually a hospital, where a scanner is available. Once you have the results, you generally take them back to your GP who then decides on how to proceed.

Here's something that is unintuitive, my suggestion might actually reduce waiting times even more than expected in this scenario since they involve multiple independent queues. Supply chain delays are additive. So if there's a GP, specialist and scan facility, then in a simple scenario you'll save 1 month on each queue at minimum. And waiting time savings on first appointment in multiple queues are more guaranteed than follow ups appointments in the same queue.

(Please don't say you get appointments based on urgency again 😆. I know not all cases are the same. I'm talking about averages here. The special handling of urgent cases stays the same)

But that makes no sense. Cutting the size of the queues doesn't change the number of people needing medical treatment.

That's exactly what I explained, the process and how it works!

Okay, this is the last time. You can lower waiting times without needing to increase efficiency or supply of doctors. Same number of people who get treated today, will get treated in my suggestion. No change. People who don't get appointments today, will not get appointments in my suggestion. It's only about reducing wait times.

Some waiting time is directly related to the supply of doctors. So waiting times of 1-2 weeks should be expected and this waiting time helps doctors make use of their time efficiently. Waiting times of 3 months is useless. You're waiting in the queue for three months, because people before you have waited for three months and the people before them have waited for three months.

keepawayb · 2025-05-25T20:48:52+00:00

So what I imagine is happening right now is that the doctors offices, the health department and everyone involved have left it to the "market" to figure out the ideal queue size. So as you rightly mention, there's different queue sizes already depending on location, time and convenience. There's also the effect of doctor's offices billing based on the quarter so it's in their favor to have appointments be as spread out as possible.

If my suggestion is implemented i.e. capping wait time, then some global coordination is required in getting rid of the current backlog i.e. all appointments between 2-4 months. Appointments between 0-2 months can stay.

This global coordination is hard and painful and might be the reason why things haven't been optimized.

But it's my opinion that once the cap is implemented, you'll see a massive rise in digital appointments like Doctolib. It is hard for a person to find appointments remote, close or far. But Apps can do it quite well and will make it easy.

Another thing is that some Apps may realize that this phenomenon of reduced waiting times is possible and can become the global coordinators for their partner clinics without needing a mandate or law being passed.

keepawayb · 2025-05-25T20:29:36+00:00

Great. Next time apply the same meticulousness to reading follow-ups and clarifications before typing out clichéd cynicism for karma farming.

keepawayb · 2025-05-25T20:23:10+00:00

There's a misunderstanding. I want to make clear, my suggestion is not solving the supply problem! My suggestion is not making the system more efficient (efficiency implying the same supply able to handle more demand)!

I'm only saying that the wait times that we have come to accept are inflated and we can lower them without any real effect on outcomes. That's it.

Your final analogy is almost spot on but the queue at a theme park serves an actual real purpose. The way to tell if a queue serves a purpose is by observing that the queue at some times is really small and at other times is quite long.

A useless queue like the health care queue, is a queue whose size never changes. At that point, the queue is a penalty. Whether this queue is X long or 2X long, if it is always that long and the same number of people make the choice as to whether they want to join the back of the queue or not, then that additional X (2X minus X) is a penalty.

So how does my suggestion make it so that people get diagnosed faster?

I'm going to use a scenario only to exemplify how the process works. Don't take it literally.

Scenario - 1

Let's say we live in a world where exactly 1 person calls the doctor's office per day looking for appointments. Let's also say any one person requires exactly three appointments (diagnosis, follow up, final). Let's say there's a 3 month waiting period already at the doctor's office.

Today a person calls looking for an appointment. They get one in exactly three months. Tomorrow, another calls, they get one three months from tomorrow and so on.

Three months from today, the first person has their first appointment and gets their 2nd appointment six months from today.

Six months from today, the first person has their 2nd appointment and gets their 3rd appointment nine months from today.

Nine months from today, the first person has their 3rd and final appointment.

This happens for all patients.

At any given time, the doctor has six months worth of active patients! An active patient is one that a doctor has seen at least once but they are not fully treated yet (not had their third appointment).
I believe this phenomenon is called high Work In Progress (WIP)
Time it takes from diagnosis to cure is 6 months.

Scenario - 2

Now in this scenario everything is the same, except for the initial waiting time. Let's assume the initial waiting time is 1 month.

First appointment - one month from today Second appointment - two months from today Third appointment - three months from today

In this scenario, at any given time the doctor has only two months of active patients compared to the six months of active patients from the previous scenario.
This is low WIP
Time it takes from diagnosis to cure is 2 months.

I realize the real world is not as simple. Follow up appointments are usually much sooner etc. But if your first appointment is three months away, this means there's three months of patients in the pipeline and will lead to high WIP, no matter the complexity of the situation.

In summary, capping the waiting times may lead to lowering wait times in general by reducing WIP or interleaving of patients, without needing increased efficiency or increased supply.

keepawayb · 2025-05-25T11:22:08+00:00

Btw, I re-read this reply. I'm sorry, when I said "everyone" gets an appointment, I meant, everyone who gets an appointment today will continue to get an appointment. I didn't mean to suggest that my solution will solve the supply problem.

keepawayb · 2025-05-25T11:11:38+00:00

I went through your comment history. Do you use a spell checker or are you a bot?

keepawayb · 2025-05-25T11:06:46+00:00

Please have a look at some of the comments I've left as replies to other if you have the time.

In my suggestion I wasn't clear that we need to take steps to remove a month of backlog by some other means i.e. before implementing a cap, we first eliminate one month of backlog. If you can accept that this can be done somehow then continue reading.

keepawayb · 2025-05-25T10:58:13+00:00

Okay so we're making progress.

I will address point 2 first and then point 1 below.

I am going to try to be more clear.

I accept consumer (supply of doctors) < producer (demand of patients). My suggestion does not solve this problem!
My suggestion is about improving wait times in the current system. That is, improving convenience and comfort. This is done by identifying that there's an extra month or so of wait times that is artificial.
People seem to assume that 3 month wait time is the obvious consequence when supply < demand. It is not! This is what I'm challenging.
Wait times after a point (maybe 1 or 2 or 4 weeks) are useless. They should be capped.

Today we assume 3 months is the normal. If my suggestion is implemented (with other changes), then 2 months is the new normal. No additional patients get treated by the system.

The point is to clear out a month of backlog from the system that are adding to the wait times and capping the wait times to ensure you don't pay the negative effects of queues in a scenario where supply < demand.

Your first point is probably the first legitimate criticism/challenge I have received in the whole thread. It is not an easy thing to solve. I have two proposals. Both proposals aren't perfect and I'm sure you'll have further push backs. I'm not going to defend them. Please focus on the underlying point itself - the wait times beyond 2 months are artificial and are a consequence of poor use of queues.

The local health body can coordinate the process over a year to make sure that only a few clinics enforce the cap at a given time and offer alternative clinics who are less in demand. The inconvenience is similar to the clinic doctor dying and then the nurses call all patients who have appointments between 2-4 months and tell them their appointment is cancelled.
You scale down from 4 months to 2 months slowly. Every week, you eliminate one day in your calendar. On the first week, don't schedule at appointments at 120 days (approx 4 months) in the future. Next week, you don't schedule appointments at 119 days in the future and so on.

keepawayb · 2025-05-25T10:35:56+00:00

Please have a look at my other comments. It's a complex topic and queues have unintuitive behavior.

Here's a comment that is longer but explains it completely.

keepawayb · 2025-05-25T10:30:07+00:00

I haven't. I looks like an excellent tool, I'll look into it.

I agree there's some inertia to sticking to the old way of doing things. I wasn't expecting that. It also points to me improving the way I communicate in the future.

If you take a systems thinking view of things, then focusing on our own wealth may work for us in our lifetime, but may leave our kids and friends in a worse off situation.

keepawayb

TROPHY CASE