Relatedly, sometimes people complain that modern dating has commodified human interaction, which seems sort of correct. But another frame could be that people who date a lot interact mostly with the archetype of the demographic they date: "Ah yes, her not replying is this facet of the hot-girl archetype, but in parallel I'm also exploring the having-playful-banter-where-I'm-trying-not-to-invest-too-much part of the archetype and the trying-not-to-commit-but-still-fuck part."

Show thread

**niplav** @niplav@schelling.pt · Mar 18, 2023, 23:51

**niplav** @niplav@schelling.pt · Mar 18, 2023, 23:51

Mar 18, 2023, 23:51

niplav @niplav@schelling.pt

(closing the stray parenthesis))

Perhaps a Level 0 would be a defensive one, "resting bitch face"/"don't talk to me energy".

I really like this framework and it's something which you really can only get by doing the courtship ritual a bunch of times, and failing & succeeding often.

Show thread

**niplav** @niplav@schelling.pt · Mar 18, 2023, 23:48

**niplav** @niplav@schelling.pt · Mar 18, 2023, 23:48

Mar 18, 2023, 23:48

niplav @niplav@schelling.pt

So Krauser presents a 3-level model in which he describes courtship interaction between men and women, which I find cool.

Level 1: Sort-of cooperative (the woman appears to want the man to win, sometimes goes along with what he wants

Level 2: But sometimes she tests/creates periods of silence, it looks like she is "breaking" from the cooperation of Level 1

Level 3: But deep down she still "wants" him to pass those tests, navigate the mating dance with grace

**niplav** @niplav@schelling.pt · Mar 18, 2023, 23:46

**niplav** @niplav@schelling.pt · Mar 18, 2023, 23:46

Mar 18, 2023, 23:46

niplav @niplav@schelling.pt

men will literally

**niplav** · Mar 17, 2023, 17:44 *

niplav boosted

**John Carlos Baez** @johncarlosbaez@mathstodon.xyz · Mar 17, 2023, 17:44 *

Mar 17, 2023, 17:44 *

John Carlos Baez @johncarlosbaez@mathstodon.xyz

Toby Ord's chart shows 4 things:

• Everything we can observe now is the "observable universe".

• Everything we can ever observe if we stay here is the "eventually observable universe".

• Everything we can ever observe if we send spacecraft out in every direction at all speeds slower than light is the "ultimately observable universe".

• Everything those spacecraft can ever affect is the "affectable universe".

His chart is drawn in funny coordinates where a galaxy at rest moves straight up the page and light moves at 45° angles. The Big Bang is the horizontal line at the bottom, and the infinite future is the horizontal line at top. The expansion of the universe is hidden in these coordinates!

How big are these 4 things?

• When we observe distant galaxies we see what they were like long ago, when they were closer. Those galaxies *now* form a ball of radius 46 billion light years in diameter. So people say the radius of the observable universe is 46 billion light years. But beware: we can't see what the galaxies in the observable universe look like *now*.

• The galaxies in the eventually observable universe *now* form a ball of radius 63 billion light years.

• The galaxies in the ultimately observable universe *now* form a ball of radius 80 billion light years.

• The galaxies in the affectable universe *now* form a ball of radius 16 billion light years.

These figures change with time. For example, shortly after the Big Bang the radius of the affectable universe was 63 billion light years. It has now shrunk to 16 billion light years. 90% of the galaxies we could in theory once reach - if we could have started right away - are lost to us now!

(1/2)