I wrote a very detailed, overly analytical guide to escorting, if you or anybody you know is interested in trying it out!
I wrote a very detailed, overly analytical guide to escorting, if you or anybody you know is interested in trying it out!
Hello, girl. Please upload your old content with nudity. You have a tremendous beauty that the world needs to contemplate..
You do realize that Tumblr banned nudity, but that you can easily find a ton of my nudity free on various platforms here: https://linktr.ee/aellagirl
I have a question that feels ... very silly, but it is challenging to find anyone ony that has done hygeine experiments. I cannot find reliable information on whether one should also avoid wetting one's hair while doing #NoPoo. Do you still wet your hair? Does wetting your hair do similar damage to shampooing your hair?
Afaik, no. The damage with shampoo comes from stripping out oils and… idk, putting in other stuff? The natural oils help repel water a bit. After I did no-poo, my hair would dry *much* faster after getting wet, because my natural oils just let the water slide off.
Water is definitely important for keeping the hair clean in general though, even if you’re not using shampoo.
The transition from a relatively normal environment into the Deep Dream fucks me up. I love this.
I’m surprised nobody’s used this thing to make horror games yet
oh man i have absolutely had this acid trip
I am Livid
THIS JOHNNY DEPP SHIT IS RIDICULOUS!
It took you monsters over EIGHTY FUCKING VIDEOS and a COURT CONFESSION from Amber heard, plus a SHIT TON of extra evidence, to actually believe Johnny Depp. That sure is a lot!
Now what did it take for y’all to believe Amber? An OBVIOUSLY FAKE BRUISE THAT DISAPPEARED AFTER A DAY and a “it happened because I said so.” THAT’S ALL IT TOOK.
Depp had to produce MOUNTAINS of evidence for you all to give a single shit about his abuse! Meanwhile, this pathetic excuse of a human named Amber Heard just flutters her pretty little eyelashes and tells the most obvious lies on the planet and the mob is after Depp in SECONDS.
And why? Because he is a MAN. That is the only fucking reason! You all should be ASHAMED of yourself. Some of this evidence isn’t new! There was evidence that she was lying from the very beginning!
I am so fucking done with you all. Rant over.
“#Metoo, unless you’re a man”-Hollywood.
Amber Heard used the right buzzwords and phrases. She knew exactly what people wanted to hear to believe her. “Believe women”. “Women need to stick together” and the like. She didnt need actual evidence to get people to believe her because she preyed on the (misguided) activism that came from actual victims.
She knew exactly what to say to manipulate people into believing her. And the fact that this tactic held more weight than overwhelming evidence against her claim is very saddening.
i have no idea what the actual facts are in this case but im tipsy on amaro and it’s pulling at my heartstrings so here you go
*What’s the last thing you cried about?
*What’s the most controversial opinion you hold among your peer group?
*If you had to fuck a cow, would you rather it be dead or alive?
Do you know anybody selling Askhole in Europe? Double the price in shipping is a bit harsh :\
I know, I’m sorry :( Eventually we’ll get that down once we order in greater bulk, but we’re still working up to it. At the moment though, you can get free shipping to Europe if you order over $100 worth of askhole!
Andrew Yang’s UBI proposal has crossed my dash a few times in the past couple of weeks, so I thought I’d revisit it and see if he has added any substance to it since the last time I looked. (Previous posts on UBI can be found collected here.)
tl,dr: No. In fact, far from being serious, it’s bullshit.
The last time I checked Yang’s website, the plan to pay for UBI had two components: a 10% VAT, with no projected revenue amount, and a welfare substitution scheme, where any current recipient of welfare would have to choose between keeping their current benefits or accepting the UBI.
Now he has added two more components (look under “How would we pay for Universal Basic Income?”), and included some figures:
1. Current welfare spending is around $500 to $600 billion annually, and the UBI would replace some of that.
2. A 10% VAT is expected to bring in $800 billion.
3. The economic stimulus of the UBI is expected to raise tax revenues by $500-600 billion, citing a study by the Roosevelt Institute.
4. Savings from lower demand for health care, incarceration, homeless services and the like are expected to be $100-200 billion.
Before looking at how realistic those numbers are, let’s see how they stack up against the cost. Yang doesn’t include a price tag, but his plan is to give $1000 per month to every adult US citizen, so it’s easy to calculate. There are about 250 million adult US citizens, so the annual gross cost of Yang’s UBI is about $3 trillion. (My previous post calculated a gross cost of $2.4 trillion, but his plan at the time did not cover people age 65 or over.)
If we take the high end of all of Yang’s estimates, we get only $2.2 trillion, so there’s still quite a hole in the budget. Yang has absolutely nothing to say about this shortfall, which already shows that he’s not really trying to put together a serious plan. Things get worse when we look at each of the points above.
The main problem, because it undermines the rest of Yang’s case and shows that he isn’t serious about making one, is point 3. It’s difficult to avoid calling it dishonest. Here’s what’s Yang says on his website:
3. New revenue. Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy would grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $500 – 600 billion in new revenue from economic growth and activity.
Citing the Roosevelt Institute study is complete bullshit.
You can download the study here. Even if we take its conclusions to be realistic, it considers twelve different scenarios, and the $2.5 trillion boost to the economy results only from the scenario where the UBI is 100% financed with deficit spending. In the scenario where it’s tax-supported, they find that the economy increases only by about $500 billion.
The top two lines, scenarios 3 and 9, are the ones where they finance the UBI with budget deficits and ignore any downsides to accumulating all that debt. They figure that if you can get three trillion magical dollars from nowhere, you can boost the economy by $2.5 trillion. That’s not terribly useful information.
Scenarios 6 and 12, in red and black, assume a tax-funded UBI. In scenario 6, they followed their model and found that UBI has no effect on the economy. In scenario 12, they decided they didn’t like that result, so they adjusted the model to reflect the greater propensity of poorer households to spend their income (without taking into effect negative effects of the resulting lower savings rate).
That gave them a result of $500 billion a year, and unless Yang is planning on using magical money from nowhere, he has no business citing the $2.5 trillion figure. At best, the stimulus would be a fifth of that.
Yang’s UBI budget, therefore, should look like this:
And until he can explain where the missing $1.3 trillion is going to come from, he has no serious UBI plan.
But that’s assuming the Roosevelt Institute study is a good match for Yang’s plan in the first place. It’s not, for various reasons. Nikiforos et. al. modeled their tax revenue with an extension of existing income taxes, which would be progressive. Yang’s VAT is regressive, so a greater portion falls on poorer households, so there won’t be as much of a boost to consumer spending.
But even worse, Nikiforos et. al. modeled the effect of $3 trillion in additional spending. Yang’s point 1 above indicates that he is planning on reducing welfare spending, so he’s not adding $3 trillion in new money.
But even worse, one of Yang’s stated benefits of UBI directly contradicts one of the study’s assumptions. On p. 5, it is assumed that “Unconditional cash transfers do not reduce household labor supply.” Yang, on the other hand, says that “UBI increases art production, nonprofit work and caring for loved ones because it provides a supplementary income for those interested in labor that isn’t supported by the market.” If people are foregoing labor supported by the market, they’re earning less and paying less in taxes. Yang has no plan to replace that lost tax revenue.
So if the Roosevelt Institute study is such a poor fit for Yang’s plan, how did it end up on Yang’s website? Is no one checking to see if any of the claims he makes about UBI stand up to a few minutes of research?
Conclusion: Yang has been running for president for more than a year and not only has he failed to put forward a serious plan, he doesn’t even have a plausible outline for one.
Also: no one else does, either.
We lean “unschooling” - the philosophy of which is basically: if you don’t go out of your way to kill it a kid’s natural interest in learning stuff will do 95% of the work. I will be nervous if they don’t learn to read in a timely manner because reading is by far the most efficient way to absorb all other forms of information, but that’s the only thing I have anything like a timetable for. We’ll sign them up for music or soccer or swimming or art or whatever as such things turn out to appeal to the extent they can’t or prefer not to pick them up in-house.
It’s important to remember that the relevant external standard here is not will a homeschooled child learn the things that are taught in school. It’s will a homeschooled child learn the things that are learned in school. Here is a list of things I managed to learn in school (prior to college) that I still know now and cannot guarantee I would have learned elsewise:
…and, um, none of that seems hard to replicate at home if I’m willing to shell out for some arts and crafts, nor like it will take thirteen years. I’ve learned more history from musicals and more literature from
voluntarily-read books and more science from blogs and more art from
doodling and more geography from fucking around on Google Maps and more
social skills from hanging around people whose company isn’t a ghastly
chore. I have more math on this list than any other subject because I haven’t learned math elsewhere - because I had two bad math teachers in a row and they ripped out my childhood love of math and buried it with a stake in its heart and now I have been known to flee from rooms in which math was under discussion. I remember some math but the price is that I cannot absorb any more.
I don’t want to buy this list with my child’s childhood. I can get it cheaper and then some.
I made a company!
Yall know I’ve been compulsively asking questions for forever, and after sharing the questions on pieces of paper while at parties, people started asking me where they could buy a deck for themselves.
Well here we are - 125 of the most horrible, confusing, vulnerable, and controversial questions you ever did see!
The birth of Snake Venus
First off, this is hilarious, but secondly, the artist’s name is Bill Flowers and he literally goes by The Snake Artist because he just does a bunch of paintings like this.
He’s also apparently a “venomous snake wrangler.” He’s Australian, which I feel explains a lot.
I can’t update my avatar/cover photo, and I can’t view my own tumblr. When I go to ‘aellagirl.tumblr.com’, it says there’s sensitive content and redirects me to my dashboard. Is this happening to other people? Can you see my tumblr, or your own?
It’s super annoying. I can’t access a lot of old totally non-sexual posts and writing I had.
I’m pretty sure the catgirls scared me out of fun for life.
This but unironically.
I’ve seen what happens to the rationalists who go down the hedonistic path.
But the serious response is that I’m *not* referring to bonobo rationalists (and also that obviously I don’t think all the hedonists do poorly, just that it goes worse than other life choices (not that I have anything like controlled data on the matter))
It seems like ‘get really into Burning man type stuff, jump off the epistemic deep end in every way, do much worse at making the world/yourself better/stronger than counterfactual you would have’ is… a *relatively* common outcome of going down the hedonistic pathway. Bonobo rationalist is another common (and overlapping) outcome, but still not one that I want.
For some reason this got tagged ‘I’m kidding’? Maybe my finger slipped? Anyway no I’m not kidding.
Where are all the epistemically unsound rat burners at, I wanna meet em!
But there’s something about this view specifically - the “if we relax, we’ll lose all our epistemics and the world will go to shit/not be better/get destroyed by AI” that seems to contribute to this air of anxiety and deep-rooted fear that I feel around a lot of rationalists. It feels like rationalists are missing out on something really important about being human and if I had to live in a world populated 100% by unsafe rats who aren’t improving the world as efficiently but are filled with delight and ease, vs. 100% by safe rats who who are extremely efficient and epistemically sound but are like all the rats I’ve met who are extremely efficient and epistemically sound, I would definitely pick the first world.
I mean, yeah? The world of unsafe rats is super awesome right up until we all suddenly die. The world of safe rats is probably super boring right up until we all suddenly die, but with a small chance that it’s super boring right up until we all live essentially forever in an *unbelievably* fun world. I’m willing to make that trade because I’m an altruist, not because I’m operating under the delusion that I’m living life to its fullest.
I agree with Evo here, but to add some nuance, we should also be careful of the opposite failure mode, which is, forgetting your own limits as a human. There was a considerable period of time when I thought that, I shouldn’t transition since that would be a distraction from saving the world, and my own happiness is unimportant in comparison. But, there is only that many personal sacrifices you can make before you break your own spirit entirely.
There seems to be this tradeoff you’re making here - If we don’t HOLD ON tightly to being right/safe/good, then we are all going to die. If we LET GO, then something really terrible is probably going to happen.
There’s something that feels deeply wrong about this and it’s hard to put a finger on. It feels like a profound lack of trust… in the self, in others, in the world. It feels like a deep-rooted belief that you don’t deserve good things if you don’t try. It feels like a fear of looking directly at the parts of yourself that might fall apart if you do. Or the idea that there can be some external condition that will finally be the thing that causes you to be less anxious (a safe world with no more suffering/existential risk). I don’t believe this for a second. I view the anxiety as fundamental here, and the reasons for it (existential risk) as a post-hoc justification.