FriendOfDeSoto

Art is a message. It has a sender and a receiver. The sender aka the creator has an idea and their synapses create the piece of art. The receiver - even when privy to the thoughts of the creator because they talked or wrote about it etc. - consumes it and has a response. It could be along the lines the creator had intended but it doesn’t have to be. Both sides could be equally happy with their side of it while thinking completely different things.

So an artist can try to attach a certain meaning to their artwork but it is no guarantee the audience will see it that way. Is the person in Munch’s The Scream screaming themselves or holding their ears to block out screaming they hear? I read what the artist intended and I can tell you I thought the other thing.

So far I’ve been talking about a single artist and a single consumer. That’s not how this works. There could be a group who have differing ideas about the art they’re creating, like a song. So it means different things to different people on the sender side already.

It gets really messy on the receiver side because ideally the art will be consumed by hundreds and thousands of people. In that group you will have opinion leaders tastemakers and they in turn will influence other recipients. History also filters artworks. I don’t think Leo thought his postage stamp size portrait of a smirking Italian merchant’s wife would be the most famous painting in the world if experts hadn’t endorsed it, it hadn’t forcefully changed owners, hung in Napoleon’s apartment, was stolen and recovered. So there are biases built in and it isn’t as clean cut as saying everybody interprets it their own way in most circumstances.

“They say those who can’t play coach. It seems those who can’t coach stand ten rows back shirtless shouting obscenities.”

You are making it seem like this is a new problem. And it isn’t.

Centuries back it was weavers who were displaced by the industrial revolution and automated spinning machines. Coal mining went unfashionable from the late 1970s onwards and miners had to find new work. Industry in the US closed up shop and moved to China. These are just three examples of workers being made redundant in their then capacity. Two out of these three went by without much loss of life, the majority of the workforce found new jobs over time, and only some of them were screwed on a more permanent basis. Unfortunately, that’s the shitty bell curve of these changes. But another thing that’s been proven again over time is that we always think these miners or these factory workers are completely unhireable and it turns out the majority isn’t. People thought MS Excel would eradicate the entire bookkeeping profession. And they are still around and I think actually grew in numbers because they are free from pencils and calculators and could do more interesting stuff instead. Don’t fall for the so-called AI will replace everything talking point. The people who say this are either invested in so-called AI companies or drank the koolaid. All we hear for the moment is how theses models do a good a lot of the time and then break catastrophically bad somewhere. Humans still need to have a look for the time being. And thus a new job is born: chAIperone.

The problem these days is how the state responds to massive shifts like that. Social security nets have a finer mesh in the developed world outside the US. It’s much easier to go from no job to living in a car to living under a bridge in the US. A lot of people in this thread call for UBI, which is sensible but isn’t even likely in the more socialist Europe. UBI is a good answer though. Education is another one, e.g. free training programs or college classes for long term unemployed. None of that seems likely under 47.

I used to be a completist and would start at ep 1. Now, if there is a big back catalog I’m more likely not to listen to the podcast at all and will only rarely get in at the current episode.

• invent the wheel

Sounds Swedish.

It’s gossamer thin, admittedly. But there is a shred of a justification for striking Iran that is covered by international law. I’m not saying it is a proven case yet that a preemptive strike against their nuclear program was called for, against a state whose raison d’être is to destroy Israel. But if the circumstances were just right, the Israeli-US allies could get away with it. (And if no good proof materializes, I suspect they will get away with it anyway. Remember Colin Powell’s PowerPoint? Did that have consequences other than killing people next door? I suspect that’s why they’ve crossed this bridge.)

There is not even a hint of a justification for what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Not in international law. And any possible moral high horse has already been shot long ago. It’s just imperial ambitions.

So we should not equate these two special military operations just yet. We may in the future and then we can throw all our rotten tomatoes at DC. But right now one probably should reserve judgment and refer to them as “alleged orcs” if one is given to name calling.

One ping only.

Discrimination in hiring happens every day. Be it conscious or subconscious. If there isn’t a hard, unavoidable quota no one can force anyone to hire people they don’t like. The laws may just forbid them from being this forthright.

Never attribute to malice what you can more appropriately attribute to stupidity. The people who coded this may be young and not even on their first divorce yet. To me, that’s what this family plan business falls under. To leap from that to organized discrimination of folks being born out of wedlock seems a tad too conspiratorial from my POV.

This may be a fryable fish. Yet I see much bigger fish elsewhere.

What may also hold back development of functional patchwork family plans is legal hot water. Not every split is amicable. The Googles and Microsofts may simply have decided they don’t want to be put in a situation where they need to adjudicate between two warring ex partners whose bitterness is overriding their child rearing responsibilities with petty disputes. And building a system where maybe new partners can gain access - even just by mistake - to their spouse’s kids accounts also has very bad PR potential when it turns out the step parent is abusive.

Nevertheless you should let them know about your feedback. Patchwork families are quite common and they can probably do more in that area.

It does not address the question at the core: who counted what and how? Even if we accepted it as given that men were more effective in the suicide department, which may very well be backed by all individual studies, that would not make international comparisons, the like we see in the title, any more reliable. I did not see a source for this TIL and that’s why I’m throwing heaps of salt on it.

Unlike other governments who are (more) honest.

This has to fall under the category of “never trust a statistic you didn’t forge yourself.” I’m confident without looking that the amorphous Western countries don’t all count suicides and attempts the same way. And for China you would have to trust official numbers or generate your own because the one thing the leadership does not like is looking bad in the international community.

The other question I would have is this ratio based on absolute numbers or per capita. The reason why I ask is that China has a massive gender imbalance, a blast from the past when the one - child policy was in play and millions of female embryos were somehow aborted. And here I would also assume that official population numbers may not be entirely correct to make the generally known problem within the country look less severe.

If there are more men in absolute numbers, there will be more male suicides, some of which one might attribute to the ripples downstream of that very same imbalance.

Whoever concluded this may have accounted for all the pitfalls in their study. And the result may be fantastically accurate. But we oughta be careful and keep more than just a few grains of salt handy when we hear about something like this.

And if we have found a way to reinforce a straw, then we will have found a way to reinforce the planet as well. Danger averted.

Med al ret!

You’ve discovered the birthday problem.

You do you et bon appetit. I’m sorry if I got hung up on that for no reason.

Maybe he likes being a tad unpredictable. If I had to choose if I wanted to be his friend or if I wanted to be stuck in an elevator with him for an hour, I’d clearly say neither, thanks. History will probably record him as a stirrup-holder of full born fascism.

I don’t like “belong” here. Pineapple is food. People like it, or like it in certain combinations, or they don’t. Highly concentrated uranium or arsenic really don’t belong in food. Pineapple is not the same as uranium.

If you’ve ever been a student or cash strapped you’ve eaten various uncommon combinations of food. You didn’t care what belonged together or not. And neither should anyone care in this regard. Outside of poison and allergies, we don’t need to be paternalistic about telling people what to eat or not. People who get internet mad about pineapple on pizza need to reevaluate their life choices.

When you’re in the top 5% it doesn’t really matter where you rank. You will never have to worry about money ever again.

He is an oddity that became a tech press darling, i.e. somebody to report on although not everyone liked him, through PayPal and then his Facebook investment. So he occupied more press real estate than other, long forgotten silicon valley or hedge fund founders. But the fact that he was a founder and successful more often than not makes him the embodiment of the American dream. The immigrant kid that didn’t enherit an emerald mine. The investor who didn’t have to rely on daddy’s wealth as much (or only) as 47. He stands out because he actually finished a degree, not like the Zuckerbergs and Gates of this world. I would say he’s more intelligent than some of those people as well, possibly more strategic. And he has opinions, many of which are controversial to say the least. And if Melon Usk is an example of the in-your-face out-of-touch billionaire and Bill Gates an example of the more reserved out-of-touch do-gooder, Thiel is the more reserved out-of-touch do-weird-shitter. He doesn’t mind the limelight but he doesn’t really seek it. The Melon shows no signs any more of any long-term planning. Like a bladder weakened by ketamine use he just pisses all over everything he happens to stand next to. Gates has an agenda and applies his wealth strategically - and whatever your opinion about the good he actually does - the intention is to do good. Thiel is like that but the intention is to do rightwing libertarian stuff. Quietly, if possible. But there are eyes on him because of his past press “career.” And I didn’t know about his sexual orientation until quite recently - why should anybody care? - but my guess is that a weird idea spouting gay conservative cannot escape the prying eyes of a, let’s face it, predominantly heteronormative press completely. And if you mix this all up you can see why his name keeps popping up. Especially when you consider who presses the diet coke button in the white house.

I think the stereotype is douchebag because people don’t think about all the possible legit reasons. I wear them when I have a migraine, often even at home. You could also wear them because they’re prescription and you forgot the other pair at home. Or you simply forgot you have them on in the first place. We shouldn’t judge but people like to judge. And they mostly judge douchebag because maybe more people wear shades indoors as an effort to build a personality around their empty shell of a self.