Women often try to attack and rally others into attacking other women who are attractive, simply because they are attractive
This isn’t even really debated, simply known to be true
What’s not recognized is how often you may be getting tricked into doing the attractiveness hating ugly hoes bidding for them
This isn’t even really debated, simply known to be true
What’s not recognized is how often you may be getting tricked into doing the attractiveness hating ugly hoes bidding for them
💯3
On groups vs individuals —
Ideally, IMO, as much as possible,
(1) Groups should ALWAYS be judged based on groups:
E.g. Never appropriate to justify that the group of firefighters should be 50% women, just because you know some individual woman stronger than most of the group of firefighters.
That’s justifying a group distribution based on an individual, nonsense.
I.e. SHOULD judge group expected outcomes based on groups.
(2) Individuals should ALWAYS be judged as individuals:
E.g. hiring asian and jewish girls for your HR, just because those groups have high averages, but with zero good individual assessment — you’re probably going to end up with the bottom-tier retards of those supposedly high-tier groups, which are actually surprisingly quite terrible.
(3) And when judging groups, the sampling has to be done well — which I won’t even bother to explain here, but manipulating the sampling, often through censoring, is how many of the fake psyops are done.
=
Should judge groups based on groups.
Should not judge groups based on individuals.
Should judge individuals as individuals.
Should not judge individuals as groups.
— Wherever possible, which unfortunately isn’t always, especially if not planned ahead or if good individual assessment is literally made illegal.
Ideally, IMO, as much as possible,
(1) Groups should ALWAYS be judged based on groups:
E.g. Never appropriate to justify that the group of firefighters should be 50% women, just because you know some individual woman stronger than most of the group of firefighters.
That’s justifying a group distribution based on an individual, nonsense.
I.e. SHOULD judge group expected outcomes based on groups.
(2) Individuals should ALWAYS be judged as individuals:
E.g. hiring asian and jewish girls for your HR, just because those groups have high averages, but with zero good individual assessment — you’re probably going to end up with the bottom-tier retards of those supposedly high-tier groups, which are actually surprisingly quite terrible.
(3) And when judging groups, the sampling has to be done well — which I won’t even bother to explain here, but manipulating the sampling, often through censoring, is how many of the fake psyops are done.
=
Should judge groups based on groups.
Should not judge groups based on individuals.
Should judge individuals as individuals.
Should not judge individuals as groups.
— Wherever possible, which unfortunately isn’t always, especially if not planned ahead or if good individual assessment is literally made illegal.
💯7👀1
DoomPosting
But is it true? Was pumpfun ever a “change you life machine”? Were a big portion of today’s top market cap memecoins even launched via pumpfun? Sure doesn’t seem like it. But yeah pumpfun was always horribly incentivized, just a bad idea unless you were…
pumpfun was always horrible
normies finally realizing it
as-is, totally broken incentives
appealed to broke gamblers who ONLY wanted to get in at ultra-low market caps, e.g. < $1M only
= widely known to be the hallmark of a horrible investor since the dawn of time, since long before crypto
normies finally realizing it
as-is, totally broken incentives
appealed to broke gamblers who ONLY wanted to get in at ultra-low market caps, e.g. < $1M only
= widely known to be the hallmark of a horrible investor since the dawn of time, since long before crypto