Saturday, May 21, 2022

How to BTFO Mercantilists, E.g. Grapes

Let's say France heavily subsidizes her grape producers. She uses tax money so they can afford to sell all the way down at half price. If you let her export to England, it will wipe out all English grape production.

Step 1: tariffs to put French grapes at exactly English prices at the English docks, effectively anti-subsidizing them. Throw all this money into the treasury. "Thanks for giving us your tax money, France. We appreciate it!" 

Step 2: release the tariffs entirely. When your own domestic vineyards threaten to go out of business, use the tariff money to buy them out so they personally suffer ~0 losses. Functionally, forcing France to buy all your vineyards out with her own tax money. "You can put them out of business if you like, but only if you pay for it."

Step 3: France is paying for England to eat grapes. Thanks France! What a nice country. So generous. The more French grapes they sell in England, the more French tax dollars effectively end up in England.

Maybe you keep a small tariff so as to pay for the mothballed vineyards? Grapes aren't a terribly critical good, so maybe the government just re-sells the land and lets the chips fall where they may; the land was paid for by France, so anything you can get for it is pure profit. With something more important, like meat or steel, you would want to preserve them against the inevitable time when the "protectionist" economy falls to its own inept policies. Mothballing isn't free, so a small tariff could be used to cover that - again, making France pay for it. "Steel supply shock, huh? Oh yeah we have those strategic steel mill reserves."

Friday, May 20, 2022

Grammarly Solecism Example

"The luck of a main character was often, unbelievably good."

I didn't know luck could be often. I wonder what often luck is?

I guess it's a synonym for 'good' in context. Quick reversal: "The luck of a main character was good. Unbelievably often." Hardly superb diction, but it works.

This is exactly the kind of mistake that computer-based grammar is likely to make. It will have trouble identifying sub-phrases, because (like the author using it and the readers reading it) it doesn't actually know what words mean. It has to identify a phrase based on how it's spelled. The author doesn't know what commas are for, they have to figure out which commas go where by imitation, which is inflexible &c.

As I said earlier, this may be an accent. Maybe in their native language putting a comma there doesn't make you sound like a stuttering idiot child. However, at best, it's a grammar mistake that Grammarly doesn't fix. 

That, said, there's this, one guy who, puts so, many unnecessary, commas that while, I'm exaggerating a lot it, rapidly, becomes, unreadable. This is the kind of problem that's caused when an insecure writer trusts a tool that's dumber than they are. 

Language Evolution & Professional Tools

Background: it's normal for peasants not to be fluent in their mother tongue. They're like a search engine: if you say "explosion" you get one set of results, and if you say, "rapidly expanding volume of gas as a result of a runaway chemical reaction moving faster than the speed of sound in the local medium" you get a different set of results, because the search engines don't know what words mean. They instead have a sort of historical, Pavlovian association.  Use words in the "wrong" context and they get confused and lost.

We say the language becomes "corrupted" over time because the later version is inherently less fluent than the previous version. E.g. what are social conditions? They are livingish livingranks. Livingranks are livingish? You don't fuckin' say. Come up with that on your own, did you. Using "livingranks" for "things-which-we-call-conditions" is also plain wrong. I wonder what word the Old English had for worldstate? Don't forget worldstate is two syllables, conditions three. 

In a corrupt language you take longer to redundantly say words that are being used wrong. It's unquestionably decline (down-sloping).

You know how I have to say "you" because English has no second-person singular? It used to, ye prat. Almost exactly this occurred: because egalitarianism, everyone started using the royal We to signal that nobody was less valuable than anyone else and especially not less valuable than royalty, to the point where the singular "I" was completely forgotten. Peasants don't know their own tongue (trying to make them pick up a second tongue is plain mean). Then ye got some troubled peasants distinguishing between we and we-all, or we and wees, to try to remember the word I. You fuckin' dolts.

Why do Americans say "entree" entering-dish, when they refer to the main course? Because Americans are not fluent and don't know what words mean.

Over time, languages (especially lingua franca and attempted imperial lingua franca) forget their own words. If they do remember the words, they forget what they mean. That's corruption. 

P.S. English peasants in particular seem proud of being non-fluent in English. If they can speak their own tongue like a broken pidgin, they're as happy as a pig in shit. French peasants, at least, seem to strive (uselessly, but with feeling) to be more fluent. Japanese peasants give face to those who are more fluent than they are, rather than mocking them like English peasants do. 

Then, the English peasant, speaking an improverished pidgin, keeps accidentally absorbing pretentious (stretch-ish) bureaucratese which serves the linguistic need they suddenly find themselves with. Which bureaucratisms are then used wrong, in case you weren't sure they were foreign implants.

This is why it was very correct when for centuries scholars wrote exclusively in Latin. 

Should have used Greek instead, tho. Using Latin revealed they were doing it for social reasons, not logical or scholastic ones. Exactly as accused, they did it to sound fancy and for no other reason. They were correct (co-rect; with-the_line) by accident.

Scholars need their own language. Restricting a tongue to scholars means it's restricted to high-IQ users who put real demands on the tongue, which means it corrupts very slowly if at all. Even if it does get corrupt, the professionals can fix it, unlike hapless peasants. 

(You don't want to know what "professional" actually means. Save yourself the headache.) 

I see no reason wealthy scholars have to use a natural language. Construct a purpose-built one and use that. Maybe some kind of lojban except un-sodomized by cross-pollination with Greek.

You want "in" on the scholarly clique? Don't make scholars write in the vulgate. Merchant-tongue simply isn't good enough. Make the scholar-tongue your native language if you want it so bad, villeins. 

Scholars deserve the frustration they suffer for taking the merchant whining more seriously than the merchants themselves do. Why should we do all this work if they're not willing to do any work? They were just bitching. Should have assumed bad faith and demanded proof of good faith.

Thursday, May 19, 2022

Monopoly vs. Ykk

Having a monopoly is not necessarily a death sentence for your firm.

Ykk basically has a monopoly and they're fine. You can tell they're fine because you've never really thought about your zipper before. They just work. When zippers have issues it's because Americans are cheapskates, not because Ykk can't make a good zipper. 

I would be interested in investigating what they do differently. 

I accidentally investigated a bit just now. They're not a public company. That's 100% relevant. Incorporated and joint-stock, but not publicly traded. Don't have to make the Dow Jones happy. Result: this is the first time I've seen a corporate wiki page that has both revenue and profits with the green triangle. Not coincidentally the latest data is 8 years old - uh, actually, how much money they make is none of your business. They make enough. Just buy your zipper and piss off.

4chan means narcissist when they say autistic

In most contexts.

Recall Ghost in the Shell. Autistic mode is when they turn off their bluetooth network, aka airplane mode. This is a correct use of the Latin. Narcissists necessarily function in this kind of autistic mode all the time - narcissists have a version of closed shell syndrome. 

Regular autists merely have difficulty understanding others because we're so different. The Caino hypcriens brain functions by assuming the other brain works more or less like yours does, which is a problem when it doesn't. If the assumption doesn't hold, the function constitutes a bug. Unfortunately allists are actually incapable of debugging the function, so they're just kinda boned when it comes to dealing with autists. Once we grow beyond the larval stage it's up to us whether we want to make the allist comfortable or exploit them or troll them, and they can't do shit about it except go full shrieking monkey mob and lynch us. Even then, it's not hard to spot the line.

For a narcissist it's actually impossible to understand others, because they're entirely invisible. They can't see anything except their own reflection. (Reminder: which, unlike Narcissus, they hate. If it were consistent and not self-destructive we wouldn't call it crazy.)


Excepted context: autistic map makers or autistic flag-finders are genuinely autistic. Or more probably spergs. Spegs have in fact a heightened capacity for empathy, but it tends to be object-directed instead of person-directed. Still, as the global capture-the-flag incident showed, spergy empathy will in fact reveal more about the person than allist empathy, in the end. 

This is part of the reason allists hate spergs so much. This is the reason narcissists immediately go into an incandescent berzerk fury on contact with spergs: their illusionary fake persona will be casually pierced. Autists will straight-up fail to notice the narcissist demanding they play along, whereas the allist can be fooled into playing along even if they resist.

Wednesday, May 18, 2022

Morality Isn't Real: Inner Peace

Did anyone tell you inner peace makes you comically powerful?

When you don't fight yourself every step of the way, getting anything done is about fifty times easier. 

Don't do it to try to win Afterlife Points™ or whatever your so-called religion tries to pawn off on you. Do inner peace because it's the difference between a pedalled tricycle and a rocket engine. 

Also it feels good. Shockingly, health feels good. Puritans BTFO. 

Oh but you might get Afterlife Points™ anyway. Why do yourself right twice over when you can do it thrice?

BTC Ideal For Backing Banknotes

BTC has high transaction costs, so you want your transactions bundled into batches. Using a bank for this is ideal. BTC-backed banknotes and bank balances allow fast and easy low-key transactions, but you can withdraw your BTC balance at any time.

Turns out "digital gold" was an even more apt moniker than you thought. 

Meanwhile, BTC does most of the fractional-reserve auditing for you. The correct fractional reserve is 1:1, because the risk of a bank run is 0 at this ratio. BTC balances are public: you can check how much BTC your bank holds at any time just by looking at their address on the blockchain. You can check yourself that you aren't issued more notes than is warranted by how much their BTC balance goes up. You can even give them special permission to invest your fraction of their BTC balance. Upside: higher interest rates for you; downside, risk of default.

Tuesday, May 17, 2022

Twitter is Fake

And probably gay. (I could figure it out, but why bother?) 

I'm concerned they told Musk he'll get Epstein'd if he buys twitter and he's using the fake-account thing to get out of it. 

That said, my twitter account has over 800 followers, which means I had a good sample size. How many were real? Most were inactive accounts. Someone would follow me and later forget twitter existed. The reason I approached 1000 followers can be found here: "Joined 2012."

Folk who don't sign in can't unfollow you for over-spiced tweets. The older your account, the more links will be dead.

You may note my account is itself inactive, because I was locked out. "Give us your phone number!" "No." That's 130 fundamentally-fake follows right there. Though probably most of those accounts are, in turn, inactive.

Also I never checked my main feed because I got tired of folk getting salty for getting unfollowed. Thus I followed promiscuously but instead used purely lists, so even when I was active, most of them were fake. (Bonus: the lists weren't {aren't?} algorithmically "managed." They displayed every tweet, in chronological order.)

There were certainly no shortage of bots and spammers either. I always remember the JBP tweet which was, "Depression and substance abuse: the facts" with a missing link. Got nearly 100 retweets, never mind the 800 dinks. Revealing that many of JBP's readers don't read his tweets (all about who says it, not what's said), nor does JBP himself have any idea what's on his own twitter feed.