papasquat's recent activity
-
Comment on Owners mourn spoiled food after firmware update bricks Samsung smart fridges in ~tech
-
Comment on Owners mourn spoiled food after firmware update bricks Samsung smart fridges in ~tech
papasquat Link ParentYeah, I mean, the idea is fucking stupid, but it kinda makes sense I GUESS? If you really want a calendar on your fridge? What's extremely stupid is that the "smart" part of the fridge (I'm...Yeah, I mean, the idea is fucking stupid, but it kinda makes sense I GUESS? If you really want a calendar on your fridge?
What's extremely stupid is that the "smart" part of the fridge (I'm assuming it's basically a tablet just internally mounted into the fridge) has any sort of integration whatsoever with the refrigeration loop. What could be the possible purpose of that? What benefit would there be?
-
Comment on Paramount settles with California, other states over Warner Bros merger in ~movies
papasquat Link ParentWhat's even the point of regulatory bodies if they don't have more power than the organizations they're supposed to be regulating? It's crazy that one private citizen can just threaten the biggest...What's even the point of regulatory bodies if they don't have more power than the organizations they're supposed to be regulating? It's crazy that one private citizen can just threaten the biggest state government in the US into doing his bidding.
-
Comment on Googlebook revealed and ready for pre-order in ~tech
papasquat Link ParentIn every sci fi movie ever, when someone has something on their phone/terminal/data slate/padd and they want to show other people in the room, or work on it more intently, then pull out their...In every sci fi movie ever, when someone has something on their phone/terminal/data slate/padd and they want to show other people in the room, or work on it more intently, then pull out their handheld device, and then make a fling gesture with their finger towards the receiving device, where it instantly goes up on the big screen/computer.
It always seems so intuitive and easy, and it's absolutely shocking to me that it's 2026, we've had smart phones with intuitive touch based interfaces for like 20 years now, and I still can't do that.
Chromecast was probably the closest thing, but the experience sucks, it's not an open standard, and it's not nearly as intuitive as just pointing at a screen and flinging.
Just invent the "fling to big screen" protocol already. It can't be as hard as flying cars.
-
Comment on Googlebook revealed and ready for pre-order in ~tech
papasquat Link ParentI mean, I have done it. I don't regularly though. The idea of even starting something I'd consider a "task" on a phone fills me with dread. Phones are for communicating and staring blankly at...I mean, I have done it. I don't regularly though. The idea of even starting something I'd consider a "task" on a phone fills me with dread. Phones are for communicating and staring blankly at while they broadcast slop at you. Not for doing actual productive things.
-
Comment on Do you think you're special? in ~talk
papasquat LinkYeah. But also no. I think I have a unique set of characteristics in specific that no one on earth has, has ever had, or ever will have. I think everyone else does too though. Also, I think I'm...Yeah. But also no.
I think I have a unique set of characteristics in specific that no one on earth has, has ever had, or ever will have. I think everyone else does too though.Also, I think I'm more similar to everyone else than I am different. I don't think any of the thoughts I have are particularly unique, and my life is very similar to tons of other people around my age, gender, nationality and so on. It's very unlikely that anyone will think about me in even a fleeting way in 150 years. Way less if I end up not having any descendants.
I don't think that's a bad thing though. I'm not burdened by fretting about things like legacy or the afterlife or anything like that.
I just kinda focus on enjoying my life, making things a little better for the people around me, and that's about it.
I think a lot of the problems we have are caused by too many people thinking they're special, as in, wholely unique and more deserving of things than others, then people thinking they're not, as in, the same as everyone else and completely unimportant to anyone.
Both are problems though.
-
Comment on An insight into looksmaxxxing/blackpill "ideology" in ~life
papasquat Link ParentI'm not talking about number of median relationships, distribution of sexual partners or anything like that. I'm talking about the common incel claim which is so often repeated by those...I'm not talking about number of median relationships, distribution of sexual partners or anything like that. I'm talking about the common incel claim which is so often repeated by those communities that it's become axiomatic, that says: it's easier to find love (as in, a long term committed relationship) as a woman, than it is as a man.
Yeah, I'm sure the number of lifetime relationships is not evenly distributed amongst men. Maybe the distribution is less inequal amongst woman, I don't know. It doesn't matter for the sake of this argument though. In the theoretical situation of a serial dating hot guy that women fawn over dating lots of average looking women who are now single, the women are not in a desirable situation. They got dumped (or dumped the guy who had no interest in settling down long term), are now single, and aren't in a committed relationship. That's not the situation that incels are thinking of when they're being envious of how "easy women have it".
The stated end goal is to have a loving, committed relationship. I basically never seen incels complain that they're not able to have long strings of failed relationships. I think a lot of them actually do desire to have lots of casual sex. I'm not addressing that desire, because I think a lot of them know that's an unreasonable public complaint to make, so the posts they make are things like "I just want a looksmatched girl who loves me and I can start a family with, is that so much to ask???". That's the demand I'm addressing, and the arguments around it that I'm attacking.
We're talking about long term, committed relationships, so looking at who is currently in a long term, committed relationship is comparing apples to apples.
-
Comment on An insight into looksmaxxxing/blackpill "ideology" in ~life
papasquat Link ParentYeah, but the total population of men versus women in a relationship remains the same. If a 20 something woman is with a 30 something man, a 30 something woman is with a 40 something man, and so...Yeah, but the total population of men versus women in a relationship remains the same. If a 20 something woman is with a 30 something man, a 30 something woman is with a 40 something man, and so on and so on, eventually you end up with a 20 something single man and a 80 something single woman, because her theoretical partner is no longer alive.
It still doesn't give you a stat like 60% of men being single and 30% of women being single. You end up with the same amount of people in a relationship from both genders.
-
Comment on An insight into looksmaxxxing/blackpill "ideology" in ~life
papasquat Link ParentYup, that's what I'd expect explains the vast majority of the imbalance. Women thinking they're in a relationship, men assuming they're not. Whether someone thinks/reports they're in a...Yup, that's what I'd expect explains the vast majority of the imbalance. Women thinking they're in a relationship, men assuming they're not. Whether someone thinks/reports they're in a relationship is different than someone actually being in one.
-
Comment on An insight into looksmaxxxing/blackpill "ideology" in ~life
papasquat Link ParentWrong. Your link shows that 63% of men 18-29 vs 34% of women sampled, say they're single. How is this the case? Sampling methodology, unreliability of self reporting on virtually anything, or a...Actually, we can theorize all we want about causes, but you're just factually incorrect. 63% of men 18-29 are single vs 34% of women.
Wrong. Your link shows that 63% of men 18-29 vs 34% of women sampled, say they're single. How is this the case? Sampling methodology, unreliability of self reporting on virtually anything, or a number of other factors.
But it is a logical impossibility. A heterosexual, monogamous couple requires one female participant and one male participant, period. It's not possible for an equal population of heterosexual, monogamous men and women to have any imbalance at all in how many people of each gender are in a relationship, period. If you disagree, I'd love to hear how.
-
Comment on An insight into looksmaxxxing/blackpill "ideology" in ~life
papasquat Link ParentSorry, it popped up on my front page. (I don't know how these things get sorted). I definitely wouldn't. It's just that it's mathematically possible, unlike the same scenario happening with...Sorry, it popped up on my front page. (I don't know how these things get sorted).
Considering we are talking about involuntary celibates, this isn't something to just brush off as unimportant. I guess you agree that in this regard their view is accurate then?
I definitely wouldn't. It's just that it's mathematically possible, unlike the same scenario happening with committed relationships. It's still not true, it's just not 1+1=4 levels of fundementally impossible.
But ugly men have casual sex all the time.
Is it easier to have lots of casual sex if you're attractive, especially with attractive women? Yeah, of course. That's not really some sort of radical theory or revolutionary black pill realization though. Attractive people attract people. That's why we call them attractive.This is false. In vast vast majority of relationships men are either the same age or older than women.
I don't see how that changes anything. There are the same amount of women as men in the world. If younger men are completely not in relationships, that would have to mean that older women are also completely not in relationships. That obviously not the case, but if it were, the easy solution for young men would just be... "wait".
Naturally. A little side tangent, but why do you think the vast majority of "creeps" are men? Because the vast majority of initiations are done by men
It's like saying that if the job market is shitty and no recruiters or companies reach out to you it's a good thing because your destiny is in your hands...
The job market isn't a zero-sum game, the dating market is. It's possible for there to be not enough positions available for workers to fill them. It's possible for there to be too many positions, but not enough jobs. Barring widespread polygamy or weird cultural/political practices like China's one child policy and resulting female infanticide, it's not possible for there to be too many men and not enough women, because human biology produces roughly equal amounts of men and women.
Personally, I'd rather be in charge of who I approach to date and get rejected by people that aren't interested in me than having to wait around for people to approach me and reject the ones I don't like. I'll grant that that may be a personal preference, but you'd think for people that are of the mindset that the world is stacked against them and that the only way to change their luck is via radical self alteration, that would be the preferable situation too.
I'm not dismissing their experiences. I'm sure a lot of them had a hard time dating. Dating is hard for both genders unless you're exceptionally attractive, and even then it can be sometimes.
But it's not ignorant to dismiss the theories formed from these experiences that are logically impossible. It's ignorant to accept them.
-
Comment on An insight into looksmaxxxing/blackpill "ideology" in ~life
papasquat LinkThis is something that I don't get at all with their theory. The claim is that you have to be hot to find a girlfriend because it's much harder to find love as a man. Mathematically, that's just...That they will only want to date up, and it's significantly easier for women to date and get laid, even if they are below average looking
This is something that I don't get at all with their theory.
The claim is that you have to be hot to find a girlfriend because it's much harder to find love as a man. Mathematically, that's just not possible though.For casual sex, sure, one guy could be having sex with hundreds of women who I guess are cool with only having sex once every couple of months when that guy can pencil them in, but for committed relationships, almost everyone in the world is monogamous. Poly people are completely statistically insignificant (sorry poly people, no disrespect, there just aren't many of you). Gay people are more statistically significant, but for every gay woman, there's at least one gay man, so they cancel each other out in the heterosexual dating pool.
Given that there are at least as many heterosexual women as there are heterosexual men, it doesn't make sense that it's easier for women to find a partner than it is for men. Every female partner in a relationship requires a male partner. It's 1:1. I guess you could make the argument that men usually need to actually take initiative, but thats also kind of a good thing, because it means your destiny is in your hands.
If you're a woman following prescribed heteronormative gender roles, you have to just go to places where men hang out, look pretty and hope someone comes up to you. If you're not pretty enough or you don't bat your eyelashes correctly, you're screwed.
I don't get how this theory is so widely accepted in this community when you don't even need any research or experience to disprove it, you just need to think about it logically for 10 seconds.
-
Comment on There is no epidemic of loneliness, but there is an epidemic of social scurvy in ~life
papasquat Link ParentYeah, it's fitness slop, but it's a lot better than most fitness slop. Most of his advice is sound, and he's natty (and I actually believe him when he says he is), which automatically puts him...Yeah, it's fitness slop, but it's a lot better than most fitness slop. Most of his advice is sound, and he's natty (and I actually believe him when he says he is), which automatically puts him ahead of 95% of fitness influencers.
-
Comment on There is no epidemic of loneliness, but there is an epidemic of social scurvy in ~life
papasquat Link ParentI've watched will for a while, and I like his content a lot. I've been weightlifting for about 15 years, and consistently the biggest barrier for me getting stronger is sleep. It's not even just...I've watched will for a while, and I like his content a lot. I've been weightlifting for about 15 years, and consistently the biggest barrier for me getting stronger is sleep.
It's not even just that sleep directly helps your muscles develop (it does), it also makes your workouts more effective, because you have more willpower and central nervous system capacity to lift more weight. Your muscles are stronger too, so you can move more volume.
Most importantly though, because sleep restores your executive function and "reserve" of willpower, you're just plain likely to actually go to the gym when you're rested.
Many times, I've gotten 5 hours of sleep the night before and decided "eh fuck it, I'm not going to the gym, I'm sleepy", then I spend the time I could have spent at the gym playing videogames instead.
Sleep is the #1 thing that I know would easily increase my performance, but actually forcing myself to get enough of it is another thing entirely.
-
Comment on There is no epidemic of loneliness, but there is an epidemic of social scurvy in ~life
papasquat LinkI don't know if it's necessarily a useful distinction to make between loneliness and "social scurvy" in the types of conversations people are having about the problem (side note, why does...I don't know if it's necessarily a useful distinction to make between loneliness and "social scurvy" in the types of conversations people are having about the problem
(side note, why does everything have to be an metaphor? Scurvy is just a disorder caused specifically by vitamin c deficiency, but there are lots of other disorders caused by lots of different micronutrients. Why not just call it isolation sickness or something? That way you don't have to write an article explaining it)
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if people are being harmed by lack of contact with people and they recognize that's what the problem is and long to fix it, or if they're being harmed by the lack of contact with people and they're content to continue being harmed.
They're still being harmed by the lack of contact with people, and contact with people is still the remedy.
It sort of reminds me of food deserts (there's one of those metaphor terms again!). At the end of the day it doesn't actually matter whether the people living in them want access to fresh fruits and vegetables or not, having easy access to them and encouragement to eat them improves their lives either way, so making a distinction between "food loneliness" (see what I did there!!??) and lack of desire to eat fresh foods is kind of missing the point. Access and education would solve the problem to some degree either way.
-
Comment on Do you iron your clothes? in ~life
papasquat Link ParentDo you hang them instead of folding? If not, aren't your clothes wrinkly all the time?Do you hang them instead of folding? If not, aren't your clothes wrinkly all the time?
-
Comment on The American religion of self-storage facilities in ~life
papasquat Link ParentTo me, it helps that I think of the money as already thrown away as soon as I bought it. There a very few objects we buy on a regular basis that retain enough value to be worth reselling. For me,...To me, it helps that I think of the money as already thrown away as soon as I bought it.
There a very few objects we buy on a regular basis that retain enough value to be worth reselling. For me, that threshold is about $150. If I'm not likely to get at least around $150 to sell it, it's not worth the effort of me cleaning it up, taking photos of it, posting it online, dealing with the absolute insane people on Facebook marketplace, haggling a price, and so on.
It's garbage with a ticking clock from the moment I purchase it, so I don't feel bad throwing it out. I've already mentally made my peace with that money being gone.
As far as the sentimental thing, I've just never been a sentimental person about objects. Sometimes photos remind you of something, and that's nice, but also, our minds were made to forget things. I don't necessarily want an indelible record of my life. I remember the pieces my brain feels is important to remember, and I remember them in a way that feels right to me, even if it's not really what happened.
Ive forgotten the names of many friends, romantic partners, coworkers and so on, and I'm totally fine with that. The very impactful ones I do still remember, and the memory is what's special to me, not the artifact. So yeah, I just tend to throw a lot of things out. (Unfortunately, I tend to also buy a lot of things. I'm looking at a thermal sensor right now that I bought about a year ago for a project I'm not really interested in anymore. It's bound for the trash can this weekend).
-
Comment on What are the genuinely worst films of all time? in ~movies
papasquat Link ParentInteresting. That's a character trait I never really thought about Luke, but compared to other Jedi, Luke and his dad were both very impulsive. The only other Jedi we see in the OT are Obi Wan and...Interesting. That's a character trait I never really thought about Luke, but compared to other Jedi, Luke and his dad were both very impulsive.
The only other Jedi we see in the OT are Obi Wan and Yoda, and they're both obviously very in control of their emotions, but they're also Jedi masters, and very old at that point, so you could summize that Luke is just being a normal young adult. In the prequels though, we see lots of other Jedi, and all of them are more in control of their emotions and less impulsive than Anakin obviously, it's pretty much hammered over your head the Anakin is impulsive and plays fast and loose with his emotions, but they're also more in control than Luke ever was.
It sort of makes Luke's character in TLJ a little more interesting, even though I still didn't like that movie and felt it did the character a disservice.
-
Comment on The American religion of self-storage facilities in ~life
papasquat Link ParentI think you're right, the root cause is overconsumption, but the immediate cause is really just guilt. People have too much shit because they over consume, but people have no room to store that...I think you're right, the root cause is overconsumption, but the immediate cause is really just guilt.
People have too much shit because they over consume, but people have no room to store that shit because they're guilty about getting rid of it. There's this pseudo emotional attachment/sunk cost fallacy that people have worn their shit. They emotionally value these objects because of what they paid for them, or memories they have associated with them, and they can't just throw them away because then that value goes away. They can't even sell them, because the 150 bucks you'll get from a used couch is way less than the 1500 bucks they spent on it, or the fond memories they have of sitting on it, so it just sits somewhere and makes people feel good knowing they "have" it.
I've successfully avoided the immediate cause of this, but not the root cause. I over consume just like everyone else. I have a huge table saw in my garage I never use, a bunch of cables to things I don't own anymore, and all the other junk that everyone else has.
The main difference between me and, say, my wife, or my parents or a lot of my friends is that I prescribe almost no value to objects outside of their actual utility.
I would have gotten rid of my art from middle school I still have in my attic if it wouldn't bother my parents or wife so much. My first coffee table from college is in a landfill somewhere, and I routinely just throw old stuff out. I never ever miss it.
Sometimes, I'll go through the effort of selling things on eBay that do have some true value, but going through that whole pain is probably worth about $150 of my time and frustration, so anything worth less than that goes into the trash. Anything else like bringing it to a college or shelter or whatever is just too much friction for me to ever do, and I just straight up won't do it, because I know myself, so it goes in the trash.
Is it wasteful? Yes, definitely. In my mind it's way less wasteful than taking up space I don't need, or sitting in a storage locker I'm paying for only to be thrown out by my descendents when I eventually die though.
It's all going to a landfill anyway, I see no reason to delay the inevitable.
My wife isn't like this. She'll come up with a million potential use cases for any object we have that deep down, she knows isn't going to ever come up, but in that moment, she's convinced they will. As a result, I definitely have more stuff in my house than I'd like.
I think the main difference between us, and probably most people like her versus like me is that when she buys something, she views it as sort of an investment. Something that has value, will retail value, and will generate value over time.
Most objects I buy I just view as a liability. Same as going out to dinner or the movies or whatever, but worse, because I need to pay to store it. It actively costs me money in some small way for every day that it exists in my ownership. Once I spend the money, the money is gone. I'm not getting it back, it doesn't contribute to my net worth, so as soon as that object stops earning it's keep, it goes into the trash. If it were up to me, no one, not even an intimate object would live in our house for free, except pets (we don't have kids yet).
-
Comment on Just got laid off. Now what? in ~life
papasquat Link ParentI don't know what the problem is, but on the other side of the fence, trying to hire people via applications is also a complete nightmare. When I post a position, I get hundreds of resumes that...I don't know what the problem is, but on the other side of the fence, trying to hire people via applications is also a complete nightmare.
When I post a position, I get hundreds of resumes that are nowhere near the requirements of the job, like, not even in the same field. Once I filter those out and choose the best looking few dozen or so resumes, pick the ones that seem like the best fit, I call people and probably 90% of them very obviously just bullshitted their entire resume. After I filter those out and bring people in for an in person interview, very often, all of the remaining candidates were just ok at bullshitting on the phone and don't actually have any experience in what we want, or are just... really off-putting, like I'm concerned for my safety, or they have some other weird thing going on. I had a candidate fall asleep in the middle of a conversation during a half hour interview.
It's just so weird, it's never been this difficult to sift through people to hire someone who is a somewhat decent fit.
It's just a lot easier to poach people that I know from other departments, or get referrals from people I trust. I've been burnt by random off the street hires badly in the past year or two, because it's just so much time and effort to effectively screen due to all the noise, and there just isn't enough time in the day to weed through all of it in a satisfactory way.
Couldn't you just like... Mount a tablet to your fridge?
That way, when the tablet becomes obsolete in 10 years, and can't run modern apps because the OS won't support it, you could just buy a new tablet instead of throwing out your entire fridge.