post_from_work

It took us NINE MONTHS to get a server installed in a data center a few years back. This was Marine-Corps fielded hardware running an ATO'd[1] software stack for real-world situational awareness, going into a Marine Corps data center. The people that run the data center have a glacial Change Management process, exacerbated by everyone in their organization not talking to each other, even though they are separated by cubical walls.

I too have no faith of seeing this stuff implemented anytime soon...

[1] (Authority to Operate, basically approval from the highest IT authorities to utilize something on a DoD network)

If that argument (that leveraging any available artificial enhancement is ok) held any conceptual weight, we would embrace PEDs in athletics. We don't. Ask yourself why?

It's all the fault of those damn Puritans: people who were such sticks in the mud they were essentially kicked out of Europe because nobody wanted to hear their prudish nonsense. They were all about the "fire & brimstone".

>>>I don't imagine many people would trade sitting on a throne in a grand hall enjoying a feast whilst watching the era's leading performers personally dedicate performances to them for the possibility of selling their body to download a superhero movie and buy a burrito and packet of cigarettes.

That "grand hall" had worse climate control than a Motel-6, and the food was dirty. We can debate the subjective utility of skilled medieval musicians vs a low-end local rock/metal concert with supporting audiovisual systems (a ticket to that can fit within the budget of a few tricks), I would charitably call that a break-even. And a $50 trick buys a LOT more than a burrito and a pack of cigs. You can get a steak dinner at Texas Roadhouse to with your pack of Newport 100s.

The "ick factor" of selling their body was just to demonstrate that even the most down-on-their-luck, homeless, destitute American has a path to access the commodity goods of our age. I don't think it's an absurd reduction to point that out.

>>>At first, I was confused reading your assertions of what poor people of the US can do, things that obviously demand money - cash or credit - that a person in poverty don't have.

A homeless, flat-broke prostitute can turn 4 tricks in a day. Let's call them $50 each, for $200 cash-in-hand. Then they can take that $200 to Wal-Mart, buy an Android phone for $50, a SIM card for $50, and one of those loadable debit cards for $50. That leaves them with $50 cash and a $50 debit card balance. They can use their smartphone and debit card to access many of the modern amenities that the parent post mentioned, such as a delivery meal from Uber Eats, or a Greyhound bus ticket, or music on iTunes. The point is, this stuff is within the realm of the possible for the modern poor. It is NOT for a medieval king. Not at all. No matter how large his army, no matter how much gold in his coffers, Richard the Lionheart can't instantly access music from the other side of the planet while traveling across England in a climate-controlled vehicle at twice the speed of a horse.

>>> In fact, for many people (including many men), advice is the least important part and often unwelcome at first. What people are looking for is empathy, being heard and validated.

Maybe I'm just wired differently, but I usually come away a bit frustrated if I reach out to someone and the conversation is basically "I feel you and can commiserate. But I don't have any recommended actions."

In contrast, I had a former roommate who would point out: "See at Step 2? You messed up by taking Action X. Next time do Action Y, and follow up with Action Z at Step 3. That's how you avoid this problem." I don't always agree with his advice or conclusions, but he gives me something actionable, or at least something that triggers thinking through a modified solution to whatever problem I'm trying to overcome.

>>>The point flew entirely over your head.

Funny. I'd say the same applies for you. The whole point of the article is that men and women have different value systems in how they evaluate interpersonal relationships, and your contribution to this discussion has only been: "While I put forth no evidence to the contrary, their conclusion is wrong....and any men who utilize such a value system are bad human beings." It's the same sort of overbearing, arrogant, intrusive shaming language used by religious conservatives in opposition to gay marriage.

>>>you should assume they are judging you by the same standards

I would absolutely assume that my friends are holding me accountable to the same standards to which I hold them. And if they didn't, then I wouldn't trust them as true friends. They should be able to share hard truths ("Hey, you are failing yourself right now") and also be willing to offer assistance to get me back on my path.

>>>If your relationship with all your friends is based on their utility to advance your status, you don’t actually have any friends.

What are the metrics underpinning your assessment of friendship? In order to achieve a status of !friend, there would need to be failure modes for evaluation of actions to drive that conclusion. What are those failure modes? And which of my friends have you evaluated against these metrics to support your assertion? We all know the answer to that: NONE.

Men are under no obligations to evaluate their friendships using YOUR mental model, and possessing a working model that is different from yours does not inherently make them misanthropes out of touch with reality. The level of uncomprehending arrogance needed to come into a discussion with that as a leading talking point is astounding.

Our previous Commanding General once quipped that PowerPoint presentations that transition between geographic focus areas should include slide after slide after slide of blue ocean, to communicate the vast distances involved in our Area of Operations. Otherwise no one appreciates the distances between the islands that are of interest. Too many people think Hawaii and Guam and the Philippines and Okinawa are all just down the street from each other.

You are shooting at strawmen. No one is discussing severing existing relationship bonds due to evolving life circumstances. There are undoubtedly far more variables in such an equation, with complex mitigating factors.

The article is about ideal preferences. Exercising those preferences, often towards objectively-superior utility characteristics, is not misanthropic.

That line of thought would make about as much sense as saying "all lesbians are inherently misandrist". Choosing A over B does not imply any hatred of {B}, or of {A+B} in general.