Rez's recent activity

  1. Comment on Netflix customers canceling service increasingly includes long-term subscribers in ~tv

    Rez
    Link Parent
    Netflix saw these were shows were cheap to make and drove a lot of their key metrics, while the expensive shows adored by fans and the press were canceled or not given enough seasons or ended...

    Netflix's strategy of flooding the service with "empty calories" content seems to be backfiring, seeing as they are losing customers. There is clearly a market for that kind of content, Netflix's mistake is pricing. People aren't going to pay $20/mo for endless reality TV when Discovery+ offers the same kind of crap for a quarter the price.

    Netflix saw these were shows were cheap to make and drove a lot of their key metrics, while the expensive shows adored by fans and the press were canceled or not given enough seasons or ended properly. I can't say what shows they should've saved, but it should've been a few more.

    To continue the calories metaphor, Netflix's problem is anyone can serve junk food like a fast food restaurant - but if you want to be one of the few steakhouses in town worth shelling out for, you need to serve that steak, even if drinks and appetizers are where steakhouses make their profit. So I do foresee them rolling Discovery+ into HBO Max. People will subscribe to HBO Max for the quality even if many only end up watching the reality shows, like subscribing for The House of the Dragon and then watching mostly 90 Day Fiance. People will cancel if the only thing being put out is reality TV, there's no loyalty there in that genre. Netflix's problem is basically they stopped serving steaks but they still want to charge steakhouse prices for their appetizers and drinks - they can't have it both ways. Buzz is a much harder metric to measure, but one that's of utmost importance for your long-term business strategy, as compared to easy to calculate metrics like hours watched.

    3 votes
  2. Comment on You're not losing fat because you're eating too much — even when you don't think you are in ~health

    Rez
    Link
    It really is just eating too much, especially processed food. The proportion of people who are obese due to diagnosed medical conditions are very small and they know who they are, such as a...

    It really is just eating too much, especially processed food. The proportion of people who are obese due to diagnosed medical conditions are very small and they know who they are, such as a thyroid issue. But sustainable weight loss is difficult (most people regain most of the weight lost on any diet after a few years), because to truly keep the weight off long-term, it involves permanent lifestyle change, and people aren't always in a position to change their lifestyle (such as due to a lack of money or accommodating job). I've gone from fat to fit and have held it for years. People who have been thin their whole lives aren't weighing themselves every week and obsessively logging calories (most of the food I eat doesn't even have a specific calorie count I can reference because it's not food coming in a prepacked container). They're thin because it's just a natural byproduct of how they live, so I thought that was what I should try to emulate instead of doing diets that everyone seems to fail at, and it has paid off. And at the points where I plateaued, I accepted in my heart that it only meant there was still more to do and improve on, rather than there being some supernatural force infusing me with extra mass.

    Every weight loss journey is going to be extremely personal and contextual though - no one else can do it for you but you. So the best general advice I can give is that you should try to eliminate as many processed foods as possible. Stop buying them, cut out as much as possible, gradually mix in healthier foods while keeping maybe 1-2 of your favorite processed foods, and then eventually start saving that for special occasions, like for when you're sick or celebrating. It needs to be a gradual process so the habits can lock in, instead of trying to change your whole diet overnight. You get fat over the course of years, so you'll have to become thin over time too instead of trying to have it happen in just a few months. And try as I might, I simply am not able to overeat on real food - no one gets obese by eating too many apples or chicken thighs. The only exercise I would really recommend for an obese person is lots of walking (outdoors if possible), otherwise you're likely to injure yourself at the gym and have some vague pain for life in some part of your body - and because it's mostly the food making you obese, not the lack of exercise. If you've been fat most of your life though, and haven't been really close/intimate 24/7 with someone who's thin, it's hard to really grasp just how other people eat and live their lives to produce the figure they have, so people tend to think they're consuming a lot fewer calories than they really are. It only takes a surplus of 100 calories/day to gain 10 pounds in a year, and it's very easy to not accurately track that with any loggers.

    9 votes
  3. Comment on My college students are not ok in ~life

    Rez
    Link Parent
    I don't think it's unclear unless one wants to make it unclear though, unless you're also willing to say something like we do eventually need to define who precisely counts as black or white if we...

    I don't think it's unclear unless one wants to make it unclear though, unless you're also willing to say something like we do eventually need to define who precisely counts as black or white if we want to ever remedy systemic racism. We're not even talking about solutions yet, just first trying to agree on if there's a problem or not. We don't need to put the cart before the horse. Just because there's a spectrum doesn't mean you can't see blue in the rainbow even if you can't say exactly where the blue ends. Let's have this discussion when there's someone here actually willing to say their personal opinion is that hardcore pornography and LGBTQ+ representation are near-equivalent, instead of hashing out imaginary strawmen to the detriment of the larger conversation such as whether "porn" is unhealthy or not.

    For example, you agreed it'd be child abuse to for a parent to introduce their young children to "hardcore pornography" (not sex ed, just basically whatever you'd see on the front page of PornHub) - but most young children are already exposed to it at some point, so doesn't that mean you agree that it's unhealthy then? Does it become okay just because it's not any specific individual pushing it on children, but just a natural consequence of the intersection of our culture, technology, etc.? I do think Pandora's box has been opened and can't really be closed in regards to pornography absent a radical fascist tilt to society, but that doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about whether or not it's harmful for the situation to be that way.

    5 votes
  4. Comment on My college students are not ok in ~life

    Rez
    Link Parent
    I do agree that it's hard to define pornography specifically, and that there is a very wide spectrum. I agree with most of what you said. But I also had the PornHub example because that's really...

    I do agree that it's hard to define pornography specifically, and that there is a very wide spectrum. I agree with most of what you said. But I also had the PornHub example because that's really what the average person's experience is going to be - a 10 year old is unlikely to be dabbling in GoneWildAudio. I think it's fair to consider that as the sort of "default" experience we can expect most kids to be introduced to unless you have some other benchmark you think is appropriate. We don't need to get distracted by trying to have some uber-precise definition like some legal contract, most kids are just going to be opening up the front page of PornHub, not finding niche audio-sexual content.

    For example, we're able to have conversations about racism without precisely defining who counts as white or black - which is impossible because it's subjective at the end of the day, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for us to have these conversations and for them to be productive. I think we can have the same understanding for porn, we don't need to let trying to define every last specific get in the way of the larger conversation. Like if it's a conversation about if porn is harmful or not, the context is usually clear that we aren't say, talking about naked statues and sex ed material/STI prevention.

    8 votes
  5. Comment on My college students are not ok in ~life

    Rez
    Link Parent
    It's a hard thing to properly study for a few reasons: The studies would involve children, raising the ethical barriers considerably The studies would involve sexually graphic content, and in some...

    It's a hard thing to properly study for a few reasons:

    • The studies would involve children, raising the ethical barriers considerably
    • The studies would involve sexually graphic content, and in some instances, some pornography that is very hardcore or out there
    • It'd be hard to find control groups of children not exposed to pornography - it is simply that widespread and endemic
    • You'd have to follow them for many years and try to tease out impacts on their psychology, as it relates to both the type and amount of pornography consumed, or lack thereof, while excluding other factors (religion, race, income, etc.)

    There's another way to look at the issue though: If you have children, are you going to voluntarily expose them to pornography, especially hardcore stuff? If somehow you had no worries of them ever finding it through their phone, the internet, other kids showing them it - would you think it a good idea to introduce your young child to hardcore pornography? That's the real question to consider.

    If you think it's not harmful for them to be exposed to pornography, then should it not be okay to introduce them to it under parental supervision? And that's you getting to control the specific type of pornography you show them - would you for example be fine with showing them the front page of PornHub? You can look at it right now, and then consider that whatever's there is going to be one of the first exposures a child has to the realm of human sexuality. Obviously I'm angling the questions in a biased way here, but I think a lot of people think being sex-positive means you have to be porn-positive. Not all porn is "bad", but I would say most of it is, in the way junk food is. Having some junk food isn't going to kill you, but if you consume it regularly and from a young age, you're not going to learn how to appreciate real food (i.e. real sex and human connection), and it's going to be unhealthy for your proper development and sexual health.

    7 votes
  6. Comment on In the dating market, people compete ferociously for partners with qualities that do not increase their chances of romantic happiness in ~life

    Rez
    Link
    I would say the online vs offline dating market is substantially different in what your approach should be, and it seemed the article wasn't clearly separating the two at times, such as if they...

    I would say the online vs offline dating market is substantially different in what your approach should be, and it seemed the article wasn't clearly separating the two at times, such as if they had data from offline dating? Your approach also of course has to be different depending on if you're a man or woman, as it concerns heterosexual relationships. But at the end of the day it's just a matter of having a willingness to go for it - of converting that digital stranger into an intimate partner, like I did recently with my new girlfriend. But this article concerns mostly the long-term happiness of a relationship, not dating strategy itself. Like for women for example, you can tell them that their best partner for happiness might not be that tall. But if they pick a shorter man, their height still has no bearing on whether they'd make her happy - it's just not something you can really know ahead of time, so to cut down the number of suitors to something she can handle on her phone, she may as well have a height limit even if it has no effect on future happiness.

    5 votes
  7. Comment on Bill Gates is so over this pandemic in ~health.coronavirus

    Rez
    Link Parent
    What objective metric would make you consider it to no longer be an "active, elevated threat"? A case count of 0 obviously, but would you draw the line anywhere above that?

    What objective metric would make you consider it to no longer be an "active, elevated threat"? A case count of 0 obviously, but would you draw the line anywhere above that?

    3 votes
  8. Comment on Bill Gates is so over this pandemic in ~health.coronavirus

    Rez
    Link Parent
    We're talking about special precautions adopted for a special circumstance though. I no longer consider the circumstance to be special in my area barring a significant change with the virus (which...

    We're talking about special precautions adopted for a special circumstance though. I no longer consider the circumstance to be special in my area barring a significant change with the virus (which is entirely possible). If one does consider the circumstance to still be special, I'd like to hear the objective criteria for when one would no longer consider it to be special. What right now continues to make COVID be worth restrictions and encumbrances that we don't enact for other diseases, allergies, risks, etc.? The vaccines work. The treatments have significantly advanced. The ICUs aren't full.

    Like for food, if there's a salmonella outbreak, it's probably safe to cook your impacted food more. But are you going to cook your food to an untasty crisp, for forever, just because the risk of food poisoning is always non-zero and because the food might be shared? We can trade in risk metaphors forever, but at the end of the day, I'm really just interested in hearing about when we should objectively stop adopting these COVID restrictions for those still advocating them. If one wants to say we should actually keep them in place forever, then hey I can respect that position even if I disagree with it - but otherwise I want to hear some objective criteria.

    6 votes
  9. Comment on Bill Gates is so over this pandemic in ~health.coronavirus

    Rez
    Link Parent
    People were old and compromised before COVID, and they always will be in the future, and it's a class I'll likely join myself one day as pointed out. I don't consider pointing this out to be a...

    People were old and compromised before COVID, and they always will be in the future, and it's a class I'll likely join myself one day as pointed out. I don't consider pointing this out to be a rebuttal. Other infectious diseases are still a thing, they always were and always will be. Now of course things can change in the future - but as it is, right now, with Omicron, can you really justify asking everyone to still mask up, isolate, restrict gatherings, etc.?

    What's the objective criteria for when we should stop asking people to do these things, if you're not asking us to engage in this collective action for forever?

    The vaccines are highly effective. We have highly effective treatments now besides the vaccines if you do get the illness. I truly believe this, which is why I act like it and no longer wear a mask barring very special circumstances and allow myself to be around a lot more people. The tools we have make us safe enough to resume "normal" life. With Omicron as statistically mild as it is right now, if we nevertheless adopt these precautions for COVID, why shouldn't we with other diseases? Why not go full immuno-state on society? There are still diseases transmitted through touch, food, sex, etc. that can all adversely affect the old and compromised. Interacting with other people on some level carries inherent risk. There's no way around that. Living means dying.

    5 votes
  10. Comment on Bill Gates is so over this pandemic in ~health.coronavirus

    Rez
    Link Parent
    Yeah people walking away with a cold after traveling and attending big musical festivals or conferences was always a thing. Now COVID is just another thing you can pick up. For most people, if...

    Yeah people walking away with a cold after traveling and attending big musical festivals or conferences was always a thing. Now COVID is just another thing you can pick up. For most people, if they weren't asymptomatic, the omicron variant amounted to being a case of the sniffles for them. If you're fully vaccinated and in good health, odds are virtually certain you'll end up okay. It's actually kind of strange how paranoid the boosted people I know are - they don't seem to appreciate just how effective the vaccines are (especially if they're not old/compromised) and how much comfort it should give them to act more freely in their personal lives. The odds aren't 100% you'll be safe attending large gatherings, but they never were, even before COVID. If you want to mask up, go for it - people did in my area before COVID - but at the end of the day life goes on with or without you. It's not like we're going to get to 0 COVID. It's pretty much here forever. That doesn't mean we're in a pandemic forever. And I'm part of the PCR companies Gates is talking about.

    8 votes
  11. Comment on What did you do this weekend? in ~talk

    Rez
    Link
    I spent a lot of time with family for an extended weekend with an aunt who was visiting I hadn’t seen in a long while. Other than that I got away from them to spend some time with a woman I met...

    I spent a lot of time with family for an extended weekend with an aunt who was visiting I hadn’t seen in a long while. Other than that I got away from them to spend some time with a woman I met online a few weeks ago. She’s like me in a surprising number of ways which is pretty rare. We seem to understand how to communicate with each other so I’m greatly enjoying our dynamic for now and giving it the chance to grow.

    3 votes
  12. Comment on Leaked draft opinion show the Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights in ~news

    Rez
    Link
    Truly a dumb move by the Court. I could rant more but I’ll keep it at that since it’ll all be blowing up shortly enough. In theory, leaving it to the states isn’t so bad - if you have full...

    Truly a dumb move by the Court. I could rant more but I’ll keep it at that since it’ll all be blowing up shortly enough.
    In theory, leaving it to the states isn’t so bad - if you have full democracy, which the Court has allowed to be crippled. Gerrymandered Republican states are going to go way beyond what public opinion wants. That is how it will backfire, because at the end of the day, most people are simply not for a total ban on abortion which is what many states will implement, because of a systemic political bias for Republicans. The Court really might burn itself down with this one.

    10 votes
  13. Comment on Asylum in Denmark – Is the country guilty of double standards? in ~misc

    Rez
    Link Parent
    One factor to keep in mind is the current makeup of the emigrants, i.e. comparatively few working age men are emigrating compared to women, children, the infirm and elderly. However depending on...

    One factor to keep in mind is the current makeup of the emigrants, i.e. comparatively few working age men are emigrating compared to women, children, the infirm and elderly. However depending on how the war continues and ends, there may subsequently be a mass emigration of those men regardless.

    5 votes
  14. Comment on Canada eliminates mandatory waiting period for gay men to donate blood in ~lgbt

    Rez
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    While it is true that treatment for HIV has significantly advanced, I'd be extremely surprised and concerned if that went into any sort of formal risk assessment. Prevention is infinitely better...

    While it is true that treatment for HIV has significantly advanced, I'd be extremely surprised and concerned if that went into any sort of formal risk assessment. Prevention is infinitely better than treatment. Most blood is not used for traumatic emergencies, e.g. multiple gunshots, a lot of it instead being used for cancer patients in the course of chemotherapy and the like, so the circumstance isn't "well they would've died without the potential HIV blood anyways".

    People would have to be taking medication for the rest of their lives, let alone the social and romantic impact on your quality of life. Circumstances around our blood supply would have to be truly dire for that kind of call to be made. We can still afford to be picky to a certain extent, which is why it's already taken so long for these restrictions to lessen around gay men donating, because we still have (enough) blood without relaxing restrictions on an objectively high risk population. It's the same reason we still screen people out for potential mad cow disease if they lived in the UK for a long enough time during a certain period. The UK just has to bite the bullet on that one, but we can afford to play it safe and just screen out those people completely. I don't know what's motivated Canada here to move from 3 months to no delay. Cutting the 1 year waiting period to 3 months is easily justifiable. The paper I linked and the crude math scenario of a few units a year slipping in assumes no screening. The screening would still be done by Canada so that substantially mitigates the risk further if people are honest in self-screening, although I don't know what the sexual behavior question set is that Canada has planned.

    4 votes
  15. Comment on Canada eliminates mandatory waiting period for gay men to donate blood in ~lgbt

    Rez
    Link
    The assays we have now are a lot more capable and robust, able to quantitate and detect very low viral loads for viruses like HIV. It understandably takes time for public health authorities to...

    The assays we have now are a lot more capable and robust, able to quantitate and detect very low viral loads for viruses like HIV. It understandably takes time for public health authorities to catch up to the latest advancements and to feel confident in the diagnostic claims, though I'm not familiar with the calculus performed here to justify ending this deferral period. For example, in the last few years, I've seen that the blood banks in my area went from a 1 year deferral to a 3 month one for many activities, such as those who have sex with men (or have sex with men who do), or those who buy or sell sex, and that is a safe change I agree with, as 3 months is more than enough to detect HIV in virtually all individuals given modern testing capabilities. I currently donate every 2 months myself. What happens is your blood gets pooled in with others and that then gets tested, so if a positive comes up, they have to start backtracking from there. There has been a history of discrimination here against homosexual men where the deferral periods lagged behind our scientific abilities to reliably detect certain diseases after certain points in time, but it frankly is also true that statistically they are a much riskier population, men who have sex with men being the demographic with the highest incidence rate of HIV in the U.S, representing a majority of HIV infections, surpassing drug injector users and heterosexuals, so this is very far from just being a matter of homophobia. So Canada is definitely facing some theoretical risk here - this paper estimates that a policy in the U.S. that stopped the risk assessment questions and relied only on testing would still let a few dozen compromised units into the blood supply a year (given false negatives). So if we do very crude math where we just adjust by population, that could mean a few compromised blood units a year in Canada. Now ideally of course the gay men who have had multiple partners in recent months should self-screen themselves out, but those in a committed relationship or just having a one-off aren't really the risky population anymore with the modern assays we have.

    8 votes
  16. Comment on Happy 4th Birthday, Tildes! in ~tildes

    Rez
    Link Parent
    Ayy I signed up the same day as you with a 3 letter name as well.

    Ayy I signed up the same day as you with a 3 letter name as well.

    3 votes
  17. Comment on Twitter accepts buyout, giving Elon Musk total control of the company in ~tech

    Rez
    Link Parent
    Well, there isn't just "one" bad part of social media, like "fix this one thing and we've fixed social media!". It's going to be a lot of things, like how it would be with gun control where people...

    Well, there isn't just "one" bad part of social media, like "fix this one thing and we've fixed social media!". It's going to be a lot of things, like how it would be with gun control where people say "Well, this law you're proposing wouldn't have stopped this latest shooting, so why do it?", while ignoring the bigger context of how our mass shootings are a uniquely American phenomena and that they just keep happening while we keep doing nothing. The larger context here is that we know that that social media is toxic for our society, and we've known this for years now, and we're still doing pretty much nothing.

    Now most of us don't have any power to influence the design of social media, but the people with the means and influence aren't trying. I don't have a magic solution. I just want people to try and it doesn't seem like they are trying. If you happen to know, does your friend think the corrosive toxicity of social media is inevitable? Is large-scale social media salvageable? If so, why doesn't it seem like we're making any meaningful progress on that front that we can see reflected in the real world? We've had this awareness of the toxicity of social media for years now and I think rather self-evidently the companies involved are not meaningfully committed to solving that toxicity at a fundamental level, since that threatens their business model which relies on engagement. They will tinker with the algorithm or take high profile moderation actions here and there for good PR points but at the end of the day we know the problem will continue.

    Most people say they want chronological feeds even if their actions speak differently, the same way it goes for pretty much any vice and unhealthy activity. We know it's bad. Just because it's good for a company's metrics doesn't make it not bad. A non-chronological feed encourages people to be lazy with who and what they follow. If you follow some right-wing troll and only the most engaging, entertaining posts are shown to you from them at the top of your feed, instead of the less engaged posts and stinkers that makes you think "Wait this dude is an insane idiot", it means you have less incentive to actually unsubscribe from that person if the algorithm is curating their content to best keep you engaged, which lets the troll worm their way into a lot more peoples' feeds and minds. And because unsubscribing is bad for the business model, they don't want you to unsubscribe.

    5 votes
  18. Comment on Twitter accepts buyout, giving Elon Musk total control of the company in ~tech

    Rez
    Link Parent
    I think this is just a fallacy of metrics. Yes, it gets more people to use it and so it makes more money, but is that good for society, or is it just taking advantage of those susceptible to...
    • Exemplary

    I think this is just a fallacy of metrics. Yes, it gets more people to use it and so it makes more money, but is that good for society, or is it just taking advantage of those susceptible to social media addiction and controversy, hijacking our fallible psychology for profit? Ideally no one should be scrolling Instagram for an hour. For example, if you ask most people if they want to be fat, they’ll say no. They’ll also then overeat, but it doesn’t mean people actually want to overeat. I know it’s your friend but I really don’t give a pass on this argument. It’s like a drug pusher saying “well my users like it”.

    8 votes
  19. Comment on Twitter accepts buyout, giving Elon Musk total control of the company in ~tech

    Rez
    Link Parent
    He still says he intends to "authenticate all humans". So it remains to be seen whether you will be able to stay anonymous on Twitter, which would not exactly appeal to the types that just want a...

    He still says he intends to "authenticate all humans". So it remains to be seen whether you will be able to stay anonymous on Twitter, which would not exactly appeal to the types that just want a place to spam the n-word. And if you want to spam slurs under your real name... then okay I guess? Sure we can have that on record against your real identity for future employers, lawyers and so on to find.

    But I really don't think Elon cares about that kind of free speech, he just means he wants a place where actual influencers (not Instagram ones) can say what they want without fear of being banned or suspended. So Trump, Alex Jones, Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan, conservative journalists, politicians, CEOs, etc., they get a pass on what they say as long as it's not literally arrestable. But "Joe Who?" may still get moderated and banned if he goes into a flurry of slurs and harassment.

    Free speech for those who "matter" and moderation for the masses. That's the outcome I'm guessing.

    7 votes
  20. Comment on Twitter accepts buyout, giving Elon Musk total control of the company in ~tech

    Rez
    Link
    I don't expect Elon Musk to meaningfully govern the company. Basically if something reaches public/political awareness, Musk can take action on that, and leave the rest of whatever's...

    I don't expect Elon Musk to meaningfully govern the company. Basically if something reaches public/political awareness, Musk can take action on that, and leave the rest of whatever's "non-political" to staff. So I mean say, unbanning Trump or not having actioned sites like The Babylon Bee, but the rest of the moderating will probably stay the same (besides whatever promises he might follow through on). On top of this this also gives him leverage against Trump. Trump's the sort of guy to acknowledge that leverage as long as Musk doesn't criticize Trump. Musk may not be able to become President, but it seems like he's trying to wield power via this sort of business mogul Twitter model. He knows he can manipulate markets, and ultimately get away with a lot as long as nothing actually makes him go to jail. Now if he's ever arrested it would look politically charged, meaning Musk is now going to be able to get away with even more, akin to how Trump still walks free.

    Even if Twitter hollows out of its liberal and media type component, it may become even more popular with regular people who use it maybe not to post, but to listen to their favorite charismatic political leaders. We have to remember that part of the reason that Twitter became so inhabited by journalists was because it was where a lot of politicians and big shots used it to respond to people, media and regular people alike, and highlight and dictate issues - so journalists followed the powerful there. The character limit likely made it appealing to them because those types can be pretty busy - they aren't going to be sitting down at a PC to tweet, so the hardcoded limit means it was okay for them to never have to write essays and to be able to be casual and "real" in their language, which also makes the habit easy for them to keep up on, as the perception of authenticity is key to being an influential Twitter account. Musk probably doesn't care if Twitter loses a lot of people who post, as long as it still remains a place where charismatic people can cultivate followers at scale, and he's the man who owns it. A "free speech" policy is essential to making the website appealing to would-be charismatic political and business leaders.

    6 votes