Share this page!

Putanumonit Jacob Profile picture
Twitter logo
12 Mar, 7 tweets, 2 min read
So we mock and shame guys who say they WON'T defend women and now we've also decided to mock and shame guys who say they WILL defend women so... uh... I'm sure this Twitter meme is making women more safe in some complex way my limited guy brain can't comprehend yet.
So if I actually shared some stories of me and my friends stopping "our mates" from harassing girls I'll have a bunch of men telling me I'm a white knight simp and a bunch of women telling me I'm a lying keyboard-warrior hypocrite. So I won't. And my friends won't.
And then everyone wonders why it's not a common norm that men should be responsible for policing their fellows, when any men who says anything at all publicly on the subject get shit from all sides.
“I’d beat a guy up if I saw him harassing a girl” is maybe not the most honest or constructive thing, but surely if a ton of guys went around threatening violence it would cause at least some would-be harassers to think twice.
"Guys should defend women because it's the right thing to do, not to get credit for it socially" buddy I have some news for you about how humans figure out what's the "right thing to do". Some news from 1759.
adamsmith.org/the-theory-of-…
"Defending women" is a difficult skill that takes time to learn, but if you're savvy enough things should be resolved without actual punches being thrown at least 95% of the time. Social sanction by other men is as strong a force as the implicit threat of violence.
"Defending women" is a difficult skill that takes time to learn, but if you're savvy enough things should be resolved without actual punches being thrown at least 95% of the time. The social sanction by other men is as strong a force as the implicit threat of violence.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Putanumonit Jacob

Putanumonit Jacob Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @yashkaf

Putanumonit Jacob Profile picture
13 Mar
Imagine a classic fantasy setting. Warriors start out formidable but their ceiling is limited. Wizards spend years in a tower or academy just to catch up. But the strongest wizards are much stronger than any warrior, so the strongest wizards rule the land.
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.…
Twist: it turns out that the wizard's magic depends on popular belief in their abilities. If everyone knows a wizard can cast a fireball, it explodes in a blaze. If too many people doubt it, it fizzles out in a puff of smoke. Suddenly, the people begin to doubt the wizards.
As magic begins to weaken, the wizards spend more and more years in the academies with fewer visible results. The more they fail the more people doubt. And so the mightiest wizards on the ruling council devise a strategy: they must eliminate the people's doubt to retain power.
Read 6 tweets
Putanumonit Jacob Profile picture
29 Jan
I got three smart friends on a call to try and make sense of the $GME situation. This thread is my current best model.

TL;DR: The longs are playing the short game, the shorts are playing the long game.
Who's long GME? Some combination of WSBers, FOMOists, and hedge funds. The WSBers have no fear and will sell at $0.01 or on the moon when the shorts are gone. FOMOists may panic if GME slides but they're probably a small fraction. Funds will try to get on top and may have hedges.
The interesting Q is who's short. Someone who's short for 50% of their bankroll is vulnerable to a squeeze, but at 2% they can hold on forever. Current borrowing fee is 31% APR, or 0.1% a day. It's not that bad. So if the shorts are distributed they can wait it out.
Read 10 tweets
Putanumonit Jacob Profile picture
28 Jan
On 12/31 the short interest on GME was 71M shares (out of 69M outstanding 🤷‍♂️). In January a billion (!) shares of GME have been traded, Melvin and Citron closed their positions, and the short interest is... still 71M.

(Yes, this is a Fintwit account now)
Does it still count as a short squeeze if the original shorts got squeezed out but then millions of new short-sellers ran in to take their place on the battlefront? Has this ever happened?
This is not about two small funds caught in a trap anymore, it's an all-out war of attrition with $20B staked on either side. My guess is that most of it is institution $, WSB being a small part of the longs. When the line breaks, the big boys will dump faster that the Redditors.
Read 4 tweets
Putanumonit Jacob Profile picture
27 Jan
I expect a strong resistance line for $GME at $420.69, there's no way every WSB-tard didn't put a sell order there so they could post a screenshot 😂🤣
Another fun thing is that as $GME's price 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗱𝗿𝘂𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗱, cheap out of the money puts two weeks from now (which yours truly may have dabbled in) became 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 expensive. The market says that the higher it soars the faster it will fall. Image
Yep. If you have a giant short you need to set an alert for your target being mentioned on Reddit that would automatically trigger buying enough far-out call options to protect you. If Melvin was too slow or greedy to do this they deserve what happened.
Read 5 tweets
Putanumonit Jacob Profile picture
24 Jan
"All this predictive processing in Rationality sounds like boring nerd bullshit."

OK, how about the fact that it opens the door to REVELATION within the paradigm of Rationality?

@Conaw, @tweetsbenedict, and @Aella_Girl, I think you'll like this mini-thread.
Rationality sets the stage by centering the map-territory distinction. You don't have to believe in miracles out in intersubjective reality to have crazy things in your map. But Rationality preaches incremental, Bayesian updates with every piece of data. Our minds can't do that.
PP says that we change our minds like Kuhn's theory of science. Errors of prediction accumulate until a great paradigm shift changes the top models all at once. It happens even at small scales, with basic perception: putanumonit.com/2021/01/23/con…
Read 9 tweets
Putanumonit Jacob Profile picture
18 Dec 20
𝐅𝐨𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐑𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐦𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐑𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐦
A thought experimental thread
🧠🧪🧵

Does intuition enlighten or mislead? Depends. In ordered contexts with fast feedback (chess), intuition works well. In chaotic multivariate contexts (penny stock picking) it fails.
The problem is that in the latter case you'll still think you're learning things, overfit transient patterns, and be overconfident in your future prediction ability. This is @nntaleb's main point in "Fooled by Randomness".

Now let's bring predictive processing into the picture.
PP tells us there are three ways you make you predictions match sensory input:
1. Change your underlying models and their predictions based on what you see.
2. Change your perception to fit with what you predicted.
3. Act on the world to bring the two into alignment.
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @yashkaf has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @yashkaf!

Read all threads by @yashkaf