jncfhnb

Ehhh I suppose but I think that’s a weak point. The purpose of shutting down the internet is undeniably to prevent the people from coordinating rebellion and the help control the narrative of the war.

Your opinion appears to be people shouldn’t share opinions unless they achieve a certain level of activity behind. So, like, idk dude. I don’t see you campaigning to restrict free speech so shut up?

I guess I just feel like your appeal to skilled manual workers is pointless. They’re not really the focal point. It’s the large masses of people being relegated to the bin labeled “effectively unskilled”.

It would work at sufficient scale and sacrifice

My anecdata is from just two families whom I am hearing from indirectly and have never met in person. The takeaways are:

1) they HATE their government more than anything in the world. They’ve seen the government killing its own people.

2) the consensus of civilians is that strikes by and large are hitting IRGC targets. They do not feel civilian targets are being targeted even though the nature of it has resulted in civilian deaths.

3) they don’t feel inclined to give trump the slightest amount of trust or good will. They just want regime change by any means.

I don’t see any alternative angle though. Nobody thinks the IRGC is doing this for fun.

You don’t get to gatekeep having political opinions

Removing a white collar job from the economy puts a worker into the bottom tier _and_ reduces the wages of that bottom tier.

We are speeding towards a servant class. Uber was the first wave. Now it’s more mundane things like getting groceries. I doubt it will be long before we rip off the band aid and make full time servants more popular.

Violence against economic shifts from labor to capital have pretty much consistently failed though. At best they’ve won brief relief that eventually got swallowed by the invisible mouth.

You can’t really fight this stuff because of global competition.

Establishing consensus through discussion is the basis of democracy

I guess. But the framing here is not “clever, innovative IRGC” so much as oppressive regime fucking over it’s people to retain control.

It’s very economically harmful to be disconnected. That’s the downside

This is all likely true. Although I feel people undersell how they work together.

Iranians broadly hate their government, yeah. But the thing that gets them rioting is economic failure. Which the strikes have exacerbated.

Social media is swarmed by people saying it’ll be like Iraq and Iranians will hate the US for its actions. I’m not convinced. My small anecdata of Iranian friends with contacts in Iran agrees with me.

I think we could see regime change within a decade.

Imo front end is what it’s best at.

No not really. It’s just if you ask the model what percent of people like apples, it doesn’t know the answer. We don’t even need to get to the level of change of opinions.

Models don’t “poll” their training data. If you give it five yes answers and five no answers, it doesn’t think that it’s 50/50.

If you give it actual data it can derive it, but that would be a poll

That’s just fundamentally not a meaningful argument

You need to assess calibration. Not “accuracy”. What does “in play” even mean?

This whole synthetic sampling thing really boggles my mind. It’s like… it’s difficult to come up with an example that doesn’t feel like a hyperbolic strawman. It’s just that dumb.

That is abstraction of the implementation of the tool, not the output.

Producing outputs you don’t understand is novel

The phrasing you’re looking for is that 12% of Americans consume an average of 50% of beef consumed every day.

By saying “on any given day” you are suggesting it’s a different 12%. The article does confuse this by identifying cohorts that eat more beef. But it’s a tautological label based on the survey data. They identify some correlates, like being a 50 something male. But there are males who are 50 something that don’t eat any beef. They’re not included in the 12%.

The 12% is just the outcome of the sample. It doesn’t mean they’re a consistent cohort.

Example:

* on any given day x million women give birth

* there are x million women who give birth every day

> is it normal, in the USA, for half of all people to only eat beef once every 8 days?

Thats not the implication of 12% of Americans eating 50% of beef by consumed by all Americans that day.

If I had to make up some numbers it’s probably that, on any random day, 12% of Americans ate 50% of the beef (a large burger), 28% of American ate the rest of the beef (bit of lunch meat), and 60% of Americans did not eat any beef.

> A recent study shows that on any given day, just 12% of people in the US account for half of all beef consumed in the US.

This phrasing strongly suggests it’s not the same 12% every day. In which case… it’s probably not that noteworthy.

I feel like this article is littered with suspicious statements

Like this one:

> In fact, institutional homebuyers (those who bought 100+ homes in a 12-month period) didn’t even reach 2.5% market share at the peak level in this data line, which goes back to the start of the century.

I don’t know how to evaluate this. I doubt this analysis rolls up subsidiaries. So what does it really mean for an entity to own 100+ units? Is that actually something we care about?

Imo only thing people need to give a shit about is whether a house is being bought to be lived in.

Platform economics create monopsony problems. If you don’t play ball with steam, you don’t get access to most customers. End of story. These things are winner take all.

Imo 30% is disgusting and needs regulation.

Edit: see also, credit cards

If the US tech companies stop behaving this way, maybe.

I’m surprised that Iran can contemplate affording this. There must be such immense losses of all the land, homes, and capital assets in Tehran. And then operational costs of moving people around, building new homes, etc.

$100B is such a high number that it becomes funny money but… idk, doesn’t it still feel like a lowball in terms of losses?

> manufacturers targeted to areas with high rates of smoking-related illness

Oof

> epigenetic changes making smokers more susceptible to opioid use disorders

This one seems… a bit mystic to me. I would have been much quicker to suggest that a psychological propensity to start smoking mirrors a propensity to start using other drugs vs. arguing for emergent effects of cellular behavior.

Seems dubious to me that smoking explains any of these things. I would guess just a cultural cofounder.

Obesity and fentanyl would be my guess.

i just use the cheapest wireless keyboard and mouse I can. I’m accessing content through the browser so there’s enough typing that I wouldn’t want a non keyboard personally.

Imo you only need remote like hardware if you’re planning to scroll through Netflix style walls of content.

but that’s all consistent. “Expected” gain is less than 1 for the truth booths and sometimes > 1 for actuals; and is > 1 on expected value of the match ups, which aren’t binary questions.

I saw a couple devils plan and felt they were trying to imply Mathematical scheming without substance. There was one guy who kept talking about “science” but then his “game theory” for a game of mafia was “social distancing” like Covid…