Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Ageless the Drifter

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 1252
General Disconation / Re: Work Schedule Preference
« on: September 06, 2014, 11:05:31 AM »
Damn, 14 months since the last Gunnar post and almost a year again before that.

Spamalot / Re: OH GOD AGELESS
« on: September 06, 2014, 10:25:02 AM »
Also I think it's the HOB in Lake Buena Vista, Fl and it's sold out


Spamalot / Re: OH GOD AGELESS
« on: September 06, 2014, 10:15:25 AM »
Oh god they're in Denver on the 13th this would have been a fucking crisis if I had missed this

General Disconation / Re: Work Schedule Preference
« on: September 05, 2014, 10:28:35 AM »
should find a gig doing 4/10s big Ageless

I could see digging that if the three days off were broken up into a group of two and an individual one

In general I'm not sure there's an agreeable way to put 40+ hours of work at the same job into one week, though

General Disconation / Re: Work Schedule Preference
« on: September 04, 2014, 08:59:00 PM »
Prefer consecutive days off.

Individual day off just seems pointless. By the time I wake up I'm already anticipating going to bed to get ready for the next day.

'course after a while two days off starts to feel that way, too.

General Disconation / Re: Humans Need Not Apply
« on: September 04, 2014, 08:56:43 PM »
I think we will still value other humans' creative contributions to the world well into the foreseeable future whether we make machines that can do creative shit too or not

otherwise what's the point

General Disconation / Re: Shadow of the Collosus movie
« on: September 04, 2014, 06:35:14 PM »
I feel like, in principle, such a movie could exist, but in practice, one is not likely to. It'd have to be some far out shit.

I'd rather see Spike Jonze directing this than some horror movie guy.

General Disconation / Shadow of the Collosus movie
« on: September 04, 2014, 05:21:22 PM »

Sony Pictures has tapped Andrés Muschietti to direct the highly-anticipated adaptation of the video game “Shadow of the Colossus.”

Barbara Muschietti will come on board the project to produce alongside Kevin Misher, who produces through his Misher Films banner.

Set in an epic-scale world filled with mythic giants and disembodied spirits, the story will follow a young man attempting to save his lost love by accomplishing a seemingly impossible task… the destruction of the colossi who roam the forbidden land.

Seth Lochhead is penning the script. Michael De Luca and Andrea Giannetti will oversee the project for the studio.

“We knew we had our director once we heard Andy’s take on the material – it was genius,” De Luca said. “The themes, characters and supernatural elements of the story have incredible international appeal with fans of the game in the millions.”

“Shadow of the Colossus,” published by Sony Computer Entertainment Worldwide Studio for PlayStation 2, was directed and designed by Japanese video game developer Fumito Ueda. It was named Best Game at the 6th Annual Game Developer’s Choice Awards. The game has sold over 2.7 million copies worldwide to date.

Muschietti, who is repped by WME, most recently directed the Universal pic “Mama” starring Jessica Chastain.

Director's the guy who directed Mama, which I remember hearing was incredibly scary but have not seen and do not know anything about. I'm gonna go ahead and bet this movie winds up being a let-down, though--them's some hard shoes to fill.

Spamalot / Re: Is there any reason at all to keep a rear projection tv?
« on: September 04, 2014, 05:02:51 PM »
so no probably not

General Disconation / Re: Humans Need Not Apply
« on: September 04, 2014, 02:51:57 PM »

What would happen if everyone was suddenly paid €1,000 a month with no strings attached? "Let's try it," says Michael Bohmeyer, who raised the money through crowdfunding and will now experiment with the idea of a basic income for one year.

The 29-year-old lives in a rented apartment in Berlin with his wife and their daughter and eats lunch in a welfare kitchen. Having time is more important than having money, he says.

He has come to that conclusion after living on a self-imposed basic income for half a year. As a web developer who helped start two companies, he now gets paid without having to work, so he stopped.

"Since then I've had the most spectacular, thrilling and exciting time of my life," he says.

His health improved, he spends more time reading and he is now involved in several non-profit projects, among them an independent radio station.

'Money doesn't come out of the wall'

Projects like that are why Germany needs an unconditional basic income, its supporters argue. Instead of the current jungle of social services and benefits, everybody would receive one pay cheque a month from the government of €1,000, regardless of whether they were working or not.

Most backers of the idea say €1,000 would be a fair amount. That sum is endorsed by Götz Werner, the most prominent backer of the basic income idea (Grundeinkommen) in Germany.

Werner is the founder of dm, Europe's biggest drug store chain, and promotes the basic income in articles and speeches around the country.

Those who want a higher living standard, says Werner, will continue to work. Everybody else will contribute to society by pursuing their true passions.

Even basic income critics concede that it could make life more fulfilling.

But people like Hilmar Schneider, the former director of labour policy at the Bonn-Based Institute for the Study of Labour, warn that the concept is economically unfeasible.

"A basic income of €1,000 for everyone… would raise government expenditures into astronomical spheres," Schneider told the Frankfurter Allgemeine in 2010. "Those making such demands apparently think money is like electricity and comes out of the wall."

One economist estimated implementation in Germany would cost more than €100 billion.

The idea certainly has yet to break into the political mainstream, despite some pockets of support it has in parts of the media and left-leaning parties. One of the Left Party's two leaders, Katja Kipping, promotes the basic income but so far has failed to convince her party to officially adopt it.

And the ideologically diverse Pirate Party made the basic income part of its pitch before the last general election but did not get enough votes to enter parliament.

Frustrated with the lack of political momentum, Bohmeyer started his own initiative. "Mein Grundeinkommen" wants to show the concept works in a real-life experiment.

"The unconditional basic income offers one of the biggest potentials to move our society one step forward," he says.

'I would read Karl Marx'

With eight weeks to go before the crowdfunding drive ends, Bohmeyer took the first hurdle on Thursday when his campaign reached the €12,000 it asked for. The money came from more than 430 supporters, some of whom gave €1,000 each.

And while Bohmeyer will host an online community for supporters to discuss what they would do with the money, there are no criteria for a winner, who will be chosen at random.

Some supporters are already sharing ideas for what they would do.

"I would pay back my debts faster, would continue to work, would buy healthier food and do all the things that came second for financial reasons," one said.

Another wrote, "I would work less and spend more time with my children."

"I would read Karl Marx, help refugees and do yoga every day," said a third.

Even without an enforcement mechanism, Bohmeyer is convinced the winner will not put up their feet for a year.

One doesn't make a study

"I believe that every one of you contains great potential, regardless of whether you have specific ideas, projects or applications," Bohmeyer told supporters in a video.

"Maybe you're like me and need the rest from always having to think about money to have entirely new thoughts and ideas," he added.

That is not as unlikely as it may sound, some economists say. One of them is Schneider's successor at the Institute of Labour Studies, Alexander Spermann.

The labour policy expert has studied the basic income for years and points to pilot projects where participants did not become lethargic. "To the contrary: They suddenly tackle things that one would not have thought them capable of," says Spermann.

But Bohmeyer's crowdfunded project will not tell researchers much, Spermann cautions. One person does not make a representative sample and a scientific study would require observing a larger group of people over a longer period of time, he says.

Bohmeyer is undeterred. After the first €12,000 was raised, he said on his website that the first winner of the first basic income will be chosen soon.

"Now we are fundraising for a second one," he added.

If it really is the case that our economic struggles are the result of too few ways to prove one deserves resources rather than too few actual resources, this seems like a sensible possibility to consider.

General Disconation / Re: a moment
« on: September 04, 2014, 01:54:45 PM »
I confuse.

The 1st seems to be anger at your dad.

The 2nd, your brother.

Or is it both?

I think the start of the first one is an exchange between Vlaara and his son that made Vlaara mad at his brother.

General Disconation / Re: Hive Jump - Help support my pals!
« on: September 04, 2014, 11:27:04 AM »
speaking of retro gaming, pal of mine is making a real, in-cartridge, playable NES game from scratch (along with a how-to and a documentary about the whole process and possibly a slightly altered Steam port of the game)

General Disconation / Re: bad analogies
« on: September 04, 2014, 11:24:27 AM »
a bad analogy is like a nonsensical simile: a dish best served cold

General Disconation / Re: bad analogies
« on: September 04, 2014, 10:17:07 AM »
Bad analogies are like bad similes: people often confuse the two.

The article also said they accounted for class disparities

why don't you guys read the article

Well the article points to some apparent evidence that it's a good predictor of career success, at least within a few years of graduating

the liberal arts students learned the most according to the article


Four years ago, the sociologists Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa dropped a bomb on American higher education. Their groundbreaking book, “Academically Adrift,” found that many students experience “limited or no learning” in college. Today, they released a follow-up study, tracking the same students for two years after graduation, into the workplace, adult relationships and civic life. The results suggest that recent college graduates who are struggling to start careers are being hamstrung by their lack of learning.

“Academically Adrift” studied a sample of students who enrolled at four-year colleges and universities in 2005. As freshmen, they took a test of critical thinking, analytic reasoning and communications skills called the Collegiate Learning Assessment (C.L.A.). Colleges promise to teach these broad intellectual skills to all students, regardless of major. The students took the C.L.A. again at the end of their senior year. On average, they improved less than half of one standard deviation. For many, the results were much worse. One-third improved by less than a single point on a 100-point scale during four years of college.

This wasn’t because some colleges simply enrolled smarter students. The nature of the collegiate academic experience mattered, too. Students who spent more time studying alone learned more, even after controlling for their sociodemographic background, high school grades and entrance exam scores. So did students whose teachers enforced high academic expectations. People who studied the traditional liberal arts and sciences learned more than business, education and communications majors.

Yet despite working little and learning less — a third of students reported studying less than five hours a week and half were assigned no long papers to write — most continued to receive good grades. Students did what colleges asked of them, and for many, that wasn’t very much.

“Academically Adrift” called into question what college students were actually getting for their increasingly expensive educations. But some critics questioned whether collegiate learning could really be measured by a single test. Critical thinking skills are, moreover, only a means to an end. The end itself is making a successful transition to adulthood: getting a good job, finding a partner, engaging with society. The follow-up study, “Aspiring Adults Adrift,” found that, in fact, the skills measured by the C.L.A. make a significant difference when it comes to finding and keeping that crucial first job.

The students in the study graduated in the teeth of the post-Great Recession labor market, in mid-2009. Two years later, 7 percent were unemployed, consistent with national studies finding that recession-era college graduates were more likely to be unemployed than recent college grads in better economic times, but much less likely to be jobless than young adults with no college degree. An additional 16 percent were underemployed, working less than 20 hours a week or in an unskilled job such as grocery store cashier.

Even after statistically controlling for students’ sociodemographic characteristics, college majors and college selectivity, those who finished school with high C.L.A. scores were significantly less likely to be unemployed than those who had low C.L.A. scores. The difference was even larger when it came to success in the workplace. Low-C.L.A. graduates were twice as likely as high-C.L.A. graduates to lose their jobs between 2010 and 2011, suggesting that employers can tell who got a good college education and who didn’t. Low-C.L.A. graduates were also 50 percent more likely to end up in an unskilled occupation, and were less likely to be satisfied with their jobs.

Remarkably, the students had almost no awareness of this dynamic. When asked during their senior year in 2009, three-quarters reported gaining high levels of critical thinking skills in college, despite strong C.L.A. evidence to the contrary. When asked again two years later, nearly half reported even higher levels of learning in college. This was true across the spectrum of students, including those who had struggled to find and keep good jobs.

Through diplomas, increasingly inflated grades and the drumbeat of college self-promotion, these students had been told they had received a great education. The fact that the typical student spent three times as much time socializing and recreating in college as studying and going to class didn’t change that belief. Nor did unsteady employment outcomes and, for the large majority of those surveyed, continued financial dependence on their parents.

Students who were interviewed in depth by Dr. Arum and Dr. Roksa put great stock in collegiate social experiences that often came at the expense of academic work, emphasizing the value of the personal relationships they built. But only 20 percent found their most recent job through personal contacts, and of those, less than half came from college friends. And while the recent graduates were gloomy about the state of the nation, they professed strong belief in their own future success. The vast majority thought their lives would be better than that of their parents. “They learned from the experts that they can do well with little effort,” Mr. Arum told me, “so they’re optimistic.”

On average, college graduates continue to fare much better in the job market than people without degrees. But Mr. Arum and Ms. Roksa’s latest research suggests that within the large population of college graduates, those who were poorly taught are paying an economic price. Because they didn’t acquire vital critical thinking skills, they’re less likely to get a job and more likely to lose the jobs they get than students who received a good education.

Yet those same students continue to believe they got a great education, even after two years of struggle. This suggests a fundamental failure in the higher education market — while employers can tell the difference between those who learned in college and those who were left academically adrift, the students themselves cannot.

General Disconation / Re: Russia is such a fun place.
« on: September 03, 2014, 11:05:13 AM »
that was not the expected outcome


CeeLo Green recently pled “no contest” to charges stemming from a 2012 incident in which he allegedly slipped a 33-year-old woman ecstasy during a dinner in Los Angeles. The woman claims she woke up next to CeeLo naked with no recollection of their night, but CeeLo’s lawyer says they had ‘consensual relations’.

No sex charges were filed due to a lack of evidence, and his no contest plea allowed him to maintain his innocence. He did get sentenced to three years of probation and 45 days of community service for furnishing ecstasy.

For CeeLo, that wasn’t enough. He decided he needed to speak out publicly and attempt to clear his name. The only problem is that he ended up sounding much more like a rapist. He gave his thoughts on what qualifies as rape and what doesn’t.

“If someone is passed out they’re not even WITH you consciously,” he tweeted. “People who have really been raped REMEMBER!!!”

It got worse. He continued to dig himself in to a deeper hole until he eventually deleted the entire rant. Check out a few of his other tweets below.

General Disconation / Re: Human Water Catapult
« on: September 02, 2014, 02:06:31 PM »
Yeah I'm impressed that that heavy guy was able to stand upright with it just pointing out from his feet--that looks cool as shit.

IIRC those things burn gas like fucking crazy, though--damn shame.

General Disconation / Re: Russia setting up for a space jam on the Ukraine
« on: September 02, 2014, 12:40:12 PM »
He said "take Kiev" not charbroil it

Spamalot / Re: Celebrity accounts hacked
« on: August 31, 2014, 09:46:46 PM »
the chick from Downton Abbey seems like she's on coke or something, though so maybe that's it

Spamalot / Re: Celebrity accounts hacked
« on: August 31, 2014, 09:46:00 PM »
I'd like to pretend I'm too good to look at leaked photos even if they're of Jennifer Lawrence

but I'm not

a cynical part of me also wants to be surprised that people like JLaw and Kirsten Dunst would ever simultaneously feel the need to send nudes to anyone, anywhere, ever and also feel like it was worth the risk, but I guess it isn't, either.

Spamalot / Re: One Upping First World Problems
« on: August 31, 2014, 07:32:42 PM »
then scream "fuck you you're not my real dad!" and dye your hair black

Spamalot / Re: One Upping First World Problems
« on: August 31, 2014, 07:32:12 PM »
Take it and sell it

The difference is, in South America the oppressed turned to Marxism where in the Middle East they turn to Islam. The social dynamics are the same.

This is a good point, what the middle east could really use is


In 1776, Adam Smith famously wrote: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”

Economists have run with this insight for hundreds of years, and some experts think they’ve run a bit too far. Robert Frank, an economist at Cornell, believes that his profession is squashing cooperation and generosity. And he believes he has the evidence to prove it. Consider these data points:

Less charitable giving: in the US, economics professors gave less money to charity than professors in other fields—including history, philosophy, education, psychology, sociology, anthropology, literature, physics, chemistry, and biology. More than twice as many economics professors gave zero dollars to charity than professors from the other fields.

More deception for personal gain: economics students in Germany were more likely than students from other majors to recommend an overpriced plumber when they were paid to do it.

Greater acceptance of greed: Economics majors and students who had taken at least three economics courses were more likely than their peers to rate greed as “generally good,” “correct,” and “moral.”

Less concern for fairness: Students were given $10 and had to make a proposal about how to divide the money with a peer. If the peer accepted, they had a deal, but if the peer declined, both sides got nothing. On average, economics students proposed to keep 13% more money for themselves than students from other majors.

In another experiment, students received money, and could either keep it or donate it to the common pool, where it would be multiplied and divided equally between all participants. On average, students contributed 49% of their money, but economics students contributed only 20%. When asked what a “fair” contribution was, the non-economists were clear: 100% of them said “half or more” (a full 25% said “all”). The economists struggled with this question. Over a third of them refused to answer it or gave unintelligible responses. The researchers wrote that the “meaning of ‘fairness’… was somewhat alien for this group.”
Hearts of darkness

But maybe studying economics doesn’t change people. It could be self-selection: students who already believe in self-interest are drawn to economics.

There is evidence for selection. In a study of over 28,000 students in Switzerland, 62% of economics students gave money at least once to help students in need, compared with 69% of non-economics students. These differences were already present before the students took a single economics course: students with lower giving rates were drawn to economics. As freshmen, before their first lectures, 71% of the students who chose economics contributed, compared with 75% of non-economists.

But this doesn’t rule out the possibility that studying economics pushes people further toward the selfish extreme. Along with directly learning about self-interest in the classroom, because selfish people are attracted to economics, students end up surrounded by people who believe in and act on the principle of self-interest. Extensive research shows that when people gather in groups, they develop even more extreme beliefs than where they started. Social psychologists call this group polarization. By spending time with like-minded people, economics students may become convinced that selfishness is widespread and rational―or at least that giving is rare and foolish.

To figure out whether economics education can shift people in the selfish direction, we need to track beliefs and behaviors over time—or randomly assign them to economics exposure. Here’s what the evidence shows:

1. Altruistic values drop among economics majors

At the very beginning of their freshman year, Israeli college students who planned to study economics rated helpfulness, honesty, loyalty, and responsibility (pdf) as just as important as students who were studying communications, political science, and sociology. But third-year economics students rated these values as significantly less important than first-year economics students.

2. Economics students stay selfish, even though their peers become more cooperative

When faced with choices between cooperating and defecting, overall, 60% of economics majors defected, compared with only 39% of non-economics majors. For non-economists, 54% of freshmen and sophomores defected, while only 40% of juniors and seniors did. The economists, on the other hand, did not decrease in defection significantly over time. Roughly 70% defected across the board. Non-economists became less selfish as they matured; economists didn’t.

3. After taking economics, students become more selfish and expect worse of others

Frank and his colleagues studied college students in astronomy, economic game theory, and economic development classes. Self-interest was a fundamental assumption in the game theory class, but had little role in the economic development class. In all three classes, students answered questions about benefiting from a billing error where they received 10 computers but only paid for nine and finding a lost envelope with $100. They reported how likely they would be to report the billing error and return the envelope, and predicted the odds that other people would do the same.

When the students answered these questions in September at the start of the semester, the estimates were similar across the three classes. When they answered the questions again in December at the end of the semester, Frank’s team tracked how many students decreased their estimates. After taking the game theory course, students came to expect more selfish behavior from others, and they became less willing to report the error and return the envelope themselves:

“The pernicious effects of the self-interest theory have been most disturbing,” Frank writes in Passions Within Reason. “By encouraging us to expect the worst in others it brings out the worst in us: dreading the role of the chump, we are often loath to heed our nobler instincts.”

4. Just thinking about economics can make us less caring

Exposure to economic words might be enough to inhibit compassion and concern for others, even among experienced executives. In one experiment, Andy Molinsky, Joshua Margolis, and I recruited presidents, CEOs, partners, VPs, directors, and managers who supervised an average of 140 employees. We randomly assigned them to unscramble 30 sentences, with either neutral phrases like [green tree was a] or economic words like [continues economy growing our].

Then, the executives wrote letters conveying bad news to an employee who was transferred to an undesirable city and disciplining a highly competent employee for being late to meetings because she lacked a car. Independent coders rated their letters for compassion.

Executives who unscrambled sentences with economic words expressed significantly less compassion. There were two factors at play: empathy and unprofessionalism. After thinking about economics, executives felt less empathy—and even when they did empathize, they worried that expressing concern and offering help would be inappropriate.
Changing economics and business education

As a business school professor, these effects worry me. Economics is taught widely in business schools, providing a foundation for courses in management, finance, and accounting. Business is now the most popular undergraduate major in the US, and it’s growing in market share. From 1997-1998 to 2007-2008, the number of bachelor’s degrees conferred in the US grew by 32%. In the same time period, the number of business degrees grew by roughly 45%. It’s true at the graduate level, too: business degrees are right behind education as the most common graduate degrees conferred in the US.

Business economics may be more devastating than other brands. When comparing students in political economics and business economics, economists found that “the willingness to contribute decreases dramatically for business students.” This may be why the late Stanford professor Hal Leavitt lamented that business education distorts students into “critters with lopsided brains, icy hearts, and shrunken souls.”

If economics can discourage prosocial behavior, what should we do about it? I’m not suggesting that we stop teaching economics. An understanding of economics has vital importance to individuals and society. Instead, I recommend three steps for reducing the odds that economics will corrupt students:

    Require economics majors to take courses in behavioral economics, which considers the role of “social preferences” like fairness, altruism, cooperation, and even being rationally altruistic.
    Require economics majors to take breadth courses in social sciences like biological anthropology, sociology (pdf), and psychology, which place substantial emphasis on how people are concerned about others, not only themselves.
    Within economics courses, do a better job defining the principle of self-interest around utility, which involves anything a person values—including helping others. This might mean covering evidence that natural selection can favor unselfish behavior, and that pure selfishness is less common than being “groupish” (willing to put group interests ahead of their own personal interests) and “otherish” (often motivated to help others and themselves at the same time).

Until then, we may be dooming students and society to a fate foreshadowed by Nobel Prize-winning economist and philosopher Amartya Sen. Calling economists “rational fools,” Sen observed: “The purely economic man is indeed close to being a social moron.”

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 1252