Inclusivity codes of conduct

When an open source software project adopts a “code of conduct” it slowly dies. Bugs don’t get fixed, new features break stuff, and it is unable to accommodate updates and changes in the environment. Over time, it gradually suffers bitrot – unchanging and unchangeable assumptions in a changing world, combined with “fixes” that introduce new bugs, and confusing new misfeatures that irritate old users, never quite work as they were supposed to, and are an obstacle to new users.

And now the eye of Soros has fallen on the Space X reusable rocket program, and “women in tech” will likely kill the re-usable earth to orbit second stage. We will still get something called the Falcon Heavy which will reach orbit, but chances are that the promised reusability is never going to arrive, that it will not be able to land back on earth, promptly refuel, and promptly go back to orbit again. And will therefore never be able to radically lower launch costs.  And in a generation or so it will suffer the fate of the space shuttle. Too many disastrous accidents, costs keep growing without limit, eventually grounded for life. Similarly, the latest fighter planes have poorer performance than earlier generations of fighter planes, and much higher cost. People tell me that advances in missile technology and stealth make high performance fighters obsolete, and maybe that is true, but if performance is obsolete, why are fighters, like bridges that fall down, getting more expensive, rather than less? Looks to me that the government is buying all the performance it can afford – and all the performance it can afford is rather less than it used to be able to afford. Reminds me of the Obamacare website: No amount of money could get it up, until they gave up on political correctness, and went with a team of white males leavened with east Asian males – with white males on top.

Why is “inclusivity” so devastatingly lethal to tech?

Observe “women in tech”. As Spandrel observes “Women in tech” are women trying to get nerds out of tech. Nerds protest. “We were here first! We built this from scratch!”. Yeah whatever. There’s money to be made, so women want in. Then they saw nerds there, and then they can’t help their instincts. Nerds must go. Women just won’t live close to them; the same way humans don’t like living close to snakes or rats. That getting rid of the nerds would destroy the whole ecosystem is secondary. When tech collapses after women chase the nerds away, women will just migrate to somewhere else built by some other males, as if nothing had happened.

Hypergamy means that all women want the top men. The top 20%, the top 5%, definitions vary. Here’s some data. But even with the most generous definition, women see 80% of men as being completely out of consideration for sex. They just won’t sleep with them. If they do (and they do every now and then for money or other motives), and other women find out, well that automatically means they’re lower status, certainly lower status than women who sleep with better men. Not even sex really, the mere company of undeserving men is like a skin disease for women. It’s like an old rag worn by a leper. The attention of mediocre men is low status itself, it defiles women in their own eyes. So it follows that if possible, mediocre men should disappear. Just die.

Incel men being the most mediocre among the mediocre, they are at the top of the list for things women want to eradicate. They just don’t want them to exist. Wherever they meet them they try to make them disappear.

Google used to be very smart, is now very stupid. Still making billions, will continue to make billions, but from my point of view, has already collapsed. Most of the good stuff being created now, is being created by ex googlers. Hollyweird is now getting what techies have been getting for some time.  The only way a good techie can avoid the purge is to actually do what he would otherwise be accused of doing. The instincts of women mean that the innocent get purged and the guilty get laid.

The lioness knows which lion to fuck, because she sees him kill her kittens. Feynman was smart and famous, but to get laid, had to use his smarts to learn to put on the same performance as I perform.  All women are like that.  If some women were not like that, we would have seen them with Feynman, Einstein, and Brad Pitt.

174 Responses to “Inclusivity codes of conduct”

  1. […] Inclusivity codes of conduct […]

  2. Dave says:

    Our government is determined to eradicate the white race, so its ever-growing incompetence is a good thing. As it becomes less able to enforce affirmative-action laws, collect child support, and protect its welfare clients from hunger, disease, and gang violence, clever white men will, like the clans of Sicily, figure out ways of doing business under the radar. “You snitch, you die” handily solves the Prisoner’s Dilemma.

    With open source, it’s trivially easy to fork a dying project and start fixing it up. If SpaceX starts flailing, poach a few of their top engineers and start your own launch company, preferably in a country where the women are nice and the government stays out of the way.

    • vxxc2014 says:

      ““You snitch, you die” handily solves the Prisoner’s Dilemma.”

      FINALLY.
      I’VE BEEN POINTING THIS OUT FOR YEARS.

      The Prisoner’s Dilemma is the Rat Code of Ethics. FAIL.

      Hell – it’s a Rat code designed by Jewish 1950s scientists to Talmudically justify ratting out the Reds within their midst WHICH THEY DID.

      As for Nash his equilibrium is the mathematical expression of schizophrenia.
      Dazzling but Delusional.

    • jay says:

      Is whistleblowing the same as snitching?

    • Randy says:

      Snitches get witness protection. It has to be “You snitch, your family dies.” Sad but true.

  3. >If some women were not like that, we would have seen them with Feynman, Einstein, and Brad Pitt.

    Because Feynman or Pitt would literally accept all and any women? No. They had high standards in looks. I am just assuming it of Pitt (but why not) but I have actually read Feynmans book. He was looking for sex, not a family, he went for the hot girls. And he picked them up in bars and night clubs. What kind of women went to bars in the 1940’s? Sluts. All sluts are like that. Good girls when to the dances organized by the church and oversaw by parents and brothers. Would Feynmann go there? No. He was looking for easy sex, which the good girls in the 1940’s would not provide. He was not looking for a wife, and the good girls were only available as wives. Not entirely out of their own choice, if he went to the church organized dances and tried to fuck a girl in his car the brothers at the dance would be mighty pissed. 1940’s culture was still reasonably healthy and for a girl to even just go to these bars and night clubs was equivalent to utter sluthood. I don’t know much about Pitt, but he is part of Hollywood culture, which is rotten. Of course both only met women who are like that.

    Anyway. This is really just a sidenote, because the women in tech question is entirely irrelevant to what kind of women would pick up in a night club because they are obviously very different women. They were hot and like that. The church dance girls maybe not hot and not like that. And the women in tech are not hot and are like that.

    That is, the typical woman in tech is an ugly manjawed feminist. Feynmann would not want to fuck them. Neither would you. Yes, she hates nerds, all women hate nerds, that is entirely true. But this type is also aggressive enough to truly persecute the nerds. Hot girls are simply not aggressive enough to persecute anyone, they just roll their eyes and make gagging sounds. Good girls are willing to tolerate nerds as long as they are strictly professional and behave entirely asexually. Good girls of course are disgusted by nerds hinting at a date or sex, but are able to reject them with some tact.

    But women in tech are neither good nor hot. They are agggressive manjawed tomboy feminists.

    So yes, in practice exactly this happens. They persecute the nerds and then things stop working.

    The fact that they want to make money should actually be a hint that they are neither good nor hot. Good women want to be housewives, hot women models or trophy wives.

    • peppermint says:

      Where did you get that idea? The women in tech I know are in tech after finishing college, are perfectly cute, have high IQs, have no real understanding of tech or the fact that their job is to make some man do their work for them or make presentations of things a man came up with, maybe would like the Marge Simpson life if they could have it but take up feminism as a sour grapes thing, are creeped out by some men who expect to flirt with them while doing work assigned to them, and want a tinder date with a higher salary.

    • jim says:

      Feynman reports that “good girls” need the same performance as he provided to bad girls, and responded to that performance in the same way as “bad” girls.

      Which is exactly my own experience.

      If “good” girls – which is to say blue pill girls – existed Brad Pitt would have married one, and Einstein would have scored.

    • jim says:

      > That is, the typical woman in tech is an ugly manjawed feminist.

      I can see that you have never met a woman in tech. I married one. They tend to be genuinely nerdlier, and thus genuinely more feminine, than women outside of tech.

      But they still hate nerdy men, and still want to drive nerds out of tech. All women are like that. Just as all men want young hot chicks, all women want thugs.

      Men have no alternative but to provide the performance that women want, which is a frighteningly anti social performance, as for example “The wild one”. A more prosocial performance can only be acceptable if we radically restrict female choice and importance of female consent.

      • Oog en Hand says:

        “radically restrict female choice and importance of female consent”

        In other words, BE thugs.

        • jim says:

          Pretty sure that eighteenth century England, where female choice was radically restricted, and female consent not given a whole lot of attention, was ruled by gentlemen, not thugs.

          The difference between being alpha, and being a thug, is subtle but important. Women cannot tell the difference, so in a female dominated society, it is easy to lose sight of the distinction.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Men act like thugs when women are out of control, becomes women are turned on by thugs thugs, and when women are out of control men must do what women want.

          When women are under control men like to dress in fancy uniforms with silly hats and create elaborate codes of protocol and etiquette, things which women find about as sexy as I find g.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          *Andrea Dworkin.

      • bruce says:

        RE: girls in tech. Just anecdotal but here goes. Aero has two white chicks (and maybe 20 white guys). One chick is attractive (not nerdy at all), one looks like a skinny, dorky teenage boy (at least she isn’t fat). The dorky one is their “superstar” that they’re pushing so my guess is attractive one isn’t as smart. No girls at all in guidance and navigation. One girl I know of in software. Not manjawed but looks like a frumpy British woman. One EE, she’s tiny and cute in a way- feminine in a little girl sense. My dept semi-tech so I dont’ know if it counts. Very pretty Russian born girl-not annoying like Western women. Most girls recently hired are attractive but probably not as smart as the nerds you’re talking about.

        Overall, very few fatties in tech here and more likely to look like nerdy teenage boys than man-jawed bulldykes.

      • bruce says:

        I don’t know if you describe a subset of messed up women. Why are movies and shows where the woman leaves the abusive husband/boyfriend so popular among women? Why do so many women leave abusive men (I know of quite a few cases) if the violent psychopath gets them all wet?

        • jim says:

          What you claim to see is not what I see.

          And if what you claim to see actually existed, there would be poster girls. Every women’s shelter is trolling for poster girls, and poster girls never show up.

          The abused woman business is like the white fratboy rape on campus business. That they search so hard smells funny.

          Female victims of abuse are topping from the bottom.

          Observe these complaints about Schneiderman. Schneiderman beats Barish. Barish never complains about it until Schneiderman loses alpha.

          • bruce says:

            I’m not familiar with the case but I can’t see how a Jewish, New York lawyer was ever “alpha.” It seems like you can just dismiss counterexamples by saying “that guy is not alpha.” I guess you could keep denying particular cases until the last alpha standing – a 300lb, drug dealing, 80-IQ ghetto dweller who has committed a dozen murders-only he’s really alpha. I have absolutely known women who leave violent, manly dudes (one guy who was so strong he picked the woman up with one hand while choking her- just like in a movie). I have had this happen to women I am related to –sometimes they live with relatives – I don’t know if abuse industry trollers find them or not.

            And the genre of female-oriented fiction where the woman leaves an abusive man. I guess they are all abusive betas being portrayed in these shows and movies?

            • peppermint says:

              This chick I once had the hots for confided in me that her ex, who I had no respect for at the time, was controlling. I guess I was expected to badmouth him with her to allieviate her potential guilt for not being married and then take her myself.

              How much do I need to spell out for you?

            • jim says:

              > I’m not familiar with the case but I can’t see how a Jewish, New York lawyer was ever “alpha.”

              Old man has numerous young women, he smacks them around, he sleeps with other women, and yet, somehow, strangely, they were unable to leave him. Sure sounds alpha to me, as women understand alpha.

              > And the genre of female-oriented fiction where the woman leaves an abusive man. I guess they are all abusive betas being portrayed in these shows and movies?

              I have never seen such a movie nor read such a book (and I have been dragged into far too many chick flicks). Give an example.

              Yona of the Dawn” is a typical chick flick featuring an abusive violent male. Every chick flick featuring an abusive violent male is like that. Every chick flick featuring an abusive violent male is like that, because all women are like that.

              Fantasies where a woman leaves an abusive violent man are always male oriented – low status hero gets the girl as part of his triumphant rise in status. The story is about the male protagonist’s rise in status, and the women who leave their abusive men for him are merely decorations, not really characters in their own right. Protagonist beats bad guy, gets his girl. The girl is just a way of counting coup, not a person.

              If it is a chick flick, male A is high status, and male B is even higher status.

              If one of the males is low status, then rises at the expense of the abusive violent man, it is a guy flick.

              • bruce says:

                I’m thinking of these cable movies you see advertised – the ones that play on the women’s channels like Lifetime. There was this one where the strong woman gets her daughter back from some sexist Arab who kidnapped her for his harem or whatever. There was a movie with Jody Foster where she gets beaten and raped by some redneck in front of a bunch of violent rednecks and the movie I think is about her getting even with them – I just watched the beginning – I don’t remember if she sued them or killed them or what – Pretty sure that movie was meant for women and not men – I sure as hell couldn’t watch it. I don’t know a single man who would watch a movie or show on lifetime channel or Oprah channel. They have to be nearly 100% women viewership. Women also love Hallmark channel now. The women in my family watch that channel. It’s all the romantic stuff from what I can tell. Hallmark card stuff not men abusing women.

                Those murder mystery documentary shows are popular with women. Usually it’s the abusive husband who killed the wife. I don’t know if women like the shows because they are fascinated with the abuser or if they like to see the abuser get it in the end (he always does in those shows).

                What happened that caused the New York Jewish lawyer to lose alpha status? You’re just saying he did because they turned on him or is there something about the case I don’t know?

                • jim says:

                  Does not sound that you have actually watched these movies. I have not watched them either. And you have not actually named any of these movies, which makes it hard to discuss their content, supposing that either of us knew what it actually was.

              • bruce says:

                I kept remembering Farah Fawcett in an abusive husband movie. Googled it – it’s the one where she burns him up in the bed.

                • jim says:

                  That you are unable to name any of these movies inclines me to doubt your description and interpretation of their content.

                  When I see a chick flick with an abusive violent male, the chick acts like Yona of the Dawn did.

                • bruce says:

                  “When I see a chick flick with an abusive violent male, the chick acts like Yona of the Dawn did.”

                  OK, but most chick flicks don’t have an abusive, violent male for the chick to respond to.

                  How is Hallmark Channel stuff (romance without abuse) popular among women if “all women are like that?”

        • peppermint says:

          》Why do so many women leave abusive men (I know of quite a few cases)

          》 the violent psychopath gets them all wet

        • StringsOfCoins says:

          They are actually leaving a beta male who refused to beat them when they deserved it, but tell simps that he was abusive to shit test the simp and see if he gets it or doesn’t. Most simps turn into white knights, which let’s the girls vagina know not to let his inferior doesn’t understand women seed to pollute her womb.

          • peppermint says:

            also it’s because the woman isn’t a slut and left him for a valid reason that you should be sympathetic about since there’s nothing sexier than a damsel in distress

      • Indeed my experience with the is very limited, Jim. If you say they are nerdy, so they tend to have personalities similar to male nerds from being shy to liking sci-fi, can’t we just fix it by teaching male nerds to do a bit of lifting, Game and dress a little better? Not even enough to be able to actually seduce female nerds, just enough that they don’t gross them out, so they can just be friends, buddies, based on no instinctive revulsion and similar personalities and interests?

        Look. Programmers can look and be like David Heinemeer Hanson. It is mostly just a matter of learning, I think, to not look like the folks at a typical D&D club.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          Sure. And we can prevent white flight by arming and organizing white people to prevent them from being ethnically cleansed.

          To be less flippant, the reason it won’t work is it requires male only spaces and activities for nerds. If the boy scouts aren’t allowed to have them, I’m not seeing how nerds will either.

          • jim says:

            The dominant group always has spaces that belong to the dominant group, and outsiders are only allowed in as guests as of a member of the dominant group, and under the supervision of their host.

            So, naturally, we have female only spaces, but no male only spaces, and black only spaces, but no white only spaces.

            For women to be able to endure the company of real engineers, this has to be fixed.

        • jim says:

          Nah, we have to teach nerds to be bold, scary, criminal, and dangerous – or to be bold and to adequately fake being scary, criminal, and dangerous.

          Nerds just don’t like dealing with people, and are often not particularly good at it, in part because it is hard to deal with people across an IQ gap of twenty points, and all genuine engineers are IQ one twenty or above.

          Not being good at it, and not liking to do it, is perceived by females as being weak and frightened – and often they are weak and frightened.

          At Epyx, we had to interface with testers who were deliberately selected to be representative – IQ centered around one hundred, and close to one hundred, educations and backgrounds average purchaser. And that really did not work, so we interacted through the lead tester, who was about IQ one ten, and treated us respectfully, and the other testers treated him respectfully, and that worked.

          A lot of game, for example cold reading, magician patter, is not “how to act alpha”, it is “how to talk to stupid people”. So yes, training in talking to stupid people would help, but the girls who are destroying engineering by purging the nerds are not stupid. The problem is that nerds are perceived by them, often correctly, as timid. Even nerd girls, and my wife was mighty nerdly, cannot stand nerds.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            Any good sources for people to read regarding how to talk to stupid people?
            (Or for that matter any existing Jim pieces…. or future ones? hint hint)

            For what it’s worth, I’m sure you’re absolutely right about all of this.

            • jim says:

              Smile, slow down by fifty percent, and rely heavily on tone of voice and non verbal communication, as if talking to a dog or a cat. Also, don’t pay too much attention to the ostensible meaning of what they are saying, because it probably doesn’t mean $#!%. Rather they are emitting random words in the general vicinity of what they are actually thinking about, not saying what they specifically mean. Smart people are apt to read more meaning into stupid people’s words than is actually there. Respond their implications or their theme, because if you respond to their specific literal meaning, it will probably discombobble them.

              Your response should show that you hear them talking, your response should be responsive, but does not need to be particularly connected to what they specifically said, because chances are that they specifically said rather less than you are likely to think that they said.

              Use gestures, tone of voice, and body language.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Thank you very much indeed. That actually explains a few interactions that were very mysterious.
                That thing about responding to the subject area rather than the specifics was definitely new to me.

        • jim says:

          David Heinemeier Hansson has about average engineer looks. He dresses well, but that is not why he scores. He scores because he is a racing driver, does dangerous stuff, therefore bold, and likely a bit scary.

          So they can just be friends, buddies

          Men and fertile age women can never be friends, never be buddies. It does not even work that well with women past fertile age.

          • Alrenous says:

            Men and other men in highly progressive areas can’t be friends either, so the contrast is not apparent.

            • jim says:

              Highly progressive areas tend to be full of very bad people, since leftism is holiness signaling, and the criticisms that Jesus made of holiness signaling apply.

              Someone who does right by his family, his friends, his colleagues and his allies has no need to holiness signal, so does not. Someone who holiness signals, is holiness signaling because he is a very bad person.

              Thus a religion needs to put a lid on public signs of holiness. The public and visible requirements need to be strenuous enough to demonstrate loyalty to the religion, but not so strenuous that one adherent can out signal the next adherent.

          • Anonymous 2 says:

            DHH is also modestly rich and modestly (at least googleably) famous.

            • jim says:

              Sure – but lots of engineers are modestly rich and googleably famous. Not many of them are race car drivers.

  4. I have a theory that SJWs are like flies, when they swarm around something, that thing turned into shit even BEFORE they began swarming.

    They swarm a lot around comics. What kind of adult reads comics? Normal boys of my class sold their comics collection at puberty, around 12. Adult comics fans are seriously weird, you could say that culture is shit, so attracts the swarms.

    Hollywood used to be able to make interesting movies but that stopped at least 15 years ago. They have no creative ideas anymore, just recycling old superhero comics or old movies or books. It turned to shit, so it attracts the swarms.

    And tech. What kind of tech attracts these SJWs? Do you see them around SAP? What kind of tech has these inclusivity codes of conduct? It is mostly the Silicon Valley startup kind. It is the *cool* tech. The hip, the prestigious tech. Not the boring but working. It is the type of tech the media writes about and treats its leaders as superstars.

    And there were serious problems with cool hip Silicon Valley tech even before these SJW swarms. I am not saying it was all shit, as Space X is obviously not shit. But it is part of a culture that has a lot of shit. The startup culture, the cool SV tech culture.

    The problem with the cool SV tech culture has always been that they don’t have a normal business model like charging people money for licencing the software or using it. That practically all of their software is free to use is already a big warning light. That kind of model attracts bright eyed young communists who want to change the world. They either don’t make money at all, and their idea is not really ever having paying customers, but just attracting investors. YouTube got sold for $800M to Google while I don’t think they actually made any money charged to actual customers before. Oh they surely had some ads but it was probably very low real sales revenue. In the cool tech culture you don’t make money from customers, but from investors. I don’t have to tell you how crazy that is as a model.

    So it is dotcom bubble 2.0. Hire dreamy eyed young communists who want to change the world. Have them write software that is entirely free to use. Maybe you display some ads but that is irrelevant, you revenue is basically just coffee money. You have no idea how to actually find paying customers but don’t bother. Just because the software is *cool* some investors will eventually pay you millions for it. Take the money and run. Leave it to the investor how to find paying customers. They actually won’t and the whole thing is a bubble headed for collapse anyway.

    And that is shit. So it attracts the SJW swarms.

    Github was perhaps one of the most high profile early SJW takeovers, remember? And what kind of business model they had? Take git, which is free and anyone can host it anywhere, and host it for free? Thats insane. That’s shit. So it attracted the flies.

    Interestingly boring software companies who have a sane business model like charging $1000 per user licence for payroll software do no attract the SJWs.

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      My impression of the typical SV worker bee is someone childish and undersocialized, who has basically spent their life with computers. Since they are odd and naive, they take to Libertarianism (SV 1.0) or Campus Communism (SV 2.0) and accept the freaks injected into their midst without complaining. (Examples documented by e.g. Po Bronson, The Nudist on the Late Shift) Because hey, live and let live, man. Next, they listen to the grievance squad because why would they complain if there was nothing to complain about. And sooner or later, here we are.

    • peppermint says:

      The sometimes explicit function of the startup economy was to dodge affirmative action laws by having a small company. Affirmative action is what rotted the decision making ability of larger companies making startups viable.

    • pdimov says:

      “Way back in the ’80s, we wanted everything to be free because we were hippie socialists. But we also loved entrepreneurs because we loved Steve Jobs. So you wanna be both a socialist and a libertarian at the same time, and it’s absurd. But that’s the kind of absurdity that Silicon Valley culture has to grapple with.

      And there’s only one way to merge the two things, which is what we call the advertising model, where everything’s free but you pay for it by selling ads.”

      http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/04/jaron-lanier-interview-on-what-went-wrong-with-the-internet.html

    • yewotm8 says:

      Boring and productive companies have a lower tolerance for diversity and affirmative action. They are interested in selling and marketing their product, not their adherence to social justice values.

    • I want to add, part of this having a shit business model thing, and again thanks to @pdimov for finding that quote, was treating free open source software as a religion and ultimately going for the Stallman camp, not the Raymond camp.

      Richard Stallman is a commie. He is also a very important and excellent programmer and his existence is a huge net plus to the world despite him being a commie. But being a commie something like figuring out how free software should have viable business models was never his thing. Unfortunately, Silicon Valley went for Stallmanism, because they are commies.

      The alternative was, of course, the Eric Raymond camp. Who thought hard how to make open source actually profitable and in the best interest of corporations. AFAIK the basic ideas was that it sells hardware. A free LAMP stack of server software sells the physical server hardware. It did and does.

      I don’t know if ESR would admit it, but when you cannot sell hardware or lots of consulting hours, you have to fall back to selling software. As a licence, or if not possible with an open source one, as a hosted cloud service actually charging people for using it. It was never ever ever contrary to ESR’s version of open source that using Google Docs as a service could cost you five bucks a month.

      But crazies went for Stallmanism. And now the even crazier are taking over.

      • peppermint says:

        Ideology has nothing to do with it. From FB to M$, Crapple too, they don’t need to make good products, they have the data, they have the networks. Hulu started free. Now they have less content, charge money, and insert ads.

        Free software is free because it’s easy to install and patch. People tried making free software for Android. Google made installing payware and adware exactly as easy as installing free software, and made patching harder than patching free software in Visual Studio. Stallman being a communist fat kike isn’t why free software hasn’t caught on on Google’s supposedly free OS.

        • Yara says:

          Apple is the sole remaining major end-user electronics company whose primary business involves selling its product to its end-users. Maybe that isn’t an accident.

          • peppermint says:

            No, Apple holds its customers by their data and has an unwarranted cool image because of the people locked in. When journalists and actors aren’t cool anymore, crapple won’t be.

            Amazon sells products to customers, and is thus in a more precarious position. Ebay controls online auctioneering, but only because everyone knows to use Ebay, not by holding data like Facebook.

            Yahoo should have quietly continued to serve mail, games, and instant messaging, forever. Instead some bitch ruined the company.

            • Yara says:

              Apple users’ problem is not that Apple hold them hostage by their data, it’s that Microsoft are shit, Google are figuratively the Devil, and there is no one else.

              Amazon are the most resilient company mentioned precisely because they sell real things to real people, from books to trinkets to televisions to server space.

              People buy Apple devices because Apple put design first. Their data-related services are unimpressive, to say the least. Few buy Apple because the brand is “cool”; it’s hard to be cool along with your da, your grandma, and your dog.

              Facebook’s magnetism is network effect, not data, although they use your data to serve you up on a silver platter.

              • peppermint says:

                Apple has user data because users carelessly store it in Apple formats.

                We have different theories of resilience. Sun, HP, IBM, Amazon, not resilient because users can leave when they get staffed with women and pajeets and lose the ability to come up with anything good. Apple, MS, resilient because they can’t. FB, Ebay, resilient because they own a market.

  5. R7 Rocket says:

    Nuclear weapons proliferation solves this problem. Confine man to Earth by stopping SpaceX, then we have noting to lose, cunts.

  6. Alrenous says:

    Drones have made high-performance jets obsolete. By far the most delicate component of a modern jet is the pilot. No matter how high-performance you get, a drone 1/10th the price or less can fly rings around it. Probably literally.

    Doesn’t matter how good stealth and missiles are. Going really, really fast will always be valuable. Sudden get into range, do your thing, suddenly going out of range. However, again, it’s becoming realistic to go so fast as to overwhelm human reaction time. The only thing a human pilot does these days is pass out or die when the plane starts thinking about approaching its limits.

    Of course none of this matters because nuclear weapons. All this bullshit would of course go down to a real war, but a real war won’t happen because the person who decides to declare war now puts their own skin on the line. The army will continue to be a giant jobs program, and jet jockeys get laid so they will continue to get trained. Flying pork barrels will continue to bomb goat herders at 10X the cost of just using some artillery for the forseeable future.

    • bruce says:

      Not true. If it were, why are the Chinese investing in J-20 and J-31.

      • peppermint says:

        (1) because they can (2) because we can’t but officially want to (3) because it doesn’t matter if the eunuchs and polygynists are in a wooden or concrete and steel pagoda, they care about appearances first

      • Alrenous says:

        They probably still commission surface ships too.

      • Piers says:

        Chinks could have millions of losers die in suicidal in bombing missions and still have manpower to burn.

        That aside, if a country did develop drone technology that made fighter jets completely obsolete then why would they advertise it? If they stop making planes that is as good as admitting they don’t need them which gives their potential enemies a heads up to alter their air defence strategy.

        On a vaguely related note, and many here have probably forgotten it, about a decade ago footage leaked of China building massive tunnels in their mountains and stocking them with supplies. Couple that with the ‘ghost’ cities and it’s clear China has been prepping for a nuclear war for a long time while trying to hide it.

        • bruce says:

          There’s a lot of speculation that the Chinese will throw tons of souped-up (better radars, missiles, jammers, etc.) 2nd 3rd and 4th generation fighters at us (with limited numbers of 5th gen). Overwhelm us with numbers. Fighters are expensive – it’s cheaper to enhance what you have.

          Re tunnels, everybody’s digging. Drilling technology became very cheap in the last 10-20 years. Protected structures with concrete slabs are expensive and can’t go very deep. They know we can’t reach them if they dig. They may be replacing existing facilities. They are definitely trying to make their assets (missiles, air defense, etc.) mobile and survivable.

  7. Anonymous says:

    FreeBSD, the best open source operating system, got hit harder then most. The “leadership” adopted a CoC straight from the Geek Feminism Wiki. It’s a disgrace and I’ll be switching away from it on my servers.

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      In general, would it be worth forking and changing to a better CoC?

      • peppermint says:

        College professors believe that all jobs are sinecures because their jobs are, and they pass that knowledge to their women and pajeets. The women and pajeets can pass computer science, they are capable of doing what they see source code for, they will simply copy.

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          The copyists will, however, no longer have the initiative and be relegated to subservience to the creators. They decline in relevance and their funding of strong black female coders and gender neutral documentation will no longer be seen as a must-have when all the action is going on elsewhere.

          https://www.infoworld.com/article/2854642/javascript/nodejs-gains-a-new-fork-much-to-joyents-dismay.html

          https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/05/ffmpeg_leader_steps_down/

          Even forking for money, like the chinese Android versions, is presumably a big hassle with eternal backporting and having to second-guess Google future dev.

          The main drawback of forking with a strong technical team is probably that the parasites still get to drain all the existing funds, And second, that they live to infiltrate again another day.

          https://lwn.net/Articles/594609/

          • peppermint says:

            I’m not sure if Android being nothing like Debian and entirely like Windows was entirely a mistake. Google did want control and they have it. I don’t know what it would take to sort out Android into individually upgradable components, and it looks like no one has ever tried.

            • jim says:

              We need a new, non android, phone operating system, one that is pretty much linux, but with a phone gui instead of a desktop gui, requiring a substantial rewrite of all gui programs. But that is a lot of work, and will cost a lot of money, and the creator will want to close it off – which is what we got with Android.

              • Yara says:

                Free software, like communism, doesn’t work very well because in free software, as in communism, no one owns anything. Normal people don’t sink the sands of their life into things they don’t own, which is why FOSS conferences are stocked by the weirdest fucking people you’ll ever meet. In fact, there’s a pretty consistent hierarchy to this whole thing as far as social normality goes: at the top, you have professionals making cutting-edge things at real companies selling real products, then you have the semi-pros making stuff to farm clicks at best or justify another round of VC at worst, and then at the bottom you have volunteers of FOSS projects.

                The Linux kernel is the exception because it gets its contributions from the pros at the real companies using it. If you’ve ever wondered why Linux server distros are world-class and Linux desktop distros are dogshit, that’s why. Because the _exact same model_ doesn’t work with anything end-user.

                The problem with Android isn’t that it’s proprietary software evilly grafted onto the great Linux commons, and it isn’t that Google wanted to secure its position as a smartphone manufacturer, it’s that Google isn’t a smartphone manufacturer at all — it’s a targeted advertising company.

                • peppermint says:

                  This is incredible. Gnome 2 was higer quality than Windows XP or Vista. It was easier to move files to USB and back for one thing.

                  The window of open source desktop being good slammed shut with Gnome 3, then SystemD came along and did bootup the closed source way: never tell the user what’s happening, give a cryptic message after it goes wrong, just like Android, Apple, and MS.

                  Whether to blame RedHat for Gnome 3 or feminism or new paradigms or whatever, the fact remains that a desktop interface needs to do exactly the same thing that desktop interfaces did 30 years ago and the winner is the one that gets fucked with the least. A kernel needs to interact with current hardware and do hard things. Yet Linux is open source and there’s no good open source desktop environment where there was one 5 years ago.

                  System 7 should be public domain soon. It might be nice to return to that, cleaned up a bit.

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                There are a number of loser platforms out there, like Microsoft/Nokia, Blackberry or Firefox OS. The latter is already open source (Apache) as it happens.

                https://github.com/mozilla-b2g

                Mozilla shut down development for reasons I haven’t explored. Maybe their strategy (it’s cheap!) was wrong.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_OS

                https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/10/testing-a-35-firefox-os-phone-how-bad-could-it-be/

                • peppermint says:

                  Android claimed to be open and have good hardware support. Hardware support was actually through binary drivers. That should have been ok because the rest of the software should have been upgradable.

                  If Firefox OS or Nokia’s PyGTK interface came out today, I would switch in a heartbeat.

                  There are several ebook readers and music players and so forth for Android. My Android device had several cores and several gigabytes several years ago, I should be able to turn on screen mirroring to a 50 inch TV, attach a bluetooth keyboard and mouse, and run the compiler on the device.

                  Screen mirroring is the kind of thing that is naturally proprietary. The podcast app isn’t.

                  Android Studio could have been ChromeOS’ killer app, but since ChromeOS doesn’t come with a web server and modern HTML5 doesn’t let you use file:// into the same directory, it is literally impossible even to make web apps on it. Instead, everyone who knows what they’re doing installs a proper linux desktop in a chroot, then has to deal with ChromeOS autounmounting the sdcard on suspend because it’s Google’s hardware, not yours.

                  Google had goodwill by being good at search and mail, had multiple manufacturers, 5 years ago people wanted out of FB and in to G+ which they assumed would have better privacy and data ownership policies. When this decade ends people will ask, wait, we did what, how did that sound remotely reasonable? Then professors will die.

                  The saddest words of tongue and pen are these: /pol/ was right again.

              • pdimov says:

                >We need a new, non android, phone operating system

                No, you don’t.

              • Jacob V says:

                Jim, you’re thinking webOS. I hope someday it makes a comeback. I occasionally miss my Palm Pre 2.

                • peppermint says:

                  How do we ensure that, when the phone app is ringing, we’re in power saving mode, and the screen reached the timeout to turn off, the screen doesn’t turn off so the user can answer or reject the call? Instead of having a flowchart of modes that fits on a single page so the user and developer can tell what’s happening, Android is a ball of spaghetti with constant UI freezes with four cores, and worse:

                  One of the 4.x releases would beep when it reached fully charged, so the user could unplug the charger to save power, and did this at night after the phone was plugged in for the night. There was no way to disable this feature short of disabling all sounds, so no beep when you get a text at night, or rooting the phone. Google included this to save the whales, it was when I had such a phone that I soured on Google and the whales.

                  Someone needs to clearly define what the components of a phone’s software do, after that it can be open source. Because we need compat with years of Android apps, that means cleaning up Android anyway.

                  The reason no one thinks about this work is that it was done as UNIX was initially developed before open source became a thing. People complained later about head and tail having different command lines. Is PowerShell really better?

                  Just because I know what’s needed doesn’t mean I can do it. If I had resources I’d just go innawoods and mail bombs to universities and airports anyway.

                • peppermint says:

                  ps. Uncle Ted (pbuh) isn’t just a case of right ideas wrong methods. Android is a similar case of muddled ideas wrong methods and mailed wake up bombs to everyone’s nightstands.

                  With terrorism, the media is the message. Attaching a 50000 word essay to a bomb is as nonsensical as letting power saving mode interrupt a phone call take or reject decision.

                  Uncle Ted should have found some friends and discussed paring down his essay to a mere 500 words, then spread it the usual way, stapled to some guitar music.

      • jim says:

        Any code of conduct that was genuinely better, would result in your domain names being confiscated, and your parents and children being threatened.

  8. bruce says:

    Low observable costs money, supercruise costs money, automating everything costs money (pilot doesn’t have to do nearly as much as in the past). The assumption is first look first shoot, first kill. The aircraft aren’t expensive because it takes more money to accomplish the same thing.

    F-15 doesn’t compare to F-22.

    • jim says:

      Automating everything should not cost significant money. Comes almost free with advances in computers and software. And I find it hard to believe that stealth is inherently expensive.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        Low observable costs computing power which was expensive when these projects began in the 80s and 90s.

        Automation costs skilled staff to write the code and unit test everything so it doesn’t crash literally rather than figuratively.

        Elite leftists killed the F22 because it was too capable but the F35 is expensive because its sensors are more capable and sensors are expensive.

        The US could still produce an even better F22 with sensors even better than those on the F35 is not for SJWs, but we should hope it doesn’t, because when the US dies we win.

        • jim says:

          Sensors are not expensive. A google semi self driving car has far more sophisticated sensors and computers than any of today’s fighters.

          What is expensive is getting the underwhelming fighter performance that we are in fact getting.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Self-driving cars do not have remotely sophisticated sensors. They have somewhat sophisticated processing software. And big liability costs, which may be comparable to those of fighters.

            But fighters have the liability costs, plus greater processing costs, plus much great sensor costs, plus costs related to aerodynamic performance (which you seem to consider the only aerodynamic characteristics) which are greatly increased for equal capability by the requirement for good sensors and reduced observability.

            • jim says:

              Costs more, performs worse. The big wizbang eletronics just are not all that wizbang by consumer electronics standards. I cannot believe that they are driving the price.

              And the missile rationale does not add up. If you fly faster than the other guy, and his missiles have approximately the same speed and range as your missiles, then his missiles will not be able to reach you, while your missiles can reach him.

              The US sidewinder flies at mach 2.5. So if your plane flies at mach 2.6 …

              Missile speeds are similar to fighter speeds, so fighter speed and maneuverability matters a lot. And it is considerably less than it used to be.

              Missile engagement is a dogfight where an unmanned plane is trying to crash into a manned plane. So dogfighting matters as much as ever it did.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                IDK what’s your basis for comparing military radars to consumer electronics.

                If you see the enemy at 100km and he sees you at 25km then you will win even if your weapons are no good, and if your weapons are as good you will annihilate him.

                Why did American tanks annihilate Iraq tanks in the Gulf War? Not because their guns and armour were dramatically better but because they had passive sensors that worked at long range and at night. They could shoot at helpless enemies and it did not even matter that their guns and armour were superior (though they were).

                • jim says:

                  You forget the men driving, and maintaining, those tanks.

                • jim says:

                  Performance continues to matter a lot – and performance is down.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The difference between 2003 and today is like the difference between when your Roundheads took over and when you started talking to Charles II behind the scenes.

                  In 2003 fake news was able to paint a rosy picture of a 1 in 10 hit rate.
                  In 2018 fake news can’t even pull off a pretend gas attack.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “You forget the men driving, and maintaining, those tanks.”

                  I’m not forgetting them, they just are not enough.

                  One of the most lopsided battles in history fought between armies of roughly similar technology was the Battle of Assaye, in which a British army attacked and destroyed an Indian army ten times the size dug in on a hill across a river. The casualty ratio was 4-1 in favour of the British. That is surely the result of better troops.

                  100-1 casualty ratios, like in the Gulf War, are rather a result of the enemy just being unable to see you as you pick him off like in a shooting gallery.

                  Stealth and sensors matter. We don’t really know how they perform, since the only way they know is to try them in combat, but to just compare speed and range you are not proving they fail but assuming that they fail.

                • jim says:

                  > 100-1 casualty ratios, like in the Gulf War, are rather a result of the enemy just being unable to see you as you pick him off like in a shooting gallery.

                  100-1 casualty ratios are nothing to do with technology. They are the result of one side collapsing like a string of sand, and each soldier pursuing his own individual survival, while the other side is still united by discipline, valor, and comradeship.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The Iraqis had a large, cohesive, battle-hardened army that stood and fought, and then collapse, and the casualty ratio in battles before and after the collapse was not much different. Even when the Iraqi army tried to fight, it was simply not able to. It did not have inferior weaponry, but rather effectively had no weaponry at all.

                • jim says:

                  My recollection of that war differs from your own.

              • bruce says:

                Modern BVR engagements aren’t just speed and range. IR and RF signature drives detect, track, engagement ranges. A pole, F-pole, tactics, no-escape ranges, when the missile goes active, jamming, EA, etc. Passive engagement techniques used more so that you’re not detected by your emissions.

                • jim says:

                  Sure, but speed and range still matters enormously – and it is falling.

        • Yara says:

          The fucking bureaucrats hate Musk because SpaceX is living proof that if we slash aerospace budgets by an order of magnitude we can get an order of magnitude more result. These mediocrities hate greatness, don’t believe that the future should be better than the present and the present better than the past, and seize every opportunity to make sure that their worldview becomes our reality.

          Look at any “scientific” award dispensed by any “””reputable””” institution and you will find a stunningly disproportionate number of women and jungleniggers. Total scientific output is a bunch of old white men and a few somewhat younger NEA men. Where are the old white men in these awards, and how did we not know sooner that negresses straight out of Haiti were the great untapped scientific wellspring of the world?

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Of course, because Musk isn’t innovative in any of his businesses remotely, technologically, he rather uses force of personality and rule of cool to avoid having to hire 10,000 black women to do public engagement work rather only hiring white and asian male engineers on half the salary they would get at market to work 100 hours weeks on his projects. Amazingly this winds up cheaper than the USG equivalent.

            Some part of me wonders if Tesla is some kind of sacrificial armour for SpaceX. Hey, take me down and it’s not just fucking white male space nerds who go down, it’s also the electric car. Maybe he really is that fucking genius.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            Just out of interest, Yara, what would the world look like if it looked like super-corporations *were* in bed with government?

            Musk’s virtually a staffer.

            • Yara says:

              What would the world look like? Well, all these megacorps would be raking in mountains of cash doing pretty the exact same thing they were doing 30 or 40 or 50 years ago. Which is basically exactly what’s happening.

              A very large number of people are still in denial that Musk is on the trajectory to have a nigh-unchallengeable monopoly on the world car industry.

              I don’t know where you get the idea that Musk is a government employee.

              • jim says:

                All Musk’s businesses are political and dependent on government favor, particularly his crap car factory and his crap battery factory.

                He was doing hot stuff in rocketry, but now that the eye of Soros has fallen upon him, that will end.

                • Yara says:

                  Re: Tesla. I don’t know about that. It looks pretty much like an exponential curve to me: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/

                  Re: SpaceX. Political inasmuchas governmental agencies want to launch things into space?

                  Is he getting special government cash not available to real or potential competitors? Srs q.

                • jim says:

                  Electric cars are only viable as a result of actual subsidy and expected favors – for Tesla to make a profit, other makers have to be compelled to buy its stuff. Current production is a loss leader. When other makers are compelled to sell a certain proportion of electric cars, either directly or through gas mileage requirements, they will buy the guts of their car from Tesla, and put their own shell around it.

                  Currently this plan is not viable, because Tesla cannot make enough car guts to justify the amount of capital invested in it, but it expects to soon be able to make enough car guts, and then lobby government to mandate other car makers to sell models with similar characteristics – characteristics that only Tesla will have experience and equipment in producing.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Musk has not produced any innovation in electric cars. Tesla holds no patents on the key technology, batteries, and for most of its existence has not even produced its own batteries.

                  What Musk has done is by rule of cool persuaded various celebrities to buy a mediocre electric roadster, which he then leveraged into support for electric car subsidies in California and Norway. It is these subsidies that have been driving his business, which is nonetheless not profitable.

                • Yara says:

                  “When other makers are compelled to sell a certain proportion of electric cars, either directly or through gas mileage requirements, they will buy the guts of their car from Tesla, and put their own shell around it.”

                  Musk has 500.000 people willing to wait, so far, years to receive their car. That’s the magnetism of the Tesla brand. Selling a new tech to a legacy company as a white label would be incredibly stupid.

                  “Electric cars are only viable as a result of actual subsidy and expected favors – for Tesla to make a profit, other makers have to be compelled to buy its stuff.”

                  That doesn’t make any sense. It would be more profitable just to sell the car. There is no reason to introduce a middleman.

                  “and then lobby government to mandate other car makers to sell models with similar characteristics”

                  Dumb idea. No one can force people to buy “other car makers” electric cars, and they would have to have their own mark-up, thus making the end-product more expensive.

                • jim says:

                  Tesla is not profitable as an electric car maker, and has no plans to ever become profitable as an electric car maker. It can, however, become profitable extracting rent from gas based cars.

                  It makes no sense as private enterprise economics. Makes sense if in order to sell gas cars, other car makers have to sell a certain number of electric cars – which is most cheaply done by paying Tesla for the guts of the car and putting their own brand and shell around a Tesla.

                  And that is the Tesla business plan. They are not making money selling cars, and have no serious plan to make money selling cars. They plan to make money from a politically correct tax on other car makers, who will be forced to apply a politically correct tax on people who buy gasoline based cars.

                • jim says:

                  If every car company is forced to sell a certain number of electric cars, they will charge buyers of gas cars extra and cross subsidize the electric cars – which is most cheaply done by forcing buyers of gas cars to subsidize Tesla.

                • Yara says:

                  “Musk has not produced any innovation in electric cars.”

                  The Model S or Model 3 are literally the only electric cars worth buying….

                  “Tesla holds no patents on the key technology, batteries, and for most of its existence has not even produced its own batteries.”

                  And now it’s the biggest producer of batteries in the world…

                  “What Musk has done is by rule of cool persuaded various celebrities to buy”

                  He sure did.

                  “a mediocre electric roadster”

                  Nope.

                  “which he then leveraged into support for electric car subsidies in California and Norway”

                  Guys like Bezos and Trump are fastidious users of tax breaks. Why is it that Musk is accused of building his entire business on government incentives when A) they were available to anyone who wanted them, and B) they comprise a tiny fraction of total revenue?

                  I will tell you. I’ve heard your general line of argument before. I think it the pathetic bleating of mediocre men…

                  “It can’t be done,
                  It’s all a scam,
                  If I can’t do it, nobody else can.”

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Whatever. Not the level of debate I come here for.

                • Yara says:

                  “And that is the Tesla business plan.”

                  Musk has a long history of outrageous stunt hail maries but that isn’t the sort of gamble I think he would take. I guess we’ll see. If Tesla isn’t profitable by the end of the year producing the Model 3 at 5.000+ per week, I automatically concede.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  Because if it was a profitable line of business people in other countries would be competing to fill it. Since it purely exists by political fiat, it exists where the money spigot is.

                  “A) they were available to anyone who wanted them, and B) they comprise a tiny fraction of total revenue?”

                  It doesn’t matter if it is a ‘tiny fraction’; what matters is if it is the difference between profitability and lose. If so, the more the company produces, the more value it is destroying.

                  Available to anyone doesn’t matter either. Musk’s electric car factory has not turned a profit in any year it has run. If you don’t have connections with the government, you aren’t going to get into the business because getting cut out of the loop puts you deep into debt.

                • Yara says:

                  There are only three other countries with an auto industry worth mentioning (Germany, Japan, and Northern Italy) and all are pretty much stagnant for the past two or three decades. Body aesthetic has definitely improved since the 90’s and efficiency is a little better but software still sucks donkey dick and everything else is pretty much the same.

                  I don’t see how Musk’s tax breaks are different than Bezos’s tax breaks. Or any other tax breaks given to very large corporations by local governments competing to have them build their facilities there. Maybe you can explain.

                  I don’t see how the existence of a government subsidy automatically makes the relevant business somehow like immoral or something. Petrol-powered autos have massive unpriced externalities not the least of which is the untold trillions of dollars of “””value””” gained squabbling over oil in the Middle East. Maybe you would like to explain.

                  Scale comes at a cost. That cost is debt. Pay now, collect later. Why is it a surprise that the vast majority of the profit made by a monopoly is to be made in the future, _after_ it has been established? It shouldn’t be. Or maybe it’s just a conspiracy (by the infinite cleverness of government) or a delusion (by the infinite stupidity of investors).

                  I doubt it. Tesla has a monopoly on electric cars and everything about electric cars is superior to petrol cars except for cell energy density and specific energy density, which are both doubling each decade. At some point electric cars will supersede petrol cars and all automakers unable to make the switch will go extinct. Arguably we are reaching that point now.

                • jim says:

                  What makes Tesla immoral is subsidies specifically targeted at electric cars. In particular, the gas mileage mandate, which gas car makers cannot meet except by selling tiny tinfoil cars, or by selling electric cars.

                • pdimov says:

                  What makes Tesla immoral is Musk taking government subsidies and doing cool stuff with them instead of stealing them as is customary.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  My impression is that Musk enabled the government to tilt the regulatory regime toward electric cars by providing a manufacturer of electric cars that fancy people were willing to buy from. I don’t think he responded to pre-existing market distortions.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “I don’t see how Musk’s tax breaks are different than Bezos’s tax breaks. ”

                  Because Bezo would make still be profitable without the tax break and Musk would not.

                  “Petrol-powered autos have massive unpriced externalities not the least of which is the untold trillions of dollars of “””value””” gained squabbling over oil in the Middle East. ”

                  Most of those trillions were used to invade Afghanistan (no oil) and Iraq (which was willing to sell us oil and we refused until we conquered them).

                  “Scale comes at a cost. That cost is debt. Pay now, collect later. Why is it a surprise that the vast majority of the profit made by a monopoly is to be made in the future, _after_ it has been established? It shouldn’t be. Or maybe it’s just a conspiracy (by the infinite cleverness of government) or a delusion (by the infinite stupidity of investors).”

                  To collect requires a monopoly, a way to prevent other companies from simply copying you, entering the market and out competing you because they don’t have the massive fixed cost of R&D.

                  “At some point electric cars will supersede petrol cars and all automakers unable to make the switch will go extinct. Arguably we are reaching that point now.”

                  This is testable. Increasing improvements in battery would make hybrids better relative to gas powered cars and cause them to dominate everywhere before electric cars take over.

                • Yara says:

                  “Because Bezo would make still be profitable without the tax break and Musk would not.”

                  Bad comparison. Amazon is 10 years older. It doesn’t manufacture anything. Its core business is a web site, which is infinitely scalable. Amazon Prime, its “core-plus” business, is a series of warehouses shipping stuff made and sold by other people. And despite its hegemony it isn’t very profitable at all. Net income hovers at around 3%, a third of Delta’s margin in an industry renowned for its slim margins. Does Amazon get 3% of total revenue’s worth of tax breaks from various government? I don’t know. I do know that it avoided the ~7% sales tax for most of its major growth period. But it doesn’t matter, because I’m not a free market ideological nut. The “free market” is only as smart as the LCD dollar-voter.

                  “Most of those trillions were used to invade Afghanistan (no oil) and Iraq (which was willing to sell us oil and we refused until we conquered them).”

                  All Great Power involvement in the Middle East is about oil and always has been. If not for oil, the Middle East would be like Africa. Unbroken sandy desert. No gleaming cities rising out of the desert of Saudi Arabia.

                  “To collect requires a monopoly, a way to prevent other companies from simply copying you, entering the market and out competing you because they don’t have the massive fixed cost of R&D.”

                  What are the most effective barriers to entry? Economy of scale, rate of innovation and regulatory capture. Musk has spent the past decade and a half on an all-out blitz of building factories and poaching every top-rate automotive engineer he can get his hands on. Maybe at some point he’ll capture the regulators, but by then he won’t even need them.

                  “This is testable. Increasing improvements in battery would make hybrids better relative to gas powered cars and cause them to dominate everywhere before electric cars take over.”

                  Wrong. The advantage of hybrid autos is they generate power from high energy density media (petrol) and apply it with an electric powertrain. This eliminates the mechanical linkage between combustion engine and motor, enabling unconventional placement of the engine. It enables regenerative braking, improving efficiency. It enables the battery to supplement during peak power draw (acceleration), which enables the use of a smaller engine, improving efficiency. It enables the engine to operate at constant rotational speed, improving efficiency. This makes rotary-type engines viable, improving efficiency. This use case doesn’t require the use of high energy density batteries and it doesn’t matter now because batteries are becoming good enough to serve as the primary energy storage medium for most use cases. Musk’s Roadster from 2008 had a range of 200 miles. The new Roadster (2020-2022) will have a range of 600 miles.

                • jim says:

                  The batteries are intolerably heavy, intolerably expensive, have intolerably long recharge time, and have intolerably short life. Maybe future advances will fix the intolerably short life, and intolerable expense, but nothing will fix the intolerable weight and the intolerably long recharge. (Except, perhaps, fuel cells).

                  Oil is not going to run out for three hundred years, and even when it does run out, hydrocarbon fuel synthesis will be the the most energy dense way of storing power. Hybrids are viable, but the only thing that makes electric cars viable is regulatory meddling and climate hysteria. People can afford electric cars because of politics, and buy them for status. It is a holiness signal.

                • jim says:

                  Oil is irrelevant to our intervention in the middle east. Progressivism intervenes everywhere because it cannot tolerate wrongthink anywhere. Conservative Islam is a competing belief system, and progressives are wooing them with some success into being assimilated the way Christianity was assimilated. What do you think the war with Boko Haram is about?

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  There are no libertarians here. I just think if you could have had more money just by not spending anything, you are not running a business.

                  “All Great Power involvement in the Middle East is about oil and always has been. If not for oil, the Middle East would be like Africa. Unbroken sandy desert. No gleaming cities rising out of the desert of Saudi Arabia.”

                  If it was just about oil, the US would have annexed the Middle East as a colony. It would certainly be cheaper then what we actually do.

                  “What are the most effective barriers to entry? Economy of scale, rate of innovation and regulatory capture. Musk has spent the past decade and a half on an all-out blitz of building factories and poaching every top-rate automotive engineer he can get his hands on. Maybe at some point he’ll capture the regulators, but by then he won’t even need them.”

                  I’m pretty sure the Chinese are competent enough to reverse engineer and mass produce batteries.

                  “This use case doesn’t require the use of high energy density batteries”

                  No, but you can use those batteries and have hybrids be less and less dependent on oil. Are we seeing that?

                • jim says:

                  Hybrids are not significantly less dependent on oil. Their main advantage is regenerative braking, which matters in city traffic, but it does not make a huge difference. Hybrids are primarily a holiness symbol because electric, not because they do anything much for conservation or global warming.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Much of the Middle East does not have any oil, certainly not strategic quantities. We do not care about Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt because of oil. We notably care somewhat more about them than we do about the UAE.

                  The Middle East was decolonised primarily because it was a strategic source of oil to the British and French but America had its own domestic supply.

                  Carter got cucked because he was a cuck.

                • Yara says:

                  “The batteries are intolerably heavy, intolerably expensive, have intolerably long recharge time, and have intolerably short life.“

                  Does anyone care about the weight of the Model S or 3?

                  Do you not see that with each doubling of capacity the raw materials necessary to make a battery with a given range halve?

                  How often do you drive more than 300 miles in a day? On those occasions do you really not have 30 minutes to refuel? How about in 10 years? How often do you drive more than 600 miles in a day?

                  Is 15k$/decade&1/2 battery replacement cost really your idea of intolerably short life? If you drive 10k miles/yr your save at least that much in fuel. If the rest of the car isn’t worn out then, it’ll be worn out before its second replacement. Except for the motor and brakes, which will last a million miles. I dare say there will still be Model Ss on the road in 2050 with one or two battery replacements and they’ll still be going 0-60 in 3 seconds.

                  I want a nuclear future, but failing a nuclear future I’ll have a solar future. Unlike nuclear, solar is completely tax-free. In 10 or 20 years the term “off-grid” won’t make any sense. Living off the land is just a laborious way of living off the sun.

                • jim says:

                  Do you not see that with each doubling of capacity the raw materials necessary to make a battery with a given range halve?

                  There are fundamental limits to battery capacity, due to the fact that batteries carry their own oxidant, and we have reached those limits with the 18650 battery and the LiPo battery. The only way to get more capacity is fuel cell or zinc air. And zinc air still sucks compared to gasoline, even though it can in principle beat LiPo.

                  Batteries suck as a transport power source. No one would use them except for special case short range uses like golf carts and powered wheelchairs, if it was not for politics and holiness signaling.

                  Off grid solar power makes sense as a home power source if zinc bromine battery technology is perfected and greatly reduced in price, but zinc bromine is way too heavy for transport. Zinc air would work for both home power and transport, but would still never be as good for transport as gas. And no one has produced a useful zinc air battery.

                • Yara says:

                  It’s called the petrodollar for a reason. This is not a big secret.

                  ISIS is literally a fight over a pipeline.

                • jim says:

                  Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and the Congo are not fights over pipelines.

                  If we cared about oil, we would rule the place. What the US government cares about is “moderate” Islam. We are not fighting for oil. We are fighting to teach nine year old Muslim schoolgirls the right way to put a condom on a banana and how to do anal intercourse. Boko Haram means “Western Education is forbidden”. Does not mean “We should control the oil”. We are building girl’s schools in Afghanistan, not pipelines.

                • Yara says:

                  Lots of places were decolonized after Europe extinguished itself in the War. Rhodesia, for example, was decolonized after Kissinger had a meeting with Smith.

                • Yara says:

                  “If we cared about oil, we would rule the place.”

                  Wrong. There is no “we”. Even if there was, USG is not a coherent entity. There’s no need to rule a place to extract its oil. All you need to secure is access to the wells and the transportation system from the wells to the nearest refinery. To the extent that governmental organizations attempt to feminize the Arabs (not very strenuously) they are just trying to control runaway population growth. It’s a side interest. You may also have noticed that no matter what USG or NATO or other forces do in the Middle East, oil production continues unabated and no government seems to reap its rewards. That is not an accident.

                • jim says:

                  To the extent that governmental organizations attempt to feminize the Arabs (not very strenuously)

                  It is strenuous tending towards genocidal. War to teach nine year old girls sodomy and how to put a condom on a banana is fought with far greater determination, and far heavier casualties, than any war that happens to be in the vicinity of oil.

                  Boko Haram translates as “Bullshit is forbidden” – meaning “Western Education is forbidden”. Does not translate as “we need to reclaim resources stolen by evil capitalist imperialists.”

                • Yara says:

                  “Batteries suck as a transport power source. No one would use them except for special case short range uses like golf carts and powered wheelchairs, if it was not for politics and holiness signaling.”

                  Wrong. The Model S is the best sedan on the road. Get the two-motor upgrade and it’s the best sportscar as well.

                • jim says:

                  You can drive three hundred miles in the Model S if you drive in very gently, and then it stops, and there there is no one around to recharge it, and if there was someone around to recharge it, you are going to be looking for a hotel in which to stay while it slowly recharges.

                  And after not very many three hundred mile trips, you need to replace the batteries, and you will find that the batteries cost almost as much as the car.

                  A Model S just will not get me from where I live to the major tourist chick hot spot, and if it did get me there, the hotel parking lot would not have charger.

                • Yara says:

                  “What makes Tesla immoral is Musk taking government subsidies and doing cool stuff with them instead of stealing them as is customary.”

                  Lol. Exactly.

                • Yara says:

                  Here’s Musk’s soccer mom car out-accelerating a Lamborghini Aventador with 740hp.

                • jim says:

                  If, however, they had raced from San Francisco to LA …

                  the electric car would not have reached LA and the gas powered car would have reached LA.

                • Yara says:

                  The Lamborghini Aventador SV as in the video gets about 16 mpg highway (driven _gently_) and has a fuel tank capacity of 23.8 gallons giving it a range of 381 miles. It has 740 or 750hp, manages a 2.8s 0-60mph, costs 440-550kUSD, seats two persons and experiences the typical maintenance cost of an Italian supercar.

                  The Tesla Model S P100D gets ∞mpg and has no fuel tank giving it a range of 335 miles (driven _gently_.) It has 760hp, manages a 2.5s 0-60mph, costs 135kUSD not including government incentives and experiences 20% of the maintenance cost of a Mercedes S-class.

                • jim says:

                  The Tesla Model S still cannot get me from where I live to the major beach for tourist chicks.

                  And it is way more expensive than my very old car that can get me there.

                • Yara says:

                  (And seats five.)

                • peppermint says:

                  q: why do you go on and on about an battery car’s range
                  a: because a fuel car can be refueled

                  Musk exists because of govt malfeasance. He has some merit as a patron of cool tech despite govt, but he also bears the sin of aiding the govt.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The roadster was clever because all the disadvantages of electric cars (little to no passenger and storage space, expensive light weight materials, weird aerodynamic shape, high cost) were mitigated while the dubious advantages (high torque, silent running) were of some interest.

                  The overpriced saloons are only possible because of the subsidy reforms the roadster won.

          • pdimov says:

            >The fucking bureaucrats hate Musk

            Everyone hates Musk. Leftists, because they hate greatness. Rightists, because he does cool things in spite of The Free Market.

            • Yara says:

              He’s a definite optimist in a land of indefinite pessimists.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Easy to be an optimist when you have the cheque-book of the USG at your disposal as chief bishop of AGW.

                • pdimov says:

                  Not easy at all. Perennially a few months from bankruptcy.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  That’s just as true of all the ‘crony-capitalist’ people. The thing is, they get bailed out until their political capital runs out, then they’re thrown under the bus, usually to some kind of cushy retirement option.

                  It saddens me to see people cheerleading for this leftie piece of garbage just because he’s linked to the hipster’s favourite physicist.

                • John Sterne says:

                  Its true hes on the dole less so now than when he started and its true and prolly not quite redpilled. but its doubtful hes blue pilled either and free money is awfully hard to turn down when your determined to do things.Its more than cash register integrity when you want to do big things you have to get the powers that be let you hes been pretty good at asking permission as little as possible and question authority as much as possible. By far the the fairest way to describe him is hes a visionary capitalist industrialist of a type we haven’t really seen in a century and stands way out among his peers. the gilded age guys were also crony capitalists frankly i dont think theres any other kind of capitalist above mom and pops.Thats not to say Im in favor or not of the model or that Im a fanboy of musk. but he did set a big rocket back down on a raft and laughed at a NASA thats mission statements is bitches faggots and monkeys in space measuring icebergs.and he did paypal and he got fed up with traffic and tunneled under la lol.He does believe in global warming so prolly justifies the solar panel welfare with that.a lot of smart people believe in global warming so its easy to fall int that.
                  Look I was once a ayn rand fan in the 70s so i get the crony antagonism, and i get to a large extent the china miracle is a potemkin nation dependent on american stupidity. but theres some truth and i think some bits of nrx are concerned with this that a nation needs to do big things nation sized things but committees (democracies) make slow and poor decisions but are the only authorized way to proceed if visionaries find workarounds to do nation sized things maybe its not a bad thing.He solving problems we had no space program that was despicable, he solved it more so hes shown americans that we can still do things that the problem isnt that we just cant its that we are just not. with all the money we wast on niggers and such Im not going to begrudge him a few solar panels i would have paid him 100x times that for the rocket on raft trick

                • jim says:

                  The trouble with our society is that a visionary has to be on the dole.

                  Yes, Musk is great – but what he is trying to do cannot be done by cosying up to people who want to destroy technological civilization (the warmists) and who want western civilization to die. He builds electric cars and solar panel batteries to appease our enemies who just do not want us to settle space.

                  And, predictably, the eye of Soros has now fallen upon him. All those involuntarily celibate nerds at his rocket center are “problematic”, and he will discover that our enemies are unappeasable.

                  A reusable rocket could show an honest, unsubsidized, profit, lifting communication satellites, survey satellites, spy satellites, and weapons systems into space, eventually leading to the technology where it could show an honest, unsubsidized profit lifting people to solar system resources. But the kind of people who could build an unsubsidized re-usable earth to orbit rocket are, as Musk is now finding out, “problematic”.

      • bruce says:

        LO costs money – it’s in the manufacturing, the pixie dust, tolerances, etc.Hard is expensive. If it wasn’t hard, everyone would be doing it. The Swedes build good aircraft.

        There’s much more. Supercruise is very hard and costs a lot. The metallugy alone is very difficult – not many can do it.

        Sensors on 5th generation aircraft are high performance AESA (radar), Infrared Search and Track, missile warning, passive RF, etc.

        Electronic attack/ counter EA are a big thing on the aircraft.

        These aircraft may be way overpriced but they are not expensive F-15/F-16. My guess is 6th generation will be “pilot optional.”

        Our stick has been bigger for a while. The Chinese and Russians are making even bigger sticks. If we don’t bankrupt ourselves, I’m sure we’ll try to make our stick even bigger. I don’t doubt that our Neocon foreign policy drives much of this and it might be good for us if their stick is bigger.

  9. bruce says:

    The company (THE big defense company) has now largely replaced “diversity” with “inclusion” as the king of buzzwords. My impression is that they think “inclusion” will piss off the white males (practically ALL the engineers) less.

  10. Glenfilthie says:

    Your fighters are more expensive because you reach a point of diminishing returns. Consider something lower tech – bicycles for example. You can buy a nice recreational bike for about $500.00. But, if you want to race, you will need every edge you can get. That means lighter, stronger materials, exotic alloys, and all the engineering and R&D that goes along with it. A full blown racer will set you back $10,000.00. You’ll pay it, too… if you want to win.

    I was most disappointed with the abandonment of the F22. When you consider the pilot is worth five times more than the bird, the survivability of the F22 gives it an edge over the F35.

    But your point is essentially correct. Most women – and a growing minority of effete men – have no place on the leading edge of science and technology.

    • jim says:

      > Your fighters are more expensive because you reach a point of diminishing returns.

      Well, of course. But the fact is that the point of diminishing returns is a lot lower than it used to be.

  11. Offtopic from the tech (aggressive feminist battlemares) angle, but: our discussions about AWALTery and suchlike, Jim, I would say my experience fairly closely follows Athol Kays stuff, in 2012 at least, I haven’t checked if he updated anything in the past 6 years. So I don’t know if you have read his main book, MMSM, but I think it would worth a post telling why your pill is redder or blacker than Kay, 2012’s pill.

    I would add here that I also find Mark Manson and his Models: Attract Women Through honesty interesting and maybe reflecting some of my experiences but not sure if fully true. I am aware Rollo considers Mark 100% blue-pilled. He told me so on Twitter. I think Rollo is too quick to judge Mark: Mark have read all the Game authors and had ran Game successfuly for years and basically wrote his book as an modification based on his own experiences. So he is not bluepilled in the sense of someone who is ignorant of the redpill, or rejects it, or cannot use it. He writes as someone who used it for years and recommends some changes.

    Mark’s basic idea is that if you follow Rollo and see masculinity as a performance, putting on a show for the sake of attracting women, that is inherently weak and beta. That’s because you are still putting women on a pedestal, seeing them as a high value targets a man must put a lot of effort in reaching, you see yourself as inadequate, you performing to please other people means you are subservient and lower status than them and so on. So he recommends accepting “weaknesses”, which I think were a bad use of wording, a bad way to put it, and this may have turned Rollo against him. I think instead of weaknesses a better way to put it is that Mark thinks you should get to the point where you sincerely give no fuck what other people including women think about you. You put no effort in putting on a show, you are always genuine.

    Again, my reaction is that it is interesting, but it is sometimes true, and sometimes not. Sweaty, artificial, enforced performances of masculinity are a bad idea, and nonchalant no fucks given are a good idea. But it really matters what kind of self you present as genuine and what kind of “weaknesses” you admit. You can be nonchalant about being casually dressed at a formal event, and openly give no fuck what people think, and it will impress women. But you cannot do things like honestly tell a woman you love her before she tells you so just because you feel like doing so, that would not work. So he is 50% right…

    • peppermint says:

      (1) sincere ZFG is also a performance, performed in certain situations
      (2) telling a woman you love her is a performance
      (3) there are few situations where telling a woman you love her is appropriate, since there are usually other, more direct ways of getting rid of unwanted women, such as pissing on her grandfather’s grave
      (4) the world demands many performances of us, from calling for mass executions of academics, to dressing like a faggot, to acting like a nigger in front of women, to pretending not to notice that the niggers at mcdonalds can’t take an order and fulfil it
      (5) whether you go along to get along or cause trouble, whether you stick to Vox Day’s autistic “correspondence theory of truth” or adopt Jordan Peterson’s pragmatism regarding telling your current ho you love her, you smoke the same weed, and will never have a meaningful accomplishment or an honorable death

    • jim says:

      It is logical to lie to women, and they like it.

      Women do not reward good behavior, and anyone who claims that they do is deluded or lying.

    • Nikolai says:

      Purple-pilled take my dude.

      All women are attracted to masculinity so if one wants to attract women you have to act manly. Even if it’s forced, awkward and unconvincing you still should do it because:
      1. It’s good practice and eventually you’ll be able to do it convincingly.
      2. Wear a mask long enough and your face will take the shape of the mask. Pretend to be manly for long enough and eventually you won’t be pretending.
      3. Some women are gullible and can’t tell the difference between true masculinity and a beta acting overconfident, offensive and mildly threatening. Unconvincing mimicry can sometimes get you laid.

      Being yourself and not giving a shit only works in certain instances. I was having lunch at this fast food place a few months ago. Right next to me was this table of three guys with laptops, wearing superhero t-shirts and shorts, generally looking unkempt and having a loud discussion about a video game. Everyone looked at them with disdain, and rightfully so. While these guys clearly gave no fucks what people thought, that worked to their detriment not to their benefit. ZFG has to be done in a way where you don’t care what people think, but you also don’t do anything too low status in the process.

      “But you cannot do things like honestly tell a woman you love her before she tells you so just because you feel like doing so, that would not work.”
      That has actually worked for me. Probably wouldn’t work with the vast majority of women, but it worked with my girl. Sample size of one, but still, there are exceptions.

      • Mr. Roboto says:

        “While these guys clearly gave no fucks what people thought, that worked to their detriment not to their benefit. ZFG has to be done in a way where you don’t care what people think, but you also don’t do anything too low status in the process.”

        I always wondered why sometimes don´t giving a fuck worked for me and why sometimes not, now it is clear to me. Thanks!!!

    • pdimov says:

      Well the obvious problem with honestly not caring is you can only use it on women you don’t care about.

  12. alf says:

    I always thought Spandrul was spelled with a u.

  13. Anonymous 2 says:

    OT Here is the dream country of tenure man IYI Scott Aaronson. In retrospect, he should have been sent to work at the kibbutz for a couple of years.

    My preferences for American politics have two tiers. In the first tier, I simply want the Democrats to vanquish the Republicans, in every office from president down to dogcatcher, in order to prevent further spiraling into nihilistic quasi-fascism, and to restore the baseline non-horribleness that we know is possible for rich liberal democracies. Then, in the second tier, I want the libertarians and rationalists and nerdy economists and Slate Star Codex readers to be able to experiment—that’s a key word here—with whether they can use futarchy and prediction markets and pricing-in-lieu-of-regulation and other nifty ideas to improve dramatically over the baseline liberal order.

    https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3678

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      Mocking Scott is a bit of a low hanging fruit. It is good for establishing who is the out-group, but we don’t learn much about either the direction of the left, reality or human nature; all we get to see is a Jew beat the English language. Yes, English is a whore, but it won’t make you manly

      • peppermint says:

        SA is the thinking left. His commenters don’t really understand what they are and their force memes are nothing compared to the inevitable forces of leftism. The best they can do is damage to the Narrative. But, if you want to hang out with cool leftists, and know what’s cool to say, and don’t have personal connections, Slate Star Codex is where it’s at.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          He linked Aaronson, not the SSC guy. I never looked in depth into shetl optimized so I have no idea what his deal is.

          • peppermint says:

            Derp. I got my (((Scott)))s confused. They’re not really that different in intelligence and outlook.

          • jim says:

            Similar to the other Scott, but even less willing to think crime thoughts – or even to comprehend that someone else is thinking a crime thought. Brain shuts down, selective stupidity and ignorance ensues.

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        What takes me aback is, I think, his enormous intellectual vanity. He’s an academic hot house flower with a penchant for CS theory but also a history of bizarre and nearly disastrous decisions (like begging for self-castration). Yet even after something like that, he still flings forth extreme, bizarre notions without apparently considering a little bit of humility or thinking twice.

        Does his escaped-from-chopping dick ever speak up to say, “Um Scott …? What if you’re wrong again, buddy?”

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          Self reflection and humility are not things you will find with Jews. I suspect the self castration thing was social signaling, but I lack the means or desire to figure out what message it was delivering.

          • peppermint says:

            How do you outsignal no children until tenure? No sex ever. In the Yanomami tribe, to become an Indian medical professional you need to not have sex for a year, which is in theory more stringent than how we treat them.

            Aaronson missed the point of virtue signaling, was lucky enough not to lose his balls for it, but then also missed out on further virtue signaling, instead he alienated the left for no benefit to himself. Alexander virtue signaled himself into the pussy of a scene girl. Aaronson virtue signaled himself into a sinecure as a shitty mathematician with muddled reasoning in parts of his book about undergrad tier abtruse math which, because it used the word quantum and it will reshape computational complexity of important tasks, is great for signaling, but he doesn’t understand why he did what he did. Maybe at some point he can figure out that he did it all for the glory of the Jews, sperg the fuck out a third time, and spill spaghetti for the goyim.

            The purpose of NRx, which Alexander taked to, was to give the Alt-Right some perspective from which to develop its ideology. The purpose of the Alt-Right was to get Aaronson to flip out and say that, so ordinary apolitical Whites can get mad at anyone who calls Trump Hitler, as an insult or as a complement.

    • peppermint says:

      Consider the marginally attached Democrat under 50 now realizing what the blue tribe, the Democratic Party, and progressivism really are. NRxr’s broke out of progressivism without really having a clear alternative. Our blue has a clear leader to surrender to: HM the GE. HM is kind and understanding, but our blue knows everyone knows he has committed ľęşé-màjĕśțè and feels ashamed and embarrassed of this sin and crime.

      So our blue will blame professors and journalists for his sin, because blues don’t believe in personal responsibility. He’s the one who’s going to be calling for heads to roll. I’m going to sit back in my comfy apartment with a bag of pork rinds and laugh.

      Scott Alexander doesn’t have a future because psychiatry doesn’t have a future. Drug addiction is cured by beatings and monastic life. Depression is usually cured by connection to our ancestors and the future of our people. Autism is cured by cannabis. Psychiatry has a horrible track record and existed purely for political reasons which are obsolete. He will be lucky to work inside the 711 instead of begging for hot dogs offering to succ ya dicc while he pumps your gas outside.

      Battery powered cars will never catch on. Ammonia fuel cell cars might.

      • Oog en Hand says:

        For which political reasons did psychiatry exist? I think we should contact scientology.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          Suddenly I understand why people like Moldbug so much.

          “There’s a somewhat simpler narrative for what happened in Africa after 1950: it was the second Scramble. The US and its brutal and inept imitator, Russia, kicked the Euros out and established their own purportedly “independent” client states in Africa. These were ten times as badly governed, but created ten times as many jobs for white people. Such as, of course, yourselves. Is that concrete enough for you?”

  14. vxxc2014 says:

    Jim,

    Dick’s assault weapons boycott just got counter-boycotted by Mossberg, MKS and Springfield Armory.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/gun-manufacturers-fire-back-at-dicks-sporting-goods-halt-sales/

Leave a Reply