janto

Either too much chaos or too much order are indeed failure conditions that appear in our history/stories/myths. So I'd not go to either extreme of that spectrum.

Merely persisting is not sufficient for something to be moral, but it is a necessary requirement. We need principles on how to behave in repeated interactions and situations over long periods, or bad things will eventually happen. That's part of the purpose of moral truths you were raising a question about.

I'd just point out that ancient Egypt had developed moral-sensemaking technology that were state of the art at the time. It's the best we as humans could do to live in a large ecosystem and we're standing on their shoulders. It's not surprising that we would find fault.

Because when we get the opposite, our own behaviour has ultimately driven us into the ground and we end up in hell or dead.

From a game theory perspective, morality encapsulates behaviour that is viable over multiple interactions across long stretches of time.

Persuasion minus intent is simply making up your own mind.

A microwave's tone could be chosen by the manufacturer to signify quality, true. However the primary meaning of the ding itself, to me is that it is signalling that my timer has run out and I might want to attend to it. Persuasion does not seem like the right word.

OSS definitely has a reliability and credibility problem on its hands. Codes of Conduct that prioritize belonging over, say, competence and truthfulness is not helping. We need more people like the old Linus that are more concerned with the quality of the artifact than increasing the size of a community

What is a dog trying to persuade you of when it's wagging it's tail? What is the microwave trying to persuade me of when it beeps?

Why do I want to *persuade* the other person that I'm listening? I might not be and therefore go down a road I don't find relevant to me. Honest signalling would allow the other person to course correct.

A free media forms part of what keeps a Western military to stricter rules of engagement.

...or I might not care about persuading or being persuaded, as much as seeing an improved perspective reveal itself to both of us. It's the difference between dialog and discourse.

I have no interest in being effective at changing someone's perspective towards my own. I express myself truthfully and authentically. That way both of us might learn something.

I would rather be known for my sincerity rather than always wanting smiles. I get more meaningful connections that way.

Also known as manipulation. You cannot get to a better combined perspective if you are not presenting yourself truthfully.

From the article:

  When we are in the moment, we can easily forget that the goal is to connect with the other side, collaborate with them, befriend them, and integrate them into our tribe.

When I am in a dialog, my goal is not to "integrate them into my tribe". Yuck. It is to express myself authentically in a skillful way. Whatever connection and conversation emerges is then meaningful.

Where the article is advocating kindness as a manipulation tactic to avoid stirring up their partner's defenses, while pursuing a specific perspective change... that is being slimy.

Vehemently disagree.

We derive our allegiances and enemies not from facts, but from our goals and values. It is completely reasonable that (minor) facts have relatively little influence on our larger goals.

The author is confused about this Is/Aught difference. Or attempting to manipulate the reader towards prioritizing Kindness without a single fact, scientific study or example anywhere in the article. Ironic.

From the reviews it sounds mainly from the OO/Java and heavy design up front paradigm and not very Agile / test driven. Is that fair? I'd really like a philosophically minded book that integrates these relatively newer approaches.

Is Twitter neutral?

This is representing only one quadrant of the predictions × outcomes matrix.

Where are the pessimistic predictions that turned out to be accurate? Where are the optimistic predictions on disruptive tech that did turn out net negative? Where are the nuances?

I don't have faith in the process anymore. Wiki-lawyering to remove content, is too effective. To what end? Saving disk space?

I'm no longer motivated to fight deletionism in my domain. I don't want to spend time that is not appreciated.

I suspect that as soon as a page is tagged for deletion by someone, others that enjoy being the arbiters of what is and is not WP, flock there. If they lack interest in the topic, they will vote to remove with many technical reasons. Statements that others do find it relevant or interesting, are simply ignored.

Unfortunately Wikipedia has also been heading in a disappointing direction. I now expect everything on there to be filtered through a specific political perspective. Deleting information is much easier than adding, so pesky facts are unlikely to persist.

Leadership is definitely somewhere I can improve. I'll check out the book, thanks. I feel in my last leadership position I was too friendly, giving my team too much room to not be serious to improve. In a not insignificant way it contributed to me burning out there, so I'm still figuring out a better approach.

Someone that I consider my spiritual teacher once told me: "you can't be in Love with someone if you're not also in Truth with them." I really like that.

From a Christian perspective I prioritize the Truth aspect of Logos. I feel that is lacking in today's communication where people would rather be untruthful than risk being seen as unkind or risk not receiving love. It sounds like you are authentic in your expression however so that's great :)

Indeed. It shows that the pi formulation is actually somewhat ugly because it lacks symmetry.

"Anything too stupid to be said is sung." - Voltaire (supposedly)

It's not about verification of the jwt, it's about hiding the roles from the user.

Roles are an approach towards query optimization, but the question placed a constraint on the user not knowing about them. Encoding the role information so it is not visible to the user is a potential solution.

Can you encrypt the role names for when it might be seen by a user?

If you give a human a "compliment sandwich" they are likely to take the compliments and throw away what they don't like. It will weaken your intent behind initiating the dialog.

A commitment to positive regard and support from your side is fine, but the way you expressed it in your examples feels manipulative and will lead to future compliments and interactions feeling inauthentic.

I've preferred to call it a "feedback sandwich" in the past but that feels like cop out management from Office Space, like firing someone on a Friday to minimize backlash.

If we're talking about a place of work then I might sandwich it by implying their skill is needed and, hopefully in a skillful way, that I like having them around. If these are the issues needing to be addressed then that's what makes it a "shit sandwich".

At the end of the day, I am responsible for only my own emotions. I can truthfully express what our relationship means to me and thereby provide some contextual buffering that they can rely on, if they want, but I don't want to push a desired reaction down their throat. That's a problem with an appeal to their kindness.

I prefer a shit sandwich: "Something highly undesirable made triflingly more palatable by attempting to surround it with more tolerable things."

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/shit_sandwich

The only thing secrecy would take care of is why we are missing information. If you rely on the absence of info to contradict a theory, without taking this variable into account, then you will come to a weakly supported conclusion.

A tricky thing about secrecy is that it exists to reduce clarity. If you had another sensitive way of gathering information (an insider, for example) you would not want an attacker to draw that conclusion by just sharing everything, by default. You will want to keep this motivation secret as well. Embarrassing the enemy has the lowest yield.

The demo works, nice avatars.

When I try to sign in, though, I get "This browser is not supported or 3rd party cookies and data may be disabled" at the signin page. I'm using Chrome. It might be my ad blocker, but I've disabled everything I can see.

Also on Firefox (no ad blockers) I just get forwarded back to the login page without any progress.

Interesting, although the existence of this research actually suggests that normal Bayesian opt by itself is not safe and needs to be modified to be so.

A relatively unique trait of Bayesian opt is the modelling of unexplored space. The attraction to exploring that space makes it actually less safe than other methods that do not explicitly care.

One could go through similar steps to model and generate safe steps in other methods. It doesn't seem specific to Bayesian opt. It might even be better since it's less likely to be so computationally expensive as the auxiliary opt within Bayesian opt tends to be.

I'm having a hard time imagining how using Bayesian optimization would improve safety during the search process, especially since in practice it often tends to just give approximately uniform sampling of a space anyway. It really likes the unexplored territory and is likely to try things far away from the optimum that are more risky.