endominus

I think most pro-AI people would be happy to let an AI maintain the sloppy fork. What reason would they have to complain, after all?

Just as people pointed out that my misinformation line was also said by AuthLeft, gay marriage and drug legalization are both supported by LibRight (under the reasoning of government minimization). But that just speaks to the problem; the political compass tries to map stances to political groups that often believe things arbitrarily, rather than grounding their positions on peoples' perspectives and framework for understanding the world. That's why I like the other political compass I linked in the sibling thread; it's based more on a person's understanding of the world rather than tribal allegiance.

It's a fundamental problem of the political compass, since people's political beliefs are usually object-level or tribal rather than rooted in fundamental principles (for example, when their party controls the state congress but not the federal congress, they believe [ISSUE] is a matter of states' rights. When their party controls Washington but not the state legislature, they believe [ISSUE] is a Federal matter. I'm sure you've seen the studies).

I don't like the orthodox compass myself, and prefer the categorization system described in the blog Everything Studies here; https://everythingstudies.com/2019/03/01/the-tilted-politica...

"The government has the right to force people to take vaccines against their will for the sake of public safety." - Authoritarian Left

"The government has no right to legislate that a woman cannot have an abortion - women should control their own bodies." - Libertarian Left

"The government has the right and responsibility to shut down sources of misinformation in the news and online." - Authoritarian Right

"Capitalism is good and works fine as is." - Libertarian Right (if that doesn't ping lib-right to you, maybe something about supporting skilled immigration by large companies)

Is it so hard to believe that one person can hold all of the above views?

Cost of the Macbook Pro 14 in 2031: another £1999

Cost of the Framework 13 upgrade kit in 2031: £499

The point of the upgradability and openness of the design is that you only have to pay that cost once, instead of every time you buy a laptop. How much will it cost to upgrade a MacBook's RAM if you decide you need more after a year or two? £2099?

It's frustrating that the only suggestion the experts interviewed have here is essentially blue-washing woman-dominated jobs. "For instance, many health care jobs could be framed as roles requiring the strength to lift people. Preschools could highlight the need for teachers who serve as positive male role models." Just reads as that one SMBC comic - "how can we make math pink?" As if the only way they can understand people is through the most shallow stereotypes.

Yeah, you can totally fix the imbalance in the nursing sector by showing ads with a bunch of male nurses driving monster trucks into the ICU and crushing energy drink cans on patients' foreheads! Or have a cowboy ride his horse into the preschool, smoking a cigarette that he lights by dragging a match across his own thick stubble! This isn't a structural problem, it's just a question of marketing!

Insulting.

Creatine is probably the most well-studied nutritional supplement we have, and one of the most efficacious. You are presenting a single study to counter that. Not even a meta-analysis, but a single study of just 54 participants who did not exercise at all previously (from the study; "Apparently healthy individuals, with a body mass index of ≤30 kg/m2 and not meeting current physical activity guidelines of at least 150 min of moderate-intensity exercise were included. Individuals who undertook [resistance training] within the previous 12 months were excluded"). The general consensus is that it is absolutely helpful in muscle-building. See, for example [0] and [1]. Beware the man of one study. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-...

[0]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12665265/ - Meta analysis results; "after intervention, the Cr group exhibited significant strength gains"

[1]: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/17/2748 - "A total of 69 studies with 1937 participants were included for analysis. Creatine plus resistance training produced small but statistically significant improvements... when compared to the placebo."

Just because a particular market is free doesn't mean it's useful to society at large.

If it's not useful to society, society has no moral reason to tolerate it. If it indeed benefits a few individuals massively while on net reducing utility to society, an argument can be made that society has a moral imperative to ban it. Hence the limitations on gambling, on alcohol and tobacco marketing/sales, etc.

Unfortunately, "this is a wildly successful model that prints money for us with almost no upkeep required" has historically not been a bulletproof argument when new management comes in and wants to prove themselves. Human beings are not necessarily rational and the kinds of people that tend to rise to the top of large corporations don't necessarily have the best interests of customers or the business itself in mind.

That being said, I believe that Gabe is taking his "succession planning" seriously, so I'd be fairly optimistic for the next decade at least.

Even if that were the case, wouldn't it still be an essentially net-zero pollution system (disregarding small contributions from transport etc.)?

Sure, but it's not reasonable to call it as unpopular domestically as the Vietnam War, which had more than 12 times the casualties, spread over a group that on the whole was unwilling to fight and had to be drafted into the conflict, thereby spreading the pain of lost loved ones throughout society rather than concentrating it heavily into the poorer and less politically powerful social and economic classes. As unpopular as the Iraq war was, the American people's distaste didn't really do much to end it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualt...

> General Brown: So they started doing psy-research because they thought we were doing psy-research, when in fact we weren't doing psy-research?

> Brigadier General Dean Hopgood: Yes sir. But now that they are doing psy-research, we're gonna have to do psy-research, sir. We can't afford to have the Russian's leading the field in the paranormal.

Source: The Men Who Stare at Goats

Why did the author feel the need to throw in a spoiler for the end of The Conversation in the last paragraph of the article? That seems contradictory to the point of everything else she wrote and disrespectful to both the audience and the film.

It was available on Humble Bundle a few months ago as part of Remedy's full lineup, along with the sequel, the Alan Wake games, and Control.

>If you were given the choice of two different dangerous roads where one road had a 30% lower chance of getting into a life-threatening car crash, you would probably think that the choice was obvious, not that the two roads were basically the same.

You could absolutely think that they were basically the same, depending on the base rate. The differece between a one-in-a-million and 0.7-in-a-million is 30%, but it wouldn't be humanly perceivable. We're all likely faced with situations like that regularly. Differing airlines probably have much greater variances in their crash statistics, but it just doesn't matter in 99.99999% of flights.

... so give reviewers a financial incentive to deem reports invalid?

Reminded of this article/book review given comments here about political violence on the rise and wondering how that looks like on a wider scale.

The OP is not claiming that the link is being changed; the complaint is that a hyperlink is being generated from the plaintext URL. The HTML body of the email is being modified.

If you run a restaurant and a known dine-and-dasher walks in, can you not refuse to serve them?

If you're a consultant do you have no right to refuse a client? Even if you have other clients you'd rather work for, or that particular client is a bad fit for you, or any other reason?

If you run a transport company, and you think someone is trying to get you to move illegal goods, or goods that you have moral qualms about transporting (such as a vegan being asked to transport livestock for slaughter) do you have no right to refuse?

>So would you say changing one's mind is a case where one seeks a different religion

I have no idea what you mean by this. I explained in detail what changing one's mind entails. It has nothing to do with "irrefutable" or deeply held convictions.

You have a nonstandard definition of belief.

First of all, "I don't know" is absolutely a state of acceptance. It is acceptance that the information is not fully reliable. Most things are unknowable; the vast majority of held beliefs are not arrived at through irrefutable logic but by simple trust in consensus. I believe that certain food is nutritious, even though I have not run tests on it myself. Data might arise later showing my beliefs to be false; that is why I assign probabilities to my beliefs, rather than certainties.

Second of all, your fallback to a dictionary definition is flawed in two ways. The first is that various definitions of "belief" exist; one of which (from https://www.wordnik.com/words/belief) is "Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence." (emphasis added) Another definition given is "A conviction of the truth of a given proposition or an alleged fact, resting upon grounds insufficient to constitute positive knowledge."

The second way this argument is flawed is that dictionaries are descriptive tools, not prescriptive. That is to say, dictionaries are not arbiters of truth in language but merely reference documents for possible meaning, and where they differ from common usage, it is the dictionary that is incorrect.

Your original issue with the article was that once you've "settled" an issue, there is no reason to argue about it. I pointed out that a number of people do not "settle" issues in the way that you describe, and that argument serves to update their information and beliefs constantly.

You stated that a mind "cannot be changed if it was never made." I disagree; one does not need to have an absolute belief in something to "change their mind." By definition, any update of beliefs is changing one's mind. My mind changes often, but usually by small increments. A key part of that is argumentation; I constantly seek out counterarguments to my own beliefs to see if new data or points of view will sway me. In the absence of that, I argue against myself, to see if I can find flaws in my logic and update accordingly.

By that logic argument, as described by the original article, is extremely useful for ensuring that one's beliefs accurately reflect reality.

To me, your position that an issue must be "settled" in one's mind (whatever that means, because I don't think you're perfectly clear on that) before you can be said to "change your mind" doesn't make sense.

You realize that examples can extend to other topics?

"I am 60% confident that recursion is the best method for this algorithm." "Having had more time to study potential options, I am now 75% confident."

"I am sure that I parked my car here." "Oh, you're right, we were on the east side, not the west."

"I am predicting that I will enjoy the movie tonight." "Given the expressions of people leaving the cinema ahead of me, I am rapidly reconsidering my prediction."

Your objection seems to primarily come from a difference in definition for "changing one's mind" - the way you describe it sounds to me like a fundamental shift in an axiomatic belief, whereas I, and many others, use it simply to indicate that we are updating a probabilistic map.

>But they can't change their mind as they never established something that can be changed.

"I am 70% confident that candidate X will win the upcoming elections."

"Oh, new polling data has come in that shows more support than I previously knew about? I'm now 80% confident of their victory."

Why do you think change cannot occur unless a belief is certain?

This response is indicative of a completely different perspective on the idea of "argument" (and "making up your mind," a phrase that does not appear in the than the original article and would not fit with the framework of understanding expressed therein). The belief that your mind should or even can be "settled" on an issue - that you can examine the evidence, weigh it, judge it, come to a definitive conclusion, and then never think about it again - is not universal.

There exist people who think probabilistically; issues are not definitively decided in their mind, but given some likelihood of being one way or another. Such people tend to have much more accurate understandings of the world and benefit greatly from constructive debate, revisiting the same issues over and over again as new evidence is brought up in these arguments. If you'd like to know more, I recommend reading the book The Scout Mindset by Julia Galef.

Eh. This crowd isn't where this article is aimed. Remember the British minister who asked when Microsoft was going to 'get rid' of algorithms?

https://www.windowscentral.com/british-government-reported-a... (previously discussed here; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30736887)

One thing the Streisand effect illuminates is a certain type of person is not fully able to model the consequences of trying to keep information secret. It's absolutely plausible that someone in the university administration actually believed that they could tell the FBI "please keep this secret in order to protect our reputation" and that their request would outweight the agency's other duties. There exist people that are that self-important.

>A century after terrifying disasters, is it a safe-enough bet?

In the Hindenberg disaster, 35 of the airship's 97 occupants died. Meanwhile, every time I browse the front page of HN, there seems to be another story of an aircraft crashing or being shot down and everyone on board being killed instantly.

I think what that commenter meant, and I agree, is that the "savant" in this case was referring to a literal computer; the programmer as an IC is "delegating" a task by writing a program and having the computer execute it.

Complete with slideshows about what he was doing, how he planned to do it, and the logistics involved with becoming the supreme arms dealer and private army to half a dozen governments.

The philosopher in me immediately objects, "How can you tell if something is 'knowable'? What constitutes knowledge in this model?"