On 11/17/21 08:41, David Brown wrote:
> On 17/11/2021 02:35, BGB wrote:
>
>>
>> I generally consider myself to be
>
> <snip>
>
> I generally consider people's sexuality or attractions to be of little
> relevance or interest. I cannot see how your preferences in that area
> are any more relevant to others than your preferences in ice-cream
> flavours or films you enjoy. Of course it can matter to /you/, and it
> matters in situations where you are looking for or interacting with a
> partner. But outside of that, it does not matter - we're all people,
> whoever we like to spend time with.
>
> This is not a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude - it's a "I really don't
> care one way or another, and knowing your sexuality will not influence
> me in any way in how I relate to you" attitude.
>
> I am also not at all convinced of the merits of applying labels to
> different kinds of sexuality. It might be helpful sometimes to have
> broad categories (hetro-, homo- and asexual), but since everyone is a
> mix of different aspects (and the mix can change with time and
> circumstance), categorising is always going to be inaccurate. (If /you/
> find it helpful to pick a label for yourself, then that's fine of course
> - but I don't like using labels for others.)
>
> The important thing is you get to be yourself, and are happy with that,
> and others should not get to impose their ideas, theories, or prejudices
> on you. I don't care who you find attractive - but I /do/ care that you
> have the right to decide for yourself.
>
>>
>>
>> But, I guess this sort of advertising seems less common now...
>>
>
> Yes, thankfully - it is mostly a relic of the past. Scantily clad women
> still turn up in some adverts, and not just for those where it could be
> relevant to the product, but they are rare in technology adverts.
>
>> Did decide to leave out my memories of a bunch of random stuff from
>> decades-old infomercials...
>
> It is a well-established principle of advertising that sex sells.

Selling works best by appealing to the most basic drives in humanity
and sex has always been high on that list, next to food and shelter.
Scantily clad young ladies were often used draped across the front
of cars in the old days, but that's considered sexist nowadays.
Tv advertising pretends to be oh so innocent, but the number of
adverts featuring tight buttshot in the opening frame gets ever more
common. Again, appealing to the most basic drives in humanity.
Probably appeals to all persuasions and choices as well...

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 2:35:23 AM UTC-6, Terje Mathisen wrote:
> MitchAlsup wrote:
> > I am sitting around wondering whether anyone could program a 4004 to run BS
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mnYf7L7Amw&ab_channel=SkillsMatter
> >
> That should be easy, as long as the 4004 could address enough memory.
> Although intentionally awful, BS does not have many hard (impossible) to
> implement corners, right?
>
> Performance, or the lack thereof, would be more relevant...
<
I especially liked the macro facility !! Vi edit commands !!
<
> Terje
>
> --
> - <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
> "almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

On 11/17/2021 7:29 AM, chris wrote:
> On 11/17/21 08:41, David Brown wrote:
>> On 17/11/2021 02:35, BGB wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I generally consider myself to be
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I generally consider people's sexuality or attractions to be of little
>> relevance or interest.  I cannot see how your preferences in that area
>> are any more relevant to others than your preferences in ice-cream
>> flavours or films you enjoy.  Of course it can matter to /you/, and it
>> matters in situations where you are looking for or interacting with a
>> partner.  But outside of that, it does not matter - we're all people,
>> whoever we like to spend time with.
>>
>> This is not a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude - it's a "I really don't
>> care one way or another, and knowing your sexuality will not influence
>> me in any way in how I relate to you" attitude.
>>
>> I am also not at all convinced of the merits of applying labels to
>> different kinds of sexuality.  It might be helpful sometimes to have
>> broad categories (hetro-, homo- and asexual), but since everyone is a
>> mix of different aspects (and the mix can change with time and
>> circumstance), categorising is always going to be inaccurate.  (If /you/
>> find it helpful to pick a label for yourself, then that's fine of course
>> - but I don't like using labels for others.)
>>
>> The important thing is you get to be yourself, and are happy with that,
>> and others should not get to impose their ideas, theories, or prejudices
>> on you.  I don't care who you find attractive - but I /do/ care that you
>> have the right to decide for yourself.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But, I guess this sort of advertising seems less common now...
>>>
>>
>> Yes, thankfully - it is mostly a relic of the past.  Scantily clad women
>> still turn up in some adverts, and not just for those where it could be
>> relevant to the product, but they are rare in technology adverts.
>>
>>> Did decide to leave out my memories of a bunch of random stuff from
>>> decades-old infomercials...
>>
>> It is a well-established principle of advertising that sex sells.
>
>
> Selling works best by appealing to the most basic drives in humanity
> and sex has always been high on that list, next to food and shelter.
> Scantily clad young ladies were often used draped across the front
> of cars in the old days, but that's considered sexist nowadays.
> Tv advertising pretends to be oh so innocent, but the number of
> adverts featuring tight buttshot in the opening frame gets ever more
> common. Again, appealing to the most basic drives in humanity.
> Probably appeals to all persuasions and choices as well...
>

Admittedly, I don't watch (actual / broadcast) TV much anymore, apart
from occasionally shows like NOVA or similar (on PBS), so dunno...

But, I guess the issue may be that a (potentially significant) number of
people have in-effect lost interest in these sorts of activities, and
have gotten kinda tired of it (both in its portrayal in the media; or
the expectation / implication that people do these sorts of things IRL;
....).

Like, culturally, one of expected to "find someone", "have a
relationship", ..., but doesn't help when one is kinda burnt out about
it (and there is no one around that one has any real interest in).

But, yeah, it may have been an oversight that not everyone is this way.

Granted, character ships in TV shows are sort of their own category
(though it does start to get kinda old when a show drags it out for too
many seasons). Or, in some series, it is hard to get much investment
when they have been dragging out the same dynamics with the same
characters for like the past 25 years or so.

But, real-life is more awkward, it is like a character ship where one of
the characters is themselves. Still pretty much immaterial though.

Not sure as much how other people relate to this, or if they (also) in
these contexts end up thinking in the 3rd person (like if oneself were a
character in a TV show).

....

On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 4:01:07 AM UTC-6, BGB wrote:
> On 11/17/2021 7:29 AM, chris wrote:
> > On 11/17/21 08:41, David Brown wrote:
> >> On 17/11/2021 02:35, BGB wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I generally consider myself to be
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> I generally consider people's sexuality or attractions to be of little
> >> relevance or interest. I cannot see how your preferences in that area
> >> are any more relevant to others than your preferences in ice-cream
> >> flavours or films you enjoy. Of course it can matter to /you/, and it
> >> matters in situations where you are looking for or interacting with a
> >> partner. But outside of that, it does not matter - we're all people,
> >> whoever we like to spend time with.
> >>
> >> This is not a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude - it's a "I really don't
> >> care one way or another, and knowing your sexuality will not influence
> >> me in any way in how I relate to you" attitude.
> >>
> >> I am also not at all convinced of the merits of applying labels to
> >> different kinds of sexuality. It might be helpful sometimes to have
> >> broad categories (hetro-, homo- and asexual), but since everyone is a
> >> mix of different aspects (and the mix can change with time and
> >> circumstance), categorising is always going to be inaccurate. (If /you/
> >> find it helpful to pick a label for yourself, then that's fine of course
> >> - but I don't like using labels for others.)
> >>
> >> The important thing is you get to be yourself, and are happy with that,
> >> and others should not get to impose their ideas, theories, or prejudices
> >> on you. I don't care who you find attractive - but I /do/ care that you
> >> have the right to decide for yourself.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> But, I guess this sort of advertising seems less common now...
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, thankfully - it is mostly a relic of the past. Scantily clad women
> >> still turn up in some adverts, and not just for those where it could be
> >> relevant to the product, but they are rare in technology adverts.
> >>
> >>> Did decide to leave out my memories of a bunch of random stuff from
> >>> decades-old infomercials...
> >>
> >> It is a well-established principle of advertising that sex sells.
> >
> >
> > Selling works best by appealing to the most basic drives in humanity
> > and sex has always been high on that list, next to food and shelter.
> > Scantily clad young ladies were often used draped across the front
> > of cars in the old days, but that's considered sexist nowadays.
> > Tv advertising pretends to be oh so innocent, but the number of
> > adverts featuring tight buttshot in the opening frame gets ever more
> > common. Again, appealing to the most basic drives in humanity.
> > Probably appeals to all persuasions and choices as well...
> >
> Admittedly, I don't watch (actual / broadcast) TV much anymore, apart
> from occasionally shows like NOVA or similar (on PBS), so dunno...
>
> But, I guess the issue may be that a (potentially significant) number of
> people have in-effect lost interest in these sorts of activities, and
> have gotten kinda tired of it (both in its portrayal in the media; or
> the expectation / implication that people do these sorts of things IRL;
> ...).
<
<
I tried to have that discussion with my youngest brother several decades ago::
His business is advertising, and his question was "what do I have to do to get
engineers to read the advertisements" ??
<
I told him of the efforts of engineers to eliminate all advertisements from
even arriving on their screens so they would never have to even bother to
move their eyes in that direction.
<
I related how if there was anything blinking or moving on the ad that it would
not be read and often the window on which the ad was displayed, moved to
the edge of the screen so as to not bother the engineer.
<
After a couple of hours explaining how engineers go out of their way to avoid
ads--he had still not gotten the point--"do not waste time or effort in trying
to put ads in front of engineers. "Like putting lipstick on a big"...........
>
> Like, culturally, one of expected to "find someone", "have a
> relationship", ..., but doesn't help when one is kinda burnt out about
> it (and there is no one around that one has any real interest in).
<
Sometimes I think women and advertising people come from the same
island.........global warming cannot come soon enough........
>
> But, yeah, it may have been an oversight that not everyone is this way.
>
Crap loads of people do not understand the relationship between ads
and "the poor", or adds, and "mental illness" {Witness SkyBuck}, or the
relationship between the number of ads and the number of murders
going on..............or the relationship between more TV channels and
crappier programming en-the-large.......
>
> Granted, character ships in TV shows are sort of their own category
> (though it does start to get kinda old when a show drags it out for too
> many seasons). Or, in some series, it is hard to get much investment
> when they have been dragging out the same dynamics with the same
> characters for like the past 25 years or so.
<
Soap Operas anyone--the plot never gets anywhere.........
>
> But, real-life is more awkward, it is like a character ship where one of
> the characters is themselves. Still pretty much immaterial though.
<
If you are an engineer, the women will still ignore you because you
a) don't have the look of royalty, b) the adornments of the rich and famous,
c) street smarts of a lizard,............
>
> Not sure as much how other people relate to this, or if they (also) in
> these contexts end up thinking in the 3rd person (like if oneself were a
> character in a TV show).
<
Thinking in the 3rd person, except as an experiment, is a sign that you have
already lost something that people who watch ads have--and you either never
did or do not currently have.........
>
> ...

MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> schrieb:
> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 4:01:07 AM UTC-6, BGB wrote:
>> But, I guess the issue may be that a (potentially significant) number of
>> people have in-effect lost interest in these sorts of activities, and
>> have gotten kinda tired of it (both in its portrayal in the media; or
>> the expectation / implication that people do these sorts of things IRL;
>> ...).
><
><
> I tried to have that discussion with my youngest brother several decades ago::
> His business is advertising, and his question was "what do I have to do to get
> engineers to read the advertisements" ??

Add enough technical details to make it interesting. About the
only (print) ads I still look at are in technical magazines.
It can be intresting to see what they have to say about their
newest temperature sensors, reactors or pumps.

Companies advertising about big data etc tend to have much
less details in their ads. I wonder why...

><
> I told him of the efforts of engineers to eliminate all advertisements from
> even arriving on their screens so they would never have to even bother to
> move their eyes in that direction.

Several decades ago, your brother was in online advertising?
Early adopter, then.

On 11/18/2021 6:54 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 4:01:07 AM UTC-6, BGB wrote:
>> On 11/17/2021 7:29 AM, chris wrote:
>>> On 11/17/21 08:41, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 17/11/2021 02:35, BGB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I generally consider myself to be
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> I generally consider people's sexuality or attractions to be of little
>>>> relevance or interest. I cannot see how your preferences in that area
>>>> are any more relevant to others than your preferences in ice-cream
>>>> flavours or films you enjoy. Of course it can matter to /you/, and it
>>>> matters in situations where you are looking for or interacting with a
>>>> partner. But outside of that, it does not matter - we're all people,
>>>> whoever we like to spend time with.
>>>>
>>>> This is not a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude - it's a "I really don't
>>>> care one way or another, and knowing your sexuality will not influence
>>>> me in any way in how I relate to you" attitude.
>>>>
>>>> I am also not at all convinced of the merits of applying labels to
>>>> different kinds of sexuality. It might be helpful sometimes to have
>>>> broad categories (hetro-, homo- and asexual), but since everyone is a
>>>> mix of different aspects (and the mix can change with time and
>>>> circumstance), categorising is always going to be inaccurate. (If /you/
>>>> find it helpful to pick a label for yourself, then that's fine of course
>>>> - but I don't like using labels for others.)
>>>>
>>>> The important thing is you get to be yourself, and are happy with that,
>>>> and others should not get to impose their ideas, theories, or prejudices
>>>> on you. I don't care who you find attractive - but I /do/ care that you
>>>> have the right to decide for yourself.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But, I guess this sort of advertising seems less common now...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, thankfully - it is mostly a relic of the past. Scantily clad women
>>>> still turn up in some adverts, and not just for those where it could be
>>>> relevant to the product, but they are rare in technology adverts.
>>>>
>>>>> Did decide to leave out my memories of a bunch of random stuff from
>>>>> decades-old infomercials...
>>>>
>>>> It is a well-established principle of advertising that sex sells.
>>>
>>>
>>> Selling works best by appealing to the most basic drives in humanity
>>> and sex has always been high on that list, next to food and shelter.
>>> Scantily clad young ladies were often used draped across the front
>>> of cars in the old days, but that's considered sexist nowadays.
>>> Tv advertising pretends to be oh so innocent, but the number of
>>> adverts featuring tight buttshot in the opening frame gets ever more
>>> common. Again, appealing to the most basic drives in humanity.
>>> Probably appeals to all persuasions and choices as well...
>>>
>> Admittedly, I don't watch (actual / broadcast) TV much anymore, apart
>> from occasionally shows like NOVA or similar (on PBS), so dunno...
>>
>> But, I guess the issue may be that a (potentially significant) number of
>> people have in-effect lost interest in these sorts of activities, and
>> have gotten kinda tired of it (both in its portrayal in the media; or
>> the expectation / implication that people do these sorts of things IRL;
>> ...).
> <
> <
> I tried to have that discussion with my youngest brother several decades ago::
> His business is advertising, and his question was "what do I have to do to get
> engineers to read the advertisements" ??
> <
> I told him of the efforts of engineers to eliminate all advertisements from
> even arriving on their screens so they would never have to even bother to
> move their eyes in that direction.
> <
> I related how if there was anything blinking or moving on the ad that it would
> not be read and often the window on which the ad was displayed, moved to
> the edge of the screen so as to not bother the engineer.
> <
> After a couple of hours explaining how engineers go out of their way to avoid
> ads--he had still not gotten the point--"do not waste time or effort in trying
> to put ads in front of engineers. "Like putting lipstick on a big"...........

Yeah. I was also writing about "the other thing", but yeah, this applies
to ads as well. Most ads just kinda suck and anymore are just sort of
noise in the background that I tend to ignore.

Some of the mobile-games ads get particularly obnoxious, where they sort
of pin themselves to the page and display endless flashing and jumpy
animations. Does little more than being annoying when one isn't really
the sort of person who has any real interest in "free to play" mobile games.

>>
>> Like, culturally, one of expected to "find someone", "have a
>> relationship", ..., but doesn't help when one is kinda burnt out about
>> it (and there is no one around that one has any real interest in).
> <
> Sometimes I think women and advertising people come from the same
> island.........global warming cannot come soon enough........

Kinda agreed. To me, trying to interact with someone who can't relate to
the world in a similar way to myself, or where it is seemingly
impossible to have a meaningful conversation about much of anything I am
interested in, seems kinda pointless.

I "could" try to seem more normal, except:
This wouldn't work out long term;
I have no real interest in "flings".

So, this favors a strategy of, rather than trying to be "charming" or to
"woo" them, instead trying to optimize for determining whether or not
they are potentially compatible, and if not, they can go on their way.
Getting caught up in something that wont work is not ideal for either party.
And, if they are the type that expects to be wooed, or for the guy to
start throwing money at them to try to win them over, well then, I want
nothing to do with them.

>>
>> But, yeah, it may have been an oversight that not everyone is this way.
>>
> Crap loads of people do not understand the relationship between ads
> and "the poor", or adds, and "mental illness" {Witness SkyBuck}, or the
> relationship between the number of ads and the number of murders
> going on..............or the relationship between more TV channels and
> crappier programming en-the-large.......

I have little idea what is going in most "skybuck" posts, they tend come
off more like incoherent rambling.

One thing with commercials is its effect on episode length, which seems
to have become fairly standardized:
30 minute block: 22 minutes of show (leaving 8 minutes for ads);
60 minute block: 44 minutes of show (leaving 16 minutes for ads).

One notable exception for a lot of Cartoon Network shows is them using
an 11 minute episode format.

I think their programming blocks vary (between being based on a 15 and
30 minute structure). Though, not much actual motivation to watch the
channel itself (well, if I still had access to it) because it was
basically an endless stream of commercials and "Teen Titans Go" (wasn't
a fan of this show, but it was apparently the "got the highest ratings"
show).

Though, generally, the 11 minute episode format is fairly limiting in
terms of how much they can do with it.

Though, can note that Adventure Time managed to do surprisingly well
within the limits of 11 minute episodes. The episodes managed to both
tell a story and not feel overly rushed.

Partial contrast with Miraculous Ladybug where they use a 22 minute
episode format and the episodes still often feel rushed.

>>
>> Granted, character ships in TV shows are sort of their own category
>> (though it does start to get kinda old when a show drags it out for too
>> many seasons). Or, in some series, it is hard to get much investment
>> when they have been dragging out the same dynamics with the same
>> characters for like the past 25 years or so.
> <
> Soap Operas anyone--the plot never gets anywhere.........

Partly I was thinking some about things like "Sonic the Hedgehog" and
similar, where they had been trying to "milk it" for roughly 25 years
(in particular, the one-sided romance between Amy Rose and Sonic).

On 19/11/2021 01:54, MitchAlsup wrote:

> If you are an engineer, the women will still ignore you because you
> a) don't have the look of royalty, b) the adornments of the rich and famous,
> c) street smarts of a lizard,............

If that is the way you think of women, with such misogynist,
patronizing, prejudice and sweeping generalisations, then it is perhaps
not surprising you find it difficult to find a partner.

Treat people with respect, openness and friendship with a disregard for
minor details such as gender, appearance, etc. Maybe you'll make a
friend, and maybe you'll get a partner for life - but that's never going
to happen if you assume any women you talk to would only be interested
in you for your money or your looks.

MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> schrieb:

> If you are an engineer, the women will still ignore you because you
> a) don't have the look of royalty, b) the adornments of the rich and famous,
> c) street smarts of a lizard,............

I can't confirm that. Looking around at the engineers and chemists
and physicists and ... I work with, most of them (>90%, I'd say)
are married or in a stable relationship (both men and the women).

On 11/19/2021 10:37 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 19/11/2021 01:54, MitchAlsup wrote:
>
>> If you are an engineer, the women will still ignore you because you
>> a) don't have the look of royalty, b) the adornments of the rich and famous,
>> c) street smarts of a lizard,............
>
> If that is the way you think of women, with such misogynist,
> patronizing, prejudice and sweeping generalisations, then it is perhaps
> not surprising you find it difficult to find a partner.
>

I don't know about Mitch's case.

> Treat people with respect, openness and friendship with a disregard for
> minor details such as gender, appearance, etc. Maybe you'll make a
> friend, and maybe you'll get a partner for life - but that's never going
> to happen if you assume any women you talk to would only be interested
> in you for your money or your looks.
>

In my case, I try to avoid those who do seem to fit this pattern.

Ultimately better for both people involved.

Though, there are lots of other factors at play, eg:
Their views on various aspects of religion;
If they are hardline conservative, it probably wont work;
If they are one of the "raging atheist" types, it also wont work;
...
Emotional disposition, thought / feeling balance, ...
If they are positive leaning and emotional, it likely wont work;
If they are negative leaning and emotional, they are unstable;
I am "not particularly emotional", they will need to deal with this.
I suspect I am neutral-leaning and thinking-oriented.
...

Requirements for a potential romantic partner would need to be a bit
more strict than for a friend though.

Things I am less concerned about:
Race, though would prefer to avoid someone too similar to myself here
(both Scots and Ashkenazim have relatively poor genetic diversity, so
preferably someone from outside these groups);
Looks, though "within reason", and someone two far outside "a healthy
weight range" is also not ideal.

Then other factors:
Need to be within a reasonable age range;
Need to be "actually female";
...

Though, the "hard part" is more in trying to find someone I can
"actually talk to".

Like, if it is a scenario where one has to put undue effort in using
"simple words and simple concepts" to speak with them, and if one is
like "you have yet to see my true form!" and they run away in terror.
Yeah, that wont work...

Sometimes, it seems like the best one can do (for mutual benefit) is to
try to avoid those who are unlikely to be compatible (then they are more
free to find someone else who is a better match for themselves, which
for most of them is "pretty much anyone else").

....