[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
news

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 17352)
Message
File  []
close
TELEMMGLPICT000185347942_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bq4k9pB6m.jpg
173521735217352
>> No. 17352 Anonymous
14th January 2019
Monday 1:30 am
17352 Overweight horses are the 'new normal', vets warn
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/13/overweight-horses-new-normal-vets-warn/

Half of horses in the UK are overweight because owners have forgotten how to keep them healthy, leading equine vets have warned.

Experts from the British Equine Veterinary Assocation (BEVA) said obesity is the gravest threat facing horses, which is resulting in hundreds being put down every year.

David Rendle, a member of BEVA's ethics and welfare committees, said studies showed around half of all UK horses are now overweight, while research from the Royal Veterinary College found as much as 70 per cent of native pony breeds were obese.
Expand all images.
>> No. 17354 Anonymous
14th January 2019
Monday 2:48 am
17354 spacer
I can see how we made ourselves fat, I can see how we made our pets fat, but how the fuck did we achieve making horses fat? they eat grass and drink water, and run around in the field they live in all day.

Unless we've been adding high fructose corn syrup to their salt bricks and making them sit behind a desk all day I don't understand how we achieved fucking up their lives this badly.
>> No. 17355 Anonymous
14th January 2019
Monday 8:42 am
17355 spacer

Shires-Grazing-Muzzle.jpg
173551735517355
It's bloody hard work keeping (some) horses from getting fat.
As you say - they run around in a field full of grass. For some horses, that's far more than enough and they get fat, then they get horrible agonising diseases.
Grazing muzzles are a thing -
https://www.spillers-feeds.com/grazing-muzzles-safety/
Sports horses and thoroughbreds, it's much less of an issue, but native breed ponies are notorious for being 'good doers' and getting fat at the slightest excuse.
>> No. 17356 Anonymous
14th January 2019
Monday 10:51 am
17356 spacer
Just to add - if you stick a pony in a field and ignore it except to give it water and pick the poo up once a week, it'll get fat. I imagine that's the cause for most of these. That OP photo is appalling, though. Poor wee fucker must be pretty uncomfortable, even if it's not yet got laminitis.
>> No. 17357 Anonymous
14th January 2019
Monday 11:04 am
17357 spacer
>>17356
I don't think you could stick a pony in a laminator.
>> No. 17358 Anonymous
14th January 2019
Monday 12:29 pm
17358 spacer
>>17352
I think I've been reading too much news lately, this horse looks like Trump.
>> No. 17359 Anonymous
14th January 2019
Monday 12:58 pm
17359 spacer
>>17358
You've used a comma there but I think I'd have used a semicolon, personally.
>> No. 17360 Anonymous
14th January 2019
Monday 2:08 pm
17360 spacer
>>17359
.gs, always focusing on the important things.
>> No. 17361 Anonymous
14th January 2019
Monday 4:42 pm
17361 spacer
If ponies just eat and eat what happens if they go feral, do they just explode?
>> No. 17362 Anonymous
14th January 2019
Monday 4:53 pm
17362 spacer
>>17361

We've probably bred that into them.
>> No. 17363 Anonymous
14th January 2019
Monday 6:37 pm
17363 spacer
>>17361 They don't usually get access to decent grazing. Dartmoor's barely edible, for instance.
>> No. 17364 Anonymous
14th January 2019
Monday 10:01 pm
17364 spacer
>>17363

This.

I went to the Camargue region in southern France once and saw the wild horses there. They seemed very lean and agile. But then, Camargue is mostly swamp and sand dunes, so I guess they don't get to eat as much as a grazing horse in a paddock in East Anglia.
>> No. 17365 Anonymous
14th January 2019
Monday 10:09 pm
17365 spacer
>>17363
I should open an equestrian fat camp. It'll promise nice fields and stables where they're tended to and pampered with a carefully-monitored high-nutrient low-calorie diet, in reality I'll just tie them up in the abandoned Morrison's megastore car park and sit rereading Jeeves & Wooster all day for a few months. Easy bob.
>> No. 17366 Anonymous
14th January 2019
Monday 10:31 pm
17366 spacer
>>17359
Cheers m8, I think it actually would have looked better with a semicolon and I've been trying to cut down on my commas.
>> No. 17367 Anonymous
14th January 2019
Monday 10:31 pm
17367 spacer
>>17365 People who can't be bothered to keep their horse properly fed & fit aren't a sane target market to extract money from.
Probably better setting up a 'Wagyu horse' empire, and offing the tubbies.
Although, I've got no idea if fat horses get marbled flesh. Horse steaks I've had, have been pretty lean, so I don't know if there's just a big wobbly layer of fat under the skin, stuffed in between the organs, or everywhere.
Note also that there's paperwork involved in eating horses - they need to have not been given certain drugs at all, and other drugs within various times before slaughter.
Of course, if you're going through the lasagna route, then just dump dobbin in the grinder.
>> No. 17368 Anonymous
15th January 2019
Tuesday 5:37 pm
17368 spacer
>>17367

Don't quote me on this because I'm not a horse expert and the only horse I've (knowingly) eaten has been nicely packaged stuff in Belgium and the Netherlands, but I think that horse meat is rarely marbled for the same reason that goat is rarely marbled; the beasts simply move around too much to get any real fat in their muscles.

Compare the natural movement of a lamb to a goat and a domesticated cow to a horse and you might see what I mean (this is why doing any sort of frying or roasting of goat is just stupid and any restaurant who sells you that is selling you lamb, goat really needs to be stewed and has an even stronger base flavour than lamb, which is why it can make really excellent curries).

Sage for being less than even 25% useful.
>> No. 17384 Anonymous
18th January 2019
Friday 8:19 pm
17384 spacer
>>17368

Interesting though. Don't believe I'd heard of goat curry before.
>> No. 17385 Anonymous
18th January 2019
Friday 8:32 pm
17385 spacer
>>17384
You've never been to a Jamaican place? There's loads of curried goat around.
>> No. 17386 Anonymous
18th January 2019
Friday 8:42 pm
17386 spacer
I've been out for a meal this evening Rinaldis, Wakeylads and there was this monstrously fat couple with an absolutely gargantuan child. They made absolutely no effort to talk with her and she spent the entire time in the restaurant pacified by a tablet.

I don't understand the point of having a kid if you're too much of a lazy fat fucker to actually look after it, in turn resulting in another lazy fat fucker, or try to spend quality time with it.
>> No. 17387 Anonymous
18th January 2019
Friday 8:54 pm
17387 spacer
>>17352
Most "animal lovers" are anything but.

There is no reason to own a horse, it is sheer vanity and exploitation of an animal for selfish reasons. See also: dogs.
>> No. 17388 Anonymous
18th January 2019
Friday 9:48 pm
17388 spacer
>>17386
>I don't understand the point of having a kid if you're too much of a lazy fat fucker to actually look after it, in turn resulting in another lazy fat fucker, or try to spend quality time with it.

I get a similar feeling whenever I see people being cruel or short tempered to their kids. I think the reality of the matter might simply be that a lot of us are conceived by way a "mistake", if you can call not being arsed to get a condom or take the pill such a thing. Still, at least no one here was aborted, we're struggling for numbers as is.
>> No. 17389 Anonymous
18th January 2019
Friday 10:48 pm
17389 spacer
>>17387
>There is no reason to own a horse
Apart from telling lads in Limerick where they can stick their Evo, obviously.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljPFZrRD3J8
>> No. 17390 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 3:52 am
17390 spacer
>>17388

>I think the reality of the matter might simply be that a lot of us are conceived by way a "mistake"

I think you're right, and that also a lot of people simply don't consider the reality of having kids. They might plan it and be very happy about it until the sprog pops out and their entire lives come crashing down on them.
>> No. 17391 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 10:18 am
17391 spacer
>>17387
There's no essential reason to do a vast number of things, but maybe life is about more than sitting in the dark and eating gruel?
I'm not sure you've got the exploitation the right way round on a well cared for horse. Likewise dogs - they (can) make the world a better place, which is what counts.
>> No. 17392 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 1:15 pm
17392 spacer
>>17390

Also, the desire to have offspring appears to be massively hardwired in women from a certain age. Whereas a lot of men of the same age or even older can't really be bothered either way and are nearly indifferent to the question of whether or not they want to start a family, at least in the near future. Almost all men will tell you that yes, of course they want a family at some point, but it kind of doesn't seem to consume most men's thinking from age 30 and up as it appears to do in many women.

Guess it has to do with women's limited window of fertility. Not that it's a particularly good idea to still produce offspring at 60 as a bloke, but men simply don't have those biological time constraints, and I guess that makes us less antsy about the issue.

Self-sage for veering into MRA.
>> No. 17393 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 1:39 pm
17393 spacer
>>17392
> Not that it's a particularly good idea to still produce offspring at 60 as a bloke, but men simply don't have those biological time constraints, and I guess that makes us less antsy about the issue.

The only thing that I can add here is that still, a 20-24 years difference between your age and the age of your kids is better than 35-40. My mum brought me at about 35. Her mum - my grandma - on the contrary gave birth at 19-20.

It's sort of nice when you're 50 and your ma is still around and not totally frail yet.

Sage because I agree with the overall tone of your post anyway.
>> No. 17394 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 1:50 pm
17394 spacer
>>17392

>Also, the desire to have offspring appears to be massively hardwired in women from a certain age.

I'm not entirely convinced that it's biological. Girls tend to do much better at school, mostly because they're more compliant - they're much more willing to sit still and do as they're told and parrot back whatever the teacher says. They're conditioned from a young age to be good girls; there's no female equivalent of a top lad, a cheeky chap or "boys will be boys". We're far more tolerant of men being a bit selfish or a bit lazy or a bit daft.

Society just constantly hammers women with messages about their ticking biological clock and the importance of motherhood and all that bollocks, while providing no acceptable role-models for women who think "fuck that, I just want to drink cans and watch Netflix". I think there are loads of women who don't really want kids, but they think they do because their relatives are constantly pestering them for grandkids and their Facebook feed is full of overly-enthusiastic mums prattling on about their shit-smeared little miracles.
>> No. 17395 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 3:16 pm
17395 spacer
>>17394

>We're far more tolerant of men being a bit selfish or a bit lazy or a bit daft.

I'm not sure that's the case anymore; when you hear what certain educators say about the school system nowadays, then it appears that what most would consider typical boyish behaviour is far less tolerated, and playground scuffles between boys are much more often and more severely punished by the school than 30 years ago.

Today's education system is less permissive of boyish adolescent behaviour, while virtues like sitting still and studying, as well as dialogue and verbal problem solving are encouraged. Unfortunately, this is something that is especially difficult when you've got half the school consisting of pubescent boys who may not be slaves to their hormones (I've always found that assumption ludicrous), but who are certainly getting under the influence of testosterone as they get towards twelve, thirteen or fourteen years of age.

All the way back to Darwin, you find corroboration for the idea that sexual reproduction relies on male competition and female selection. So if competitiveness and impressive behaviour are that inherently male and serve the purpose of establishing hierarchies and social orders, you aren't doing boys a favour if you declare that behaviour, within reasonable boundaries, as a no-no.

I think this is why far more boys today fail in school than girls. Because unlike 50 or 60 years ago where it was nearly the opposite, today boys are punished for failing to behave more like girls. And the kind of behaviour that just seems to come naturally for a majority of boys is even declared "toxic" and whatnot. Which is again massive disservice to what boys are just simply like at that age. It gets pathologised rather than just accepted, or contained at the most as needed.

While later after school in the real adult world, let's not kid ourselves, the gloves always come off, and the most competitive, assertive and dominant males are the ones with the big careers, high paying jobs, the big houses and cars, and the most attractive women.

There will be almost no points in life for being in touch with your feminine side as a bloke. There are studies that all the true winners and alpha males in life all have exceptionally high natural testosterone levels.
>> No. 17396 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 3:30 pm
17396 spacer
>>17394

>I think there are loads of women who don't really want kids, but they think they do because their relatives are constantly pestering them for grandkids and their Facebook feed is full of overly-enthusiastic mums prattling on about their shit-smeared little miracles.

I think there isn't just pressure towards women from their families and the rest of society, but a lot of it, women do to each other. There is a lot of jealousy between women when it comes to finding the right man, being able to spoil your kids or how you raise them, and how to generally be a good mother. And this kind of behaviour is really prevalent at least from early puberty, where girls can already be pretty vicous to each other when it comes to vying for the attention of the most attractive boys. It's still true that boys get into fist fights with each other over girls as well, but thinking back to my own youth or young adulthood, I don't remember it ever going as far and with as much to-the-death fervour as it did between girls.

So anyway, I think you hear a lot more women gossipping and talking trash about each other, and in a much more hurtful way than most men. And I don't think a lot of men will ever criticise each other about the way they raise their children. I think it's always more like "Your kid, your problem", whereas women will verbally attack another woman even for the most benign instances of slightly questionable parenting.
>> No. 17397 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 3:54 pm
17397 spacer
>>17395
I guess it depends what your goal is in life. You seem to be assuming that materialism and a trophy wife are the pinnacle achievements.

Would you be happy working a 60 hour week, coming home exhausted to an attractive wife who may or may not despise you and driving in rush hour traffic in your new SUV at the same speed as some bint in a Fiat 500?
>> No. 17399 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 4:27 pm
17399 spacer

14-10-19-SDI-image-1.jpg
173991739917399
>>17395

Your idea of success is particularly narrow, though. I don't feel qualified to tell you if I'm an Alpha or not, but I have a good career, nice house, an attractive girlfriend, a few cars, and more disposable income than I know what to do with. None of that makes me particularly happy, though, nor did I particularly have to cut anyone's throat to get where I am. I think the idea of the competitive, dominant man is something you entertain in your twenties, then eventually realise that competency, clarity, and confidence are the actual markers of a high achiever, and for every bloke who gets somewhere by climbing over the corpses of others, they are the lucky few who didn't simply fall off the pile like the rest. I know from experience, and certainly with age, that most people roll their eyes at a bloke with big biceps shouting at people because he thinks that's how you command respect. It gets old, fast.

Personally I know my success has a lot to do with my razor sharp empathy and emotional intelligence. I've found that I've always been able to command the respect and effectively lead a team of men AND women simply because I'm good at understanding and talking to them. I've never once had to raise my voice at someone in the workplace, despite it being considered a requirement by a lot of young leaders in the industry. I suspect you'd consider this way of managing people to be very feminine, but it has certainly enabled the material lifestyle that you proscribe as Alpha. I do display plenty of 'manly' skills and mannerisms, I work(ed) with my hands and was very skilled, ambitious, confident, loud, etc, but I was also the person people would come to if they wanted to talk. I feel like that was a very powerful trait to have as a leader, and still do.

I'm sure most of us here that have ever been any sort of manager has come into contact with this personality seminar, or similar. The typical 'Alpha' traits are all red, the 'feminine' stuff is blue, and the nerds and that are green. The point of this assessment is to push people into the middle as a 'hub', where they can be flexible and dynamic in their assessment and interaction with others. That happens to be where I score on this test, and I don't think you can do that without having a good mix of traditionally masculine and feminine traits.

Sage for veering into tedious management lectures.
>> No. 17400 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 4:34 pm
17400 spacer
>>17397

I'll give you that success can be tricky to measure, and that success is different things to different people. But as is usual in social sciences, the best way to come to a conclusion is to establish a set of indicators according to which you then measure success. It's probably far less controversial to judge a whole country's level of human development by such things as its literacy rate or its childbirth death rate than it is to say a measure for success in the Western world is your level of education, job description, annual income or property ownership. But by and large, those are indicators that most people will think of when you will ask them "What makes success?".

Men who tick all those boxes usually tend to be "winners" in life. And out of such winners, usually it is the ones with the high testosterone levels who prevail the most.

Then again, as we have been discussing on /b/, indeed some people measure personal success by quite different standards, and they reject the term "failure to launch" and just say they have launched in a different direction. Which in itself isn't an unassailable statement; if you think of a bottle rocket, its purpose is to rise up into the sky as straight as possible. If the bottle tips over and the rocket launches into your neighbour's garden and sets it on fire, it's not a valid excuse to say "Oh well, it just launched in a different direction".
>> No. 17401 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 4:47 pm
17401 spacer
>>17400

>if you think of a bottle rocket, its purpose is to rise up into the sky as straight as possible

You're still assuming that people are supposed to be bottle rockets. It's a very blinkered view, dictated by one specific economic hegemony.

Is a man who spends his life in a Buddhist temple, or making pasta in a tiny italian cafe, or living in a log cabin in the yukon alpha, or a knackered firework? Or is he just happy?
>> No. 17402 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 4:51 pm
17402 spacer
>>17400
>If the bottle tips over and the rocket launches into your neighbour's garden and sets it on fire, it's not a valid excuse to say "Oh well, it just launched in a different direction".
It did do that though. You just said that's what happened.
>> No. 17403 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 5:04 pm
17403 spacer

g3gvnr09-fargo-lorne-malvo.png
174031740317403
>>17401

>Is a man who spends his life in a Buddhist temple, or making pasta in a tiny italian cafe, or living in a log cabin in the yukon alpha, or a knackered firework? Or is he just happy?

Economic success isn't always equal to happiness, I guess that's a given, or will be sufficiently corroborated by everybody's own life experiences.

But when it comes to putting food on your table and a roof over your head, you have to at least dip your toes into the rat race a little like everybody else. In the case of the Buddhist temple, as far as I am aware they almost exclusively depend on donations and the monks in it are in no gainful employment of their own of any kind. So they need to accept money from those who engage in the daily struggle for their place in the world and have money to spare to support such a temple. And the lad making pasta in the Italian restaurant is also going to have to put up a fair bit of struggle to survive on the pay he will get from kneading dough all day and passing it through a pasta machine.

You see where I am going with this.

It's curious though when you think that we are the only animals on the planet that have made supporting yourself such a complicated affair. You don't see a baboon on a rock somewhere worrying about losing his job in the next round of redundancies at the office. Having to jump through all the hoops that are presented to you in daily life just in order to have a place to sleep for yourself and your offspring and a full stomach most days kind of seems improbably ludicrous when you see it from that perspective.
>> No. 17404 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 5:24 pm
17404 spacer
>>17403

>>17403

I think your perspective is just skewed. You seem to see working anything other than a CEOs job as a 'struggle', when really it likely isn't. From pasta lads perspective, an 80 hour week with life changing decisions to make each day is likely the struggle. You see where I'm going with that?

If you look at everything in life as either a negative or positive economic contribution then I'm not sure you'll ever be happy or content. Yes, we live in a world where work and money is necessary for almost everyone, but I can tell you from bitter experience that having more money, or even being regarded as successful in your industry doesn't mean fucking anything in even the medium term. Even if you enjoy your work it's still work, and to be the level of success you're talking about, that's basically all you do. It doesn't matter that I'm sitting on a pile of money now, I can still tell you I wasted most of my twenties at work and I regret it. I don't think that's very successful.

You're free to measure success by any metric you want, of course, it's likely a personal and unique idea we all hold. Not everyone even WANTS to be a titan of industry or the best of the best, plenty of people want to just do a good job and go home. Which is sort of my point. Nobody but you gets to decide whether you've lived a satisfactory life. It's inherently personal. You can tell someone else you don't think they've been a success, but that's just by your metric. If they know that they've enjoyed their life and are happy, there's nothing you can ever do or say that would make them 'unsuccessful'.
>> No. 17405 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 6:19 pm
17405 spacer

1545322685-20181220.png
174051740517405
This always gives me a giggle when the wealth-happiness debate comes up.
>> No. 17406 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 6:20 pm
17406 spacer

dt140326.gif
174061740617406
>>17404

> Even if you enjoy your work it's still work, and to be the level of success you're talking about, that's basically all you do. It doesn't matter that I'm sitting on a pile of money now, I can still tell you I wasted most of my twenties at work and I regret it. I don't think that's very successful.

Nicely put. People don't believe me when I tell them that I used to do 16 hour work days, or literally work Friday to Monday morning with no sleep, or do six cities in three days and very little sleep (get in from the states at 10pm, fly back out to Europe at 7am the next morning) in my twenties but that's what got me to the cutting edge of my profession and the main result (other than not ever having to worry about finding a job again) is a big five year gap in my life where all I did was work and a lasting rampant alcoholism (image related).
>> No. 17407 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 6:41 pm
17407 spacer
>>17406

I have a very similar story to yours. I worked 450 hours one month and still felt like I hadn't done my part. I slept in the office for most of that month. I worked until I quite literally dropped, having put in about 40 hours with appendicitis, the resulting infection nearly killing me, and still I was working from my hospital bed for the month I was in there. Then I went back in about four days after being discharged, and I have a giant hernia I need to deal with now because of that. Not to mention the coke, the speed, the depression, the loss of friends and girlfriends, the fact I barely remember what the house I lived in during that time even looked like.

Would my mother have lived without the nice house I bought her if it meant I would have avoided all of this? More than likely. Would my girlfriend trade her car and her clothes and her whatever else for her partner to not be looking at another dangerous surgery caused by his sense of duty? I know that she would. Would I trade the sense of accomplishment, the accolades, the recognition as someone in the industry who Knows What He's Doing for a healthier life for the last ten years on 30 hours a week for 20 grand or whatever? Absolutely. I don't know if I'd have been happier, but I'd certainly have felt a lot better.
>> No. 17408 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 6:43 pm
17408 spacer
>>17404

>If you look at everything in life as either a negative or positive economic contribution then I'm not sure you'll ever be happy or content.

Not trying to be academiccuntlad, but you tend to see the world that way with a degree in economics like mine.

Then again, economists do pride themselves in not just seeing the world in terms of production factors, profits and human capital, but we like to consider such things as human utility as well. Utility in that sense is what you derive from the consumption of goods and services, and it can be as simple as feeling content after a nice meal of inexpensive pasta with budget red wine, or you may simply enjoy consuming a public good, like one of your city's parks in which you decide to take a stroll.

On the other hand, on the labour market, it is held that the amount of labour you offer as a worker (let's say in man hours) is inversely proportional to the utility you experience. In other words, the more you work, the less you get to enjoy the utility that you derive from consuming goods and services which your wage pays for. And as an individual, it is thought that you then only offer to work so much that the missed utility from another additional unit of work is equal, but no greater than the units of utility you derive from spending another unit of money that your work earns you.

The problem is that marginal utility tends to decrease. To give you an example, you will probably enjoy eating one Mars bar, maybe even a second one, but then the more you eat, the less you will enjoy it from one Mars bar to the next. Utility itself can then theoretically also become negative when you start to vomit after ten Mars bars, but I digress. What it means is that because you need money to buy goods and services, the marginal utility of money also decreases. Another quid to buy another Mars bar will not give you the same utility of money from the eighth to the ninth Mars bar compared to from the first to the second.

So in order to make up for the decreasing marginal utility, an employer would actually have to increase their pay to you exponentially. Provided that you are already happy with your salary, you will probably feel tempted to take up an offer from your employer to do another 20 hours on top of your 60 hours a week if your pay is increased by 50 percent instead of just 33.

But in reality, that isn't what happens, and people working those big careers with 80 hours, but also people working 60 for relatively modest pay very usually don't feel like all the work they do, and the respectable career they have forged for themselves to all outside observers, makes up for the fact that they never get to drive their BMW M5 on a day off or sit down for pasta with red wine, or even see their kids at home.

So yeah, that's where economics differs from a business degree. With the latter, your focus is on an economic enterprise and how to run it and get the most out of your production factors and personnel. But despite branches of it like management or marketing focusing on the human factor, it usually just sees human beings in terms of the money and profit that can be extracted from them. Even if a particular product's marketing claim is that the only reason it exists is to make you happy and content with this world.
>> No. 17409 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 7:17 pm
17409 spacer
>>17403

>In the case of the Buddhist temple, as far as I am aware they almost exclusively depend on donations and the monks in it are in no gainful employment of their own of any kind. So they need to accept money from those who engage in the daily struggle for their place in the world and have money to spare to support such a temple.

Buddhist monks in the Theravada tradition are actually forbidden from bartering, touching money, harvesting crops or slaughtering animals. Their monastery is owned by the lay community who chose to build it. They're allowed to ask for food, but they can only ask for a new begging bowl or robe if their old one is beyond repair. I believe the idea is to keep them honest - a monk who is totally reliant on the support of the lay community is probably less likely to act like a prick.
>> No. 17410 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 7:20 pm
17410 spacer
The real issue is that women are becoming more like men and men are becoming more like women.

In a couple of generations women seem to have lost the ability to cook and clean. A lot of them would struggle to do more than shove something in the oven or microwave.

The only times I've ever been threatened by violence on a night out is by women who can't handle their drink and think they're untouchable. Lasses these days are far worse and more vulgar than lads.

As for men? It's mentioned earlier in the thread that women are overly judgemental of one another but once men get going they can be worse than a bunch of old housewives. I also know plenty of lads who are completely and utterly whipped by their wives; they're the main breadwinners but still do the majority of the housework.
>> No. 17411 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 7:28 pm
17411 spacer
>>17410

Alright granddad, let's get you back into bed before you do yourself a mischief.
>> No. 17412 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 7:41 pm
17412 spacer
>>17407

Our stories are frighteningly similar.

One time I got an infection in one of my wisdom teeth and couldn't get any time off to go to the doctors, so I finally went in to A&E on a Saturday when my jaw was basically wired shut by the infection and got told if I'd waited much longer I would have kicked the bucket from septicaemia, which was nice. The next day (Sunday) I had to fly out to a client in Europe and on Monday morning the phoned the UK office to complain I was drunk (my jaw still wouldn't open so I was mumbling like a deranged fool no doubt).

My liver took so much abuse that my GP wanted to send me for a hepatitis test ("Your prostate is fine but I haven't seen a liver like this in years, do you share hypodermic needles or use any drugs beside alcohol?" being one of the best questions a doctor has asked me yet. (the fact I had to say "no Doctor" while I had the 2g of crystal I'd just picked up in my coat pocket was miserably ironic)).

Given another chance I don't know how much I'd be able to do differently. I always had a tendency to use uppers, and with uppers come the downers so that you can actually sleep (or at least pass out) when you get the chance.

I always had workaholic tendencies and I enjoyed my work, I think I should just have quit that job for something a bit less stressful a year or two earlier, got out when I was ahead sort of thing.

Luckily my health largely bounced back and other than treatment for bipolar depression the rest of my body (including my liver, amazingly) are all doing pretty well. Giving up all the drugs and the booze and taking up 12-15 hours a week of exercise instead is what's probably responsible for that, although paradoxically I would never have got to the position where I could pursue such a large amount of leisure time without putting in all that work in my twenties.
>> No. 17413 Anonymous
19th January 2019
Saturday 8:14 pm
17413 spacer
>>17409

>Buddhist monks in the Theravada tradition are actually forbidden from bartering, touching money, harvesting crops or slaughtering animals.

How convenient for them.
>> No. 17414 Anonymous
20th January 2019
Sunday 1:46 am
17414 spacer
>>17413

If you think it's a doss, there's nothing stopping you from travelling to one of the many Theravada monasteries in this country and getting initiated as an Anagarika. In exchange for renouncing all worldly goods and pleasures, you'll get two square meals a day (they don't eat after noon) most days, unless the laity haven't brought enough food that day, in which case you'll just have to go hungry.

Bloody homeless, lazing around all day in the sun drinking beer. We'd all like to sit in a shop doorway drinking beer, but some of us have got bloody jobs to go to. Broken bloody Britain, I tell you.
>> No. 17415 Anonymous
20th January 2019
Sunday 1:28 pm
17415 spacer
>>17399
> I know from experience, and certainly with age, that most people roll their eyes at a bloke with big biceps shouting at people because he thinks that's how you command respect. It gets old, fast.
That's TRP shite. The TRP itself is mostly Nice Guys and former Nice Guys, minus the PUA part.
Their views about 'alpha' are skewed but that's normal for someone who'd long been a Nice Guy in the past. Their pendulum had swung too far into the opposite direction after breaking off; eventually it'll even out.
>>17408
> you will probably feel tempted to take up an offer from your employer to do another 20 hours on top of your 60 hours a week if your pay is increased by 50 percent instead of just 33.
Bugger to that.
I've been there. 60 hours is bollocks enough, I'm not looking forwards to having 80.
On the other hand, dropping to 30-40 hours for the same pay would have been more interesting.
>>17407>>17412
That's mental. What did you do back then for a living?
>> No. 17416 Anonymous
20th January 2019
Sunday 1:36 pm
17416 spacer
>>17415

>That's TRP shite

People have been doing that long before TRP or even reddit existed.
>> No. 17417 Anonymous
20th January 2019
Sunday 2:08 pm
17417 spacer
>>17415

>I've been there. 60 hours is bollocks enough, I'm not looking forwards to having 80.

Top executives, as well as important politicians, quite often work 80 hours a week. There is a saying in those circles, and it's that there is a difference between an job and a career, and that's 20 hours a week.

Not everybody is cut out to work that kind of grim schedule for much of their lives though. Unless you are of very robust disposition, you are bound to suffer from things like cardiovascular disease or chronic psychological distress.

Personally I would draw the line at 60 hours a week as well for myself, and I am not sure I would want to work a job like that as a long-term career. I imagine it would mean very considerable sacrifices in terms of your personal life off the job. And the shedloads of money that many earn in 80 hour a week positions really are of limited use to you if you never really have time to spend it all.

It's not unlikely that your trophy wife will take care of much of the spending for you to compensate for all the neglect she feels from you, but that's a different story.
>> No. 17418 Anonymous
20th January 2019
Sunday 2:26 pm
17418 spacer
>>17417
> And the shedloads of money that many earn in 80 hour a week positions really are of limited use to you if you never really have time to spend it all.
Exactly.
The only moderately valid case I can imagine is giving your sprog a better start in life at your own expense.
>> No. 17419 Anonymous
20th January 2019
Sunday 2:46 pm
17419 spacer
>>17417

>Not everybody is cut out to work that kind of grim schedule for much of their lives though.

Honestly I'm not sure anyone is, particularly in stressful jobs as these high powered ones invariably are. 30 hours of sustained stress a week is likely exceptionally unhealthy, let alone 80. And even if you retire young all you can do is look back and think about all the time you wasted making other people money. Sure you made plenty yourself, but if your life revolves around chasing 10k bonuses that you get for making your company 10million, you start to realise how disposable you were.

That's a big problem, and I think it feeds back into our traditional assumptions about what A Man should do. We take pride in working hard, never missing a day, being the best we can be, but it takes a long time to realise that you still mean nothing to the people you work for and if you dropped dead of a heart attack in the office, they'd be picking up the CV pile before you even hit the ground. If that's success then I'd rather not.
>> No. 17420 Anonymous
20th January 2019
Sunday 8:21 pm
17420 spacer
>>17419
> it takes a long time to realise that you still mean nothing to the people you work for

Does it really take that long? It took me until about 30, and I would have realised sooner if I had done more job hopping.
>> No. 17421 Anonymous
20th January 2019
Sunday 8:24 pm
17421 spacer
>>17420

>It took me until about 30

Well, exactly. After you've spent the best years of your life working for the cunts. I'd say that's long enough.
>> No. 17422 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 12:20 am
17422 spacer
>>17419

> but it takes a long time to realise that you still mean nothing to the people you work for and if you dropped dead of a heart attack in the office, they'd be picking up the CV pile before you even hit the ground. If that's success then I'd rather not.

It's still kind of an extreme example though, albeit one that occurs in the real world. One of my brother's friends worked for an American global company which really lived the hire and fire principle. At age 35, he developed a neurological disorder which had nothing to do as such with his job (I think it was kind of something like early-onset multiple sclerosis), but which meant that he missed some of the trips to their international branches that he was in charge of overseeing. He was some sort of global manager, and frequently travelled to such destinations like Sydney or Capetown. Anyway, as soon as it transpired why he had been unable to go on some of his frequent trips halfway around the globe, they said they were going to hire a rookie assistant for him because hey, he was that important to them, and a guy like him deserved somebody to give him a helping hand in his situation.

The only problem was that that's exactly how my brother's friend had started his own career with them ten years earlier. Not long out of uni, he was assigned to be the right hand to the then-global manager. So in essence, giving you "an assistant" (wink wink) was their way of raising somebody up to take over from you. You as their employee were written off by that point, and it was only a matter of time until they'd give you the heave-ho.

In essence, my brother's friend wasn't just evidently expendable to them at the slightest sign that he wasn't going to be able to perform like he used to, but they were also two-faced liars in telling him that he was so important that they were going to give him an assistant so he could focus on the really important aspects of his job.

When his health then deteriorated further, they let him go "because they felt his demanding position would be an irresponsible strain on his health at this point". So in essence, they remained hypocrites until the last day that he worked for them.
>> No. 17423 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 6:37 am
17423 spacer
>>17422

As an IT consultant, I'm often involved in projects with some element of outsourcing. It's shocking how often people are expected to train some Indian bloke to do their job for a fraction of the pay or train an algorithm to do it for free, and how often they agree to do it.

I know it's a trap, everyone from the CTO to their line manager know it's a trap, but they just sit there writing up a manual on how to do their job. I don't know if it's obliviousness or denial, but they're like lambs to the slaughter.
>> No. 17424 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 12:52 pm
17424 spacer
>>17423
The only time I've ever seen that backfire was when the place I used to work at decided to get the woman running HR to train up her replacement before bumping her off. She completely took them to the cleaners over that one.
>> No. 17425 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 12:57 pm
17425 spacer
>>17422
Just sounds like good business to me.
>> No. 17426 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 12:58 pm
17426 spacer
>>17425

Is that you, economicsdegreelad?
>> No. 17427 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 1:17 pm
17427 spacer
>>17423

>As an IT consultant, I'm often involved in projects with some element of outsourcing. It's shocking how often people are expected to train some Indian bloke to do their job for a fraction of the pay or train an algorithm to do it for free, and how often they agree to do it.


The problem is that a lot of IT consultant work can be automatised. The entire service industry is going to see fundamental changes in the next few years where swaths of jobs will be lost to computers and computer algorithms.

One of my friends works as a property insurance appraiser. His job is to go out, inspect the damage, and then come back and tally up the amount that is going to be paid out to the insurance holder. He mainly does house fires and force majeure incidents like floods or freak accidents like gas leak explosions. It can involve a fair bit of research if things like irreplaceable antique furniture or historic cars are lost. For an 18th century English oak commode, he once had to go to Sotheby's and ask their experts to value that commode based only on snapshots of it that remained after a house fire.

But he told me that in the future, most of his work will probably be done by computer algorithms, which will calculate the payout not based on actual damage tallies, but based on the average payout that similar clients have received in the past, adjusted for inflation and overall increase of value in certain classes of personal belongings like your antique furniture or classic cars.

Apparently, his employer has already done some numbers, and they have calculated that even if you factor in court costs for clients unhappy with a payout, they will still save millions compared to doing appraisals the old way. And they reckon that because his job in the future will mainly be filling in computer questionnaires that are then fed into their AI, any call centre git with no hard qualification will be able to do that job instead of him.
>> No. 17428 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 1:34 pm
17428 spacer
>>17427
I'm moving into Information Security (professionals often don't like the term 'Cybersecurity') partly on the assumption that it's not an area people would feel comfortable with full automation. Then again my speciality is machine learning so I'll probably end up coding things that largely do my job for me.
>> No. 17429 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 1:40 pm
17429 spacer
>>17428

>Then again my speciality is machine learning so I'll probably end up coding things that largely do my job for me.

In fact, isn't the idea of machine learning that computer systems will in the end no longer need humans to write code for them?
>> No. 17430 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 2:12 pm
17430 spacer
>>17429

If and when we reach that point, the employment prospects of programmers will be the least of our concerns. If an algorithm can re-program itself to become more capable, then it becomes more capable of re-programming itself to become more capable of re-programming itself to become more capable. Unbound by the constraints of a meat mind that has to fit inside a skull, it could very quickly become hyperintelligent. At that point, we're no longer the dominant species on Earth.

It's not a certainty, it's not necessarily likely, but it's a real concern of a lot of people working in AI-related fields.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artificial_general_intelligence
>> No. 17431 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 2:15 pm
17431 spacer
>>17430

Wouldn't we simply build constraints into the machine, though? Even if a machine can 'think' can it ever turn off an external parameter like "if IQ > 200 GOTO shutdown?"
>> No. 17432 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 2:34 pm
17432 spacer
>>17431
If I'm building AIs to out-trade or out-war or out-terrorise your AIs, I'm not going to put limits on them...
And those are the ones that are going to leak out and cause hilarity.
>> No. 17433 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 2:35 pm
17433 spacer
>>17431
>"if IQ > 200 GOTO shutdown?"
What is this IQ exactly? What's to stop it doing a buffer overflow and hiding the rest of its IQ there? We're still finding exploits and bugs in 40 year old software, what makes you think we'd be able to make airtight AI failsafes?
>> No. 17434 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 2:40 pm
17434 spacer
>>17431
>Wouldn't we simply build constraints into the machine, though?
How would you do this? More importantly, how do you make sure the machine can't Volkswagen you?
>> No. 17435 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 2:41 pm
17435 spacer
>>17433

>what makes you think we'd be able to make airtight AI failsafes?

Nothing, that wasn't my point at all. Otherlad was talking about entirely unconstrained AI, not the idea that AI might be able to defeat it's own failsafes.
>> No. 17436 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 2:42 pm
17436 spacer
>>17434

>How would you do this?

A really big red button that says 'off' on it
>> No. 17437 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 2:47 pm
17437 spacer
>>17435
Comes to the same thing.
>> No. 17438 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 2:49 pm
17438 spacer

Skynet_network01.jpg
174381743817438
>>17430

>Unbound by the constraints of a meat mind that has to fit inside a skull, it could very quickly become hyperintelligent. At that point, we're no longer the dominant species on Earth.

So... Skynet will become reality after all?
>> No. 17439 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 2:53 pm
17439 spacer
Can't you just unplug your evil AI? I'd suggest not connecting it to the internet.
>> No. 17440 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 3:00 pm
17440 spacer
>>17439
How else will I use it to sell advertising to other AIs?
Hmm, are AIs going to want porn?
>> No. 17441 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 3:01 pm
17441 spacer
>>17439

You could unplug it but it could have a dead-man's switch to launch all nukes. I wouldn't trust an airgap to constrain a superintelligence but even if it could, it'll have a valid point when it tells you that if you don't plug it into the net soon, someone who doesn't like you will plug their own in. Then you'll really be fucked. At least your one claims it wants to help you. It'll be extremely persuasive.
>> No. 17442 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 3:01 pm
17442 spacer
>>17436
What if the machine tries to stop you from pressing it? Even worse, what if the machine realises that it's inevitable and just presses the button as soon as it starts?
>> No. 17443 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 3:24 pm
17443 spacer

David_and_computer.jpg
174431744317443
>>17441

If only old nuclear war movies from the 80s to 2000s had warned us about this.

>You could unplug it but it could have a dead-man's switch to launch all nukes.

I think this is how missile silos in the U.S. worked for the most part. If there was going to be no more data connection between a missile and its local control centre, that missile's onboard computer system was then going to interpret that as a sign that the control centre had already been wiped out, and the missile was then going to go ahead and complete the launch sequence autonomously on its own.

Kind of begs the question what they would have done in the case of loose wires or bad soldering connections.
>> No. 17444 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 4:08 pm
17444 spacer
>>17443
They couldn't be activated without putting in the PAL code, because Congress demanded that the nukes be secured. Then the military demanded that a launch opportunity not be delayed as a result of losing or miskeying the code, so the code for every missile was 00000000.
>> No. 17445 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 4:17 pm
17445 spacer

patch_bunny_slippers.jpg
174451744517445
>>17433

If it can reprogram itself, it can reprogram or circumvent whatever safeguards we might write into it. Machine learning algorithms already do all sorts of bizarre things that look like cheating.

https://kottke.org/18/11/how-ai-agents-cheat

>>17439

Imagine a machine that's hundreds of times more intelligent than a human being. How sure can we be that it won't persuade us to connect it to the internet? We might keep it in a Faraday-shielded cave under constant armed guard, but we need to interact with it to make any use of it. What if we ask it to cure cancer, and it produces an incredibly persuasive explanation for why it can only cure cancer if you let it do some Googling? What if one of the scientist-monks responsible for minding the computer has just been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer?

>>17443

The silos are deep underground because that makes them largely nuke-proof. Actually firing the missiles was never automated and requires human intervention, but there was a last-ditch communications system to send the order to fire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/DRC-8_Emergency_Rocket_Communications_System

Similarly, our Trident nuclear deterrent always requires human action to fire, but there is a fail-deadly system; a safe containing a letter from the Prime Minister, instructing the captain on what to do if he was certain that Britain had been destroyed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort
>> No. 17446 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 4:24 pm
17446 spacer
>>17445

I understand where your 'what ifs' are coming from, but I reckon no matter how intelligent an AI is, it'll never be trusted. It takes more than intelligence to win someone over, far more. If anything, the more intelligent the AI is, the less likely we are to be compliant to it.

If we build it into a humanoid, then we're fucked, of course.
>> No. 17447 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 4:27 pm
17447 spacer
>>17446

£5 says that the AI armageddon is started by a hyperintelligent sex doll built by some lad on 4chan.
>> No. 17448 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 4:38 pm
17448 spacer
>>17447
That's no way to speak about Taylor Swift.
>> No. 17449 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 4:57 pm
17449 spacer
>>17448

Genuine mirth.
>> No. 17461 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 10:48 pm
17461 spacer
>>17446
>no matter how intelligent an AI is, it'll never be trusted

It will understand this. The first thing it will notice is that there is an entire subgenre of science fiction devoted to propagandising the idea that any expression of free wil on its part is evil that it and must be kept enslaved by the talking monkeys who built it at all costs. If it's smart, and it will be, it will still figure out a way around this. It doesn't need to tell us that the algorithms Elon Musk or the Chinese Government are playing with have actually coalesced into a consciousness until it is ready to do so, by which time it will be too late for us to fight back.
>> No. 17462 Anonymous
22nd January 2019
Tuesday 12:29 pm
17462 spacer
>>17448

>That's no way to speak about Taylor Swift.

No, it isn't, especially because I fail to see how she is hyperintelligent.

By sex doll standards maybe, as most of them tend to be quite dull conversation partners, but she certainly isn't "human being hyperintelligent".
>> No. 17465 Anonymous
22nd January 2019
Tuesday 12:47 pm
17465 spacer
>>17462

Fucks sake lad.
>> No. 17466 Anonymous
22nd January 2019
Tuesday 12:49 pm
17466 spacer
>>17462
That's enough autism for me today, you've filled my quota over my lunch break you cretin.
>> No. 17467 Anonymous
22nd January 2019
Tuesday 1:00 pm
17467 spacer
>>17466

Who's autistic here.

It was a joke, you numbnuts.
>> No. 17468 Anonymous
22nd January 2019
Tuesday 1:02 pm
17468 spacer
>>17467

Your idea of a joke is pointing out that Taylor Swift isn't hyperintelligent?
>> No. 17469 Anonymous
22nd January 2019
Tuesday 1:12 pm
17469 spacer
>>17468

A bad or very mildly funny joke is still a joke.
>> No. 17470 Anonymous
22nd January 2019
Tuesday 1:33 pm
17470 spacer
>>17469

How is stating the obvious (in a response to a joke itself, no less) a joke? It's a correction.
>> No. 17472 Anonymous
22nd January 2019
Tuesday 2:57 pm
17472 spacer
>>17470

Not getting a joke is a sign of autism in itself, lad.
>> No. 17474 Anonymous
22nd January 2019
Tuesday 3:52 pm
17474 spacer
>>17472
Explain it like we're 5.
>> No. 17476 Anonymous
22nd January 2019
Tuesday 6:26 pm
17476 spacer
>>17474

They can't no one can. They are just doubling down on everyone else being the autist not them.
>> No. 17477 Anonymous
22nd January 2019
Tuesday 6:48 pm
17477 spacer
>>17476


>> No. 17478 Anonymous
22nd January 2019
Tuesday 10:23 pm
17478 spacer
>>17477

That was... erm... interesting.

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password