brindlejim

This appears to be largely a COVID phenomenon. Lacking that forcing function, I doubt whether subsequent cohorts of parents will opt for that burden. The only thing that might push them to maintain the discipline of home schooling is the ideological capture of public schools, which leads to discrimination, unmonitored chaos and the long-term medicalization of students based on dumb ideas, the naming of which will would get this comment flagged.

In a feminized society that systematically elevates victims, status seekers must either LARP as victims (Singapore scions doing undergrad at Yale who march as "people of color") or make an ostentatious show of allyship, publicly subordinating their interest to that of the "oppressed".

Agree with this comment and disagree with the article.

The US owes nothing to the people who want to immigrate here, certainly not due process. If they don't like the US, its policies or citizens, the US should find that out. It is the duty of US immigration to scan their posts for anti-US sentiment, as well as adherence to any ideology that is corrosive to democratic society.

They are effectively applying for a job as US citizen, and should comport themselves accordingly.

Now imagine that instead of a mugger you have an AI researcher who both believes that AGI will destroy the world and is intent on being in the room when it is created. The self-mugging of an AI safety-ist.

jailbreaks.

DJI is fully compliant with China's policy of civil-military fusion. Anyone flying anywhere sensitive should not use them. They're beaming back home whatever they want, and China is using both tech and data to give an asymmetric advantage to allies like Russia in the Ukraine war.

Fwiw, Skydio is failing in Ukraine, where Russia's electronic warfare downs its drones. Their "vision-based autonomy" has severe limits, because GPS jamming can fell them.

He worked for years as a licensed therapist counseling individuals and couples. If you are looking for a source of authority, he's better than nothing, if not as good as a randomized control trial.

These are all great points.

Would add that wealth separates people. Both in the form of larger houses and lawns, and hiring contractors instead of entering into reciprocal interdependence.

There's a weird gravity to media and entertainment that sucks people out of the old analog forms that include community (church) into new digital forms that impose for distance (games and TV). We have been replatformed for the sake of capitalism.

Men need a different kind of therapy. Adam Lane Smith explains here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yyWlp6sTv0

Personal beliefs, and these doesn't apply to all males (live in choice!):

- guys bond when they do things together: build, play, mock fight

- remote work makes it hard to find that building community at the office

- having kids wipes out your leisure time for at least a few years

- and thus you're left with no community of guy peers IRL

- guys need less talk therapy than women, and the institutional solutions that support women won't work as well for the males, on average

- more paternal leave sounds like a recipe for more solitude and dysfunction

- guys probably don't function as well as stay-at-home parents, on average, as women (yes, these are rank generalizations which contradict many modern assumptions). all other things being equal, which of course they never are, the kids will probably get better care if mom stays home during the early years while dad works

- tech has replatformed us all into virtual communities that physically isolate us

This conversation would be mildly more interesting if you could get beyond name-calling. I see no response to the substance. This mirrors the quality of argument I've seen supporting gender ideology. Insults and claims of harm.

I don't acknowledge gender as a category. I am gender critical. Gender ideology is the cult that believes gender matters, that people can self-ID, that biological males should compete with women in sports, and that children should receive hormones and surgery to get them out of the "wrong body". That's the ideology. Normies disagree with all of it, and I am one of them.

This thread seems to have been shadow-banned:

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=brindlejim#37413851

Yes.

Marc Andreessen does not subscribe to Nick Land's ideology but calls himself e/acc.

It is a label adopted by people who do not take Eliezer's death cult seriously in the substance of its claims, but only in its ability to slow progress.

Few would disagree that

"mean asshole" = ad hominem

"ban" = cancellation

Edit to respond to the comment below, since we've reached the limits on the depth of nested comments:

"Ad hominem" = "directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."

Calling someone a name, like "mean asshole", is an attack against their person, whether it is true or not. Therefore it is ad hominem, whether it is true or not. The definition of ad hominem does not require that it be untrue.

You can, of course, redefine it, as gender ideology seeks to redefine many things by substituting a foreign meaning for a familiar word.

But forcing people to adopt a new language and set of names, and therefore to implicitly recognize false claims in which a trans person attempts to occupy the role and spaces of the opposite sex, is coercive.

Society is starting to realize that the substance of those claims is false, and the coercion is contrary to civil liberties. No amount of bans or insults will change that.

The title slightly obscures what's going on here. It's not *just* about stories. It's about the propagation of a dogma in academia.

The paper in question is 1619, but for Industrial Age metallurgy.

And one of the reasons that lies like this make it through the review process is because academics are afraid of challenging racialist narratives.

They win their jobs and promotions by toeing an ideological line.

While I respect Doug's intelligence, he showed a kind of perverse persistence in a failed idea, and I think it's telling that aspiring AI czar Gary Marcus admires the ruins of Cyc while neglecting to acknowledge that it represents a dead end in AI. Like science, the field of AI advances one funeral at a time. Doug pursued a pipe dream, and convinced others to do the same, despite the brittle and static nature of the AI he sought to build. Cyc was not a precursor to OpenAI, contrary to other comments in this thread. That would be like calling the zeppelin the precursor of the jet. It represents a different school of technology, and a much less effective one.

The author of this piece is a great example of the sort of professional victim that liberal America applauds, seeking yet another revolution of society and bureaucracy. She may labor against a *system*, but the hellscape of re-education and the constant surveillance of micro-aggressions based on another fun acronym seems infinitely worse than that system.

The underlying reality she seems to ignore is that the people who master and decide the details actually run the shop in very real ways. There is power there, if she is not too offended to see it.

It's almost as though our "identities" are socially malleable and dependent on those we come into contact with.

I am claiming two things:

1) EA as a movement and as a principle has been at best equivocal on whether or not it's OK to deliberately harm a few people in order to benefit many people. There's a very strong argument that SBF was pursuing utilitarian goals as espoused by EA. Riches amplify our flaws. He committed EA on a grand scale, and it turns out that SBF's version of take-no-prisoners utilitarianism is a) illegal, b) harmful to millions of people, and b.1) that includes his own movement.

2) SBF and Caroline did crypto. They didn't do crypto and secretly scam people and therefore they are not really doing crypto. Scamming is at the heart of crypto. If you want scamming not to be at the heart of crypto, then accept that you will need a centralized authority with a mandate for violence to impose rules of behavior, much as we have with the rest of finance.

Kind of.

Sam was not doing what EAism says you should do.

But he was embedded in the EA movement, close to many of its other members, and abetted by people like Will.

So if you look at EA descriptively, Sam was very much doing EA.

He was lying about his business. But he wasn't lying about giving the money away. That was very real, and a big part of what "doing effective altruism" is.

Sam/Caroline were also doing crypto.

The two movements -- EA and crypto -- clearly want to excommunicate them. But both those movements were happy to work with them when they appeared to be successful, non-fraudulent billionaires.

Nobody knows you when you're down and out.

And to be clear, Piper and Ellison go way way back. I think there is a very good chance that SBF did not know that that chat was on the record. So Piper may have failed to disclose in two directions, to both her source and her audience.

OK. There have been about a dozen pieces written about FTX on the NYT in just the last few days. Most have not been soft balls like the interview-based piece. I apologize for accusing you of being driven by ideology. I didn't understand why you would choose those two links when the coverage is much broader and more critical:

https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=FTX

They arranged those speakers long before the collapse. I doubt he'll voluntarily set foot in the US until he figures out whether or not he'll be immediately sent to jail.

This seems like an ideologically driven comment, since the NYT is reporting on the FTX bankruptcy in a v clear way:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/17/business/ftx-bankruptcy.h...

Tell that to the vast majority of crypto holders who cannot master the underlying technology of crypto and therefore rely on the exchanges. Crypto is not contiguous with your highly selective, normative definition. Crypto is everything done by everybody buying, selling and building tech for crypto.

The NYT interview confirmed nothing. People who argue that the NYT piece confirmed anything simply do not understand journalism. That was an interview-based piece that gave SBF a lot of room to talk. The *same* reporter published this piece today, based on Ray's court filing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/17/business/ftx-bankruptcy.h...

And I quote:

> "John Jay Ray III helped manage the aftermath of some of the largest corporate failures in history, including the implosion of the energy trading firm Enron after an accounting fraud scandal in 2001.

> But the corporate dysfunction at FTX, the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange that he took over last week, is the worst he has ever seen.

> In a blistering court filing on Thursday, Mr. Ray described an astonishing level of disarray and said he had never seen “such a complete failure of corporate control.” He listed a series of “unacceptable management practices,” including the use of an unsecured group email to access sensitive data, and said the financial information maintained by FTX was deeply untrustworthy.

> “From compromised systems integrity and faulty regulatory oversight abroad, to the concentration of control in the hands of a very small group of inexperienced, unsophisticated and potentially compromised individuals, this situation is unprecedented,” he wrote in the filing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware."

The evidence against SBF is damning. The NYT will continue to report that. You can cherrypick their pieces if you want to.

But what you should be doing is looking at the 10,000 ways that crypto made SBF and FTX what they were, through your credulity and greed. The NYT had nothing to do with that.

Piper's journalistic duty was to disclose her ties to EA much more fully in that piece, or recuse herself from writing it. I'm curious about the ties that she and other prominent Bay Area EAs have to SBF as well. Everyone is in a rush to distance themselves from they guy who bankrolled them.

I love how the crypto community has decided that SBF is "not a crypto guy" now that he's done crimes.

And he's somehow "establishment" because he gave to political parties, and Democrat because we're ignoring the GOP contributions.

SBF was more of a crypto guy than 99% of crypto. And he was way more crypto than he was establishment.

And the problems in crypto that his actions highlighted (centralization, fraud, lack of consumer protections) cannot be waved away with "no true scotsman" arguments.

He's your boy. Own it or the industry will not correct its own deep, ongoing mistakes, currently being made by entities like Binance.

Let's be clear: Alfred Lin championed the investment in FTX. It's not Sequoia. It's a limited number of partners.