cf141q5325

I have zero compassion for attempts to push the ball down this spectrum. If you miss configured your server the answer isnt criminalizing more and more stuff. Its fixing your server config and access policy. Your configuration, your problem. There is nobody else to blame once you know its leaking.

I believe trying to achieve this result misses the point in the long term. What are you going to do once a model reproduces your code/art without ever seeing it?

>E.g. accessing restricted government resources is prohibited.

Do you have that problem? That your code/art is accessible to the wider world when it shouldnt be? In that case it sounds more like a task for somebody with a security background then for someone with knowledge of copyright.

Considering the impact on peoples emotions and behavior when communicating data (instead of just warning them of these possible pitfalls) is an extremely slippery slope that quickly leads to an impairment of the sensemaking process. Be it due to self censorship as well or a loss of trust when people recognize they are getting managed. In the end its not anyone call to determine what information and expected reactions would be better for other adults.

I find it a lot more fruitful to elaborate why the data doesnt support those conclusions. This way we dont risk slipping down this slope and instead actually help each other fix our errors.

Thanks for the links. The science study seems to be looking at the tipple vaccinated. There seems to be some indication, that this might influence the risk of reinfection as well.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v...

See Figure 2 (end of the paper). Preprint, but pretty straightforward census of hospital staff.

>I don’t even know where to start if that is where we are at.

I have been thinking about this a bit, i believe the pandemic (and this conversation) has been a great example for the general limits of distributed sensemaking and how it breaks down at communicating (and capsuling) all the relevant aspects and perspectives to a topic or statement.

I think in the end everyone has their map of the problem and we are failing (due to the limited bandwith of speech and text among others) at comparing why they differ where. Be it incomplete data, overlooking important perspectives or simply cognitive biases/ ego induced (not wanting to be wrong, tribalism...) errors.

Would you agree?

Shoutout to the British NHS Data that lists for risk of hospitalization/overnight hospitalization /dying per agegroup(decade each) per month.

I find it worth mentioning that the conscious choice not to do this and argue with overall numbers is clearly showing a lack of integrity in the source aimed at pushing a predetermined narrative.

You can not in good concise pretend or even imply that this an evenly distributed risk. Be it among agegroups, comorbidities or among the time axis since the start of the pandemic.

And to give some food for thought, people will reliably overcorrect to adapt for that distortion in their sense making process. Its how a justified loss in credibility looks like and influences peoples behavior.

Once you are down to one picture, collisions become feasible given the right environment and resolution of the image.

Pretty sure this is nitpicking about an overused analogy though.

I think this is overstretching it. That would be a checksum that can be parsed by humans and contains artistic value that serves as the basis for claims to copyright. An actual checksum no longer has artistic value in itself and cant reproduce the original work.

Which is why this is framed as compression, it implies that fundamentally SD makes copies instead of (re)creating art. Leaving out the issue of recreating forgeries of existing works, using the training data for the creation of new pieces should be well covered inside the bounds of appropriation. Demanding anything more then filtering the output of SD for 1:1 reproductions of the training data is really pushing it.

edit: Checksums arent necessarily unique btw. See "Hash collisions".

I think the Andy Warhol appropriation debate is worth mentioning here.

Another thing worth referencing in this context might be hashing. If a few bytes per image are copyright infringement, then likely so is publishing checksums.

As individuals those averages are looking at too large of a group. There are known subgroups with different risk profiles and grouping them together isnt helpful. You get very different risks from both for for example a healthy <30yo male and an obese >60yo male.

We have had that data for a while and simplifications serve no benefit. Its not early 2020 anymore, as always, as we get more accurate data, we get to adapt some strategies based on that.

edit: Not to mention the difference in strains (omicron vs delta) as well as the confidence into the different risks (under counting (detection problem) vs over counting(hospitalized/dying from vs with covid)

>In my anecdotal case my long covid symptoms resumed, along with additional symptoms like body bruising / bone pain for several weeks.

The term used in Germany for "long-covid like symptoms after vaccination" is "post-vac syndrome". Having seen something similar in English yet.

If i understand it correctly, there seems to be a big problem in the design of the evaluation. Namely the assumption that you only have to identify expert voices. That sounds great for simple and isolated problems, but those are not the ones we are facing today. We live in a complex system were every expert has a very narrow perspective and problems are too complex for any one individual to grasp all relevant aspects of.

The difficulty is not finding the one person that is competent enough to fix the problem for you but finding someone that is able and willing to create a process/environment in which the relevant perspectives/expert opinions are collected and a cooperative solution is found (to address the relevant perspectives on the problem).

By voting or delegating for a solution finding process instead the selection of one solution you overcome the "everyone needs to be an expert and inertia / disinterest sets in" problem identified here.

tldr: I believe the study tests for compatibility to a non-functioning legacy/simplified approach to decision making.

----------------------

edit: From the paper

>The first experiment was designed for the lab and follows the theory very closely. We study groups of either 5 voters (of which 1 is an expert) or 15 voters (of which 3 are experts). We observe the frequency of delegation and the fraction of group decisions that yield the correct outcome.

>Our second experiment then is meant to capture a voting environment where voters have “some sense” of how well-informed they are and how likely they are to be correct, and similarly of how likely experts are to be correct, but such sense is vague and instinctive.

The assumption that you have to simply identify the person that has the correct solution is fundamentally flawed.

Communicate the metrics you value for long term resilience and that efficiency is not more important. Explain why, use the example of them getting into a car accident.

If you have to fire such a person you failed at communicating the relevant metrics to them. They are clearly going out of their way to optimize for something, they are simply working with an incomplete understanding of what to optimize for and what costs that incurs.

edit: Communicate it like you would communicate that the great new improvement in start-up time came at the cost of energy consumption or unit price. Its great but it missed an existential metric.

While there are people that maneuver themself into positions making themselves irreplaceable, quite a few simply have the urge to clean up and make a nicer solution. Their definition of nice is just incomplete.

Not me, but you have no basis for the degree of certainty you are displaying.

For me this has become an exit criteria for serious discussions. Once you are overcertain i realistically no longer argue the actual issue but against you not wanting to have been wrong. As i see it, given my social competence, best case would be making you over correct in the other direction or make you cry. Both bad outcomes.

I would recommend getting to grips with the varying degrees of uncertainty of a complex world. I get that this feels bad, but simply betting on the frames that make you feel less bad, even just because it confirms your view, is not a winning strategy.

>toxic positivity

I dont know how big of a driver this is tbh. It seems more that a lot of people committed (publicly) to opinions and are unwilling to even consider to have incomplete, or even wrong views. While in practice the overlap to toxic positivity is likely large, i think it misses that the cause is likely emotional/ego driven. So that people arent so much attached to positive narratives but their narratives?

Or what do you think the causes are?

edit: Never mind, should have just googled for toxic positivity. Thanks for the term!

I didnt want to imply to go into lockdown, i was more pointing at the lack of interest in the current non covid excess mortality. This data has been out there for a while and not just in the UK. Could have worded it better.

The difference is we knew where the excess death was coming from in these years.

I think the societal response to this implies that after 3 years of adapted behavior to limit risk of excess death, people are kind of done.

There better be at least a decade until the next pandemic, at this point even the black death wouldnt convince people to go back into lock down.

Thanks for the correction!

The land required for industrial non-meat food production has a lot stricter requirements then grasslands. Just replacing them is not possible. In practice a lot of agricultural land is coming from cleared forests and leaves behind eroded soil which is a giant problem. You can keep cattle (or Bisons it seems) on those. With the added benefit of them actually rebuilding the topsoil.

We might actually need something like this.

edit: Then again, bisons are fucking scary. There is a great story i read a while back about the huge starting advantage Europe had vs Africa and America when it came to easy to domesticate animals. Good luck trying to survive riding a Zebra or hunting a Buffalo.

On a sidenote, there is an Island in Africa created by a river which trapped a bunch of Lions and Buffalo. Lions had to evolve to incredible dimensions to hunt successful. Search for Okavango Delta

It turns out deserts are actually a huge CO2 sink. Was surprised to learn about this as well

Thats an obvious oversimplification. If it was the result you would only have people people on amphetamines doing this. Pls dont extrapolate on such topics.

Not keeping a browser history forces you to at least file them into bookmarks before you close a window. Which forces you to judge what is worth bookmarking and what isnt.

Still hoping on Chatbots making enough progress to one day organize and make accessible all the crap i hoard.

Thanks for the response

>I used to blog, and to be honest, I am embarrassed of about 90% of my posts.

I think that is the beauty of thinking publicly. You actually realize that you are an idiot. If you only think privately you never get any feedback, chance to reflect and cognitive biases are kicking hard. That robs you of the chance to ever improve.

I dont think its possible to can answer this with the amount of certainty you have. At least i truly hope it. Because if you actually did understand it and still answer this way, you just acknowledged that you are way past wanting to figure out reality.

My point is that you dont have the competence to determine what not to verify because doing so robs you of the ability to determine the implications. Which is commonly caused by a lack of emotional maturity to deal with this inherent problem of stupidity humans have. By still not wanting to think about it you accept all the problems you apparently now know exist and just ignore it in favor of a better self image. This is not an attack on personal shortcommings but something every human has to deal with.

And you didnt just make this decision personally, but think its a good idea to push this onto other people. That means "the problem" from your initial point is people trying to deal with a difficult problem you prefer to ignore and offer no substitute solution to while knowing how horrible the consequences will be. Put over the top, its people having the audacity to think about stuff that runs the risk of poking holes in your delusion once you hear about it.

I dont believe you actually mean to say this. This would be malice. Its screw reality and its consequences in favor of your feelings. It would be conscious solopsism.

Please tell me how i am wrong instead of coming up with stories about how you get to do it regardless. I truly want there to be a cooperative solution and i am really confident that it should be possible. We should be able to agree that figuring out reality is something we all have incentives to do that outweigh wanting to feel right.

I am very sorry that the posts are this long, but the shorter this gets, the more confrontational this sounds and the less likely useful progress is.

edit: I also wrote such a lengthy response so you hopefully realize what you just told the entire world with your personal details in your account info. Because this could qualify as consent for getting "patched" for a lack of a better term. Having you do that was not my intent.

You no longer have the means to determine what is obvious if you mess with which parts of your worldview are up for verification. You just have a story you dont want to question for believing what you want to belief. This is an incredibly bad idea.

To take the moon example, congratulations for figuring out its not made from actual Swiss cheese. Its a great first step. Unfortunately there isnt complete knowledge about everything you ever need to know about the moon attached to not believing it to be cheese. You having wrong or incomplete knowledge of the moon doesnt mean the moon is made from cheese. And people trying to communicate to you an angle you are missing can extremely easy be framed to sound like "moon is made up of Swiss cheese". Its using strawmen arguments to figure out reality instead of trying to steelmen people to figure out what they are looking at where they maybe overshot to deal with a problem you are unaware of.

You didnt just finish thinking by having determined some stuff to be stupid. You are not done. I get that you think this needs some means of simplification but reality doesnt care about what you think should or needs to be possible.