no, no, it's fine. the less readable they are, the better.

dear me. doesn't he know that the actual art requires hate-skimming at most?

i gues we're all living in the post-scarcity utopia then, because otherwise such growth would exhaust resources.

so now we have confirmation that tracing w. is (a) a petty, vengeful prick and (b) reads this; good. tracing, whoever you are, why don't you focus on some introspection, like consider what causes you to agree with obvious anti-scientific crap (scientific racism, hbd) and why do you prefer the company of fascists (proto, wannabe, true, disguised, and the illinois nazis) to the company of people who don't think genocide can be justified for any reason?

him referring to lysenkoism in this context is extra weird; the scientific racists and lysenko are but another facets of the antiscientific ignorance

like, one racist motherfucker is already one too many… how is that not obvious to the enlightened ~~reactionaries~~rationalists is beyond me.

she's literally paid from an EA grant for the work at vox, so she can hardly compromise her journalistic ethics more.

nah. there are too many billionaires though.

their mistake, as usual, is not grokking that genuine human interactions might be ritualised, but are not rituals.

i wonder if they realise how thick with internal jargon their language is, and how highly ritualised.

most of the variance in the genome is linear in nature, by which I mean the effect of a gene doesn’t usually depend on which other genes are present

that person seems homeschooled on absolute bullshit; basic high school biology course thirty-odd years ago was saying otherwise.