Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Can s*x workers obtain "high-value" partners? Sure, but rarely—and mostly transactionally or as outliers. High-value men (successful, high-status) often use sex workers for no-strings sex: low effort, zero emotional investment, high reciprocity in the moment. But LTRs or marriage? Data and evolutionary psychology say no for the vast majority....

drinkonsaturday's profile picture

🚫👁️Drinks on Saturday🇺🇸

86,647 subscribers

11,498 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Men are intimidated by a baby mama who has hit the wall, lost value in the dating market, reached menopause, an evening newspaper and is close to her 50s? Women do overrate themselves. "I'm not necessarily available or out there for you to see and approach." Now, the question you should ask is does she still have sex? Definitely YES! But obviously with men she doesn't consider as prominent enough to be proud of and call her man outside. She's still single because no high value man wants her. At the end of the day, she's single by circumstance and not by choice. But since women don't like rejection or the feeling of being undesired by men, she had to create a coping mechanism to make herself feel better for still being unmarried in her late 40s. Despite her beauty and wealth, she's still considered low value which is why men don't approach her. Why exactly will men go for a woman in her 40s when we still have 18 to 23 years old years in their prime in the dating pool? No wonder she's one of those feminists who hate men because they don't want her. Women shouldn't hate the player. Hate the game! The game might be brutal but it's still fair.
0:49

Men are intimidated by a baby mama who has hit the wall, lost value in the dating market, reached menopause, an evening newspaper and is close to her 50s? Women do overrate themselves. "I'm not necessarily available or out there for you to see and approach." Now, the question you should ask is does she still have sex? Definitely YES! But obviously with men she doesn't consider as prominent enough to be proud of and call her man outside. She's still single because no high value man wants her. At the end of the day, she's single by circumstance and not by choice. But since women don't like rejection or the feeling of being undesired by men, she had to create a coping mechanism to make herself feel better for still being unmarried in her late 40s. Despite her beauty and wealth, she's still considered low value which is why men don't approach her. Why exactly will men go for a woman in her 40s when we still have 18 to 23 years old years in their prime in the dating pool? No wonder she's one of those feminists who hate men because they don't want her. Women shouldn't hate the player. Hate the game! The game might be brutal but it's still fair.

KING CHIDI

30,992 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Much of male striving begins with a simple, ancient desire: to stand above others, even when no obvious prize is on offer. To be clear, the quest for increased romantic opportunities is not the only reason why men seek status. The desire to attract women is often unconscious, with no direct link to the emotional systems that drive men to triumph in conflicts against male competitors. Rather, men are inclined to seek status for its own sake, even in scenarios where local norms limit their ability to obtain multiple romantic partners. Acquiring wealth and status is intrinsically satisfying, even if it never leads to increased romantic appeal. Human males appear to have a general program installed that propels them to stand out among other males even if no women are present, as is the case in prisons. Besting others is often a reward in itself, because, in the ancestral environment, victory was so closely tied to reproductive success. Nevertheless, if given a contrived choice between material prosperity but permanent celibacy, or material impoverishment accompanied by abundant romantic interest from numerous women, the majority of young males would prefer the latter. In other words, most guys would prefer to be poor but romantically appealing rather than rich but romantically shunned.
1:05

Much of male striving begins with a simple, ancient desire: to stand above others, even when no obvious prize is on offer. To be clear, the quest for increased romantic opportunities is not the only reason why men seek status. The desire to attract women is often unconscious, with no direct link to the emotional systems that drive men to triumph in conflicts against male competitors. Rather, men are inclined to seek status for its own sake, even in scenarios where local norms limit their ability to obtain multiple romantic partners. Acquiring wealth and status is intrinsically satisfying, even if it never leads to increased romantic appeal. Human males appear to have a general program installed that propels them to stand out among other males even if no women are present, as is the case in prisons. Besting others is often a reward in itself, because, in the ancestral environment, victory was so closely tied to reproductive success. Nevertheless, if given a contrived choice between material prosperity but permanent celibacy, or material impoverishment accompanied by abundant romantic interest from numerous women, the majority of young males would prefer the latter. In other words, most guys would prefer to be poor but romantically appealing rather than rich but romantically shunned.

Rob Henderson

17,148 Aufrufe • vor 23 Tagen

“Your generosity conceals something dirtier and meaner.” A wife saying this to her husband is a reminder to men to treat marriage as one of your least, and highest-risk, investments. An investment which, if it collapses, leaves you unshaken; and if it does not collapse, remains sustainable. And therefore, prioritize investments in self-sufficiency. Amass enough value and resources that only a portion of it when committed to marriage, suffices - while the remainder, if the marriage fails, insulates you from ruin. Most marriages fail partly because men are too little sufficient for the amount of stake they make. Men risk failing. And When men fail, marriages fail. And when marriage fails, the man fails the woman. Because a woman, I Will tell you, is often with the man because of the marriage, not in the marriage because of the man. For women, marriage is often the goal, not the man. The man is a means. And when marriage fails, that means has, in her eyes, proven useless. She rages. And with that, the man’s peace is alienated. You must not fail. Because your failure can become the marriage’s failure. For in your incapacity, the security marriage guaranteed your wife is threatened. And women’s attraction plummets where security diminishes. Then it matters less how much you have sacrificed, how much security you once guaranteed, your dreams, or even your potential to recover. What matters is the impending doom your failure appears to announce - the threat to her security. And with that, her survival. And as a naturally and spiritually dependent species, which woman is, you, the man, lose utility when you are no longer dependable. And consequently, lose respect, grace and companion. The whole point I am belabouring is this: Men, do not delude yourselves with the “for better or worse” myth and invest excessively in marriage. Invest in it with only a minimal percentage of your value, as you would any other high-risk investment. Be so self-sufficient before marriage that you can run your home on a harmless and mildly percentage of your finances. Marry a woman who poses less threat to your finances, peace, and emotional stability. Make marriage one of the smallest running investments in your portfolio. Because when you invest too much of yourself in marriage, you relinquish more profitable parts of your existence for something as low-profit and uncertain as marriage. Again and for the last time, Invest little enough in marriage that its collapse cannot collapse you. For a man who places too much of himself in marriage does builds a vulnerability not a union.
0:42

“Your generosity conceals something dirtier and meaner.” A wife saying this to her husband is a reminder to men to treat marriage as one of your least, and highest-risk, investments. An investment which, if it collapses, leaves you unshaken; and if it does not collapse, remains sustainable. And therefore, prioritize investments in self-sufficiency. Amass enough value and resources that only a portion of it when committed to marriage, suffices - while the remainder, if the marriage fails, insulates you from ruin. Most marriages fail partly because men are too little sufficient for the amount of stake they make. Men risk failing. And When men fail, marriages fail. And when marriage fails, the man fails the woman. Because a woman, I Will tell you, is often with the man because of the marriage, not in the marriage because of the man. For women, marriage is often the goal, not the man. The man is a means. And when marriage fails, that means has, in her eyes, proven useless. She rages. And with that, the man’s peace is alienated. You must not fail. Because your failure can become the marriage’s failure. For in your incapacity, the security marriage guaranteed your wife is threatened. And women’s attraction plummets where security diminishes. Then it matters less how much you have sacrificed, how much security you once guaranteed, your dreams, or even your potential to recover. What matters is the impending doom your failure appears to announce - the threat to her security. And with that, her survival. And as a naturally and spiritually dependent species, which woman is, you, the man, lose utility when you are no longer dependable. And consequently, lose respect, grace and companion. The whole point I am belabouring is this: Men, do not delude yourselves with the “for better or worse” myth and invest excessively in marriage. Invest in it with only a minimal percentage of your value, as you would any other high-risk investment. Be so self-sufficient before marriage that you can run your home on a harmless and mildly percentage of your finances. Marry a woman who poses less threat to your finances, peace, and emotional stability. Make marriage one of the smallest running investments in your portfolio. Because when you invest too much of yourself in marriage, you relinquish more profitable parts of your existence for something as low-profit and uncertain as marriage. Again and for the last time, Invest little enough in marriage that its collapse cannot collapse you. For a man who places too much of himself in marriage does builds a vulnerability not a union.

Mr Sergio

13,014 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Many women hit the gym in neon but still radiate “do not disturb.” Bright colors don’t override headphones, resting gym face, zero eye contact, or laser-focus on the mirror. Those cues scream “I’m here to work, not socialize,” louder than any outfit. Yes, it’s a real trade-off for guys. The gym is their one peaceful hour—no drama, no performance, just iron and AirPods. Approaching you means risking rejection in front of 50 people, then awkwardness for the next 45 minutes of the same workout. Most decide it’s not worth it. Is it a deeper shift? 100%. Post-#MeToo + TikTok “gym creep” compilations, men assume any approach can be filmed and canceled. Dating apps give low-risk alternatives. Cold approaches at the gym have cratered—surveys show most single men under 40 simply won’t unless signals are blatant. Your bright colors are noticed. Add one small smile or quick “hi” next set and you’ll see the difference. Or accept most guys now wait for you to make the first move. Gotta go for what you want.
1:45

Many women hit the gym in neon but still radiate “do not disturb.” Bright colors don’t override headphones, resting gym face, zero eye contact, or laser-focus on the mirror. Those cues scream “I’m here to work, not socialize,” louder than any outfit. Yes, it’s a real trade-off for guys. The gym is their one peaceful hour—no drama, no performance, just iron and AirPods. Approaching you means risking rejection in front of 50 people, then awkwardness for the next 45 minutes of the same workout. Most decide it’s not worth it. Is it a deeper shift? 100%. Post-#MeToo + TikTok “gym creep” compilations, men assume any approach can be filmed and canceled. Dating apps give low-risk alternatives. Cold approaches at the gym have cratered—surveys show most single men under 40 simply won’t unless signals are blatant. Your bright colors are noticed. Add one small smile or quick “hi” next set and you’ll see the difference. Or accept most guys now wait for you to make the first move. Gotta go for what you want.

🚫👁️Drinks on Saturday🇺🇸

113,526 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

The man who built ChatGPT just issued a verdict on your career. Andrej Karpathy, co-founder of OpenAI, the architect of Tesla Autopilot just ranked every job in America by one brutal question, how soon does AI replace you?​ He pulled all 342 occupations from official US government labor data. And fed each one to an AI with a scoring rubric, published the results for the world to see.​ The verdict is that the average American worker scores 5.3 out of 10 for AI replacement risk.​ More than half the economy is already inside the blast radius. Here is what the numbers actually say. 42% of all US jobs score 7 or higher and that's 59.9 million people.​ The jobs at the top of the kill list are not low-skill factory work. They are the highest-paid, most-educated careers in the country.​ Software developers, 9/10, Financial analysts: 9/10. Lawyers: 8/10, Office administrators: 9/10.​ The jobs that require a laptop are the jobs in the crosshairs Jobs scoring 7 or above represent $3.7 trillion in annual U.S. wages. Roofers score a 1 and construction workers score a 1.​ The people who everyone called unskilled may be the most recession-proof workers alive. Karpathy's rule is one sentence, if the entire job happens on a screen, exposure is high.​ Anthropic, the company behind Claude published its own data the same week. Anthropic also found something nobody is talking about. Hiring for young workers aged 22–25 in high exposure jobs is already slowing down. The layoffs have not spiked yet but the hiring has stopped. The most chilling part is not the 10/10 score but rather that no job scored a zero.​ There is no safe harbor, only degrees of exposure.
1:02

The man who built ChatGPT just issued a verdict on your career. Andrej Karpathy, co-founder of OpenAI, the architect of Tesla Autopilot just ranked every job in America by one brutal question, how soon does AI replace you?​ He pulled all 342 occupations from official US government labor data. And fed each one to an AI with a scoring rubric, published the results for the world to see.​ The verdict is that the average American worker scores 5.3 out of 10 for AI replacement risk.​ More than half the economy is already inside the blast radius. Here is what the numbers actually say. 42% of all US jobs score 7 or higher and that's 59.9 million people.​ The jobs at the top of the kill list are not low-skill factory work. They are the highest-paid, most-educated careers in the country.​ Software developers, 9/10, Financial analysts: 9/10. Lawyers: 8/10, Office administrators: 9/10.​ The jobs that require a laptop are the jobs in the crosshairs Jobs scoring 7 or above represent $3.7 trillion in annual U.S. wages. Roofers score a 1 and construction workers score a 1.​ The people who everyone called unskilled may be the most recession-proof workers alive. Karpathy's rule is one sentence, if the entire job happens on a screen, exposure is high.​ Anthropic, the company behind Claude published its own data the same week. Anthropic also found something nobody is talking about. Hiring for young workers aged 22–25 in high exposure jobs is already slowing down. The layoffs have not spiked yet but the hiring has stopped. The most chilling part is not the 10/10 score but rather that no job scored a zero.​ There is no safe harbor, only degrees of exposure.

StockMarket.News

216,992 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

From Bits to Stitches 🖥️ ➡️ 👕 WADE is no stranger to IP growth, having collaborated with top fashion brands and with major backing from IP giant LINE FRIENDS. High-Quality Digital and Physical Assets Production 🤝 Collaboration with Renowned Creators and Brands: WADE F&F partners with top-tier artists, designers, and brands such as Nike, Valentino, Tiffany & Co and more, to create exclusive, limited-edition digital and physical assets. WADE F&F will always be our first priority, which is why we're airdropping WADESIDE. 🧑‍💻 Integration of Cutting-Edge Technology: By utilizing the latest in blockchain, augmented reality (AR), and manufacturing technologies, WADESIDE ensures that its digital and physical products are not only of high quality but also offer immersive experiences that bridge the gap between virtual and tangible worlds. 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Community-Driven Development: Feedback and ideas from the WADESIDE community play a crucial role in the development and selection of assets produced. This community-centric approach ensures that the products are highly desirable and tailored to the interests of those within the ecosystem. Driving Value to Holders 🔒 Exclusive Access and Ownership: Holders of WADESIDE NFTs gain exclusive access to craft, purchase, and claim both digital and physical trait assets. This exclusivity not only makes the NFTs more desirable but also adds a layer of value through ownership of rare and sought-after items. 🪙 $IP3 Token Utility: The $IP3 token facilitates transactions within the ecosystem, enabling holders to acquire assets using the token. Moreover, specific assets might offer additional $IP3 earning capabilities, or other financial incentives, enhancing the overall value proposition for NFT holders. 🌐 WARP Platform Synergies: WARP acts as the marketplace and gateway for accessing WADESIDE’s assets. It's here that the digital and physical worlds converge, allowing users to seamlessly trade, showcase, or utilize their assets. WARP’s integration with $IP3 means every transaction not only enhances the liquidity and utility of the token but also fosters a thriving economy within the WADESIDE ecosystem. 🖼️ Enhancing IP Value: By creating a vibrant market for digital and physical assets, WADESIDE enhances the value of its IP. This value creation is cyclical; as the ecosystem grows, the demand for WADESIDE’s IP increases, which in turn drives further value to NFT holders through appreciation and exclusive access to new assets. Long-Term Ecosystem Growth WADESIDE's holistic approach to asset creation and distribution ensures immediate value for NFT holders and contributes to the ecosystem's long-term growth and sustainability. With continued innovation and expansion of partnerships, WADESIDE is poised to set new standards in the IP economy.
0:40

From Bits to Stitches 🖥️ ➡️ 👕 WADE is no stranger to IP growth, having collaborated with top fashion brands and with major backing from IP giant LINE FRIENDS. High-Quality Digital and Physical Assets Production 🤝 Collaboration with Renowned Creators and Brands: WADE F&F partners with top-tier artists, designers, and brands such as Nike, Valentino, Tiffany & Co and more, to create exclusive, limited-edition digital and physical assets. WADE F&F will always be our first priority, which is why we're airdropping WADESIDE. 🧑‍💻 Integration of Cutting-Edge Technology: By utilizing the latest in blockchain, augmented reality (AR), and manufacturing technologies, WADESIDE ensures that its digital and physical products are not only of high quality but also offer immersive experiences that bridge the gap between virtual and tangible worlds. 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Community-Driven Development: Feedback and ideas from the WADESIDE community play a crucial role in the development and selection of assets produced. This community-centric approach ensures that the products are highly desirable and tailored to the interests of those within the ecosystem. Driving Value to Holders 🔒 Exclusive Access and Ownership: Holders of WADESIDE NFTs gain exclusive access to craft, purchase, and claim both digital and physical trait assets. This exclusivity not only makes the NFTs more desirable but also adds a layer of value through ownership of rare and sought-after items. 🪙 $IP3 Token Utility: The $IP3 token facilitates transactions within the ecosystem, enabling holders to acquire assets using the token. Moreover, specific assets might offer additional $IP3 earning capabilities, or other financial incentives, enhancing the overall value proposition for NFT holders. 🌐 WARP Platform Synergies: WARP acts as the marketplace and gateway for accessing WADESIDE’s assets. It's here that the digital and physical worlds converge, allowing users to seamlessly trade, showcase, or utilize their assets. WARP’s integration with $IP3 means every transaction not only enhances the liquidity and utility of the token but also fosters a thriving economy within the WADESIDE ecosystem. 🖼️ Enhancing IP Value: By creating a vibrant market for digital and physical assets, WADESIDE enhances the value of its IP. This value creation is cyclical; as the ecosystem grows, the demand for WADESIDE’s IP increases, which in turn drives further value to NFT holders through appreciation and exclusive access to new assets. Long-Term Ecosystem Growth WADESIDE's holistic approach to asset creation and distribution ensures immediate value for NFT holders and contributes to the ecosystem's long-term growth and sustainability. With continued innovation and expansion of partnerships, WADESIDE is poised to set new standards in the IP economy.

WADESIDE

46,472 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

The ceremony ended with a powerful moment from Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the newly appointed Director of the NIH. He called it “a historic day,” and warned that gain of function research—the kind that makes viruses more contagious or deadly—has always carried a catastrophic risk. “This research does not protect us against pandemics,” he said. “What it does is there's always a danger that in doing this research, it might leak out just by accident, even, and cause a pandemic.” Bhattacharya stressed that the vast majority of scientific research will continue as normal. But this small slice of high-risk experimentation? That’s no longer just up to scientists. “This executive order puts in place a framework to make sure that the public has a say… that in fact, the public can say, no, don’t take this risk.” For the first time, the door is finally closing on one of the most dangerous scientific practices in modern history.
1:27

The ceremony ended with a powerful moment from Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the newly appointed Director of the NIH. He called it “a historic day,” and warned that gain of function research—the kind that makes viruses more contagious or deadly—has always carried a catastrophic risk. “This research does not protect us against pandemics,” he said. “What it does is there's always a danger that in doing this research, it might leak out just by accident, even, and cause a pandemic.” Bhattacharya stressed that the vast majority of scientific research will continue as normal. But this small slice of high-risk experimentation? That’s no longer just up to scientists. “This executive order puts in place a framework to make sure that the public has a say… that in fact, the public can say, no, don’t take this risk.” For the first time, the door is finally closing on one of the most dangerous scientific practices in modern history.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

271,491 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Why are so many young people single these days? Pooja Arora (Pooja Arora): So my last question: I wanted to talk about why people are single nowadays. I would have asked about human nature, but that’s for another day. I sent you an article—how do you think common knowledge fits into that area? Why do you think so many youngsters are single? Me: Yes, it’s a good question. I’m not sure that common knowledge is an important part of the answer, but some of it is that women no longer depend on the economic contributions of men for their livelihood, as was true, say, in my mother’s era, when women were not professionally trained. To pay the rent, they had to be married. Now, not only are women better educated, but the economy has shifted to favor the kinds of skills that women, as opposed to men, have. And just as women have been rising, men have been sinking because of the decline in blue-collar work. There have also been cultural trends that favor women’s temperaments. Men have been distracted by internet gaming, gambling, and pornography and are less desirable as marriage partners. Women with more economic power are more likely to raise their standards for what they want in a man. In my parents’ generation, it was not uncommon for a woman to marry a man with much less education and, sometimes, less intelligence. This was not unusual among my parents’ friends. The men often had a high school degree and then went immediately into a small business—sometimes a family business, sometimes one he started himself. The criterion was: does he make a living? No one cared about education. That has changed, with the result that there are fewer men who satisfy the criteria women now have. This was mentioned in the article you shared with me. Also, with more sexual freedom, people don’t have to get married simply to have sex, which was again true in my parents’ generation. There’s a process that has been in place since the baby boomers and has accelerated among millennials and Generation Z. For other reasons, I think a generation of men may also be incapable of socially skilled interaction, partly because they’ve grown up with screens instead of face-to-face contact. There is some fear that a sexual encounter could result in an accusation of rape or sexual harassment. There is so much pornography that, for an increasing number of men, it serves as an outlet for what in the past would have required actual human contact. There are many factors. The article from The Economist lists them, I think, quite skillfully. It’s not clear how to reverse the trend. Increasing the economic prospects of men and creating an educational system that is less feminized and more encouraging of male achievement might help. Another could be changing norms—and here common knowledge comes in. Among women, is it a sign of low status to be with a man who has less education than you? Men, from time immemorial, have been happy to marry women with less education than themselves. Women don't. That immediately reduces the marriage pool. Maybe that’s a norm that could change. Go back to the norm in my parents’ generation? Pooja Arora: No, let’s not do that. Me: Okay, let's not do that. Pooja Arora: We’re happy to marry men who are not as educated as us. It’s fine. They just have to be nice and kind at this point in time. Me: Well, yes—exactly. Nice and kind.
4:30

Why are so many young people single these days? Pooja Arora (Pooja Arora): So my last question: I wanted to talk about why people are single nowadays. I would have asked about human nature, but that’s for another day. I sent you an article—how do you think common knowledge fits into that area? Why do you think so many youngsters are single? Me: Yes, it’s a good question. I’m not sure that common knowledge is an important part of the answer, but some of it is that women no longer depend on the economic contributions of men for their livelihood, as was true, say, in my mother’s era, when women were not professionally trained. To pay the rent, they had to be married. Now, not only are women better educated, but the economy has shifted to favor the kinds of skills that women, as opposed to men, have. And just as women have been rising, men have been sinking because of the decline in blue-collar work. There have also been cultural trends that favor women’s temperaments. Men have been distracted by internet gaming, gambling, and pornography and are less desirable as marriage partners. Women with more economic power are more likely to raise their standards for what they want in a man. In my parents’ generation, it was not uncommon for a woman to marry a man with much less education and, sometimes, less intelligence. This was not unusual among my parents’ friends. The men often had a high school degree and then went immediately into a small business—sometimes a family business, sometimes one he started himself. The criterion was: does he make a living? No one cared about education. That has changed, with the result that there are fewer men who satisfy the criteria women now have. This was mentioned in the article you shared with me. Also, with more sexual freedom, people don’t have to get married simply to have sex, which was again true in my parents’ generation. There’s a process that has been in place since the baby boomers and has accelerated among millennials and Generation Z. For other reasons, I think a generation of men may also be incapable of socially skilled interaction, partly because they’ve grown up with screens instead of face-to-face contact. There is some fear that a sexual encounter could result in an accusation of rape or sexual harassment. There is so much pornography that, for an increasing number of men, it serves as an outlet for what in the past would have required actual human contact. There are many factors. The article from The Economist lists them, I think, quite skillfully. It’s not clear how to reverse the trend. Increasing the economic prospects of men and creating an educational system that is less feminized and more encouraging of male achievement might help. Another could be changing norms—and here common knowledge comes in. Among women, is it a sign of low status to be with a man who has less education than you? Men, from time immemorial, have been happy to marry women with less education than themselves. Women don't. That immediately reduces the marriage pool. Maybe that’s a norm that could change. Go back to the norm in my parents’ generation? Pooja Arora: No, let’s not do that. Me: Okay, let's not do that. Pooja Arora: We’re happy to marry men who are not as educated as us. It’s fine. They just have to be nice and kind at this point in time. Me: Well, yes—exactly. Nice and kind.

Steven Pinker

89,160 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

I have a suggestion. If you can’t understand per capita, you are disqualified from having a say in society beyond your own life. No voting. Nothing to coerce others. I’m against all coercion, including democratic. But we must start somewhere. If the system lets low competence people impose rules on everyone, the minimum bar is basic numeracy. Exhibit A: the nice woman in this clip insists “85% of white men” are the rapists and groomers, and “it’s not migrants, not minorities, it is white men.” Assuming the figure is correct, she can’t adjust for base rates. Whites are 82% of the UK population, so they will dominate raw counts even at much lower rates. But the reality is in Rotherham, Pakistani men (4% of the local population) accounted for nearly 67% of grooming suspects in official operations. The same organized pattern appeared in Rochdale, Telford, Oxford and multiple other towns. While most individual abusers overall are white, the specific grooming gangs were disproportionately south Asian and muslim. National data is garbage by design. Ethnicity is missing for most cases, but local high quality records show clear overrepresentation in group-based exploitation. Per capita is the filter. If your “analysis” is “trust me bro, it’s the big group,” you don’t get to vote on or influence rules that bind the rest of us. Live your life. Leave the evidence to people who can count.
0:26

I have a suggestion. If you can’t understand per capita, you are disqualified from having a say in society beyond your own life. No voting. Nothing to coerce others. I’m against all coercion, including democratic. But we must start somewhere. If the system lets low competence people impose rules on everyone, the minimum bar is basic numeracy. Exhibit A: the nice woman in this clip insists “85% of white men” are the rapists and groomers, and “it’s not migrants, not minorities, it is white men.” Assuming the figure is correct, she can’t adjust for base rates. Whites are 82% of the UK population, so they will dominate raw counts even at much lower rates. But the reality is in Rotherham, Pakistani men (4% of the local population) accounted for nearly 67% of grooming suspects in official operations. The same organized pattern appeared in Rochdale, Telford, Oxford and multiple other towns. While most individual abusers overall are white, the specific grooming gangs were disproportionately south Asian and muslim. National data is garbage by design. Ethnicity is missing for most cases, but local high quality records show clear overrepresentation in group-based exploitation. Per capita is the filter. If your “analysis” is “trust me bro, it’s the big group,” you don’t get to vote on or influence rules that bind the rest of us. Live your life. Leave the evidence to people who can count.

Rothmus 🏴

27,862 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

No man wants to be rejected. No one likes it. Rejection sucks. But in the past, men’s testosterone was so high that “fear of rejection” “drive to get girls.” T-levels are so low men do not have the MOTIVATION to overcome their fear and take those social risks. So, dating is crashing. People are having less and less sex. The number of singles is exploding and a lot of them are long-term singles who have lost all interest in the opposite sex. There’s not really a good solution for it, because there is only so much you can do to encourage a man who simply does not have the hormonal profile to go after what he wants. It is like trying to encourage a young boy to chase girls. If he doesn’t have the hormones for it, you can’t get him to do it. This appears to be happening in every industrialized society, too. It cannot just be blamed on chemicals, or obesity, or any singular factor. It seems to simply be a product of urban life. More and more men simply do not have the hormones to get off the couch, overcome their fear of rejection, and bring women into their lives.
0:55

No man wants to be rejected. No one likes it. Rejection sucks. But in the past, men’s testosterone was so high that “fear of rejection” “drive to get girls.” T-levels are so low men do not have the MOTIVATION to overcome their fear and take those social risks. So, dating is crashing. People are having less and less sex. The number of singles is exploding and a lot of them are long-term singles who have lost all interest in the opposite sex. There’s not really a good solution for it, because there is only so much you can do to encourage a man who simply does not have the hormonal profile to go after what he wants. It is like trying to encourage a young boy to chase girls. If he doesn’t have the hormones for it, you can’t get him to do it. This appears to be happening in every industrialized society, too. It cannot just be blamed on chemicals, or obesity, or any singular factor. It seems to simply be a product of urban life. More and more men simply do not have the hormones to get off the couch, overcome their fear of rejection, and bring women into their lives.

Girls Chase 🏃‍♀️💨

193,472 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

The truth is that many men are naturally timid and fearful. And some are quietly relieved that approaching women has become stigmatized, because it furnishes them with a morally righteous excuse for what is, at bottom, their own cowardice. In many major U.S. metropolitan areas—New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Miami—women under 30 are now rivaling or exceeding men in earnings. Among this cohort, young women are often doing at least as well as their male peers, if not better. That shift matters, because across cultures women tend to prefer partners who are economically on par with them, and ideally somewhat ahead. When the economic gradient flattens—or reverses—it complicates traditional mating dynamics. Two broader cultural forces intensify this pattern. The first is the rise of dating apps. Many young men misunderstand what women are attracted to because the apps distort the signal. What can you optimize for on an app? Primarily photos, plus a few one-liners, jokes, and brief biographical details. By design, the medium privileges visual presentation and compresses personality into a handful of curated signals. Traits that matter in real-world interaction—confidence, humor in conversation, social fluency, status cues conveyed through behavior—are harder to display. The result is a romantic marketplace that is more stratified and appearance-driven than offline life. The second force is the cultural aftershock of the Me Too movement. Many average men worry that a cold approach could be misread as harassment, intimidation, or coercion. That fear is not entirely imaginary, but it is often overstated in everyday social contexts. In truth, male hesitation long predates Me Too. Men have always been more likely to fear rejection and social embarrassment when initiating romantic contact. What has changed is that some now frame this anxiety in moral language. Me Too, in many cases, functions less as the root cause of male reticence than as a post-hoc rationalization—an external justification for an internal inhibition that was already present.
1:43

The truth is that many men are naturally timid and fearful. And some are quietly relieved that approaching women has become stigmatized, because it furnishes them with a morally righteous excuse for what is, at bottom, their own cowardice. In many major U.S. metropolitan areas—New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Miami—women under 30 are now rivaling or exceeding men in earnings. Among this cohort, young women are often doing at least as well as their male peers, if not better. That shift matters, because across cultures women tend to prefer partners who are economically on par with them, and ideally somewhat ahead. When the economic gradient flattens—or reverses—it complicates traditional mating dynamics. Two broader cultural forces intensify this pattern. The first is the rise of dating apps. Many young men misunderstand what women are attracted to because the apps distort the signal. What can you optimize for on an app? Primarily photos, plus a few one-liners, jokes, and brief biographical details. By design, the medium privileges visual presentation and compresses personality into a handful of curated signals. Traits that matter in real-world interaction—confidence, humor in conversation, social fluency, status cues conveyed through behavior—are harder to display. The result is a romantic marketplace that is more stratified and appearance-driven than offline life. The second force is the cultural aftershock of the Me Too movement. Many average men worry that a cold approach could be misread as harassment, intimidation, or coercion. That fear is not entirely imaginary, but it is often overstated in everyday social contexts. In truth, male hesitation long predates Me Too. Men have always been more likely to fear rejection and social embarrassment when initiating romantic contact. What has changed is that some now frame this anxiety in moral language. Me Too, in many cases, functions less as the root cause of male reticence than as a post-hoc rationalization—an external justification for an internal inhibition that was already present.

Rob Henderson

48,021 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

It’s really important for Americans to realize that this is a bigggg misconception that applies to all immigration, not just China. The people who come over the border, regardless of whether they’re Chinese, Indian, Mexican, Central American, generally are “not their best”. I use quotes because that’s something Trump said, “they don’t send their best”. And he is absolutely correct. There are exceptions, but the people who cross the border, tend to be criminals, people who can’t a get a job, the uneducated, etc. Why? The educated can get jobs in their home countries. Or can immigrate to the US legally (at least used to). If you have a criminal record in your home country, you don’t have one in the USA. If you screwed up and dropped out of high school, you can cut vegetables in the back of a restaurant. Law abiding citizens of foreign countries, no matter what you think about the greatness of America, are not thrilled to break the law and enter a country like this. This immigration for many if not most of these countries is economic. Most of these people are not coming for a better life. They are coming for the currency arbitrage. Or at least that used to be the case. From 2021 to 2024 border crossing immigrants were getting free housing and cash debit cards (look it up) in places like NYC. So that, again, brought another type of person, but, again, it was “not their best”. So, unless you’re in a country that is experiencing civil war, or maybe a total basket case, you mainly go to the US via the illegal border, not for a better life but for currency arbitrage or because you don’t have a better option in your home country which has made it tough for you to get a job for whatever reason. Okay, now let’s talk a bit more about China. For the Chinese that cross the border, life is way better in China. They speak the language. There is less crime. They’re surrounded by their family. They don’t need a car in most places. It’s the same culture and there friends are there. Life is pretty good in China, and because they’re going to work hard in the USA too, it’s probably better in China across every single socioeconomic quartile of society too (unless you have a criminal record or can’t get a job for whatever reason). So when Americans write things like “Chinese are dying to come to America”, there could be a political issue there eg on the wrong side of the communist party, but it’s mainly Americope, something we tell ourselves. It may have been true 10 years ago, but it’s no longer true. America needs to change that. We need to go back to when everyone wanted to come here, not just for money but for a better life. And this is something you should believe even if you don’t want immigration. If this keeps up, if we keep letting life decline, eventually the currency will too, and all these people who actually work quite hard will not only stop coming, but many will leave too. The replies are all going to basically be like (without saying it) “shut up white American. You don’t know” Yeah but I do know because I talk to people who people who look like me don’t talk to. In the below video (before I got good at short form videos) I had just been thrown out of a migrant detention center.
1:41

It’s really important for Americans to realize that this is a bigggg misconception that applies to all immigration, not just China. The people who come over the border, regardless of whether they’re Chinese, Indian, Mexican, Central American, generally are “not their best”. I use quotes because that’s something Trump said, “they don’t send their best”. And he is absolutely correct. There are exceptions, but the people who cross the border, tend to be criminals, people who can’t a get a job, the uneducated, etc. Why? The educated can get jobs in their home countries. Or can immigrate to the US legally (at least used to). If you have a criminal record in your home country, you don’t have one in the USA. If you screwed up and dropped out of high school, you can cut vegetables in the back of a restaurant. Law abiding citizens of foreign countries, no matter what you think about the greatness of America, are not thrilled to break the law and enter a country like this. This immigration for many if not most of these countries is economic. Most of these people are not coming for a better life. They are coming for the currency arbitrage. Or at least that used to be the case. From 2021 to 2024 border crossing immigrants were getting free housing and cash debit cards (look it up) in places like NYC. So that, again, brought another type of person, but, again, it was “not their best”. So, unless you’re in a country that is experiencing civil war, or maybe a total basket case, you mainly go to the US via the illegal border, not for a better life but for currency arbitrage or because you don’t have a better option in your home country which has made it tough for you to get a job for whatever reason. Okay, now let’s talk a bit more about China. For the Chinese that cross the border, life is way better in China. They speak the language. There is less crime. They’re surrounded by their family. They don’t need a car in most places. It’s the same culture and there friends are there. Life is pretty good in China, and because they’re going to work hard in the USA too, it’s probably better in China across every single socioeconomic quartile of society too (unless you have a criminal record or can’t get a job for whatever reason). So when Americans write things like “Chinese are dying to come to America”, there could be a political issue there eg on the wrong side of the communist party, but it’s mainly Americope, something we tell ourselves. It may have been true 10 years ago, but it’s no longer true. America needs to change that. We need to go back to when everyone wanted to come here, not just for money but for a better life. And this is something you should believe even if you don’t want immigration. If this keeps up, if we keep letting life decline, eventually the currency will too, and all these people who actually work quite hard will not only stop coming, but many will leave too. The replies are all going to basically be like (without saying it) “shut up white American. You don’t know” Yeah but I do know because I talk to people who people who look like me don’t talk to. In the below video (before I got good at short form videos) I had just been thrown out of a migrant detention center.

molson 🧠⚙️

42,648 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

There are no jobs natives won’t do, only wages they won’t accept. The migrant behind the camera says “they say we’re taking their jobs… Aussie lads don’t want to work” The farmer replies “..young Aussies just wanna sleep in, go to the beach and drink beer… they don’t want to do this” From the migrant’s perspective, even a low Australian wage is 100x what a low wage is where he’s from, plus working here leads to permanent residency which leads to Medicare and other social supports. So it’s hardly a trudge for the migrant to take the role, seeing as though comparatively to staying home this endeavour will make him very wealthy. And the farmer must surely know that when pay is high enough to compensate for hours, conditions, and opportunity cost, an Australian will take the job. What are often described as “labour shortages” or “they don’t want to do this” are usually a reflection of employers’ preference for keeping wages low rather than a true lack of available workers, especially for lower skill requirement jobs. By increasing the supply of labour, mass immigration places downward pressure on wages and reduces workers’ bargaining power, allowing firms to fill roles without raising pay. This farmer could’ve got Aussies to do it, but he’d have to pay them an Aussie wage. He didn’t want to admit that, so he just said Australians are lazy, and the migrant worker gleefully agrees.
0:34

There are no jobs natives won’t do, only wages they won’t accept. The migrant behind the camera says “they say we’re taking their jobs… Aussie lads don’t want to work” The farmer replies “..young Aussies just wanna sleep in, go to the beach and drink beer… they don’t want to do this” From the migrant’s perspective, even a low Australian wage is 100x what a low wage is where he’s from, plus working here leads to permanent residency which leads to Medicare and other social supports. So it’s hardly a trudge for the migrant to take the role, seeing as though comparatively to staying home this endeavour will make him very wealthy. And the farmer must surely know that when pay is high enough to compensate for hours, conditions, and opportunity cost, an Australian will take the job. What are often described as “labour shortages” or “they don’t want to do this” are usually a reflection of employers’ preference for keeping wages low rather than a true lack of available workers, especially for lower skill requirement jobs. By increasing the supply of labour, mass immigration places downward pressure on wages and reduces workers’ bargaining power, allowing firms to fill roles without raising pay. This farmer could’ve got Aussies to do it, but he’d have to pay them an Aussie wage. He didn’t want to admit that, so he just said Australians are lazy, and the migrant worker gleefully agrees.

auspill

184,463 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Todd Rose graduated from high school, sort of, with a GPA of 0.9. Somehow, he went out to become a professor at Harvard, and today, he runs the most consequential think tank in America. Populace specializes in private opinion polling, and their work today is more important than ever. Why? Because the extent to which we’re being manipulated online is worse than you think. Much, much worse. Hundreds of millions of bots, (literally) have infected every social platform, and led to a long list of “collective illusions” that have reinforced to a “manufactured consensus” around myriad issues that are tearing us apart. In short, we’ve been turned against one another, by an enemy that’s determined to see our county collapse from the inside out. According to Todd, the most serious, manufactured consensuses plaguing Americans revolve around societal values, political polarization, and interpersonal trust. For instance, Americans widely believe that society fundamentally prioritizes wealth, status, luxury, and fame. But in private polling, individual Americans overwhelmingly rank personal fulfillment, being a good parent, character, and doing work with a positive impact at the top of their personal values. Because people chase what they think others value, they pursue hollow benchmarks of fame and money, inadvertently teaching their children to do the same. Likewise, the overwhelming public consensus suggests that Americans are fiercely divided over cultural, institutional, and political issues. But data from Populace (and I mean, LOTS of data) reveals that roughly 90% of Americans actually agree on the vast majority of controversial issues. Our brains use a deeply flawed shortcut that assumes the loudest voices are the majority. Because a tiny fraction of extreme users dominates most social media platforms, and because foreign bot armies, (mostly from China,) have weaponized these divides to an unprecedented level, we are awash in false consensuses. Which leads us to self-silence out of fear. According to Todd, the largest collective illusion in society today concerns mutual trustworthiness. In truth, the vast majority of Americans privately believe that they are trustworthy and value integrity. However, they simultaneously believe that most other Americans are dishonest and do not value trust at all. This manufactured mismatch causes people to treat their neighbors with a level of suspicion that oftentimes, isn’t warranted. It also leads people to fall in line with all sorts agendas that are not in fact, nearly as popular as they assume them to be. Defund the Police, for instance, or Black Lives Matter, (no kidding), or the current panic around data centers, or the resistance to nuclear power, or much of the public pressure around cancel culture, DEI, ESG, and lots of other issues that never really had the support that people thought. Bottom line, school boards, corporations, and politicians implement policies that almost nobody actually wants, driven entirely by the fear of opposing a false majority that doesn’t really exist. For me, Todd’s research does two things. It encourages tolerance and offers hope, because it proves we’re not really as divided as we seem. But it also encourages brutal honesty, even if it means getting thrown out of your own club. I’d be curious to know what it inspires in you. Our whole conversation is here: A short clip is below. His latest initiative, Be The People, is also worth a look.
1:30

Todd Rose graduated from high school, sort of, with a GPA of 0.9. Somehow, he went out to become a professor at Harvard, and today, he runs the most consequential think tank in America. Populace specializes in private opinion polling, and their work today is more important than ever. Why? Because the extent to which we’re being manipulated online is worse than you think. Much, much worse. Hundreds of millions of bots, (literally) have infected every social platform, and led to a long list of “collective illusions” that have reinforced to a “manufactured consensus” around myriad issues that are tearing us apart. In short, we’ve been turned against one another, by an enemy that’s determined to see our county collapse from the inside out. According to Todd, the most serious, manufactured consensuses plaguing Americans revolve around societal values, political polarization, and interpersonal trust. For instance, Americans widely believe that society fundamentally prioritizes wealth, status, luxury, and fame. But in private polling, individual Americans overwhelmingly rank personal fulfillment, being a good parent, character, and doing work with a positive impact at the top of their personal values. Because people chase what they think others value, they pursue hollow benchmarks of fame and money, inadvertently teaching their children to do the same. Likewise, the overwhelming public consensus suggests that Americans are fiercely divided over cultural, institutional, and political issues. But data from Populace (and I mean, LOTS of data) reveals that roughly 90% of Americans actually agree on the vast majority of controversial issues. Our brains use a deeply flawed shortcut that assumes the loudest voices are the majority. Because a tiny fraction of extreme users dominates most social media platforms, and because foreign bot armies, (mostly from China,) have weaponized these divides to an unprecedented level, we are awash in false consensuses. Which leads us to self-silence out of fear. According to Todd, the largest collective illusion in society today concerns mutual trustworthiness. In truth, the vast majority of Americans privately believe that they are trustworthy and value integrity. However, they simultaneously believe that most other Americans are dishonest and do not value trust at all. This manufactured mismatch causes people to treat their neighbors with a level of suspicion that oftentimes, isn’t warranted. It also leads people to fall in line with all sorts agendas that are not in fact, nearly as popular as they assume them to be. Defund the Police, for instance, or Black Lives Matter, (no kidding), or the current panic around data centers, or the resistance to nuclear power, or much of the public pressure around cancel culture, DEI, ESG, and lots of other issues that never really had the support that people thought. Bottom line, school boards, corporations, and politicians implement policies that almost nobody actually wants, driven entirely by the fear of opposing a false majority that doesn’t really exist. For me, Todd’s research does two things. It encourages tolerance and offers hope, because it proves we’re not really as divided as we seem. But it also encourages brutal honesty, even if it means getting thrown out of your own club. I’d be curious to know what it inspires in you. Our whole conversation is here: A short clip is below. His latest initiative, Be The People, is also worth a look.

The Real Mike Rowe

90,678 Aufrufe • vor 4 Tagen

Harvard professor Arthur C. Brooks shares a brutally simple, biology-backed hack to reignite (or protect) a marriage: Hop back on the oxytocin express. The two non-negotiable rules he says can save most relationships: 1. Every time you're together → touch (hand on back, knee bump, hug—constant casual contact). 2. Every time you're talking → direct eye contact (no phone glances, no side-eye—lock in). Why it works: These trigger oxytocin release (the "bonding hormone"), countering the drift that happens when couples stop these micro-connections. Passion fades, routines take over—but biology stays on your side if you keep feeding it. He admits there’s more (don’t be a jerk, share chores, stay faithful), but these two habits alone put the neurochemistry in your favor instead of letting disconnection win. It's refreshingly low-effort, high-impact science for long-term love—not fireworks, just consistent sparks. Couples who've tried this: Does intentional touch + eye contact actually shift the vibe for you? Or what's one small habit that's kept your connection alive through the years?
0:46

Harvard professor Arthur C. Brooks shares a brutally simple, biology-backed hack to reignite (or protect) a marriage: Hop back on the oxytocin express. The two non-negotiable rules he says can save most relationships: 1. Every time you're together → touch (hand on back, knee bump, hug—constant casual contact). 2. Every time you're talking → direct eye contact (no phone glances, no side-eye—lock in). Why it works: These trigger oxytocin release (the "bonding hormone"), countering the drift that happens when couples stop these micro-connections. Passion fades, routines take over—but biology stays on your side if you keep feeding it. He admits there’s more (don’t be a jerk, share chores, stay faithful), but these two habits alone put the neurochemistry in your favor instead of letting disconnection win. It's refreshingly low-effort, high-impact science for long-term love—not fireworks, just consistent sparks. Couples who've tried this: Does intentional touch + eye contact actually shift the vibe for you? Or what's one small habit that's kept your connection alive through the years?

Camus

178,459 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

🚨Brandi Kruse denies opposing gay marriage in confrontation with protester Brandi Kruse told a group of protesters at the Snohomish County Republican Party that she has never opposed gay marriage and accused her critics of spreading lies to frighten people. She remained steadfast of her support for initiative IL26-638, declaring that men are not women and should not compete in women’s sports. “I don’t oppose gay marriage. I’ve never opposed gay marriage,” Kruse said during Saturday's exchange in the City of Snohomish. “If you took me, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton and put us in a room, only one of us in that room will have [n]ever opposed gay marriage. I have no interest in changing the laws on gay marriage.” Kruse added that the false claim that she opposes same-sex marriage was first made by "No Hate Washington state" the very group of which the signs by the protesters read. “You guys need to stop spreading lies and stop supporting organizations that lie to make people scared,” she said. “That’s all they do. They lie to make people scared. It’s wrong. … If you believe in what you’re saying, use the truth. Just debate based on the truth, and we won’t have any issues.” Both President Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton publicly opposed same-sex marriage for years before reversing course. Obama said during his 2004 Senate race and 2008 presidential campaign that marriage is “between a man and a woman.” He announced his support for gay marriage in May 2012, saying his views had evolved. Clinton supported the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act as first lady and described marriage in 2004 as “a sacred bond between a man and a woman.” She publicly backed same-sex marriage in a March 2013 video. President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law on Sept. 21, 1996. Between 2013 and 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, stating that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Many (but not majority) gay and lesbian activists and intellectuals opposed same-sex marriage in the 1970s through the early 2000s, viewing it as a conservative, assimilationist "heteronormative" goal that clashed with the broader aims of gay liberation. Also, more many members of the gay community, marriage was seen as a middle-class, white, privileged issue during an AIDS crisis many LGBT people argued were of higher priority. Other parts of gay culture valued sexual openness and non-traditional relationships arguing that legal marriage would pressure conformity to monogamy and nuclear-family heteronormative ideals, marginalizing polyamorous, non-monogamous, or other consenting queer arrangements. However, opponents made a compelling argument tying the need for marriage equality to health insurance benefits, inheritance benefits, and tax benefits. Also, during the AIDS crisis, many LGBT partners were refused to be alongside their partners in hospitals--a privilege of being married.
1:08

🚨Brandi Kruse denies opposing gay marriage in confrontation with protester Brandi Kruse told a group of protesters at the Snohomish County Republican Party that she has never opposed gay marriage and accused her critics of spreading lies to frighten people. She remained steadfast of her support for initiative IL26-638, declaring that men are not women and should not compete in women’s sports. “I don’t oppose gay marriage. I’ve never opposed gay marriage,” Kruse said during Saturday's exchange in the City of Snohomish. “If you took me, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton and put us in a room, only one of us in that room will have [n]ever opposed gay marriage. I have no interest in changing the laws on gay marriage.” Kruse added that the false claim that she opposes same-sex marriage was first made by "No Hate Washington state" the very group of which the signs by the protesters read. “You guys need to stop spreading lies and stop supporting organizations that lie to make people scared,” she said. “That’s all they do. They lie to make people scared. It’s wrong. … If you believe in what you’re saying, use the truth. Just debate based on the truth, and we won’t have any issues.” Both President Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton publicly opposed same-sex marriage for years before reversing course. Obama said during his 2004 Senate race and 2008 presidential campaign that marriage is “between a man and a woman.” He announced his support for gay marriage in May 2012, saying his views had evolved. Clinton supported the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act as first lady and described marriage in 2004 as “a sacred bond between a man and a woman.” She publicly backed same-sex marriage in a March 2013 video. President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law on Sept. 21, 1996. Between 2013 and 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, stating that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Many (but not majority) gay and lesbian activists and intellectuals opposed same-sex marriage in the 1970s through the early 2000s, viewing it as a conservative, assimilationist "heteronormative" goal that clashed with the broader aims of gay liberation. Also, more many members of the gay community, marriage was seen as a middle-class, white, privileged issue during an AIDS crisis many LGBT people argued were of higher priority. Other parts of gay culture valued sexual openness and non-traditional relationships arguing that legal marriage would pressure conformity to monogamy and nuclear-family heteronormative ideals, marginalizing polyamorous, non-monogamous, or other consenting queer arrangements. However, opponents made a compelling argument tying the need for marriage equality to health insurance benefits, inheritance benefits, and tax benefits. Also, during the AIDS crisis, many LGBT partners were refused to be alongside their partners in hospitals--a privilege of being married.

Lynnwood Times

18,657 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

If your highest level of education is a high school diploma, you have only about a 9 percent chance of marrying someone with a college degree. If you have a college degree yourself, that probability rises to roughly 65 percent — and those numbers are from 2005, so they are likely even higher now. This is known as assortative mating: people tend to choose partners similar to themselves in education, politics, personality, and more. What young people rarely hear is that college isn’t just for studying or preparing for a job. It’s a rare environment filled with people your age, with similar interests and comparable academic backgrounds — a situation you may never experience again. Many graduates tell me they are surprised by how quickly their dating pool shrinks once they start working. Most colleagues are older, have families, or aren’t plausible partners. So toward the end of the piece, I argue that students should view college not only as a path to credentials, but also as one of the best places to meet a long-term partner.
1:10

If your highest level of education is a high school diploma, you have only about a 9 percent chance of marrying someone with a college degree. If you have a college degree yourself, that probability rises to roughly 65 percent — and those numbers are from 2005, so they are likely even higher now. This is known as assortative mating: people tend to choose partners similar to themselves in education, politics, personality, and more. What young people rarely hear is that college isn’t just for studying or preparing for a job. It’s a rare environment filled with people your age, with similar interests and comparable academic backgrounds — a situation you may never experience again. Many graduates tell me they are surprised by how quickly their dating pool shrinks once they start working. Most colleagues are older, have families, or aren’t plausible partners. So toward the end of the piece, I argue that students should view college not only as a path to credentials, but also as one of the best places to meet a long-term partner.

Rob Henderson

163,929 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

TOPIC #106: What Is a “Free Market”? Clarifying the Misconceptions in the Pi Ecosystem I’ve noticed a narrative spreading within parts of the Pi Network community: the idea that Pi’s value in Dapps or ecosystem should fluctuate freely with the exchange market, and that this is what defines a “free market.” They use this "free market" to deny GCV. Let me be clear: this misconception is not only misleading, but it threatens the foundation of the Pi ecosystem we’ve worked so hard to build. It’s time to clarify the truth, not only for our pioneers today but for the economic legacy we’re building for generations to come. What Is a Free Market Really? According to Britannica, a free market is an economic system characterized by minimal government intervention, where prices are determined by the interplay of supply and demand. But even Britannica admits: > “The free market represents a benchmark that does not actually exist… Modern societies only approach this ideal along a spectrum.” — value in relation to In short, a 100% free market is a myth. Every successful economy has rules and frameworks to maintain stability. Without these, markets descend into chaos, not freedom. In Pi Network, “free market” cannot mean price anarchy. And “decentralization” does not mean “do whatever you want.” Let’s break this down: What Pi Network Decentralization Actually Means Pi Network’s decentralization is built on the Stellar Consensus Protocol (SCP) and reflects a healthy distribution of power and particip,ation — not a lack of structure. Key principles of Pi's decentralization: No Single Point of Control No central entity dominates the network. User Participation Pioneers validate transactions and contribute to governance. Resilience The network can survive attacks or failures due to its distributed nature. Censorship Resistance It’s harder for one party to silence or manipulate the system. None of this means that Pi's value can operate in a free market. Any currency must have a fixed value; this is a fundamental concept in economics. Have you ever seen the values of currencies like the USD, CAD, or RMB fluctuate freely based on individual opinions? On the contrary, a fixed value emphasizes the need to protect the economy we are building together. The community-driven GCV illustrates that the value of Pi should derive from its pioneers and merchants, demonstrating the spirit of decentralization. It should not depend on PCT, any government, large corporations, or investors. Furthermore, this structure ensures that no entity can shut down the Pi Network once it becomes fully decentralized, which I believe will occur when it is fully operational and mature. The Danger of Currency Risk: Why Price or Value Chaos Is Destructive In global finance, currency risk refers to the potential loss of value resulting from unstable exchange rates. As the Corporate Finance Institute explains: > “Currency risk refers to the exposure faced by investors or companies operating across different countries due to changes in the value of one currency versus another.” Let’s apply this to Pi. Imagine a Pi Network Dapp marketplace mall merchant collecting a large amount of 10,000 Pi after the Open Mainnet (OM). Customers pay with Pi, but at a value $1. The merchants must know the Pi value because they need to calculate the FIAT cost. Then, when the merchant tries to use that Pi to buy a car, only to be told the accepted rate is $0.1 for one Pi, the merchant total Then, when the merchant tries to use that Pi to buy a car, only to be told the accepted rate is $0.1 for one Pi, the merchant has a total of 10,000 Pi, which is only $1,000, but the cost of investing in products is $9,000 (Sales $10,000 with $1,000 as profit). That’s a massive loss for the merchant $8,000. If you were the merchant, would you feel it was unfair? Will you still support "free market"? Now, imagine the exchange market drops Pi to $0.40. You will lose $5,000. Would you still want to run your business in Pi? Likely not. And neither would other developers or merchants. Unstable value leads to fear. Fear leads to exit. Exit leads to collapse. This is why we must support Global Consensus Value (GCV) — to ensure a unified, trusted economy. Why GCV Exists — and Why $314,159 Matters GCV is not a fantasy. It’s an economic strategy. It functions much like the gold standard once did: England pioneered it. The U.S. adopted it under the Bretton Woods system, fixing the dollar to gold at $35/oz. This standard enabled global trade and trust until 1971. If the free market can work, why did the US adopt the Bretton Woods system at that time to fix the USD's rate with gold? Because if they didn't promise a fixed rate, no country would give its gold to the US. The gold is trust! Here in Pi Network, GCV is a trust! Pi’s GCV of $314,159 per Pi is not random. It’s based on utility, scarcity, and long-term vision. It reflects Pi’s potential as a foundational currency for a real digital economy. Misusing “Free Market” Is Cheating to Ignorant Pioneers Let’s be blunt. Some individuals abuse the term “free market” to justify undervaluing Pi for personal short-term gain, hoarding more Pi, and undermining long-term stability. However, a true economy isn’t built on confusion. Consider the Cayman Islands — a country with no income tax — yet it only accepts USD for settlement. Why? Because multiple currencies lead to confusion, which undermines investor trust. If Pi has no unified value, we will lose merchants, DApps, developers, and the entire vision, except that they just come to hoard Pi, not for the long-term economy, or they really don't understand the economy. The Way Forward: Unity, Strategy, and Patience Here’s how we build the future together for the following strategies before fully OM Strategy #1: Offline Partial GCV Adoption -Fix Pi Value at GCV in Ecosystem for OM GCV Ambassadors around the world are guiding merchants to accept partial GCV, benefiting both sides: Pioneers buy low-cost goods. Merchants enjoy more sales and earn a small profit in FIAT. The ecosystem produces GCV transaction data, creating the real basis for Pi’s future fixed value at OM. Strategy # 2: Online DApps with Utility — at Any Value to Increase Exchange Pi price for OM We support ALL DApps — regardless of the Pi value they use ($1, $100, or floating): As long as the pioneers and merchants are satisfied. As long as real usage is created. As long as the utility grows. As long as more good-quality Dapps are created It will protect and attract more merchants and developers, driving up Pi demand while reducing supply and organically pushing Pi’s market price toward GCV. Strategy #3: Build up GCV Infrastructure The Head of GCV Ambassador builds up your countrywide GCV infrastructure in all provinces, cities, counties, and villages. Strategy #4: Education and Protection of Pi Network Mission and GCV GCV Education Ambassadors: Educate pioneers to HOLD Pi and support GCV usage. GCV Army: Defend GCV and Pi Network on social media, building public trust and global participation. Online Non-GCV pioneers and merchants, or DApp owners, can still enjoy DApps, even if they use low Pi values. They are reducing selling pressure and strengthening the Pi economy. It is said that a person's wealth is closely linked to their knowledge, cognitive abilities, and moral character. We respect and appreciate all DApp owners, merchants, service providers, and pioneers, regardless of whether they share our beliefs in GCV. We are currently in a chaotic period. Before fully transitioning to OM, pioneers, merchants, and DApps will undergo a screening process based on their own judgment and understanding. Those who strongly believe in GCV will become champions and accumulate substantial wealth. Conversely, those who do not believe in GCV may risk losing their wealth by abandoning Pi. This is because if you have a strong belief, you are more likely to hold onto your Pi. If you oppose GCV, it is often due to a lack of long-term confidence in Pi or a current need to accumulate more Pi. It's important to recognize that once you have accumulated enough Pi, you will want to support GCV because no one wishes to hold onto a worthless coin. This approach is fair to everyone. GCV is akin to Noah's Ark, carrying those who have a strong belief in GCV to safety on the mountains of Ararat. A fixed GCV: Attracts real investors Encourages developers and merchants Reduces currency risk Builds global trust and reputation Let’s stop spreading confusion. Let’s stop begging the old system. We are builders. We are visionaries. We are the future. Final Words Together, we build — not beg. Together, we lead, not mislead. Together, we protect Pi for a future that lasts not for years, but centuries. Doris Yin 🪷🪷🪷 July 20th, 2025
1:40

TOPIC #106: What Is a “Free Market”? Clarifying the Misconceptions in the Pi Ecosystem I’ve noticed a narrative spreading within parts of the Pi Network community: the idea that Pi’s value in Dapps or ecosystem should fluctuate freely with the exchange market, and that this is what defines a “free market.” They use this "free market" to deny GCV. Let me be clear: this misconception is not only misleading, but it threatens the foundation of the Pi ecosystem we’ve worked so hard to build. It’s time to clarify the truth, not only for our pioneers today but for the economic legacy we’re building for generations to come. What Is a Free Market Really? According to Britannica, a free market is an economic system characterized by minimal government intervention, where prices are determined by the interplay of supply and demand. But even Britannica admits: > “The free market represents a benchmark that does not actually exist… Modern societies only approach this ideal along a spectrum.” — value in relation to In short, a 100% free market is a myth. Every successful economy has rules and frameworks to maintain stability. Without these, markets descend into chaos, not freedom. In Pi Network, “free market” cannot mean price anarchy. And “decentralization” does not mean “do whatever you want.” Let’s break this down: What Pi Network Decentralization Actually Means Pi Network’s decentralization is built on the Stellar Consensus Protocol (SCP) and reflects a healthy distribution of power and particip,ation — not a lack of structure. Key principles of Pi's decentralization: No Single Point of Control No central entity dominates the network. User Participation Pioneers validate transactions and contribute to governance. Resilience The network can survive attacks or failures due to its distributed nature. Censorship Resistance It’s harder for one party to silence or manipulate the system. None of this means that Pi's value can operate in a free market. Any currency must have a fixed value; this is a fundamental concept in economics. Have you ever seen the values of currencies like the USD, CAD, or RMB fluctuate freely based on individual opinions? On the contrary, a fixed value emphasizes the need to protect the economy we are building together. The community-driven GCV illustrates that the value of Pi should derive from its pioneers and merchants, demonstrating the spirit of decentralization. It should not depend on PCT, any government, large corporations, or investors. Furthermore, this structure ensures that no entity can shut down the Pi Network once it becomes fully decentralized, which I believe will occur when it is fully operational and mature. The Danger of Currency Risk: Why Price or Value Chaos Is Destructive In global finance, currency risk refers to the potential loss of value resulting from unstable exchange rates. As the Corporate Finance Institute explains: > “Currency risk refers to the exposure faced by investors or companies operating across different countries due to changes in the value of one currency versus another.” Let’s apply this to Pi. Imagine a Pi Network Dapp marketplace mall merchant collecting a large amount of 10,000 Pi after the Open Mainnet (OM). Customers pay with Pi, but at a value $1. The merchants must know the Pi value because they need to calculate the FIAT cost. Then, when the merchant tries to use that Pi to buy a car, only to be told the accepted rate is $0.1 for one Pi, the merchant total Then, when the merchant tries to use that Pi to buy a car, only to be told the accepted rate is $0.1 for one Pi, the merchant has a total of 10,000 Pi, which is only $1,000, but the cost of investing in products is $9,000 (Sales $10,000 with $1,000 as profit). That’s a massive loss for the merchant $8,000. If you were the merchant, would you feel it was unfair? Will you still support "free market"? Now, imagine the exchange market drops Pi to $0.40. You will lose $5,000. Would you still want to run your business in Pi? Likely not. And neither would other developers or merchants. Unstable value leads to fear. Fear leads to exit. Exit leads to collapse. This is why we must support Global Consensus Value (GCV) — to ensure a unified, trusted economy. Why GCV Exists — and Why $314,159 Matters GCV is not a fantasy. It’s an economic strategy. It functions much like the gold standard once did: England pioneered it. The U.S. adopted it under the Bretton Woods system, fixing the dollar to gold at $35/oz. This standard enabled global trade and trust until 1971. If the free market can work, why did the US adopt the Bretton Woods system at that time to fix the USD's rate with gold? Because if they didn't promise a fixed rate, no country would give its gold to the US. The gold is trust! Here in Pi Network, GCV is a trust! Pi’s GCV of $314,159 per Pi is not random. It’s based on utility, scarcity, and long-term vision. It reflects Pi’s potential as a foundational currency for a real digital economy. Misusing “Free Market” Is Cheating to Ignorant Pioneers Let’s be blunt. Some individuals abuse the term “free market” to justify undervaluing Pi for personal short-term gain, hoarding more Pi, and undermining long-term stability. However, a true economy isn’t built on confusion. Consider the Cayman Islands — a country with no income tax — yet it only accepts USD for settlement. Why? Because multiple currencies lead to confusion, which undermines investor trust. If Pi has no unified value, we will lose merchants, DApps, developers, and the entire vision, except that they just come to hoard Pi, not for the long-term economy, or they really don't understand the economy. The Way Forward: Unity, Strategy, and Patience Here’s how we build the future together for the following strategies before fully OM Strategy #1: Offline Partial GCV Adoption -Fix Pi Value at GCV in Ecosystem for OM GCV Ambassadors around the world are guiding merchants to accept partial GCV, benefiting both sides: Pioneers buy low-cost goods. Merchants enjoy more sales and earn a small profit in FIAT. The ecosystem produces GCV transaction data, creating the real basis for Pi’s future fixed value at OM. Strategy # 2: Online DApps with Utility — at Any Value to Increase Exchange Pi price for OM We support ALL DApps — regardless of the Pi value they use ($1, $100, or floating): As long as the pioneers and merchants are satisfied. As long as real usage is created. As long as the utility grows. As long as more good-quality Dapps are created It will protect and attract more merchants and developers, driving up Pi demand while reducing supply and organically pushing Pi’s market price toward GCV. Strategy #3: Build up GCV Infrastructure The Head of GCV Ambassador builds up your countrywide GCV infrastructure in all provinces, cities, counties, and villages. Strategy #4: Education and Protection of Pi Network Mission and GCV GCV Education Ambassadors: Educate pioneers to HOLD Pi and support GCV usage. GCV Army: Defend GCV and Pi Network on social media, building public trust and global participation. Online Non-GCV pioneers and merchants, or DApp owners, can still enjoy DApps, even if they use low Pi values. They are reducing selling pressure and strengthening the Pi economy. It is said that a person's wealth is closely linked to their knowledge, cognitive abilities, and moral character. We respect and appreciate all DApp owners, merchants, service providers, and pioneers, regardless of whether they share our beliefs in GCV. We are currently in a chaotic period. Before fully transitioning to OM, pioneers, merchants, and DApps will undergo a screening process based on their own judgment and understanding. Those who strongly believe in GCV will become champions and accumulate substantial wealth. Conversely, those who do not believe in GCV may risk losing their wealth by abandoning Pi. This is because if you have a strong belief, you are more likely to hold onto your Pi. If you oppose GCV, it is often due to a lack of long-term confidence in Pi or a current need to accumulate more Pi. It's important to recognize that once you have accumulated enough Pi, you will want to support GCV because no one wishes to hold onto a worthless coin. This approach is fair to everyone. GCV is akin to Noah's Ark, carrying those who have a strong belief in GCV to safety on the mountains of Ararat. A fixed GCV: Attracts real investors Encourages developers and merchants Reduces currency risk Builds global trust and reputation Let’s stop spreading confusion. Let’s stop begging the old system. We are builders. We are visionaries. We are the future. Final Words Together, we build — not beg. Together, we lead, not mislead. Together, we protect Pi for a future that lasts not for years, but centuries. Doris Yin 🪷🪷🪷 July 20th, 2025

Doris Yin 东方紫莲🪷

30,299 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr