I don't know of anyone who's suggesting we kill all the mosquitos. Even if we killed all the human-sucking species, that'd still only be 3% of the ~3500 different species.
Less "regression to the mean", and more evolutionary architecture. Selection of the fittest applied to schools of architecture, with grades being the selection pressure.
Maybe better to put it as "emotionally unhealthy relationships" are costly to society. Singlehood is also less economically 'optimal' than partnerships, and divorce combines some of both.
> You should try AFK dating sometime, it's even worse! Out of all the women I've met, only 0.00000001218% been interested enough to date and marry me, and I didn't even touch any of the apps! Brutal.
> You're telling men to use "conventionally" unattractive women as target practice, implying they will be more receptive to attention, presumably due to a general lack of it. Then your advice is to leave these women behind once you've gotten what you needed, and to then seek women more attractive to you.
I dunno, this seems to be interpreting the comment in the worst way possible. Like, assuming bad faith.
The comment above suggested that guys approach less-attractive women until they "build some confidence". This is not about the woman's receptivity to attention, this is about the guy's confidence or lack thereof. It makes sense: when confidence is worse, the conversation is more awkward and stilted, and that awkwardness is more likely to reinforce the idea that talking to strangers is a waste of time.
The charitable interpretation would be this: that you practice talking to strangers in scenarios that feel safe. Gradually, work up towards your goal - making new friends, talking to people you want to date, etc.
I halfway agree with you. The comments underlying advice isn't that awful. But he really shot himself in the foot with the wording, and so I don't think it's weird that people take issue with the wording.
As I pointed out in another comment, he could've just argued for approaching people without expectations and intending it to go anywhere and suggested that a way of doing that is to approach people you're not attracted to.
In other words, make it about your intent and preference rather than about ranking women by appearance.
The reason why I suggest these co-workers approach ugos/low-mids: They tell me that they are too nervous to approach women "on their level" (whatever that means). (1) Most people are more comfortable to speak to strangers that they do not find (particularly) attractive. (2) Who knows... maybe that ugo/low-mid suddenly becomes a lot more attractive when you see their personality. Maybe they are funny, unusually kind/friendly/intelligent, or adventurous.
The Red Pill movement is about social manipulation to sleep with as many women as possible or have an endless string of situationships. My advice aims to help them to learn to meet strangers... and maybe spark a romantic connection. It is exactly how I dated my younger days... long before dating apps (when it was less brutal).
Again, my issue wasn't so much about your recommendation, but about how you presented it. As you can see in the responses, the way you worded it drew attention away from the advice and to that.
> Exaggerating a bit, but I'm fairly sure the Spanish speech was: "if you kill the other guys with your much better weapons, you will reach El Dorado"
And they basically did. Not a singular city of gold, perhaps, but the Spanish looted tens of billions of $$ worth silver and gold from Central/South America between 1492 and 1550. Which is all the more impressive given how little European manpower it took and how low their relative incomes would've been at the time.
... where gold is "gold and cochineal". The red dye brought back to Spain was much higher in value than the gold!
Ironically, Europe already had cochineal, but they foraged the source (parasitic beetles), while the bronze-age Aztecs had the brilliant idea to farm them on planted oak forests.
Unpopular, maybe, but what about the normal reasons? The researchers are looking to make a name for themselves, and/or they genuinely care about AI advancement.
On the off-chance you're not already aware, the US government considered exactly this during the Cold War! The mid 20th century is not beating the lead poisoning allegations in my view...
It's crazy that you can "see" (identify) the Milky Way at a level 5/6 on the Bortle Scale, even in the light pollution of the suburbs. But you don't realize just how brilliant it really is until you're really out to a dark sky spot.
For reference, the Bortle Scale[*] goes from 1 to 9, with 1 being pristine darkness and 9 being Manhattan.
Also worth noting that the Milky Way is brighter in early summer, late May to mid-July, as that's when the Earth's night sky is facing the most towards the Galactic Core. Go find yourself some deep dark sky on a new moon, and sit back and enjoy the enormity of the cosmos.
This is one reason why living in the Southern hemisphere is better - dark clear winter nights right at peak milky way time.
When I was young, I used to lie on my back staring up at the sky, trying to grasp the incomprehensibly vast distances I was gazing at. It's really nuts when you think of it that way. The mental vertigo of it all is extraordinary.
_(flipped_left-right).jpg){kind=link}
reply