Elegator

[Phil Hoyeck @PAHoyeck]

Where would these famous philosophers be if they were alive today?

• Immanuel Kant: unemployed Redditor
• G.W. Hegel: unemployed Redditor
• Arthur Schopenhauer: unemployed Redditor
• Søren Kierkegaard: unemployed Redditor
• Karl Marx: unemployed Redditor
• Friedrich Nietzsche: unemployed Redditor
• Martin Heidegger: unemployed Redditor
• Bertrand Russell: unemployed Redditor
• Ludwig Wittgenstein: unemployed Redditor
• Jean-Paul Sartre: unemployed Redditor

[Mihai @mihai_vie]

The bugman yearns for maximum output per waking hour and cannot comprehend an activity that produces neither income nor credentials. The bugman does not read for pleasure, he reads to learn. He does not train because he loves training, he trains the minimum amount required for the wanted outcome. He does not learn something out of curiosity, it must be useful. He cannot enjoy an afternoon with friends without calculating what those hours could’ve produced instead. Every moment must justify itself by producing something beyond the experience of the moment itself. The bugman must sacrifice everything for the future until there’s is no future left

[mabbe8 @mabbe_8]

The #LindsayClancy trial ended today in a mistrial, and I think we are entering a dangerous phase in our justice system where jurors, at least here in Massachusetts, are increasingly willing to substitute their own sense of fairness for the law they are instructed to apply.

The evidence never required anyone to believe Lindsay Clancy was well. She clearly was not. But being profoundly mentally ill and being legally insane are not the same thing.

None of the providers who actually treated Lindsay diagnosed her with postpartum depression or psychosis. The evidence instead pointed toward a serious mood disorder, with multiple experts ultimately identifying bipolar II. She resisted that diagnosis when it was raised, changed providers, was inconsistent with medications, and withheld some of her most disturbing thoughts from the people treating her.

What gets lost in the "loving mother who snapped" narrative is Lindsay's profound hopelessness. She had become convinced that her brain was damaged and she would never return to her old self. She was suicidal, but her children were a tether to life. She loved them, and leaving them behind was another barrier she would have to overcome to die.

My interpretation of the evidence is that she may have reached a horrifying conclusion: if she killed the children first, she would eliminate that tether and create a situation from which there could be no going back. Once they were dead, she would have to kill herself. But she couldn't cross that final threshold.

Then there is the alleged voice. After months of treatment without documented psychosis, Lindsay said she heard a voice telling her to kill the children minutes before the killings. We are talking about roughly an 18-minute window surrounding a claimed psychotic command that was unlike anything she had previously experienced and turned her into a puppet.

Yet within that same extraordinarily short period, she was capable of purposeful, sequential behavior.

She created the opportunity to be alone with the children. She researched how long Patrick's trip would take and added another errand. She killed the children one by one. And when Patrick called during this critical window, she didn't simply answer the phone. She missed his call and then made the decision to call him back.

To me, that callback is particularly important. In the middle of everything that was happening, she recognized that Patrick had called, understood that not responding could warrant Patrick returning early, and took affirmative action to call him back. That is difficult for me to reconcile with the simplistic narrative that Lindsay suddenly "snapped" and had no awareness of what she was doing.

Lindsay was a loving mother. She was also profoundly mentally ill and genuinely wanted to die. But she still understood what she was doing when she killed her children.

Those things are not mutually exclusive.

That's the uncomfortable reality the jury was asked to confront. Mental illness deserves compassion, and postpartum mental health desperately deserves more attention and resources. But compassion can't replace the legal standard for criminal responsibility.

If the standard becomes, "She was a loving mother, therefore she must have snapped," we're no longer applying the law to the evidence. We're creating our own definition of justice based on what feels emotionally acceptable.

And that is much bigger than the Lindsay Clancy case.

[Joseph Younis, MD @YounisJoseph]

I avoided commenting on the Lindsay Clancy trial because its nuanced and emotional but the implications are enormous so I am going to say something now. A lot of people are calling that one juror who wouldn't join the other eleven irrational. But, that juror is probably the only one asking the right questions imo: where is the evidence that she lacked the capacity to know it was wrong or to stop herself? And, maybe, where do we draw the line on what an ostensibly insane person is allowed to do when the doubt the defense manufactured rests on nothing in the record before the killings? It seems that the entirety of the defense position rests on improbable probabilities and that's a low bar for such a heinous act.

1. Postpartum psychosis is rare, and almost always happens in the first 4 weeks. The idea that some psychiatrists extend the postpartum window to a year is true, but for depression and anxiety. The evidence isn't strong for psychosis, and its latching on to improbability

2. The strongest risk factor for postpartum psychosis is preexisting bipolar disorder or a prior psychotic episode. She had neither before her third child. The real time evidence from her doctors/providers indicate this. The bipolar label that showed up was after significant polypharmacy, and any good psychiatrist will tell you that you cannot diagnose primary disease when multiple drugs could be offending agents. Drug-induced psychosis would show better temporal correlations with her medications and should be a mitigation argument at sentencing. Again, very improbable alignment

3. The proxy for intent is planning, and she clearly planned... she sent her husband to some restaurant they don't normally go to, checked the drive time, texted a specific order at 5:07 pm... she killed her children in sequence. That's demonstrating real time decision making. I don't understand how they circumvented this. Again, very improbable that she was able to make decisions up until it becomes a liability

4. This idea of a "voice" that commanded her is so post-hoc as a defense. The ltierature on command hallucinations show most people don't obey them and the compliance occurs when the voice is familiar. This was a first time voice she only ever reported 2 weeks after killing her kids. And this first time voice asked her to... kill all her children AND she listened to this unfamiliar voice? Again... very improbable

The improbability is so stark that it's almost undeniably a sympathy verdict from the jurors conflated with a misunderstanding of postpartum disease. The easiest way to demonstrate this is to take a father with the same chart, months of documented depression, insomnia, suicidal ideation but no psychosis then strangles his kids after arranging for his wife to be away from the house. 100% guilty.

Everyone knows postpartum disease is real and important. Everyone knows she's sick and needed help, possibly much better management. You can even argue she is insane. What I see to be the most important is where we draw the line of what we allow under the "insanity" rule. Massachusetts forces a binary verdict of guilty or not criminally responsible but this is a case for the third that other states have and which is guilty but mentally ill. We have a responsibility to speak for the unheard voices of these children and future children and say we draw the line at murdering children.

[NotKennyRogers @NotKennyRogers]

What would the verdict have been if Lindsay Clancy had killed George Floyd?

[signüll @signulll]

modern texting has basically created a new kind of social perception which is insanely fascinating.

i.e. after enough exposure you stop reading the literal words & start reading all of the deltas instead. those start to matter a lot more. stuff like response latency, even punctuation, message length, whether someone answers every part of a text, emoji usage, emoji tags, sudden changes in warmth, initiation frequency, when they stop asking questions, whether their cadence feels effortless or managed, etc.

the content becomes almost secondary. it’s remarkable how much human meta data flows through even a medium that mostly removes the non verbal stuff by default.

[Cobie @cobie]

Nice it took 9 years

[Brian Lui @brianluidog]

You know, isekai is so saturated now. Boring. Predictable. What we need is REVERSE isekai. Like a samurai from Nanjing is teleported to 2026 New York, and has to instantly learn about DEI

[AYi @AYi_AInotes]

说个暴论，看不懂牛来的爆火，你就很难理解现在的年轻人和我们身处的这个时代。

《牛来》的爆火，根本不是什么抽象梗的胜利。

是一对普通母子，用 5 年笨功夫，
徒手把精英们堆了几十年的影视行业高墙，砸穿了。

全片没有专业团队：儿子包揽导演、建模、剪辑，60 后的妈妈做编剧、配音，俩人在家纯手搓了 5 年，总成本 1500 块，之前他们家是开装修公司的。

上映头 9 天总票房才 7000 块，发行朋友劝他们别上，结果现在全国院线连夜加场，年轻人跨城几十公里开车去打卡。

大家买票进场，根本不是去看一部制作精良的动画，大家是去给 “普通人也能把名字挂上大银幕” 这件事投票。

这片子最狠的科普是：电影审查根本不收钱，不管你建模多崩、画面多卡，只要合规就能上 —— 把作品搬上全国院线的门槛，从来不是精英们说的那样高不可攀。

这届年轻人的狂欢，本质上是对 完美精致 的集体造反。

AI 越来越强了，它给你标准的表达、高效的生成、零瑕疵的结果，所有东西都在往精致、正确、无懈可击的方向卷。

人反而开始本能地反向跑：我们爱卡顿、爱失误、爱笨拙、爱那些带着缺口、不合逻辑、活生生的粗糙感。

在一个机器能生产所有完美答案的时代，不完美”反而成了人最硬的证明。

大家捧《牛来》，捧的不是那部崩得离谱的动画，是那个不端着、不装精英、用 5 年死磕的普通人，是在告诉所有把门槛抬得高高的人：

墙没有那么高，普通人笨一点、慢一点，也能砸开。

[Angelica 🌐⚛️🇹🇼🇨🇳🇺🇸 @AngelicaOung]

The year was 1998. Zhu Rongji became premier of China in March, and immediately launched scorched-earth administrative reform. Central government bureaucracy was slashed in half. Whole ministries were completely dismantled.

The famous “hundred coffins” quote was from his inaugural speech. Zhu set the tone for his premiership from the start — reform for China was do or die.

That same month, the raging Asian Financial Crisis reached Hong Kong. Vultures were circling around the HK dollar. Zhu made his famous pledge to back Hong Kong “at all costs” and absorbed huge domestic pain by refusing to devalue the Renminbi, providing an anchor that helped halt the downward spiral in the region.

That summer, China was hit with the worst floods in half a century. Almost 4000 ppl died and tens of millions were displaced. Zhu excoriated local officials for the shoddily-constructed buildings swept away by the flood, coining the phrase “tofu-dreg” buildings.

Wait how did he manage to do all this? He was the premier. Jiang Zemin was the General Secretary. Well Jiang and Zhu had a very special rapport. It was a good cop-bad cop kind of thing. Together they ordered the PLA to completely divest from their lucrative commercial enterprises.

In the autumn, Zhu pulled the trigger on massive layoffs at China’s inefficient State-owned enterprises. Millions lost their “iron rice bowls” overnight. A necessary restructuring for China’s economic development, but it came at a heavy human cost.

In October, the Guangdong International Trust and investment Corporation defaulted on its foreign debt. International creditors watched in disbelief as Zhu let it go bankrupt. No bailout.

At the end of the year, he ended the state housing distribution system. Residential real estate commercialized, sparking China’s 2-decade long property boom.

All this, was just in one year. Zhu would remain as premier until 2003. In that time he finalized China’s entry into the WTO, poured billions into the infrastructure buildout in Western provinces, and cleaned up the banking system which was groaning under the pressure of non-performing loans.

If Deng was the architect of reform and opening up, Zhu was the builder. The guy who got his hands dirty. He was known for his unfiltered candor and fond of trading barbs with foreign reporters.

With his death at 97, it really feels like the turbulent yet intoxicating era of go-go growth accompanied by societal gyrations is over for China. Today’s China is in another era. Another economy. What did Zhu think about it? We don’t really know. Unlike most Chinese senior leaders, once he retired, he stuck to his code of never speaking of policy.

[Eivor @Eivor_Koy]

The line that touches my heart the most in the movie is this:

“They’re not your kids.”
“Does’nt matter, they’re still kids.”

Love knows no boundaries. Those nations that inflict war and pain on others have no right to lecture other countries, nor do they have the right to claim the moral high ground.

[Edward Feser @FeserEdward]

Murderers.

[tang_cel @red_shor]

when the last ming emperor begged all his relatives for money to pay troops for the state coffers were empty his father in law told him he had no money

when rebels were ransacking the capital some time later they found hundreds of thousands of taels of silver in his mansion

[all the best, arianna @virtualjew]

hit em where it hurts

[Jacob Nestle @JN4Liberty]

You don't want communism, you want to be a minor aristocrat

[Natural Philosophy @Naturalphilosy]

“Everything is your fault if you're any damn good.”

—Ernest Hemingway

[Menarion @cath_menarion]

Conservatives are generally nicer people than their rhetoric would imply and progressives are generally crueler people than their rhetoric would imply. I know several "pull yourself up by the boostraps" conservatives who are so generous they'd give you the skin off their back if you asked. I know bleeding heart liberals who will call on their neighbors for placing a shed without a permit.

[Ikkyu Sojun @ConciousLabRat]

Forget the GDP dick-measuring contest.

In peacetime, everyone obsesses over nominal GDP because it makes the West look rich and superior.

Lawyers, Netflix, fashion shows, apps, and $2,000 handbags inflate the numbers beautifully.

The moment the shooting starts, that metric becomes toilet paper.

PPP GDP is what actually counts because war is decided by one brutal question…

How much real stuff can your factories pump out?

China’s PPP economy is already 30-40% bigger than America’s.

Russia’s industrial machine keeps outproducing the entire NATO alliance in artillery shells year after year.

China builds more commercial ships in a couple of years than the U.S. has managed in decades.

You don’t win attrition wars with stock buybacks, ESG consultants, or financial engineering.

You win with steel, explosives, machine tools, energy, and the ability to replace losses faster than the other side.

Peacetime metrics are designed to soothe.

Wartime reality is designed to humiliate.

Keep clinging to the comforting numbers if you want.

But remember history doesn’t grade on feelings.