curi blog comments Explanations for the curious en-us Speedrunning & respecting traditions in ancient Rome Alisa Open Discussion 2 (2019)
> You seem to respect tradition quite a bit compared to myself. I have a question: If we lived in ancient Rome, would you have a similar respect for their traditions?

On Feb 10, 2010, xenophanes [replied](

> That's a good question. I would take the same attitude in Roman times. Their traditions had a lot of flaws, but they were (in most respects) the best knowledge available at the time. I don't think people could have improved from Roman times by ignoring or disrespecting what they already did know then.

Good answer.

This is similar to how speedrunners collectively build up knowledge about the best known ways to speedrun a game. If you got sent back in time, it'd still be better to build on the speedrun knowledge of that time, rather than starting over from scratch.

> I think you've misunderstood a bit because I am not saying our current traditions are the best possible traditions. (That wouldn't even make much sense because they contradict each other frequently.) I am in favor of changing traditions in a gradualist, piecemeal fashion because I think that's the most effective way to make progress.

Knowledge about how to speedrun a game mostly grows in increments that each save a relatively small fraction of the total time.

> You might compare it to updating big, messy legacy code systems. You want to do one thing at a time and then run the code or the tests to make sure you didn't break anything and the change works as intended. If you add a bunch of stuff at once, and then there's a problem, it's harder to figure out which change was behind it.

Good analogy.]]>
Mon, 24 Feb 2020 19:33:43 +0000
N Reading Recommendations Mon, 24 Feb 2020 08:56:29 +0000 Andy Dufresne Reading Recommendations I read many years ago (around the time it came out) and remember liking it but don't remember many details.]]> Mon, 24 Feb 2020 07:08:35 +0000 Studying Metro route #22 GISTE Mario Odyssey Discussion
These are my new notes for section 6.2

Section 6.2: beating the boss
- Primarily use motion controls to aim
- can avoid overheating by leaving no more than 3 bullets in the air at a time. so shooting up close allows for more bullets, also aims easier.
- When a bullet hits a segment, it’ll destroy that one and one on each side of it
- once all segments are hit, then aim at head, get close, and fire as fast as you can
- If beat part quick enough, then get in corner to let boss pass. Then move to other corner and do same. Once last body segment enters wall, move left a bit so boss will enter wall behind you. Move out of way before boss hits you. Back up and aim at the middle of the building.
- When projectiles come out, try to shoot them so you don’t have to move around to avoid them.
- Aim at head and fire. Possible to shoot all segments without readjusting aim. Prioritize segments near the head first.]]>
Mon, 24 Feb 2020 05:18:14 +0000
Ann Coulter PBS Interview (Jan 13, 2020) Alisa Politics Discussion
Good hour-long interview with Ann Coulter on PBS, published on Jan 13, 2020.]]>
Sun, 23 Feb 2020 23:04:52 +0000
Book recommendation - history of personal computers N Reading Recommendations
I have already read *The Soul of a New Machine*.

I found this that has some books that seem to fit what I'm looking for:]]>
Sun, 23 Feb 2020 22:52:26 +0000
Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud
Indeed I did not realize that]]>
Sun, 23 Feb 2020 16:50:00 +0000
Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud Sun, 23 Feb 2020 16:47:10 +0000 Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud Sun, 23 Feb 2020 16:42:40 +0000 Anonymous Politics Discussion
> the far-right, anti-Muslim activist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, also known as Tommy Robinson.

the left are unreasonable people who demand immediate conformity to non-standard, contrary-to-established-practice gender pronoun stuff, but then refuse to respect standard things like professional names. they are hypocrites]]>
Sun, 23 Feb 2020 16:41:07 +0000
curi Deplatforming and Fraud Sun, 23 Feb 2020 16:17:09 +0000 Studying Metro route #21 GISTE Mario Odyssey Discussion
Section 6: 8:41-11:54 starts by exiting the city hall building and ends by beating the boss.

Section 6.1: getting to the boss fight
- Get the flag
- Get out of the electric wire early by pressing what?

Section 6.2: beating the boss
- shoot up close in general cuz shoot more, also aims easier

I watched the video as I played. I’m going to continue watching/playing until I have all of smallant’s explanations written down.]]>
Sun, 23 Feb 2020 14:50:16 +0000
curi English Language, Analysis & Grammar]]>
Sun, 23 Feb 2020 13:46:24 +0000
Anonymous Mario Odyssey Discussion Sun, 23 Feb 2020 11:16:05 +0000 Studying Metro route #20 GISTE Mario Odyssey Discussion
This time I had many runs that finished without any large time losses (e.g. due to dying) and without many small time losses.

I'm also moving a bit faster than before in some of the areas where I used to intentionally go slow to make sure I don't mess up.]]>
Sun, 23 Feb 2020 03:13:31 +0000
Minor updates to my PF doc Alisa Alisa Discussion
- my daily posting streak is now 133 days

- I'm now on Part 4 of Elliot's FI grammar essay

- I'm now on YESNO part 17 - "Check Your Understanding"]]>
Sat, 22 Feb 2020 17:52:03 +0000
Andy Dufresne Ending Aging I think the blocker definition I gave in #15570 works OK to define the scope.

My own bad thinking is clearly a blocker right now. I don't know what to work on in order to be effective at ending aging. I'm not even confident about avoiding harm to people already working on aging by distracting them or promoting bad ideas and thereby making the effort take longer.

The best thing I know to do right now is stay out of their way while I figure that stuff out.

I'm glad the public writing I do may help others. That's not its point, but it is a happy side-effect.

If I fix my own bad thinking well enough to figure out a good way to help and then find that one friend's bad thinking is a blocker to my strategy, I would try to help that friend think better enough to remove the blocker. For example suppose I can't find anyone else better for the role the friend is in and I need that role for my strategy to succeed.

If my family's bad thinking is a blocker to my strategy in a similar way, I would try to help them. Or people involved with SENS, etc.

I suppose if the best way to help I can come up with involves teaching and persuading millions to think better then that'd be in scope. I doubt that will be the case and even if it is I think arriving at it as a blocker to the best anti-aging strategy is different from setting out to solve the world's bad thinking problem in the first place. It'd probably have more limited goals, like help a million people think better about population instead of help a million people understand CR and Oism.]]>
Sat, 22 Feb 2020 15:23:36 +0000
Anonymous Ending Aging Sat, 22 Feb 2020 12:30:50 +0000 Andy Dufresne Ending Aging > I made my suggestion ( #15574 ) in the context of your statements about prioritizing anti-aging over rationality and good thinking. It sounded like you wanted to focus on extending your life because you care about that far more than other values. But here you're already pushing back about wanting to be rational.

There's a nuance in pursuing the 'anti-aging' problem versus the 'bad thinking' problem I didn't get across.

I think about fixing or preventing my own bad thinking as a different project from doing the same in other people. The statements I made about prioritizing anti-aging over rationality and good thinking were about a project to fix other people so they could be more help with anti-aging (and everything else) later.

When ET says:
> I say addressing bad/​irrational thinking is the priority because it plays a significant role in every other major (and minor) problem

Is ET talking about addressing bad/irrational thinking in himself, or in others, or both? I guessed it's mainly or exclusively about others, since ET himself already has a large lead & comparative advantage in self-rationality. I took it to mean something like: a project to make the rest of the world more rational - more like ET / FI.

Reconsidering it explicitly I see how that could be a bad guess. But that was the context of my statmeents about prioritizing anti-aging over rationality and good thinking.]]>
Sat, 22 Feb 2020 08:09:35 +0000
Studying Metro route #19 GISTE Mario Odyssey Discussion
I'm getting more consistent. I did one run that had only one small time loss.

I also played around with the tank and I learned that you can move the controller around to aim instead of only using the stick. The tank is needed for the next section to beat the boss.]]>
Sat, 22 Feb 2020 03:19:24 +0000
Alisa Errors Merit Post-Mortems Fri, 21 Feb 2020 23:12:30 +0000 Alisa Errors Merit Post-Mortems Fri, 21 Feb 2020 23:11:02 +0000 Anonymous Second-handedness Examples
13min he he basically says they are trying to get ppl elected to minor offices to gain social status the public will listen to what's said based on the source instead of the content of the message. despite being way behind in it, they're trying to play (and therefore sanctioning and legitimizing) the standard social climber game, b/c they think they should second-handedly pander to what the general not-that-interested public wants even though they don't respect the opinions of those they pander to. and what does that public want? the speaker says the public wants to be impressed by the title of the person telling them something, not by understanding the message. so it's a chain of second-handed pandering to second-handers, and it helps the establishment and it has nothing to do with ideas (ideas being where libertarians like the speaker in the video claim to have an edge).]]>
Fri, 21 Feb 2020 21:43:31 +0000
Alisa Alisa Discussion Fri, 21 Feb 2020 21:39:46 +0000 Paul Graham: How to Write Usefully Anonymous Alisa Discussion
> Telling people something they didn't know doesn't always mean surprising them. Sometimes it means telling them something they knew unconsciously but had never put into words.

> When you tell people something they didn't know, they don't always thank you for it. Sometimes the reason people don't know something is because they don't want to know it. Usually because it contradicts some cherished belief.

> The strength component just makes things worse. If there's anything that annoys people more than having their cherished assumptions contradicted, it's having them flatly contradicted.
> [...]
> And if your writing is as simple as possible, that just makes things worse. *Brevity is the diction of command.* If you watch someone delivering unwelcome news from a position of inferiority, you'll notice they tend to use lots of words, to soften the blow. Whereas to be short with someone is more or less to be rude to them.

"Brevity is the diction of command" has ties to Chase Amante's Law of Least Effort.

> *If you've stated an idea as strongly as you could without making it false, all anyone has to do is to exaggerate slightly what you said, and now it is false.*

> ... people who disagree with you rarely disagree with what you've actually written. Instead they make up something you said and disagree with that.
> *For what it's worth, the countermove is to ask someone who does this to quote a specific sentence or passage you wrote that they believe is false, and explain why. I say "for what it's worth" because they never do*.

> I don't think you should explicitly forestall intentional misinterpretations in the body of an essay. An essay is a place to meet honest readers. You don't want to spoil your house by putting bars on the windows to protect against dishonest ones. The place to protect against intentional misinterpretations is in end-notes. But don't think you can predict them all. *People are as ingenious at misrepresenting you when you say something they don't want to hear as they are at coming up with rationalizations for things they want to do but know they shouldn't. I suspect it's the same skill.*

Fri, 21 Feb 2020 21:38:33 +0000
Anonymous Politics Discussion
Jeff Deist from the Mises Institute is repeatedly counter-productive.]]>
Fri, 21 Feb 2020 21:33:30 +0000
Google Cloud Vision API will no longer classify images of people as male or female Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)
> Hello Google Cloud Vision API customer,

> We are writing to let you know that starting February 19, 2020, the Cloud Vision API will no longer return gendered labels such as 'man' and 'woman' that describe persons in an image when using the ‘LABEL_DETECTION’ feature.]]>
Fri, 21 Feb 2020 20:25:04 +0000
Anonymous Submit Podcast Questions Fri, 21 Feb 2020 19:32:11 +0000 Anonymous Submit Podcast Questions Fri, 21 Feb 2020 19:27:46 +0000 Mises Criticizes Hayek curi Open Discussion: Economics
(Formatting omitted, emphasis is mine.)

12: Liberty and Its Antithesis

As the harbingers of socialism tell us again and again, socialism will not only make all people rich, but will also bring perfect freedom to everybody. The transition to socialism, declares Frederick Engels, the friend and collaborator of Marx, is the leap of mankind from the realm of necessity into the realm of freedom. Under capitalism, say the Communists, there is bondage for the immense majority; in the Soviet Union alone there is genuine liberty for all.

The treatment of this problem of freedom and bondage has been muddled by confounding it with the issues of the nature-given conditions of man’s existence. In nature there is nothing that could be called freedom. Nature is inexorable necessity. It is the state of affairs into which all created beings are placed and with which they have to cope. Man has to adjust his conduct to the world as it is. He lacks the power to rise in rebellion against the “laws of nature.” If he wants to substitute more satisfactory conditions for less satisfactory, he has to comply with them.

Freedom in Society Means Freedom for Individuals to Choose

The concept of freedom and its antithesis make sense only in referring to the conditions of social cooperation among men. Social cooperation, the basis of any really human and civilized existence, can be achieved by two different methods. It can be cooperation by virtue of contract and voluntary coordination on the part of all individuals, or it can be cooperation by virtue of command on the part of a Führer and compulsory subordination of the many. The latter system is authoritarian.

In the libertarian system every individual is a moral person, that is, he is free to choose and to act and is responsible for his conduct. In the authoritarian system the supreme chief alone is a free agent while all the others are bondsmen subject to his discretion. Where the authoritarian system is fully established, as was for instance the case in the empire of the Inca in pre-Columbian America, the subjects are merely in a zoological sense human; virtually they are deprived of their specifically human faculty of choosing and acting and are not accountable for their conduct. It was in accordance with this degradation of man’s moral dignity that the Nazi criminals declined any responsibility for their deeds by pointing out that all they did was to obey the orders of their superiors.

Western civilization is based upon the libertarian principle, and all its achievements are the result of the actions of free men. Only in the frame of a free society is it meaningful to distinguish between what is good and ought to be done and what is bad and ought to be avoided. Only in such a free society has the individual the power to choose between morally commendable and morally reprehensible conduct.

Man is not a perfect being and there is no perfection in human affairs. Conditions in the free society are certainly in many regards unsatisfactory. There is still ample room for the endeavors of those who are intent upon fighting evil and raising the moral, intellectual and material level of mankind.

Socialism Leads to Total Control

But the designs of the Communists, Socialists, and all their allies aim at something else. They want to establish the authoritarian system. What they mean in extolling the benefits to be derived from what they call “planning” is a society in which all of the people should be prevented from planning their own conduct and from arranging their lives according to their own moral convictions. One plan alone should prevail, the plan of the great idol State (with a capital S), the plan of the supreme chief of the government, enforced by the police. Every individual should be forced to renounce his autonomy and to obey, without asking questions, the orders issued from the Politburo, the Führer’s secretariat. This is the kind of freedom that Engels had in mind. It is precisely the opposite of what the term freedom used to signify up to our age.

It was the great merit of Professor Friedrich von Hayek to have directed attention to the authoritarian character of the socialist schemes, whether they are advocated by international or by nationalist socialists, by atheists or by misguided believers, by white-skinned or by dark-skinned fanatics. Although there have always been authors who exposed the authoritarianism of the socialist designs, the main criticism of socialism centered around its economic inadequacy, and did not sufficiently deal with its effects upon the lives of the citizens. Because of this neglect of the human angle of the issue, the great majority of those supporting socialist policies vaguely assumed that the restriction of the individuals’ freedom by a socialist regime will apply “only” to economic matters and will not affect freedom in non-economic affairs.

But as Hayek in 1944 clearly pointed out in his book The Road To Serfdom, economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life that can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends. As the socialist state has sole control of the means, it has the power to determine which ends are to be served and what men are to strive for. It is not an accident that Marxian socialism in Russia and nationalist socialism in Germany resulted in the complete abolition of all civil liberties and the establishment of the most rigid despotism. Tyranny is the political corollary of socialism, as representative government is the political corollary of the market economy.

Now Professor Hayek has enlarged and substantiated his ideas in a comprehensive treatise, The Constitution of Liberty.* In the first two parts of this book the author provides a brilliant exposition of the meaning of liberty and the creative powers of a free civilization. Endorsing the famous definition that describes liberty as the rule of laws and not of men, he analyzes the constitutional and legal foundations of a commonwealth of free citizens. He contrasts the two schemes of society’s social and political organization, government by the people (representative government) based upon legality, and government by the discretionary power of an authoritarian ruler or a ruling clique, an Obrigkeit as the Germans used to call it. Fully appreciating the moral, practical and material superiority of the former, he shows in detail what the legal requirements of such a state of affairs are and what has to be done in order to make it work and to defend it against the machinations of its foes.

The Welfare State Leads to Socialism

*Unfortunately, the third part of Professor Hayek’s book is rather disappointing. Here the author tries to distinguish between socialism and the Welfare State. Socialism, he alleges, is on the decline; the Welfare State is supplanting it. And he thinks that the Welfare State is, under certain conditions, compatible with liberty.*

In fact, the Welfare State is merely a method for transforming the market economy step by step into socialism. The original plan of socialist action as developed by Karl Marx in 1848 in the Communist Manifesto aimed at a gradual realization of socialism by a series of governmental measures. The ten most powerful of such measures were enumerated in the Manifesto. They are well known to everybody because they are the very measures that form the essence of the activities of the Welfare State, of Bismarck’s and the kaiser’s German Sozialpolitik as well as of the American New Deal and British Fabian Socialism. The Communist Manifesto calls these measures which it suggests “economically insufficient and untenable,” but it stresses the fact that “in the course of the movement [they] outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.”

Later, Marx adopted a different method for the policies of his party. He abandoned the tactics of a gradual approach to the total state of socialism and instead advocated a violent revolutionary overthrow of the “bourgeois” system that at one stroke should “liquidate” the “exploiters” and establish “the dictatorship of the proletariat.” It was this that Lenin did in 1917 in Russia and what the Communist International plans to achieve everywhere. What separates the Communists from the advocates of the Welfare State is not the ultimate goal of their endeavors, but the methods by means of which they want to attain a goal that is common to both of them. The difference of opinions that divides them is the same that distinguishes the Marx of 1848 from the Marx of 1867, the year of the first publication of the first volume of Das Kapital.

The Failure of Economic Planning

However, the fact that *Professor Hayek has misjudged the character of the Welfare State* does not seriously detract from the value of his great book. For his searching analysis of the policies and concerns of the Welfare [115] State shows to every thoughtful reader why and how these much-praised welfare policies inevitably always fail. These policies never attain those—allegedly beneficial—ends which the government and the self-styled progressives who advocated them wanted to attain, but—on the contrary—bring about a state of affairs which—from the very point of view of the government and its supporters—is even more unsatisfactory than the previous state of affairs they wanted to “improve.” If the government does not repeal its first intervention, it is induced to supplement it by further acts of intervention. As these fail again, still more meddling with business is resorted to until all economic freedom has been virtually abolished. What emerges is the system of all-round planning, i.e., socialism of the type which the German Hindenburg Plan was aiming at in the First World War and which was later put into effect by Hitler after his seizure of power, and by the British Coalition Cabinet in the Second World War.

The main error that prevents many of our contemporaries from adequately comprehending the significance of various party programs and the trend of the welfare policies is their failure to recognize that there is apart from outright nationalization of all plants and farms (as effected in Russia and China) a second method for the full realization of socialism. Under this system that is commonly called “planning” (or, in war time, war socialism) the various plants and farms remain outwardly and seemingly units, but they become entirely and unconditionally subject to the orders of the supreme planning authority. Every citizen, whatever his nominal position in the economic system may be, is bound to toil in strict compliance with the orders of the planning board, and his income—the amount he is permitted to spend for his consumption—is exclusively determined by these orders. Some labels and terms of the capitalistic system may be preserved, but they signify under the altered conditions something entirely different from what they used to signify in the market economy. Other terms may be changed. Thus in Hitler Germany the head of an outfit who supplanted the entrepreneur or the corporation president of the market economy was styled “shop manager” (Betriebsführer) and the labor force “followers” (Gefolgschaft). As the theoretical pace-makers of this system, e.g., the late Professor Othmar Spann, has pointed out again and again, it retains only the name of private ownership, while in fact there is exclusively public—state—ownership.

Only by paying full attention to these fundamental issues can one [116] form a correct appreciation of the political controversies in the nations of Western civilization. For if socialism and communism should succeed in these countries, it will be the socialism of the planning scheme and not the socialism of the nationalization scheme. The latter is a method applicable to predominantly agricultural countries like those of Eastern Europe and Asia. In the industrial countries of the West the planning scheme is more popular because even the most fanatical statolatrists shrink from directly nationalizing the intricate apparatus of modern manufacturing.

Yet the “planning scheme” is just as destructive of freedom as the “nationalization scheme” and both lead on to the authoritarian state.]]>
Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:26:40 +0000
Anonymous Ending Aging
You don't need an edge there. Your edge would be at the interacting with curi/FI half of the project. You only need to be passable at the interacting with anti-aging half. Then, as a whole, you could have a large edge because no one better than you at interacting with anti-aging would be passable at interacting with curi.

In general, significant edges are much easier to get when you consider two or three traits at once, rather than seeking an edge at a single trait. E.g. best at CR+Oism is much less competitive than CR or Oism alone. Even CR+programmer, which is much more common than CR+Oism, is much less competitive than CR alone (I'd guess fewer than 10% of CRs are programmers).

> - I believe liking/doing social stuff is dangerous.

You might already be able to be very useful at this without signifiant changes to your ideas or values, as above.

But I made my suggestion ( #15574 ) in the context of your statements about prioritizing anti-aging over rationality and good thinking. It sounded like you wanted to focus on extending your life because you care about that far more than other values. But here you're already pushing back about wanting to be rational.

I took your idea and preference roughly as wanting to worry only a bare minimum about everything but aging. But either you care about other stuff like good thinking more than that or your idea of the bare minimum is unusually high.]]>
Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:09:50 +0000
Andy Dufresne Ending Aging
I have criticized and tentatively rejected that as a primary approach because:

- I am not particularly skilled at the kind of informal IRL social interactions that are most commonly used to make friends.

I'm not horrible at it to the point that I'd be for example unwelcome at parties. But I get little or nothing out of informal events because I'm significantly worse than average professionals at things like:
* Initiating and sustaining informal conversations
* Recognizing people by sight and greeting them appropriately
* Remembering other people's interests and relationships from past interactions
* Speaking with one person/group for the right amount of time so they remember me, but not as a pest
* Dressing well for the occasion
* Drinking enough alcohol to show I'm not a prude
* Joining an in-progress conversation I was not explicitly invited to
* Converting casual acquaintances into meaningful friendships

I definitely don't have any current edge / comparative advantage at that stuff. Of course I could learn to be better at it but...

- I don't like doing that stuff. Taken to extreme, the approach could become a fate worse than death for me (doing something I hate for the rest of my life).

I could attempt to change that preference but...

- I believe liking/doing social stuff is dangerous. I don't have a clear idea of the issue, but my understanding is trying to do social is ex: what caused DD to become much worse than he used to be.

So even if I knew how to change my preference (which I currently don't) I currently think that I shouldn't.

That said, I can see doing something like your suggestion as a secondary approach.

I'm much better at structured social interactions like meetings and presentations than I am at the informal stuff. I'm at least average. Probably a little above average. I can build a presentation and speak to a crowd and not be overly nervous, rambling, too soft, monotone, fail to make a point, flustered by questions, etc. My main flaws that I know of are that I tend to rely too heavily on slides, say filler words ("um", "ah") too much, and I don't make eye contact with the audience well. But those aren't extreme problems for me and so not typically fatal. I can speak up in meetings & say relevant things to the topic at hand. I can set agendas and run meetings that are more productive than average.

As part of doing some other strategy in aging, I may happen to make some friends/contacts/status among anti-aging people through more structured interactions. And if I do, of course it would make sense to talk about curi's ideas that I agree with. And if the aging people have problems I don't know how to solve, it'd make sense to talk about such problems to curi as long as I wasn't bound by NDA or something.

So not something I'd specifically set out to do, but a possible beneficial side-effect of some other strategy(s).]]>
Fri, 21 Feb 2020 08:04:37 +0000
Studying Metro route #18 GISTE Mario Odyssey Discussion
I noticed that I'm more effective in section 5 than I am in the rest of the sections, despite section 5 being way harder than the rest.

I learned a better route for section 1. The old way involved clearing the abyss with a triple jump, then throwing cappy and diving to get on the plateau, then throwing cappy to get to the electric wire. I've figured out how to clear the abyss with the triple jump, then throw cappy to get to the electric wire, skipping actually landing on the plateau.]]>
Fri, 21 Feb 2020 04:20:11 +0000
Anonymous Ending Aging Thu, 20 Feb 2020 21:53:37 +0000 curi Gaming Discussion
The divide is basically whether you're learning or not learning; making progress or not making progress; improving or not improving.

The video criticizes people who want instant gratification. TCS people may be aware that "instant gratification" is used to attack children, often falsely. But it also has some legitimate meaning. Wanting rewards without doing problem solving or learning first, without earning them, is mostly bad. (It's OK if you occasionally want to e.g. have your friend beat something for you so you can get a reward. The occasional shortcut to skip specific challenges you don't like is fine. But that should be uncommon. If it were common, that means you don't like the challenges in that game or area of life, so you should be doing something else!)

[Casual Gamers Versus Hardcore Gamers - An Invasive Species]( More of the same topic. Well worth watching IMO. If you're a casual gamer (or TV watcher or book reader) you should find out and change in order to dramatically improve your life. It's very common so, if you aren't familiar with the topic, it might apply to you.

Mobile gaming now sells more than PC+console combined, and it's far more casual, and the whole gaming industry is catering more and more to casuals and ruining games for the people who like a challenge and, in the past, were the earlier adopters who made up most of the gaming market.


> Asmongold criticizes casual console gamers who buy cosmetics:
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 20:04:32 +0000
Politics Andy Dufresne Ending Aging
> If Bernie beats Trump in the 2020 election, how much is that a setback for anti-aging medicine, for healthcare, for peace, for preventing crime, for preventing war, for making the whole world wealthy and able to afford science/education/medicine, etc, etc?

Hard to say. I think it depends a lot on the reason(s) Bernie won.

If Bernie wins mainly because Trump said or did something especially stupid or had a heart attack during the debate and was in the ICU instead of campaigning for all of October, that'd be much less of a setback than if Bernie wins because a large majority of Americans decided they really want socialism and simultaneously gave Dems control of both the House and Senate.

However, I don't think I have meaningful influence over whether Bernie beats Trump in 2020. Nor do I think it's reasonable to expect I could have meaningful influence over the 2024 or 2028 election result even if I were to focus on fixing people's bad thinking methods that lead them to, among other things, support people like Bernie.]]>
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 17:06:00 +0000
Andy Dufresne Ending Aging
For your donation matching example:
If I decide SENS or some other organization using donation matching is the right vehicle for my work on aging, and my strategy is to help the organization do what it's already doing, but faster than it would without my help...

And I decided the organization's level of funding was the primary thing limiting their speed...

And I decided the donation matching fundraising strategy was blocking them from substantially raising their current level of funding...

Then I'd consider the poor thinking that leads to donation matching and other marketing errors a blocker that I need to work on.]]>
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:37:35 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)
Nice vid thanks]]>
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:01:54 +0000
curi Ending Aging Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:41:01 +0000 Andy Dufresne Ending Aging
> Similarly every SENS-related researcher needs some minimum thinking quality to do productive work. Do people already have that? Inconsistently, sure. Sometimes they do productive work. But how consistently? How efficient are they being compared to if they did the same work using better thinking methods? How long would improved thinking training take to pay off? etc. These aren't things to ignore even if you focus on SENS.

I agree. Here's how I see that fitting with my 2 strategies from #15535:

(1) Work on specific thinking quality problems in others when I identify such problems as unavoidable blockers to an aging solution.

(2) Work on general thinking quality problems in others. When I judge that's been successful enough, then work on an aging solution (including working on any remaining thinking quality problems in others I identify as blockers to an aging solution).]]>
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:38:54 +0000
Andy Dufresne Ending Aging Preventable failure at being productive isn't even the worst outcome.

It's possible that by becoming involved in the wrong way I could distract / delay others who are being productive and make the effort take longer.]]>
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:26:38 +0000
Andy Dufresne Ending Aging
> And you can't get away from the bad-thinking/irrationality problem entirely. You have to think to evaluate if SENS is any good, to evaluate if you should take advice from me, AdG or anyone else, to create and evaluate any project plan, etc. Your thinking has to meet some quality standards or you will fail.

I agree. One reason I haven't done much work on aging yet is I'm not yet confident I know the right thing(s) to do to avoid preventable failure at it.]]>
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:20:26 +0000
Andy Dufresne Ending Aging > > From what I know now, if I don't work on aging I probably won't work on anything else that's truly great / important.
> Broadly, why? I could see myself working on any of those problems.

Broadly, because without anti-aging tech I don't expect to be healthy and energetic long enough to benefit much from working on those other problems.]]>
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 14:58:34 +0000
Watch Vids Fast! curi Open Discussion 2 (2019)
I've built up to this speed for years.

It's a *huge* time saver. You should start working on it. If you watch at 1x, you can probably go up to 1.25x without much trouble. It'll probably be easy. Then you just keep gradually increasing. Start now because it takes time to get used to watching faster so it's not just something you can do, but actually easy/relaxed/comfortable. If you go up gradually enough, it never ruins the fun or stresses you out.

YT's speed controls don't give you enough flexibility and the max speed, 2x, is too low. By flexibility I mean it's better to control the speed in smaller increments like 0.1x

[Video Speed Controller]( is a free Chrome extension to do this. It works well. You can also download stuff (e.g. with youtube-dl for command line or many other choices) and watch it fast with VLC.

Oh also, dear god, *get an ad blocker which blocks YouTube ads!* I use [uBlock Origin in Chrome]( (warning: the non-origin version of ublock is different and shitty).

You can also get these extensions for Firefox.

I don't know what's available for Internet Explorer, I mean Edge.

They are *not* available for Mac Safari (uBlock Origin worked before Catalina). If you know/find good options for Safari (my preferred browser), please let me know.]]>
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 14:28:08 +0000
curi Deplatforming and Fraud
[The DOWNFALL of Youtube]( talks about YT manipulating what videos are trending. Correlates a lot with being made by corporate media, not views/likes/etc. And they suppress people they don't like such as PewDiePie who is largely prevented from being promoted as trending in the US. (Twitter btw has a similar trending promotional feature which they bias and manipulate.)

[Cancel Culture - A Social Plague]( covers 3 examples of deplatforming

[Youtube is Deleting Iconic Videos - Idiotic New Policies]( discusses YT's censorship policies re so-called harassment and hate speech. YT also says they can ban or censor you even when no specific video or statement violates the rules. Reminds me of people criticizing my tone/style while having zero quotes they object to.]]>
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 14:11:40 +0000
curi Gaming Discussion
This video mentions (at 1:44) that Activision has a patent on an algorithm idea where you bias the in-game matchmaking to try to get people to spend money. For example, if someone plays as a sniper a lot, you intentionally match them against a guy with a pay-to-win sniper rifle so they lose the sniper duel. Then the game also tells them the gear of the guy who beat them, and they are encouraged to buy it to stop losing.]]>
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:54:23 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019) ](

He quit Twitch, explains why. A lot of the video is complaining about softcore porn camgirls and Twitch's new (2018) Terms of Service where they say no harassment like ever calling anyone a camgirl and they actually ban people for saying stuff like that once.]]>
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:37:12 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019) Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:03:32 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)
Get offered all-expenses-paid travel to parties/events, in return you're expected to give positive coverage to the new game/movie/product/whatever (if you don't, you don't get invited to similar events by anyone).]]>
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:00:30 +0000
Google and YouTube suck curi Open Discussion 2 (2019)
[Youtubes COPPA Policy is GARBAGE](]]>
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:54:13 +0000
curi Politics Discussion
[Nevada Debate: The Fall Of Bloomberg](]]>
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:05:58 +0000
curi Alisa Discussion Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:37:29 +0000 curi Ending Aging
Broadly, why? I could see myself working on any of those problems.

And you can't get away from the bad-thinking/irrationality problem entirely. You have to think to evaluate if SENS is any good, to evaluate if you should take advice from me, AdG or anyone else, to create and evaluate any project plan, etc. Your thinking has to meet some quality standards or you will fail. Similarly every SENS-related researcher needs some minimum thinking quality to do productive work. Do people already have that? Inconsistently, sure. Sometimes they do productive work. But how consistently? How efficient are they being compared to if they did the same work using better thinking methods? How long would improved thinking training take to pay off? etc. These aren't things to ignore even if you focus on SENS. Some level of thinking quality and effectiveness is needed for every project listed, and current thinking standards in the world, while inconsistently adequate to be productive sometimes (rather than no one ever being productive), are nowhere near the level where you don't need to be worrying about the matter. And for some of the problems, like AGI, the productive work people do is really quite narrow or off-topic and constrained – while progress is made on some things, it's near-zero progress on AGI combined with incorrectly thinking it's significant AGI progress.

Similarly, the Google founders made Calico to help defeat aging, but they did it wrong and it's basically not productive, and tons of money is being wasted. Their bad and lazy thinking – more about virtue signaling than results – is a huge problem. But I don't want to overstate the problem because many other billionaires aren't trying to help rather than helping badly, so Calico isn't worse than that and may do some useful non-SENS type medical research. AdG says the reason Calico doesn't fix its problems is ego and social status stuff: Larry and Sergey don't want to admit they made any mistakes.

Calico sources: I knew some stuff about it when it was new but mainly I just read these two AdG answers today:

Quora: [Why doesn't Aubrey de Grey collaborate with Calico?](

Quora: [What are the chances that Google Calico will become a failure like some Google projects were?](]]>
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:35:03 +0000
curi Ending Aging

[Aging]( (not a longevity subreddit)


[Gerontology]( (has links to other subreddits and websites in the sidebar)

[Aging Biology](]]>
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:22:33 +0000
curi Ending Aging
Follow [AdG on Twitter](

Good AdG speech to Effective Altruism: [Rejuvenation biotechnology: Will “age” soon cease to mean “aging”?](

AdG Quora: [Will an increase in human lifespan cause a large population spike that puts more pressure on the environment?]( Worrying, false comments like:

> increase in the Earth’s carrying capacity that will result from the replacement of fossil fuels by renewables, of agriculture by artificial meat etc

AdG Quora: [I seriously want to commit my long term goal in life to achieve the discovery of how to live forever in a youthful form. What is the correct educational path to go about in doing so?](

> One of the things we do at SENS Research Foundation is help people find the best way to contribute to the effort to bring aging under medical control. There is no one answer - it depends entirely on who you are, what you’re good at, all manner of things. Therefore, please email me at and I’ll get you a proper answer.]]>
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:16:38 +0000
Anne B Social Reality and Real Reality Thu, 20 Feb 2020 07:57:19 +0000 Alisa Open Discussion: Economics
> House majority whip Rep. James Clyburn dismissed President Trump’s record low African-American unemployment numbers in an interview on Fox News. Anchor Neil Cavuto asked Clyburn whether he was pleased with the low unemployment rate of American minorities.


> “No, because it’s not true. I’m saying the African-American unemployment is not the lowest it’s ever been, unless you count slavery. We were fully employed during slavery, so it all depends on how you measure this up,” Clyburn responded.]]>
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 06:23:32 +0000
N Open Discussion 2 (2019) Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:19:00 +0000 What Cases Matter - Opportunity Cost Andy Dufresne Ending Aging It's relevant that I consider my personal opportunity cost of working on aging (again, "working on" to be taken broadly) to be quite low.

Some of the reasons are about my personal situation and preferences that don't apply equally or at all to others' situations. I don't know how to give a lot of detail without revealing personal information I want to keep private for now.

High level, I don't consider the other important problems at: to be good candidates for me to work on.

From what I know now, if I don't work on aging I probably won't work on anything else that's truly great / important. The opportunity cost of working on aging is limited to unimportant stuff.

That could change as I gain more knowledge.]]>
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 04:14:10 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)]]>
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 00:50:22 +0000
Anonymous Politics Discussion Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:44:58 +0000 Anonymous Politics Discussion
God damn those are some high taxes Bernie wants. Earn $7.2 million from your startup sale, keep $2.2 million (30%).]]>
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:43:51 +0000
Some partially-formed thoughts on good & evil Alisa Alisa Discussion
The moral is the effective, the potent. Therefore, evil, the immoral, is ineffective, impotent. An evil person can bumble around and cause destruction, but they won’t be especially effective at it. It’s like the knowledge possessed by static memes. Evil can do damage, but it’s not the kind of damage that can be achieved with effective thought. In the fight between good against evil, good has an advantage, but the good has to be actively chosen, unlike evil, which is the default. Therefore, if you aren’t actively choosing the good, you are evil, or, at the very least, immoral.]]>
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:25:17 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)
> Stop Using Encrypted Email

Summary: Email encryption doesn't work well enough. It's insecure. Don't pretend it works. If you really need encryption, use something else.

With sections like "Every archived message will eventually leak." and "Every long term secret will eventually leak." it also has some relevance to people who expect privacy when emailing strangers in plain text (which came up in some recent FI debates).]]>
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:46:42 +0000
What Cases Matter Andy Dufresne Ending Aging
> Working on aging, in some ways, is a bit like betting we're really near the finish line. We want to solve aging while it's still hard/expensive, instead of following the normal procedure of powering up generically and then doing it when it's easy/cheap.

> This is risky if you jump the gun and start overreaching and being really inefficient early and the finish line turns out to be out of reach. Then you just wasted a ton of resources and delayed actual success.

But in the case where we're far from the finish line, I'm dead (most likely from aging) whether I work on aging or on something else.

There are fates worse than death of course, including spending the rest of my life working on stuff that I hate. But I'm not contemplating anything like that. In the context of my personal decision regarding what to work on (again "work on" intended broadly to include efficient specialization), I think the worst outcome is death by aging I could've prevented.

Given the worst outcome from the decision I'm contemplating is a preventable death, I think the case where I'm dead no matter what decision I make is irrelevant to me personally. If that's the real situation, then whether I over-reached or not doesn't matter cuz I'm dead. It may (probably does) matter to other people in a different situation, who might be in a position to live if I didn't over-reach but die if I did over-reach.]]>
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:44:47 +0000
Deathbed regrets Andy Dufresne Ending Aging
> It would suck if, when you die, you think "Dang SENS still isn't even close. My work failed.

It probably would suck. It would also suck if I think "Dang I didn't even seriously try to help the one project I knew of that could've saved me."

I think it would suck when I die no matter what I'm thinking about at the time. We're only talking about degrees of suck.

Everyone seems to treat deathbed regrets as this big danger / problem to avoid. I don't see it that way. I think having a regret for the last 40 years of life is a much bigger problem than having a regret for the last 4 minutes or even 4 months.]]>
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:23:23 +0000
Unusual Andy Dufresne Ending Aging
> I do think there's a case that SENS is underfunded, needs more smart people desperately, etc. and that maybe you could make a difference. The case should be written down and analyzed though. It should be recognized as something kinda unusual, a significant claim that goes against some standard ways things work.

I agree.

I think answering the criticisms I know of for working on aging now is the best way to approach that analysis. Do you know of a better way?]]>
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:13:40 +0000
Other Causes Andy Dufresne Ending Aging
> Have you considered that you may be killed by war, by terrorists, by government policies that suppress and destroy medicine and healthcare, etc? There are a lot of other threats to civilization and to your life besides aging. The aging threat is more certain and if I had to pick one to get rid of, it sounds like the best pick. But some of the other threats are easier to do something about, and there's the danger that SENS or cryonics or something works but the other problems slaughter massive numbers of people anyway (it could even be more die that way than would have died if we fixed other stuff first and developed SENS later and more people died of aging).

Yes I have considered that. I care about that stuff some too. When I was younger I cared about that stuff more than I do now. It was at that time relatively more likely to kill me and aging relatively less likely.

The older I get, the more likely it becomes that aging will cause my death rather than anything else.]]>
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:09:49 +0000
Specialization Andy Dufresne Ending Aging
> Also there are major costs to switching specializations, especially to less related specializations (you could more easily switch to some things than others, and biology research is pretty far from your current knowledge). So you shouldn't necessarily work on the most important problem personally. Partly because you can do good work at something else and use it to fund the most important problem. And partly because we should have people working on many problems simultaneously and should efficiently allocate expertise.

Right. I intended my approach descriptions to be broad enough not to contradict specialization. I consider the following to be a subset of the potential approaches I considered:

Generate $1M per year of extra value using the most effecient method I know and then
(1) Spend $1M per year where I expect it to have the most impact developing/promoting a solution to the aging problem despite the current known shortcomings in thinking/discussing methods.

(2) Spend $1M per year where I expect it to have the most impact developing/promoting better thinking/discussing methods. When I judge that's been successful enough, then start spending $1M per year where I expect it to have the most impact on developing/promoting an aging solution.]]>
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:01:09 +0000
curi Ending Aging
This is risky if you jump the gun and start overreaching and being really inefficient early and the finish line turns out to be out of reach. Then you just wasted a ton of resources and delayed actual success.

Overall, the amount people jump the gun on rushing to the finish line on all kinds of stuff – most far too unimportant for this to make any sense anyway – is so much that overall it's slowing down progress a lot. If people would just stop doing it, we'd get way more done.

The actual situation is more complicated because some aspects of anti-aging research are perfectly reasonable next steps to gradually advance our understanding of health/medicine/etc step by step. Anti-aging is a complex area with many different things being worked on, some better than others, and we do know enough about e.g. scientific method to reasonably do some scientific work rather than only working on rationality first (but we're still broadly bad enough at rationality and scientific method that they should be significantly higher priorities in general than science – that's much more efficient, at least for people who know how to work on them productively). Some anti-aging efforts aren't overreaching/inefficient. But some are overreaching/inefficient. And people have a poor understanding of which are which.]]>
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:51:41 +0000
curi Ending Aging
If Bernie beats Trump in the 2020 election, how much is that a setback for anti-aging medicine, for healthcare, for peace, for preventing crime, for preventing war, for making the whole world wealthy and able to afford science/education/medicine, etc, etc?

Also there are major costs to switching specializations, especially to less related specializations (you could more easily switch to some things than others, and biology research is pretty far from your current knowledge). So you shouldn't necessarily work on the most important problem personally. Partly because you can do good work at something else and use it to fund the most important problem. And partly because we should have people working on many problems simultaneously and should efficiently allocate expertise. So basically the main reason to consider focusing on SENS personally would be if you're particularly good at it *or* if it's particularly under-funded, under-researched, etc. But in a normal situation, where it's already got tons of experts working on it, and a reasonable funding allocation, you could just work on a less important problem that you're better at and it'd be fine. I do think there's a case that SENS is underfunded, needs more smart people desperately, etc. and that maybe you could make a difference. The case should be written down and analyzed though. It should be recognized as something kinda unusual, a significant claim that goes against some standard ways things work.

Another factor worth major analysis is: suppose we fail. Maybe SENS is just too hard and won't work within the next 100 years due to some currently unknown problems. There are many failure scenarios. What sets up the next generations in a better position? What makes a more robust contribution to human progress rather than a risky bet? Working on good thinking related stuff is the best and most efficient thing to do for longterm knowledge growth for humanity, in general, assuming just partial progress. If progress goes slow, it should be the focus. SENS is only maybe better if a certain major milestone is reached relatively quickly, and was a worse place to use a lot of resources if it's not reached. It would suck if, when you die, you think "Dang SENS still isn't even close. My work failed. And in the meantime, people are still bad at thinking and that's sabotaging SENS and ~everything else. SENS and many other things are too hard until we have better parenting/education/rationality, and I didn't work on those, and so humanity has barely made progress, those still need to be done before much else gets fixed."

Another issue to consider is how much people in one field are able to use, accept, listen to, understand and otherwise benefit from expertise in another field. When this is low, there's more need for people to be experts about multiple things at once. When it's high, people can specialize, delegate, etc. better. Sadly basically everyone sucks too much to benefit much from rationality expertise. They don't know how to listen to it, believe it's legit, tell the difference between real and fake experts about it, etc. So they rely on their non-expert epistemology instead of outsourcing, or they outsource quite poorly. You can see this problem a ton in my conversation with AdG, and in the difficulty of me giving him advice. You, Andy Dufresne, and other long term FI people may be a better position in this respect: maybe you could work on SENS while also listening to some of my philosophy judgments/conclusions that you didn't personally research much. This is hard in various ways though, there are lots of ways it can go wrong, lots of problems. Another topic for analysis. Given the difficulties with this, it's more reason to work on rationality stuff yourself, b/c it's hard to rely on others doing that for you even to the limited extent it's directly relevant to anti-aging work.

Another thing is that anti-aging work actually consists of maybe different projects about many different topics. Besides medicine/biology science, there's communication with the public, fundraising, running businesses, attracting investors, writing up contracts, social networking, etc, etc. Some of these are areas where it's easier to have delegation, specialization and outsourcing: e.g. you can hire a marketing guy and, to some extent, the scientists don't need to know how to do marketing and will accept what he says and does. But you do need a CEO or leader or someone who can figure out which marketing guys are actually good to hire (just trusting general reputation, or getting the most expensive guys, is a poor method). And it's hard to split all this stuff up perfectly and to the extent some people end up working on several things, then being good at thinking in general is a big value. The more things you work on, the more you benefit from generic thinking skill instead of subject-specific stuff. Further, even if you specialize in one narrow thing only, you *still* will find that being a top expert means figuring out lots of generic stuff with high reach, cuz that' stuff tends to be good and using more parochial knowledge is often worse despite the narrowness of your goals.

> Anyway I don't think an improvement in thinking/discussing is a prerequisite to solving aging like rockets were a prerequisite for going to the moon. Improvement in thinking/discussing would help a lot with aging, like it would've helped a lot in getting to the moon, but it's not strictly or directly necessary.

Hard to say. Some of it may be pretty close to necessary. Dealing with aging means dealing with a lot of high quality knowledge, error correction, complexity, etc. That ~requires intellectual and software/document tools to organize all that, keep track of it, put it all together, etc. People already have and use some of those tools like spreadsheets, word processors and project management software but their knowledge is flawed and those flaws cause huge problems in practice with big/complex projects and that may have a big effect on curing aging. Similarly stuff like Goldratt's *Critical Chain* is highly relevant and matters, but maybe you can get by inefficiently without it (though how long does it really take to learn? but people resist it because they are irrational which makes it harder to use/spread/share. so it's hard to say what to do.)

> And on the other hand, if the thinking/discussing problem isn't super severe,

There are many reasons to think it's ***VERY*** severe. It's hard to quantify it in relation to how deadly it is for anti-aging work. Is it slowing us down by a factor of 5 or 5000? That also depends on how big/good a fix we're considering for the comparison scenario. Are we talking everyone being like me? Better? Half as good? A tenth as good?

> I currently consider these ideas definitive in refuting approach (2) for my situation. But I'm not confident that I've thought about it very well.

I think you need way more analysis to reach a seriously-considered conclusion. The above indicates some areas that merit more debate on both sides. There's also some relevant stuff in my draft tree re world's most important problems.]]>
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 14:53:21 +0000
Priorities Andy Dufresne Ending Aging
I think the important question is: What high level approach has the best chance of preventing death for *me personally*? Two possibilities I've considered:

(1) Work on developing/promoting an aging solution despite the current known shortcomings in thinking/discussing methods.

(2) Work on developing/promoting better thinking/discussing methods. When I judge that's been successful enough, then work on developing/promoting an aging solution.

The main problem I see with approach (1) is the possibility that solving aging in my remaining lifespan despite the current known shortcomings is less likely to succeed than solving thinking/discussing methods followed by solving aging.

The main problem I see with approach (2) is the reverse of the problem with (1). That is, the possibility that solving thinking/discussing methods then aging in my remaining lifespan is less likely to succeed than solving aging despite the known shortcomings. A secondary problem with approach (2) is knowing when "enough" progress on thinking/discussing methods has been made and its time to switch to working on aging so I don't die.

Some ideas I consider relevant to choosing between those approaches:
* Growth of knowledge is unpredictable but we can make knowledge growth more or less likely by what we choose to actively work on. Because of that, I think (absent the other factor I discuss below) substantial growth of knowledge from working in two areas (thinking/discussing + aging) is more difficult and hence less likely than substantial growth in just one area (aging), even if in the case of two areas the first knowledge area substantially helps the growth of the knowledge in the second area.

The other important factor I considered is actual prerequisite relationships vs. just "helping". For example, how likely would successful growth of knowledge in getting to the moon be before successful growth of knowledge in rocketry? Seems super low - rocketry didn't just "help" us figure out how to get to the moon, it was essential to how we actually did it. There seems to be a clear prerequisite relationship between knowing how to build rockets and knowing how to go to the moon. But not necessarily! Maybe we could have developed teleportation or inter-planetary ladders or something if we weren't so distracted by rockets. I judge that unlikely, but not zero.

Anyway I don't think an improvement in thinking/discussing is a prerequisite to solving aging like rockets were a prerequisite for going to the moon. Improvement in thinking/discussing would help a lot with aging, like it would've helped a lot in getting to the moon, but it's not strictly or directly necessary.

* It's possible and I judge it likely that the same known shortcomings in thinking/discussing methods that would negatively affect my ability to work on aging directly would also negatively affect my ability to work on thinking/discussing methods. People irrationally resist solving aging and are generally bad at it, but they irrationally resist and are bad at improving their thinking/discussing methods even more.

If the thinking/discussing problem is super severe but I have to work on *something* hard despite it, I think the best hard thing to work on would be aging. That would be true even if the chances of success are low and success at aging will leave me with the harder thinking/discussing problem still to solve. Cuz if I solve aging, then I will probably have a lot more time later to work on the thinking/discussing problem itself. No other hard problem has the characteristic of giving me a massive increase in expected available problem solving time for everything else.

And on the other hand, if the thinking/discussing problem isn't super severe, then maybe it's not gonna interfere with solving aging as much as we fear. Other hard, complex problems like going to the moon *have* been solved despite our thinking/discussing problems. So why not aging?

I currently consider these ideas definitive in refuting approach (2) for my situation. But I'm not confident that I've thought about it very well.

I acknowledge there are some possible combinations of aging problem severity, thinking problem severity, prerequisite relationships, personal knowledge and lifespan where (2) would be the better choice. And I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong about thinking approach (1) is best for me overall. That bothers me, cuz the stakes are high.

I'm not yet doing much either way. I'm keeping an open mind about it while tentatively planning on approach (1).]]>
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 14:21:32 +0000
curi Open Discussion 2 (2019)

The anti-Apple side of the debate broadly didn't answer arguments and then stopped responding entirely.]]>
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 14:13:53 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)
> Caesar in Gaul - Roman History DOCUMENTARY]]>
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 14:10:38 +0000
The horrible truth about Apple's repeated engineering failures. N Open Discussion 2 (2019)
*The horrible truth about Apple's repeated engineering failures.*

I am a Mac user. I like the user experience and have not had many issues with Apple products.

Is Apple getting better or worst re engineering and why do they not learn better from their mistakes?]]>
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:09:18 +0000
curi Ending Aging
Then SENS would very rapidly get a lot more funding *or* there would be some outstanding arguments about why it doesn't merit that funding. It wouldn't stay in its current limbo of appearing to have arguments meriting more funding but then those arguments seem to be largely ignored by almost everyone who controls a lot of money.

Better thinking/discussing methods give a large edge to good ideas. So SENS either is a good idea and would be massively benefitted, or we'd discover it's not and try something else instead, which AdG and all the rest would be glad to discover because this would involve arguments that actually convince them and answer all their questions and objections, so everyone would prefer to move on to some other research approaches. I don't expect SENS to be not worth funding and trying, but the point is in either scenario resolving arguments more is better, while leaving them so unresolved and disorganized is bad. Better philosophy would be good for SENS. (It'd also help with the research and scientific debates).]]>
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 01:46:57 +0000
curi Politics Discussion Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:53:47 +0000 oh my god it's turpentine Politics Discussion]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 23:59:51 +0000
Some Questions To Consider curi Ending Aging Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:10:51 +0000 curi Ending Aging
Good talk.]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:45:54 +0000
curi Ending Aging Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:09:10 +0000 curi Ending Aging Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:06:46 +0000 curi Ending Aging Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:06:13 +0000 curi Ending Aging
Interesting video. Some parts are technical and hard to follow.]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:05:46 +0000
Anonymous Politics Discussion]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 20:43:46 +0000
curi Deplatforming and Fraud Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:02:39 +0000 Alisa Deplatforming and Fraud Tue, 18 Feb 2020 18:59:32 +0000 Anonymous Politics Discussion
>> On the morning of 9/11, I thought, "The overreaction to this will be ten times worse than the original disaster." 10x was a comic underestimate. The "overreactionaries" (Caplan's term) are a vast threat in both political parties. Count me among those who think this must be said.

> Yudkowsky sux.

Indeed. What overreaction? We didn't eg shut down the border. In fact, we've admitted tons of Muslims since 9/11. Open borders has even gotten more popular, and open borders would lead to even more deaths caused by terrorists.

I guess he means the Iraq and Afghanistan wars but those weren't overreactions per se so much as misconceived in some ways and badly executed in practice. Maybe if we'd vaporized Afghanistan with nukes you could have called that an overreaction.

Re: admitting Muslims see:]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:45:02 +0000
curi By Any Means Necessary: A Violent Marxist Cult
This anti-school-indoctrination video covers Yvette Felarca starting at 18:06 then discusses BAMN more broadly until 22:40.]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:32:53 +0000
Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud
> David Horowitz Slams Twitter Suspension

3min vid]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:26:27 +0000
Anonymous Politics Discussion
> Stop K-12 Speech at Bloomfield Republican Women's Club

The first 8min has some disturbing stuff schools are doing. You don't have to watch the whole vid to get value.]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:23:54 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)
> Japan in 8K 60fps

8K is the resolution. More than 4k which is more than HD.]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:14:22 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion: Economics
> Anti-Obamanomics: Why Everyone Should Be in Favor of Reducing Taxes on the "Rich"

by Reisman]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:03:20 +0000
Anonymous Politics Discussion
> The Hong Kong Protesters Aren’t Driven by Hope

> “We might as well go down fighting.”

> This is our last chance, they said very matter-of-factly. If we stand down, nothing will stand between us and mainland China, they said. They talked about Xinjiang, and what China had done to the Uighur minority. I’ve heard about the fate of the Uighurs from so many protesters over the months. China may have wanted to make an example out of the region, but the lesson Hong Kongers took was in the other direction—resist with all your might, because if you lose once, there will be a catastrophe for your people, and the world will ignore it.]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:01:46 +0000
curi Politics Discussion
> My First Time to East Berlin

Pretty short article. Most people really haven't read enough about this kinda thing to get a concrete grasp of what communism was like. Sample:

> Hendrika and I visited the ghoul-like, cavernous main library in East Berlin. It was necessary to purchase a pass to enter, and only East Berlin students and visitors from non-communist nations were permitted inside. Every room had a guard, and we had to sign a registry and show our passes before entering it. There were vast empty spaces inside, perhaps symbolizing the vast Yukon Territory of knowledge beyond the pale. The local folks using that library didn’t seem to be emitting any mental sparks — maybe intellectual curiosity was considered a thought crime, too? The East Germans toiling with books and papers probably knew that anyone who raced across No Man’s Land to some forbidden idea might be terminated with extreme prejudice. Why have libraries where thinking was a crime? Any government terrified of ideas must be doing something wrong.

Some people will dismiss this as biased political opinions. Part of it is commentary but facts like a guard in every room in the library are not opinions/commentary.

> Exiting Berlin, I caught a ride to Frankfurt with a friendly young leftist German university student. He said that there was not much difference between “freedom” in West and East Berlin because some workers in West Berlin lived in an area on the edge of city with no subway station and only one supermarket. He lamented that it took them half an hour via a bus line to get to the center of the city. Hence, they had no freedom — just like the people in East Berlin. He stressed that East Germany had many advantages over West Germany, such as free health care and zero unemployment. Maybe he wasn’t aware that the D.D.R. government dictated the occupation each young person must follow? Did this guy not notice the food in the East German markets was utterly grim — almost zero fresh fruits aside from apples? I was puzzled why someone who seemed quite intelligent was utterly oblivious to the catastrophic consequences of destroying economic freedom.

The example of how someone thought is worthwhile, IMO.

> The East German regime insisted that the Berlin Wall was to keep fascists out from their workers’ paradise.

I think this was well known and not controversial at the time, but people today could find it hard to believe anyone would ever have even made such a claim or been taken seriously.]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:59:48 +0000
Anonymous Politics Discussion
> Who will answer the call in the next outbreak? Drug makers feel burned by string of vaccine pleas]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:55:27 +0000
Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud
> On Sunday night, when Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince announced in a blog post that the company was terminating service for 8chan, the response was nearly universal: Finally.

> It was hard to disagree: it was on 8chan — which was created after complaints that the extremely lightly-moderated anonymous-based forum 4chan was too heavy-handed — that a suspected terrorist gunman posted a rant explaining his actions before killing 20 people in El Paso. This was the third such incident this year: the terrorist gunmen in Christchurch, New Zealand and Poway, California did the same; 8chan celebrated all of them.

> To state the obvious, it is hard to think of a more reprehensible community than 8chan. And, as many were quick to point out, it was hardly the sort of site that Cloudflare wanted to be associated with as they prepared for a reported IPO. Which again raises the question: what took Cloudflare so long?

pro deplatforming article.]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:46:32 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion: Economics
> How Slave Owners Pushed Marxist "Wage Slavery" and Exploitation Theories

> Indeed, the term "wage slavery" and its variants were popular among slavery's defenders, who sought to portray capitalism as a system more barbaric than the chattel-slavery system of the American slave states.

> Or as Robert Higgs put it, "True to his sociological theories, Fitzhugh wanted to extend slavery in the United States to working-class white people, for their own good!"]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:45:18 +0000
Anonymous Product Release: Yes or No Philosophy

Feynman got YesNo wrong.]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:41:22 +0000
Anonymous Politics Discussion
> This should be a fairly simple calculation: coal kills a lot more people than nuclear. It has also, over the course of the last 100 years, produced far more nuclear waste exposed to the environment than nuclear power has (including if you normalize for power contribution, etc; the numbers aren't close).

says patio11]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:38:20 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)
> Here's What Fruits And Vegetables Looked Like Before We Domesticated Them

Interesting. More seeds, less edible. Nice pictures.]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:33:41 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)
> More social science studies just failed to replicate. Here’s why this is good.

Vox headline. lol sigh.]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:32:26 +0000
Anonymous Politics Discussion
> On the morning of 9/11, I thought, "The overreaction to this will be ten times worse than the original disaster." 10x was a comic underestimate. The "overreactionaries" (Caplan's term) are a vast threat in both political parties. Count me among those who think this must be said.

Yudkowsky sux.]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:29:11 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion: Economics
> Classical Economics vs. The Exploitation Theory

> According to this [Exploitation] theory, capitalism is a system of virtual slavery, serving the narrow interests of a comparative handful of businessmen and capitalists, who, driven by insatiable greed and power lust, exist as parasites upon the labor of the masses.

> This view of capitalism has not been the least bit shaken by the steady rise in the average standard of living that has taken place in the capitalist countries since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The rise in the standard of living is not attributed to capitalism, but precisely to the *infringements* which have been made upon capitalism.]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:12:54 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:08:34 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)
> A Day in the Life of the 21st Century Woman

Short story.]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:07:13 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)
> "Peer review" is younger than you think. Does that mean it can go away?]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 12:45:05 +0000
Anonymous Politics Discussion
Important cause!]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 12:44:42 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)
> How to Stretch (Hands, Back, Neck) – Secrets of Console Gaming

Computer and video game use injuries are common and can make life a lot worse. People don't take this seriously enough.]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 12:44:17 +0000
Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud
> Third World Quarterly publishes “The Case for Colonialism” leading to censorship demands

> Demands for retraction, to fire the journal editors, even to fire author and to revoke his PhD.

> Members of the editorial board have threatened to resign. Some have threatened to boycott the journal entirely (even not to cite it). Cries of racism and ‘white supremacy’ dominating academia have naturally followed.]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 12:40:58 +0000
Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud
> How NYC performer Martina Markota was blacklisted for being a Trump voter

> She worked for some of the city’s biggest nightlife names, but once she was outed as a Trump supporter, they started a campaign against her to ruin her life and career.

> They wrote countless articles about her online, accusing her of being a Nazi and white supremacist.

>Her agent even said no venue would work with her again due to the pressure.]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 12:37:23 +0000
Anonymous Politics Discussion
> 13 Illustrations of the Benevolence of Capitalism]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 12:31:37 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)
> For the first few years of interaction with social scientists, I marveled at how often people brought theory into what seemed like water-cooler chat. I would sometimes come away with a vague feeling that I had been tested & found wanting for not improvising hypotheses on the spot

The whole series of tweets is disturbing. He doesn't want science/ideas to be part of his life all the time. He wants people to warn him when it's a real discussion and he should put on his thinking cap. He wants prep time before being evaluated because he can't quickly think or share opinions.

> I wonder sometimes how to train students. Where should I scaffold scholarly discussions so they can anticipate them & prep great work? How do I prepare them to put forward their best selves in scientific cultures that privilege fast talkers who are always at work in their minds?

> And how can I prepare students for academic cultures that reinforce the anxiety of always being evaluated–while limiting how much I perpetuate those pressures?

He wants time off. He wants to be an intellectual who isn't at work most of the time, and just says any old shit just like a non-intellectual, even when talking about topics related to his career. He wants to clock out, just like a factory worker.]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 12:26:17 +0000
Anonymous Politics Discussion Tue, 18 Feb 2020 12:22:20 +0000 Anonymous Politics Discussion
> Team Trump just called a halt to the Obama-era war on American suburbs

> During the Obama administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to install Washington bureaucrats as the decision makers for how communities across all 50 states should grow. Using an obscure rule called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, HUD sought to remake America’s cities, towns and villages by forcing any community that was getting federal funds to meet racial quotas.

> Single-family homes on quarter-acre lots were deemed potentially “racist” — supposedly because minority members might not be able to afford them.

The NYT smeared people as racist (all the crying wolf makes it hard to criticize real racism, btw). Things are better now with Trump.]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 12:21:41 +0000
curi Deplatforming and Fraud

> NHS staff can refuse to treat racist or sexist patients under new rules

> The NHS will soon bar discriminatory patients from non-critical care - powers that currently only cover aggression or violence.

It's not currently about what you said on Twitter. It's if you say something "racist" to the NHS staff while trying to get care, then they can just tell you to leave if you don't have a medical emergency.

This shouldn't affect reasonable people much because you're already polite to your doctor right? But some people are gonna get kicked out over ~nothing or over the doctor being egregiously unreasoanble. There will be bad cases. And some people will be kicked out over acting a little dumb. It's going to disproportionately harm lower/working class people who are less polite in general. And sometimes people will be chatting in a friendly, social way instead of only politely saying relevant info – tons of people do social chit chat with tons of people they meet – and that chatting is sometimes going to involve some politics or something (especially with the massive overreach to politicize most of life) and SJWs are triggered so fucking easily in ways that are hard to predict for non-experts (and sometimes unpredictable to anyone). So bad things will happen.

And this is a slippery slope to much, much worse rules – if "racist" remarks are associated with denial of healthcare, if that becomes standard and legitimate, then it's going to spread to what you say on social media not just what you say IRL (initially maybe just tweets about your doctor, then maybe tweets about the NHS in general, then more).

The government promises to take care of people, it's a nanny/paternalistic state that controls healthcare, but then it's imposing conditions about thoughtcrime. Very nasty, worrying stuff.]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 12:18:53 +0000
curi Taking Children Seriously Tue, 18 Feb 2020 12:10:34 +0000 N The History of Taking Children Seriously
I do not understand what you mean by this. Was he supposed to do something else than what he did (left the kid alone to do his own stuff)?]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 06:28:05 +0000
Studying Metro route #17 GISTE Mario Odyssey Discussion
- Success. Slow in 5.1 and 5.2.

- Success.

- Success. Slow in 5.2.

- Success.

- Success.

- Success.

- Success.

- Success. Slight delay in 5.3 when I didn’t transition correctly from the first to the second pole. I dived away by accident but threw cappy and dived back to correct course.

- Success. Very slow in 5.4, resulting in having to repeat from 5.3. In 5.4, I couldn’t do the cap jump because I jumped too early after a crash.

How did I improve on 5.2? Sometimes I’m in a position where my 2nd jump of the triple jump is too far to the left, and so the 3rd jump of the triple jump is also too far to the left (too close to the approaching wall). If I’m in that position and do things as usual, I crash into the wall with the cap throw + dive + cap jump (cap jump doesn’t happen cuz I crash in wall instead). So what I figured out is that I can let go of the D-stick during the 2nd jump and 3rd jump just long enough to slow my horizontal movement so that I have enough space between the wall and the point at which I do the cap throw + dive + cap jump.

That’s 10/10. I can move on now.]]>
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 02:55:13 +0000
SL replies on TCS List to a parent who took away the TV Alisa Taking Children Seriously
> I have explained, or at least I thought I did, that my reason for taking away the tv was that it seemed to prevent them from enjoying other things.

SL replied:

> Your television sounds unusual! Ours are just regular televisions that respond only to our instructions and never try to prevent anyone from doing anything. Your television sounds more like a person (a coercive person too!) than the ordinary object most people have in their homes. :)

I thought this reply was clever. However, [AE] wrote back:

> There you go! Now, in view of the way I perceive tv to affect the members of my family, it is much easier for you to understand why I treat it the way I do. That was simple enough, wasn't it?!

This reply strikes me as dishonest. SL was *criticizing* AE's view with the intention that readers who held such views would change their minds. AE, however, pretends that SL was merely describing AE's view as a step towards understand AE's behavior.

DD replied:

> Recently [AE] has revealed at length the effects on her of this delusion (perceiving the television as a coercive person intent on having its way with her against her will). TCS subscribers will no doubt have been shocked by these effects and drawn the appropriate conclusion, but I'd just like to set it in a wider context. We have also discussed from time to time the dangers of attributing opinions to other non-human entities, such as animals, chemicals, genes, holy texts and supernatural beings. In all cases, pretending that a metaphorical 'opinion' (or intention, etc.) of the non-human is real, results in the sidelining of genuine human opinions, and hence to the dehumanisation and oppression of the humans concerned.]]>
Mon, 17 Feb 2020 23:17:02 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019) chasuble — priestly vestment
Cimmerian — very dark
circean — referring to beauty of a dangerous kind
contumacious — rebellious
contumelius — insolently abusive and humiliating
cynosure — the center of attraction
eschar — scab or burned layer of skin
flagellum — long, thin appendages
flagitious — villainous
funereal — dark, gloomy
internecine — referring to a conflict within a group
lares — household gods (also penates)
lorn — forsaken
maladroit — inept
malefactor — evil doer
maleficent — working evil
malefic — malicious
malison — curse
mammon — material wealth having a debasing influence
necrology — list of the recently dead
necrosis — decay of body tissue
propitiation — offering to a god
rive — to break apart
saccate — shaped like a pouch or sac
sacristy — place in a church where sacred vessels are kept
salience — pronounced feature
sallet — light helmet with a brim flaring in the back
sphenic — shaped like a wedge
surplice — loose-fitting priestly garment with wide sleeves
syrinx — vocal organ of a bird
tabard — short, heavy cape or tunic (worn over armor)
tenebrific-causing gloom or darkness
tenebrous — shut out from the light, obscure
teredines — tiny worms that ruin ships and wharfs
tutelary — guardian spirit or god
umbra — darkest part of a shadow
vapid — lacking spirit
venal — capable of being bribed, mercenary
welter — to wallow; turmoil
wizened — shriveled
wormwood — anything bitter or grievous
xiphoid — shaped like a sword
yamen — office or home of an official (Chinese)
ylem — universal matter to have existed before the big bang
zygodactyl — having two toes pointing backward, two forward]]>
Mon, 17 Feb 2020 22:06:00 +0000
Anonymous Fuck China Anyway, it's one nitpicked sentence that I doubt is over 7 seconds long in a hour long video/ Sure it's might of left out the 1% of cases where stuff is given out, out of charity.]]> Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:21:27 +0000 Lepus Fuck China >The quote specifically sez you either take stuff or pay for it with no other options. You can get stuff from people without paying or taking, e.g. - by asking for charity.

Well of course, I guess charity does exist. Though naturally people don't necessarily want to give away their stuff for free usually in the vast vast majority (99%) of cases people get things through trading or taking things. Charity was a bit outside of the subject of the video. Though I could get pedantic and say charity is it's own payment but it some circumstance or you can't be a choosing beggar and you get what's given to you not what you want. I still don't understand what is meant by it being "false and thoughtless."]]>
Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:16:56 +0000
Anonymous Fuck China
>>> When people want other people's stuff, there are two ways of getting it: take their stuff or pay for their stuff.
>>Do you agree that that's false and thoughtless?
> Physically those are the only two ways you can get something from someone else. Either you use force and just take it from them or you do something so they will give it to you voluntarily, this is a true dichotomy. Either you use force or you don't. Are there different ways to get something from someone?

The quote specifically sez you either take stuff or pay for it with no other options. You can get stuff from people without paying or taking, e.g. - by asking for charity.]]>
Mon, 17 Feb 2020 11:46:28 +0000
Lepus Fuck China Mon, 17 Feb 2020 01:34:30 +0000 Lepus Fuck China
Oh an I'm also confused what you mean by this?

>> When people want other people's stuff, there are two ways of getting it: take their stuff or pay for their stuff.

>Do you agree that that's false and thoughtless?

Physically those are the only two ways you can get something from someone else. Either you use force and just take it from them or you do something so they will give it to you voluntarily, this is a true dichotomy. Either you use force or you don't. Are there different ways to get something from someone?
That statement is just factual it's not talking about the morality of it either (because of course using force is wrong) so you couldn't be saying it's false and thoughtless on those grounds because no ethical claim is being made.

So what are you saying is false and thoughtless about the statement?]]>
Mon, 17 Feb 2020 01:20:16 +0000
Zed Shaw criticizes Lambda School for operating illegally in CA Alisa Open Discussion 2 (2019)
[Zed Shaw wrote, criticizing code bootcamps](

> If you are contemplating joining a coding bootcamp in 2020 then let me give you a list of the top scams they use to steal your money (yes, even with an ISA, the #1 scam):

> ...

> #5: Not being registered as a real school in their state and not following the laws regarding refunds. Flatiron did this for years and got sued for $350k then had to be rescued by crazy Adam Nuemann and WeWork. Lambda Schools is also operating illegally in CA.

Shaw doesn't say what a "real school" is or why Lambda should have to register as one. (Here's a [Twitter thread by someone else with some info]( that I only skimmed.) CA's education regulations allow shit shows like UC Berkeley to operate with *public funding*. If those regulations also forbid Lambda from running its for-profit coding bootcamps, it may be the regulations that are at fault, not Lambda.

The argument below, tweeted by Matt Gilliland [in reply to Shaw's point #5](, makes sense to me:

> Not being an accredited school doesn't make a bootcamp a scam -- in fact, in some cases it may be a signal that you're actually innovating. And again, what's the comparison? Many accredited schools are scams, and many are bad without being a scam.]]>
Sun, 16 Feb 2020 23:09:28 +0000
Anonymous Fuck China
If you actually watched the whole video before making gotcha comments you would understand he was describing the thought process prior to Adam Smith's wealth of nations. Where nations didn't trade and just fought over trade routes.]]>
Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:12:59 +0000
curi Fuck China

Around 35s he says (all quotes are rough paraphrases):

> When people want other people's stuff, there are two ways of getting it: take their stuff or pay for their stuff.

Do you agree that that's false and thoughtless?

Then he continues by saying, roughly:

> If you pay for people's stuff, that will increase someone else's wealth, which is why most states throughout history have made strict trade barriers.

Do you think that's true?

Around 1:30 he says China has the world's most efficient state. Do you think that's true?]]>
Sun, 16 Feb 2020 20:34:07 +0000
Lepus Fuck China
>China isn't a single, unified thing. It's made up of many individuals. The evil of most of those individuals is questionable. So should the US, as a collective, ban trade with all Chinese people, as a collective?

I never said ban trade with "all Chinese people, as a collective", the Chinese government isn't the Chinese people. I just said ban all trade with China the country which is highly controlled by the Chinese government. Trade is collaborative and due to the nature in which the Chinese government rules to the degree it does, it means collaborating with even Chinese individuals, let alone the giant Chinese Corporation which are highly integrated into the Chinese state , *in China* means collaborating with the Chinese government necessarily. The problem with that is it made the most authoritarian nation in the world the second biggest economy in the world, with all the power that comes with that and which it has brazenly used. Kraut brilliantly outlines this in his excellent video on China Simply in any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins. Who is eviler and more irrational than the Chinese government?

>That would forbid some Americans from trading with some non-evil Chinese people.

Yes, and I am a pro-open borders person. There should be a system in place like the one given to the Cuban exiles so non-evil Chinese people can escape and trade freely without the evil Chinese government in the picture. I don't think the point in which we stop trading with China is when we are literally at war with them. I think the Chinese government is an enemy, but I don't think warfare is a good idea either. Stopping trade is good enough.

>And a ban on trade with China is not politically possible, and would confuse people

I don't think whether if it is politically possible, due to current political opinion, has anything to do with whether we should do it or advocate it. This sounds purely like pragmatism. You are an objectivist so I assume you are for laissez-faire capitalism, but by that logic laissez-faire capitalism by being equally politically impossible, due to current political opinion, then you should be against laissez-faire capitalism. But clearly you do advocate laissez-faire capitalism because I don't think you are a pragmatist. Which is what you are expressing now.

>It'd also be valuable to accompany the ban with getting the support of many other countries, especially the best ones, rather than their opposition.

I agree, that was the idea behind trade agreements like the TPP (or the TTIP) which was to create trade bloc with south-east pacific and American countries which cut China out. Of course, Trump destroyed this giving yet more power to the Chinese. The US currently seeks to isolate itself and give more to the Chinese for the taking.]]>
Sun, 16 Feb 2020 20:16:44 +0000
curi Open Discussion 2 (2019)]]>
Sun, 16 Feb 2020 12:14:11 +0000
Facebook/Instagram Deplatforms McInnes, Soph, Milo and more curi Deplatforming and Fraud
>, formerly, founded by Vice co-founder and Proud Boy founder Gavin McInnes, has been banned across all Facebook-owned platforms, namely Facebook and Instagram.

> The platform, which has roughly 15,000 monthly subscribers, is popular for its hosts, who have mostly been banned from popular platforms like Twitter and YouTube—including Gavin McInnes, Milo Yiannopolous, Joe Biggs, Laura Loomer, and Soph.

(Soph was formerly LtCorbis.)

FB/IG censors links to the site in addition to kicking those people (and their associates like a show engineer) off FB/IG. You can't even PM a link to your friend.]]>
Sun, 16 Feb 2020 12:00:04 +0000
curi Deplatforming and Fraud
In this one, in last 20 seconds, Fuentes says ethnicity and race are what matter, not ideology and ideas.

This one is pro-Mussolini.]]>
Sun, 16 Feb 2020 11:55:37 +0000
curi Deplatforming and Fraud
The guy who made that tweet thread of Fuentes saying awful stuff is unreasonable but that doesn't matter to evaluating the vids where Fuentes speaks for himself (it didn't look edited and was long enough I don't think it was clipped out of context).

> Fuentes is a Racist:

> Fuentes was at the Charlottesville white supremacy and Nazi march

Going to Charlottesville at all proves you're racist?

This vid is awful too (has a jump cut in the middle but doesn't seem misleading):

Says e.g. blacks being forced to drink out of separate water fountains was no big deal.


There's more in that thread, and it sucks, but none of it compares to the Green New Deal, which is far worse. Democrats are more despicable, quite openly, about many things, and don't get marginalized for it, let alone deplatformed. Lots of them are openly racist and anti-semitic too. BDS and other lefty anti-semitism is currently a larger threat to Jews and Israel than the less-popular and less-political-policy-affecting Fuentes-style anti-semitism.

Fuentes is doing this stuff partly to get attention, partly for in-group social signaling, partly to break taboos and stand up to political correctness, partly perhaps because he doesn't know about a better package deal of ideas to select for himself (with requirements like not racist against whites, pro-American, not letting in millions of third worlders to change America, etc.). Fuentes might change a bit if he got more mainstream. Or not. I don't know. With people like AOC, Hillary or Bernie, we can't even give them that maybe.

Just this morning I saw on Twitter that Richard Dawkins basically agrees with "race realist" views on IQ and eugenics. When lefty scientists don't know how to deny it, how is Fuentes supposed to know better?


> It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.

Wrong and he has no [Paths Forward](, but the mainstream "scientific" part of our culture doesn't know better. The main opposition to this is the religious view that humans are special, not the BoI view about universal knowledge creators.

If Dawkins is right, of course race and various intellectual traits correlate today.

I saw the Dawkins tweet because it was retweeted by the anti-racist, not-at-all-Nazi or "alt right", smart and broadly reasonable @stucchio]]>
Sun, 16 Feb 2020 11:39:47 +0000
Studying Metro route #16 GISTE Mario Odyssey Discussion
- Success

- Fail. Fell in 5.4 and recovered, but fell again in 5.3.

- Fail. In 5.4, crashed into the final platform. Not sure why.

- Success

- Success

- Fail. Same as last fail. I think I should be aiming left a bit at the start of the long jump.

- Fail. Fell in 5.4. Aiming left didn’t help.

- Success. Slow in 5.2. [1]

- Success. Slow in 5.2. [1]

[1] Why slow in 5.2? I’ve been succeeding in 5.1 more often now, and that often puts me in a position where I’m recovering from almost falling off the moving platform. While recovering from that, I’m often not in the same situation as I’m accustomed to for the start of 5.2. So sometimes that means failing to do the triple jump and then hitting the bottom of the moving platform that is coming down as I’m trying to pass under it.]]>
Sun, 16 Feb 2020 06:52:34 +0000
oh my god it's turpentine Deplatforming and Fraud
I think Fuentes is actually anti-Semitic cuz of this clip:]]>
Sun, 16 Feb 2020 00:05:37 +0000
curi Deplatforming and Fraud

Sat, 15 Feb 2020 15:01:54 +0000
curi Deplatforming and Fraud

I've liked some stuff Paul Joseph Watson said in the past.]]>
Sat, 15 Feb 2020 14:59:11 +0000
curi Deplatforming and Fraud

Apparently Shapiro has been fucking with Fuentes for a while – and being evasive about the actual issues – to the point that Fuentes confronted him IRL.]]>
Sat, 15 Feb 2020 14:58:02 +0000
curi Deplatforming and Fraud
Maybe it's just cuz the YT form letter, besides mentioning hate speech, also mentions inciting or glorifying violence. But it doesn't accuse Fuentes of that, it just lists it as one of the things he might have done. They don't like to be specific about why they ban people. Maybe Shapiro misunderstood that or wanted to smear Fuentes.

The same sorts of accusations are made against Michelle Malkin and many others who are anti-immigration Trump supporters.

Apparently Ben Shapiro was a significant force in getting Fuentes deplatformed in the first place:


Dunno details. I don't really follow Shapiro or Fuentes. I already knew Shapiro was a bastard though.]]>
Sat, 15 Feb 2020 14:55:52 +0000
curi Deplatforming and Fraud
I have no idea what's going on with the stuff about threats. Have not been following. I didn't read it as having anything to do with Fuentes threatening Shapiro. I assumed threats is YT's baseless excuse and Shapiro is saying if that is indeed baseless then YT is wrong, which is quite mild next to 1) how bad political deplatforming is 2) what he said about Fuentes for, afaik, thought crimes along the lines of being anti-immigration.

I've vaguely heard that Fuentes is anti-semitic. I have no idea if that's true. Even if it is, it doesn't explain Shapiro's treatment of him or the condemnation of his viewpoints in general rather than a particular error.]]>
Sat, 15 Feb 2020 14:47:40 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)
> App was very good. I rejected Overcast before due to 2x max speed even though it had some silence removal. It now can do 3x + auto silence removal, so actual speed varies and can go up as high as around 3.5x but it still didn't seem that hard for me to listen to. I liked it a lot.

Interesting. I use iCatcher! It does 3X but I don't think it has auto silence removal. I don't really listen to casts that have lots of silence tho so I dunno how much that would help
Sat, 15 Feb 2020 06:30:31 +0000
Studying Metro route #15 GISTE Mario Odyssey Discussion
- Success. Slow in 5.1. Fell in 5.4 but saved myself and only had to repeat from part of 5.2.

- Success. Slow in 5.4. Rest was good. Not sure what I'm doing wrong in 5.4.

- Success. Same as above.

- Success. Same as above.

- Success. Slow in 5.1 and 5.4. Rest was good. I think I figured out what I was doing wrong in 5.4. It was related to failing to do a cap jump as if cappy wasn't there. Now I know how to prevent that.

- Success. Slow in 5.1. Rest was good.

- Success. Slow in 5.2. Rest was good. 5.2 was slow because I didn’t do a good enough jump from the moving platform at the end of 5.1. I did a regular jump instead of a backflip or a regular jump with a running head start.

- Success. All good!

- Fail. Died in 5.1. I veered slightly right at the start when rolling. Correcting that resulted in getting to the moving platform a bit late, and ending up under it and falling into the abyss.]]>
Sat, 15 Feb 2020 05:33:26 +0000
oh my god it's turpentine Deplatforming and Fraud Sat, 15 Feb 2020 03:00:02 +0000 curi Deplatforming and Fraud]]>
Fri, 14 Feb 2020 23:32:17 +0000
curi Deplatforming and Fraud
Fri, 14 Feb 2020 23:30:17 +0000
curi Open Discussion 2 (2019)
App was very good. I rejected Overcast before due to 2x max speed even though it had some silence removal. It now can do 3x + auto silence removal, so actual speed varies and can go up as high as around 3.5x but it still didn't seem that hard for me to listen to. I liked it a lot.

The problem with the app is it only does podcasts. Want to listen to an mp3 you have?

Pay $10/yr to be able to upload it to their website:


> Overcast has a limit of 2GB per account, and each file can be up to 1 GB in overall size.

So you have to clear stuff out to stay under the limit. A lot. You can't just leave a bunch of books in the app. E.g. Human Action is 600 megs, which is no problem to leave on your phone to listen to whenever, but will fill up a third of the Overcast limit.

Alternatively you could make a podcast for the sole purpose of sharing stuff with yourself.

Or just keep using stuff like VLC or Speedup Player. But the Smart Speed feature in Overcast is nice.]]>
Fri, 14 Feb 2020 22:41:50 +0000
YouTube bans Nick Fuentes, funds Young Turks Alisa Deplatforming and Fraud
> In the same week, Google owned YouTube has announced they are [funding]( the left wing Young Turks and [deplatforming]( the right wing @[NickJFuentes](]]>
Fri, 14 Feb 2020 21:36:38 +0000
YouTube removes video of Rand Paul speaking on the Senate floor Alisa Deplatforming and Fraud
> YouTube removed a video clip of Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul reading the question Chief Justice John Roberts suppressed during the Senate impeachment trial naming Eric Ciaramella, a man identified as the whistleblower by Real Clear Investigations.

> “It is a chilling and disturbing day in America when giant web companies such as YouTube decide to censure speech,” Paul told Politico, which first reported the story. “Now, even protected speech, such as that of a senator on the Senate floor, can be blocked from getting to the American people. This is dangerous and politically biased. Nowhere in my speech did I accuse anyone of being a whistleblower, nor do I know the whistleblower’s identity.”]]>
Fri, 14 Feb 2020 21:30:23 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)
> - Each [Amazon] review is worth a lot of money, often times multiples of the product itself, and especially if you're just starting out.

And some other info re amazon reviewing.]]>
Fri, 14 Feb 2020 13:33:51 +0000
curi Brains Are Computers
That leaves out memory. We store lots of non-software information too.

Some software is stored in neuron connection patterns. I don't know all the hardware mechanisms used.]]>
Fri, 14 Feb 2020 11:50:38 +0000
Hi Mr Curi Patrick B Brains Are Computers
Where is the software that runs the human brain stored (obviously I know it is stored in the brain). I guess what I mean to ask is the software that runs our brain separate from the current computational state of our brain?

Would you say that we are defined by the stored software + the current computational state of our brain?

Or are we simply defined by the current computational state of our brain?

I'm still working through The Beginning of Infinity and working on my arguments for animal rights btw. Slow progress is still progress haha]]>
Fri, 14 Feb 2020 07:55:28 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019) Thu, 13 Feb 2020 22:11:33 +0000 curi Open Discussion 2 (2019)
@visakanv writes:

> very much so! I think most moderately thoughtful and well-read people are 99% aware of all of the information they need, and it's unlikely that the last 1% makes the difference anyway. It's all about implementation

This is horribly wrong. Most such people are unaware of the basic ideas of Objectivism, Critical Rationalism, Szasz, Godwin, TCS, ARR, Goldratt, FI, Mises, etc.

Second, setting that aside, how does one do implementation better? What does one need for implementation other than information about implementation..? Trying to separate errors from information is wrong. If it's not working, you need better ideas, not an unspecified Something Else (like willpower without reason because reasons involve information).]]>
Thu, 13 Feb 2020 21:30:01 +0000
Studying Metro route #14 GISTE Mario Odyssey Discussion
- Fail. Did 5.1 correctly, but then didn’t do 5.2 right and died in the abyss. I did a regular jump instead of my normal backflip. That meant that I didn’t make it to the breakable platform, which meant that I couldn’t do the triple jump.

- Fail. Died in 5.1. Almost got a hold of the edge of the moving platform, but didn’t, and fell in the abyss.

- Fail. Slow in 5.1. Fell in 5.4 cuz didn’t land on cappy.

- Fail. 5.1 was good. Slow in 5.2. Fell in 5.4.

- Fail. Slow in 5.1. Fell in 5.4.

- Success. Slow in 5.1. Rest was good. I threw cappy + dive + cap jump earlier during the long jump than the previous 4 runs.

- Success. Good in all sections!

- Success. Good in all sections again!

- Success. Slow in 5.1. Rest good.

- Fail. Slow in 5.1. Fell in 5.4. I think I threw cappy too late during the long jump.

- Success. Slow in 5.1 and 5.2. Rest good.

- Success. Good in all sections again!

- Success. Slow in 5.1. Good in rest.

- Fail. Died in 5.1. I made it on the platform in time, by hanging on it, and instead of pressing right (which gets Mario to climb onto the platform), I pressed left (which gets Mario to let go of the ledge, causing me to fall into the abyss). I pressed left because if I fail to hang on the ledge, then I need to press left so that my momentum doesn’t throw me into the abyss.]]>
Thu, 13 Feb 2020 16:17:41 +0000
Studying Metro route #13 GISTE Mario Odyssey Discussion
- Success. Messed up tons in 5.1 and 5.2. No trouble in the rest.

- Success. Messed up less in 5.1 and 5.2. No trouble in the rest.

- Fail. Fell in 5.4 and died. Didn’t land on cappy. 5.1 and 5.1 were bad too.

- Fail. Fell in 5.1, and died in the abyss.

- Fail. 5.1 was slow. 5.2 and 5.3 were good. Died in 5.4 due to not landing on cappy.

- Success. 5.1 was slow, but rest was good.

- Fail. 5.1 was slow, 5.3 was bad, which required that I redo 5.2 some. Then I didn’t land on cappy in 5.4.

- Success. 5.1 was slow, but the rest was good.

- Success. 5.1 and 5.4 were slow, rest was good.

- Fail. Died in 5.1 before the first jump. I need to roll only 3 times before jumping. I think I did it 4 times.

- Success. Very slow because I fell in 5.4 and had to redo from 5.1. Also I was slow in 5.1. Rest was good.

- Success. Same as above.

- Success. Slow in 5.1 and 5.2. Good in rest.

- Success. Slow in 5.1 but good in rest. I realized that I should be rotating the camera as much as possible before the long jump. That way there is less camera rotation that I have to deal with during the long jump.

- Success. Same as above.

- Success. Fell in 5.4 so had to repeat from 5.1. Slow in 5.1.]]>
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 00:52:11 +0000
Anonymous Second-handedness Examples
> The crowd would have forgiven anything, except a man who could remain normal under the vibrations of its enormous collective sneer. Some of them had come prepared to pity him; all of them hated him after the first few minutes.]]>
Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:39:35 +0000
curi The History of Taking Children Seriously
Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:53:03 +0000
curi The History of Taking Children Seriously


Schools prevent learning.


If he thought the kid did not want to be in the 10-week course, and was not doing the course material, then he would have intervened and tried to make the kid do stuff he didn't want to do.

The guy in the middle blames children's lack of self-control for adults preventing kids from getting what they want but also for the adults being heavy-handed and blocking many things they approve of in the process.


Yeah, they are trying to take away a reasonable guess at the most common motivation to learn programming.


It's ambiguous if the kid is referring to a physical beating. No one ambiguously says their teacher might eat them (cannibalism) or rape them. Saying a teacher might murder you for doing something *is* used, though (more commonly with parents), I think because murder is what you get when you exaggerate force while leaving it generic, and teachers (and parents more so) do use a lot of force. Regardless of intent, this comment isn't a random accident.]]>
Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:48:38 +0000
Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud Mon, 10 Feb 2020 22:50:00 +0000 Alisa Deplatforming and Fraud I also searched Twitter and found that the quote has been [quoted twice there](, but with no discussion on either tweet.]]> Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:55:21 +0000 Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud
> Mr. Delzer, the proprietor of a secondhand store in Nashville called Defunct Books, has a different view. “If Amazon executives are so proud of their moral high ground, they should issue memos about which books they are banning instead of keeping sellers and readers in the dark,” he said.

Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:00:28 +0000
Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud
Guys, Amazon is deplatforming *books*.]]>
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:55:49 +0000
curi Open Discussion 2 (2019)
Ocarina of Time any% speedrun has gotten really fast with stale reference manipulation enabling arbitrary code execution enabling credits warp.]]>
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 13:45:17 +0000
curi Open Discussion 2 (2019)

Why? Because it invokes some culturally-meaningful concepts which are relevant and hard to talk about without being rude.

As with many communications, not everyone gets it. But many people do. I didn't mind or object.]]>
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 13:38:42 +0000
Studying Metro route #12 GISTE Mario Odyssey Discussion
- Fail. Died during section 5.1. I didn’t make it on to the platform and fell into the abyss instead.
- Success! No time losses.
- Success! No time losses.
- Success. Small time loss in section 5.1 and 5.2.
- Fail. Died during section 5.4. Didn’t land on cappy.
- Success. Small time loss in section 5.1 and 5.2.
- Fail. Succeeded in 5.1 but died in section 5.2.
- Success. Huge time losses, 3 times in section 5.4. I failed to land on cappy. These were huge time losses because each time I had to redo sections 5.1/5.2/5.3.
- Success. Huge time loss due to falling in section 5.4. Failed to land on cappy. On the second try, I through cappy early, before most of the camera rotation. I think that made it easier to land on cappy.
- Success. Small time loss in 5.1.
- Success. Small time loss in 5.1 and 5.2.
- Success. Small time loss in 5.1.
- Success. Huge time loss in 5.4. Small time loss when doing 5.1 time.
- Success. Small time loss in 5.1

The time loss in 5.1 always means not making it to the moving platform before it goes up on the first cycle. Usually this happens because I touch the wall during my 3rd jump of the triple jump, which starts a wall slide instead of continuing the jump. I’ve learned to turn a hard right on the 3rd jump.

The time loss in 5.2 always means hitting the wall instead of doing a wall jump. This happens because I’m too close to the wall before starting the cap throw + dive + cap jump. I’ve learned to make sure to land and jump from the right edge of the platform, and to throw cappy early during this jump so that I don’t crash into the wall when I do the cap dive.

For section 5.4, I’ve changed how I do it. Now I throw cappy + dive + cap jump earlier during the camera rotation, which makes it easier to aim at cappy (to jump on it).]]>
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 09:03:48 +0000
curi Open Letter to Charles Tew
> The Last of the Charles Tew Acolytes

By Rucka. Commentary on a Charles Tew moderator defending Tew. Tew praised Rucka, then attacked Rucka in ways that contradicted the praise, then denied contradicting himself or doing anything wrong. But after playing it off like nothing happened, he fell off the internet after Rucka made a few videos showing clips of what Tew had said before.]]>
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 03:56:32 +0000
curi Open Discussion 2 (2019)
Hundreds of millions of dollars invested in this league and they are grossly incompetent at basic stuff in their third year. (Yeah it's not their LA studio anymore and they just switched to YouTube but still. YT paid a ton of money to outbid Twitch and broadcast these games btw.)]]>
Sun, 09 Feb 2020 23:58:39 +0000
curi Rationally Resolving Conflicts of Ideas
Wait, you take *any* economic system you happen to have on hand for data, use that as a sample, and then *assume* its representative unless you know a reason it's not? Why? I would, by default, assume our experience with something is *not* representative of all possible experiences. And you haven't provided something like criteria of representativeness which I could criticize some data for failing to satisfy, so there's no guidance for what sort of criticism you'd accept.

> If I could bring up just one more point, I would like you to please elaborate on how Popper’s “critical discussion” is an answer to the problems raised by Salmon.

Please link your sources in the future. The Salmon paper, titled "Rational Prediction", is:

> This view of corroboration holds serious difficulties. Watkins and Popper agree, I take it, that statements which report observations of past and present events do not, in and of themselves, have any predictive content. Moreover, they maintain, statements about the corroboration of conjectures do not, in and of themselves, have any predictive content. Conjectures, hypotheses, theories, generalisations-call them what you will-do have predictive content. The problem is that there are many such statements, rich in predictive content, which make incompatible predictive claims when conjoined with true statements about past and present occurrences. The fact that a general statement has predictive content does not mean that what it says is true. In order to make a prediction, one must choose a conjecture which has predictive content to serve as a premise in a predictive argument. In order to make a rational prediction, it seems to me, one must make a rational choice of a premise for such an argument. But from our observational evidence and from the statements about the corroboration of a given conjecture, no predictive appraisal follows. Given two conjectures which, in a particular situation, will lead to incompatible predictions, and given the corroboration ratings of these two hypotheses, nothing follows about their comparative predictive capacities. Thus, it seems to me, corroboration-the ground for theoretical preference-furnishes no rational basis for preference of one conjecture to another for purposes of practical prediction. I am not complaining that we are not told for sure that one will make a correct prediction and that the other will not. I am complaining that no rational basis whatever has been furnished for a preference of this type.

OK a few points about this.

1) We can drop "corroboration" entirely from CR without losing the important content of CR (in very short, the evolutionary epistemology and the refutation of induction). I do not care about defending corroboration.

2) CR's solution to this problem is *critical discussion*. It's creative, imaginative critical thinking/discussion, the seeking out of errors, which enables us to make progress. Focusing on math and formal logic blinds some philosophers to what most actual productive discussions are like. In short, we can't have perfect foundations (like criteria for good arguments or errors/criticisms) so instead in discussions we find some points of agreement (many are just assumed as background knowledge, rather than actively found) and use those as foundations (though we may change our mind midway and question them). The issue is not can we prove a particular method of arguing is good, but does anyone suspect it of being an error and object? And the issue is not can we create a complete system from the ground up, but can we agree on enough premises to have a productive conversation right now.

3) Although CR has some good ideas about this stuff which are *not known to be wrong* (in contrast to other epistemologies which make wrong claims, which are indefensible in argument, rather than merely being incomplete), there is certainly room to develop CR further and make it more helpful. The topic area in the Salmon quote is a particularly good place to improve CR further, which I have done in Yes or No Philosophy.]]>
Sun, 09 Feb 2020 23:11:57 +0000
curi Fuck China
And a ban on trade with China is not politically possible, and would confuse people, unless and until there is better philosophical education about what China is like, how to think about it, etc. It'd also be valuable to accompany the ban with getting the support of many other countries, especially the best ones, rather than their opposition. If we can't explain it to the other Anglo countries, it's going to be hard to make it work well.

So we broadly need better moral judgment, better reasoning, better political leadership, etc. A few people knowing better isn't enough to set a free country's policy. We need to persuade more people. Then that initial would be enough to change the situation without a trade ban – maybe just a little, maybe a lot, it's hard to predict.]]>
Sun, 09 Feb 2020 22:17:48 +0000
curi Open Discussion 2 (2019)]]>
Sun, 09 Feb 2020 21:14:27 +0000
Definition of "common preference" in YESNO terms Alisa Taking Children Seriously Sun, 09 Feb 2020 18:01:04 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)

petercooper on Oct 1, 2008 [-]

> That within a year you've become extremely proficient with a non-trivial, math-heavy video compression standard says a lot for your baseline intelligence. Congratulations for sticking at it, although I doubt most of us in the lower 95% could have done the same! :)

DarkShikari on Oct 1, 2008 [-]

> I doubt most people on HN are in the lower 95% ;)

> I'd say its more a matter of dedication and the sheer amount of time I've spent on it, plus the fact that I > was able to skip a whole lot of it by basing my earlier insights off those of others rather than trying the (utterly hopeless) strategy of learning it all myself from the spec.

> I'd also say the "math-heavy" is rather exaggerating it; the entire spec has not an ounce of math in it. All the numerical computations are written in pseudocode, not formulas; its basically written as if a computer was reading it instead of a human. Personally I have found this to be a rather terrible attribute, as it makes some of it nearly completely incomprehensible.

> I also find this approach is often the kind of thing that leads people to assume they cannot do something; they think that only "really smart" people can possibly do some particular thing, and refuse to try as a result. Of course, it can also go the other way--because someone does something hard, they insist that they must be really smart, or else they couldn't have done it. This only reinforces the problem.

> There also seems to be the rather misleading assumption that younger people are somehow less smart on average, and thus if a younger person does something hard, they must be even smarter than they would be assumed to be otherwise. I find this to be completely false; I don't think I've gotten one ounce better at math than I was in middle school, for example. People get more experienced, wiser and more knowledgeable, but I don't think they get much smarter.

> Though, ironically, I don't actually think I am that smart; if grades are any indication, my last semester is clear proof that I'm not ;)

i like he corrected someone that it wasnt just his baseline intelligence that allowed him to do this, and that it was his dedication and effort.]]>
Sun, 09 Feb 2020 16:21:53 +0000
Studying Metro route #11 GISTE Mario Odyssey Discussion
Section 5.1: I’m getting slightly better. I’m avoiding many of the mistakes that cause me to not get to the moving platform in time before it goes up. One example mistake is touching the wall during the triple jump, which stops the triple jump.

Section 5.2: I found a better method that avoids the enemies. Before this method I was often running into them.

New method: jump from the platform, cap throw + dive + cap jump, triple jump (where the cap jump gets counted as the first jump of the triple jump[1]), cap throw + dive, wall jump, cap throw + dive on to the stationary platform.

Section 5.4: I messed this up a lot. So I got lucky early on. I think I figured it out though. I need to wait until almost fully rotated before doing the cap throw + dive + cap jump. Without almost fully rotating first, it’s too easy to miss cappy when I try to jump on it.

New method: jump, cap throw + dive + cap jump onto the platform. Long jump, wait a while until roughly level with the next platform (while rotating D-stick to account for the camera angle rotating, and wait until almost fully rotated), then cap throw + dive + cap jump, then cap throw + dive onto the platform.

[1] I did not know that a cap jump gets counted as the first jump of a triple jump.]]>
Sun, 09 Feb 2020 06:42:25 +0000
curi Open Discussion 2 (2019)

> Before I go into specific components, a general note on code quality. The code quality is much better than VP3, though there’s still tons of typos in the comments. They also appear to be using comments as a form of version control system, which is a bit bizarre. The assembly code is much worse, with staggering levels of copy-paste coding, some completely useless instructions that do nothing at all, unaligned loads/stores to what-should-be aligned data structures, and a few functions that are simply written in unfathomably roundabout (and slower) ways. While the C code isn’t half bad, *the assembly is clearly written by retarded monkeys*. But I’m being unfair: this is way better than with VP3.

Emphasis added.

I've recently been attacked for having said diaf. I've also said wtf, jfc, retarded, and more. Should Glaser be attacked too? Should his comments on VP8 be dismissed? Is it a random coincidence that many productive people, like Popper, Rand and Steve Jobs too, have been attacked in a similar manner?

Some people use expressions like this because they are trying to speak accurately (bluntly) about reality instead of sugar coating things and obscuring and downplaying their opinions. This is a good trait.

There are, of course, also people who use expressions like these thoughtlessly, dishonestly, maliciously, and so on. But one can do that with any words. The issue isn't the words, it's the quality of the judgment offered.

Why not simply avoid everything that would offend anyone? Because that lowest common denominator vernacular is widely considered boring and disliked, and because people are more offended by content rather than words anyway, and why should the mob control the self-expression of intelligent men in a hypocritical way (the complainers generally say plenty of rude things and have no idea how to live up to the ivory tower standard of perfection they demand but can't clearly specify).

They want to take all the color and flavor out of speech, but mostly selectively apply these style complaints to a few people whose content they have an issue with. I already write in a particularly bland and simple way to be clear. I will readily rgrant that terms like diaf, retarded monkey and many others do not maximize clarity, but I don't think one is required to maximize clarity at all times and have no other goals in life, and I think the complainers spend far less of their time and effort attempting clarity and are much worse at achieving it.]]>
Sat, 08 Feb 2020 23:54:14 +0000
Alisa Open Discussion 2 (2019) Sat, 08 Feb 2020 17:25:29 +0000 a story about learning Alisa Open Discussion 2 (2019) > From: Elliot Temple
> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 08:22:28 -0700
> Subject: a story about learning

> little relevant knowledge + interest + dedication + a year = world class knowledge of x264 video encoding + lucrative job offers

> he got started cause he was recording clips of an online fantasy game he played.


Good story. ☝️

In 2010, the author, Jason Glasser, a.k.a. Dark Shikari, wrote a [blog post analyzing the VP8 codec]( That post was [cited by Steve Jobs]( in a single-line response to a reporter's question about Google's announcement that [the codec would be open-sourced](

Jason Glaser [changed his name to Fiona Glasser around 2014](]]>
Sat, 08 Feb 2020 17:22:24 +0000
Studying Metro route #10 GISTE Mario Odyssey Discussion
I following the route pretty closely. When I messed up, I tried to recover. I found various ways of recovering from different parts of the route.

I got to the exit 14 times, not in a row. I died plenty of times. And I messed up a lot. But I’m definitely better than last session.]]>
Sat, 08 Feb 2020 00:50:53 +0000
curi David Deutsch Smears Ayn Rand Sat, 08 Feb 2020 00:11:09 +0000 curi David Deutsch Interview Undermines His Philosophy Sat, 08 Feb 2020 00:10:58 +0000 kieren Rationally Resolving Conflicts of Ideas
So if I understand your example correctly it implies something like “In any economic system, the establishment of minimum wage laws (in isolation to any other changes) does more harm than good”. So the samples would be those economic systems that have had minimum wage laws introduced. What we expect this sample to be representative of is the outcome of the new laws (did things get better or worse?). We assume these past samples will be representative of future samples unless we have some other existing knowledge that tells us otherwise.

> No, I plan to do one or two things at a time and keep them short. Say up to one thing and respond to up to one thing. You can bring things up again one at a time to get responses.

If I could bring up just one more point, I would like you to please elaborate on how Popper’s “critical discussion” is an answer to the problems raised by Salmon.]]>
Fri, 07 Feb 2020 22:55:42 +0000
Lepus Fuck China Trade with China only allows China to win. China requires the massive collaboration from foreign businessmen who do business in China. In collaboration between the rational and irrational, it is the more irrational one who wins because Businessmen have nothing to gain from the irrationality of China, but China has everything to gain from them.
This is seen with the legitimization of China as the second biggest economy in the world.
This is seen when China is actively stealing the intellectual property of businesses in China.
This is seen with corruption from China in countries such as Australia because of dependence on the Chinese market and giving China political power appearing as a savvy legitimate investor to many countries.
This is seen in the loans they are now able to give to countries and when these loans default, they are able to exert control over these countries annexing many ports across the world.
This is seen in the amount of influence China has gained in collaborative international works such as the UN to the point where the W.H.O is praising China for its work in response to the corona virus despite the massive glaringly obvious cover up by China.
China commits evil and we are complicit trading with them trying benefit from that evil. It is the same as committing every evil act they do ourselves. In the same way trading with slavers is the same as having slaves. Just because there is a degree of separation doesn't make the of it evil disappear.

It was disgusting that Richard Nixon in 1972 visited China, when he met with Mao Zedong and opened relations between the US and China. As it was bad when FDR recognized the Soviet Russia and legitimized them prior World War 2. There never should have been trade with China in the first place.

Trade is mutual collaboration and collaboration with evil is evil and lets evil win.]]>
Fri, 07 Feb 2020 19:06:46 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)
> Overnight in Asia, we hosted a call with professor John Nicholls a clinical professor in pathology at the University of Hong Kong and expert on coronaviruses. He was a key member of the research team at the University of Hong Kong which isolated and characterized the novel SARS coronavirus in 2003. He’s been studying coronaviruses for 25 years (full bio here). The recording of the call can be found on our website HERE. Below are my notes transcribing the call. The first 30m are worth listening to.

> Quick summary: look at the fatality rate outside of Wuhan - it’s below 1%. The correct comparison is not SARS or MERS but a bad cold which kills people who already have other health issues. This virus will burn itself out in May when temperatures rise. Wash your hands.

Washing hands sounds like good advice.

> [Q:] What is the actual scale of the outbreak? How much larger is it compared to the official “confirmed” cases?

> [A:] People are saying a 2.2 to 2.4% fatality rate total. However recent information is very worthy - if you look at the cases outside of China the mortality rate is <1%. [Only 2 fatalities outside of mainland China]. 2 potential reasons 1) either china’s healthcare isn’t as good – that’s probably not the case 2) What is probably right is that just as with SARS there’s probably much stricter guidelines in mainland China for a case to be considered positive. So the 20,000 cases in China is probably only the severe cases; the folks that actually went to the hospital and got tested. The Chinese healthcare system is very overwhelmed with all the tests going through. So my thinking is this is actually not as severe a disease as is being suggested. The fatality rate is probably only 0.8%-1%. There’s a vast underreporting of cases in China. Compared to Sars and Mers we are talking about a coronavirus that has a mortality rate of 8 to 10 times less deadly to Sars to Mers. So a correct comparison is not Sars or Mers but a severe cold. Basically this is a severe form of the cold.

I had heard about underreporting of deaths, but hadn't thought about the likelihood of underreporting the number of people with the virus.]]>
Fri, 07 Feb 2020 15:55:16 +0000
Studying Metro route #9 GISTE Mario Odyssey Discussion
Last time I didn’t die in the last two runs, but I did mess up a lot, causing lots of small time losses.

I rewatched the relevant part of the guide.

I’m going to break this section up more.

# Section 5.1: from entering building to getting on the first moving platform

Last session I was not able to get on this platform in time before it went up. This time I was able to get it done, though I used a different method (see below). My method is easier because it does not require rolling in a straight line. With smallant’s method, if I don’t roll in a straight line, then I fall into the abyss.

My method: roll, long jump, then triple jump onto the moving platform.

# Section 5.2: from the first moving platform to the stationary platform

Method: jump, dive, triple jump, cap throw + dive, wall jump, cap throw + dive.

# Section 5.3: from the stationary platform, to the moon.

Method: backflip, wall jump, cap throw + dive onto the pole. move between wall and pole, and mash jump button (careful when moving from 1st pole to 2nd pole). From the 3rd pole jump while on the 2nd pole, move to the right and jump onto adjacent pole. Move away from the wall, jump, cap throw + dive, wall jump, cap throw + dive onto the above platform. The cap throw should open the chest. Get the moon.

# Section 5.4: from the moon to exiting the building.

Method: jump, cap throw + dive + cap jump onto the platform. Long jump, wait a while until roughly level with the next platform (while rotating D-stick to account for the camera angle rotating), then cap throw + dive onto the platform.

Sections 5.3 and 5.4 were pretty easy for me to do in the last session. Like I got 5.4 right on first try. 5.1 and 5.2 were much more difficult. 5.1 and 5.2 are much easier for me now though.

I’m going to practice all of these together on next session.]]>
Fri, 07 Feb 2020 10:00:17 +0000
Dan Luu: 95%-ile isn't that good Alisa Open Discussion 2 (2019)
> Reaching 95%-ile isn't very impressive because it's not that hard to do... when stated nakedly, that sounds elitist. But I think it's just the opposite: most people can become (relatively) good at most things.

> Personally, in every activity I've participated in where it's possible to get a rough percentile ranking, people who are 95%-ile constantly make mistakes that seem like they should be easy to observe and correct. "Real world" activities typically can't be reduced to a percentile rating, but achieving what appears to be a similar level of proficiency seems similarly easy.

> We'll start by looking at Overwatch (a video game) in detail because it's an activity I'm familiar with where it's easy to get ranking information and observe what's happening, and then we'll look at some "real world" examples where we can observe the same phenomena, although we won't be able to get ranking information for real world examples.

This is an interesting read. It ties in with some stuff Elliot [wrote on FI list in 2015]( :

> ... it’s not that hard to be like top 10% successful. if your parents destroy your mind only 80% as much as the typical amount, that should do it.

> if you look at the people playing any popular online computer game, there are tons of really really terrible and stupid players. and being in the top 10% of players is easy for most games.

> you have to suck at life quite badly to be in the bottom 90%. i do a hell of a lot better than top 10% at stuff, you aren’t competing with me to get there.

> you maybe shouldn’t base your life plan on being top 0.01% at stuff, but it’s completely reasonable to expect to be top 10% and plan accordingly.]]>
Fri, 07 Feb 2020 08:22:20 +0000
curi Open Discussion 2 (2019)
Samba did not work on the first few tries. Here is a picture with some info about my troubleshooting process:


I think a lot of people fail at stuff by trying way too little. I have years of professional experience at similar tasks. That doesn't mean I can automatically do it right or get it to work right away. People without that kind of background should expect *way more* web searches, more reading, more tinkering, etc.]]>
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 22:35:24 +0000
curi The History of Taking Children Seriously Thu, 06 Feb 2020 22:09:23 +0000 Alisa The History of Taking Children Seriously
> I get some friends and we do some acting and I share a rough cut for feedback. In the video, I wear red clothes in every scene. Someone asks: *Why do you wear red?*

Good example. Both of my examples (about wearing red and eating quickly) were biased toward my position in the sense that they involved something being done once, rather than multiple times. Examples in which something is done multiple times are more representative of the scenario we are discussing, because in this essay, you referred to yourself in the third person everywhere except in the Editor's note.

I concede that it is natural to use "do" to ask about something that was done repeatedly in a particular context. And I concede that for the question we've been discussing, it would make sense that your essay was the intended context, even if the question didn't explicitly specify that.

I don't yet know the root cause of these mistakes, nor what I could do to prevent them in the future. I did notice two instances in this conversation where you thought of plausible explanations for the author's intent that I missed. It would have helped if I had come up with similar good, unbiased examples on my own before drawing conclusions about what the author meant, but that's not the kind of thing I can add to a checklist.

I suppose I could try to learn more about bias. That actually sounds like the most promising idea so far.]]>
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 21:57:32 +0000
curi The History of Taking Children Seriously
This causes problems sometimes btw. E.g. sometimes there are 50 comments and then someone says something and it's hard to tell if they are trying to respond to the article or to some comment. Like are they continuing one of the multiple discussions already in comments (typically the most recent one) or are they starting a new discussion about the article?]]>
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 21:38:12 +0000
Alisa The History of Taking Children Seriously
Correction: that "do" should be "did".]]>
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 21:31:42 +0000
Alisa The History of Taking Children Seriously
In that scenario, the original question, without any words left out, would have been:

*Why do you talk about yourself in the third person in this essay?*

That version of the question seems reasonable to me. Especially in formal writing, it's natural to use "do" to ask questions about the author's position, e.g.:

*Why do you say that Popper was a falsificationist?*

However, someone writing formally wouldn't leave out "in this essay".

In *informal* writing or speaking, I don't think it's usual to use "do" to ask about what someone did in a specific incident. For example, both of the following sound unusual to me:

- *Why do you wear red today?*

- *Why do you eat that burger so quickly?*

When referring to a specific incident, I think it'd be more usual to ask the question with "do" or with the present progressive, e.g.:

- *Why did you wear red today?* or *Why are you wearing red today?*

- *Why did you eat that burger so quickly?* or *Why are you eating that burger so quickly?*

If someone started to phrase a question in one of those ways and then left out the specific incident, the result would be:

- *Why did you wear red?* or *Why are you wearing red?*

- *Why did you eat so quickly?* or *Why are you eating so quickly?*

Those sound natural enough. If the questioner had started out by phrasing the question in one of those ways and then left off the "in this essay", the result would be:

- *Why did you talk about yourself in the third person?* or *Why are you talking about yourself in the third person?*

To me, both of those seem more honest than the question that was actually asked.]]>
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 21:30:50 +0000
curi The History of Taking Children Seriously Thu, 06 Feb 2020 21:08:43 +0000 Alisa The History of Taking Children Seriously
I think that most people have an intuitive sense of what things make a person look bad socially. I think that that intuitive sense commonly includes knowing things like:

- *speaking* about yourself in the third person is socially worse than *writing* about yourself in the third person
- referring to yourself in the third person is bad, and it's especially bad if you do it routinely, rather than only on specific occasions

If that's true, then it seems to me that the author could have:

1. Seized on the referring-to-self-in-third-person aspect of the essay as having the potential to make you look bad socially

2. Consciously or unconsciously brainstormed several ways to bring it up

3. Picked the way that his intuitive sense told him would make you look worse socially.

What do you think?]]>
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 20:58:57 +0000
curi The History of Taking Children Seriously Thu, 06 Feb 2020 20:46:58 +0000 Alisa The History of Taking Children Seriously
> this writing error

Note that I pointed out *two* issues with the writing (whether they were "errors" isn't entirely clear to me), and they both tended to make you look bad socially, by slipping in nasty and false presuppositions.

> Good points but they don't imply that he didn't read my previous 10 posts.

Ok, I agree. I guess what the question actually indicates is that the author was trying to make you look bad, rather than trying to find out why you chose to refer to yourself in the third person in this particular essay.]]>
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 20:41:04 +0000
Alisa Product Release: Yes or No Philosophy
Suppose that any "wiggle room" in the solution (i.e., any variation in action that falls within the parameters of the chosen solution) is not refuted by anything you knew at the time you made the decision. Then that "wiggle room" is *irrelevant* in the sense I had in mind. It doesn't affect whether you made the right choice or not.

I also didn't say that bias, etc. wouldn't sneak in. Just that there won't be any bias which was (a) known to you and (b) which would refute the solution you chose.]]>
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 20:28:59 +0000
curi Mario Odyssey Discussion
> The first time this has ever been done in Mario Odyssey... (9 Captures)

Smallant1's first Mario Odyssey 9 captures run.]]>
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 18:02:37 +0000
curi Fuck China
I don't think China's economy will collapse soon – even if we cut off US trade entirely, which our leaders aren't going to – and I don't think trading with China is a major factor in their continued evil. I think incorrect and unspecified moral judgments are a bigger problem and the solution, as usual, is more about philosophical education. The best path to better outcomes is from people learning Objectivism, FI, etc.]]>
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 15:40:12 +0000
Anonymous Fuck China Thu, 06 Feb 2020 15:35:33 +0000 Anonymous Fuck China Thu, 06 Feb 2020 15:35:14 +0000