laretluval

While I disagree with GP’s premise, there’s no sense in which H1B visa holders are American. It’s a nonimmigrant visa. They are required to specifically disavow any intention of becoming Americans or else the visa can be revoked.

Is there a news article about the spy at your kid’s school?

I built an RV to increase missing person cases

> but there is much precedence for rebel leaders who took on dynasties to be of millenarian, even foreign beliefs.

The modern Chinese government’s suppression of Falun Gong makes sense from this perspective.

I predict they’ll love the opportunity to indulge in theatrical ethnomasochism, just like high status whites do.

I also thought that, based on his books

> A huge part of the problem is that digital spaces generally have no equivalent of a disapproving glare.

It's interesting to see that people are now arguing in favor of public shaming and peer pressure as ways to control behavior, and lamenting that these are now harder to implement at scale. A generation ago the internet was seen as a way to escape pressure for conformity.

Thanks for the rec! This looks like something I'll be adding to the list of Substacks I check regularly.

Good, fewer stoners in the next generation

Is it bad to want state institutions to act in a way that benefits you? Isn't that "government for the people"?

Congress

NO

"Oll korrect" is the only one the stands up to scrutiny.

My conversations with military people (mostly Navy) suggest that they don't really know what they're doing with AI.

It's a dream created using information from many other scenes you saw of the person.

The AI "dream" is based only on the single image.

> Most economists agree once you take into account retaliatory tariffs they're bad for the economy.

How much real predictive signal is there in economists' consensus?

> stop rewarding "I wrote the grant" With authorships.

How could this work? If you have more grant money you have more resources to write papers.

> I just don't understand why his preferences bind on anyone else.

His preferences bind on the NYT in that as Scott can take actions which are adverse to the NYT in order to maintain his preferences. Such as deleting the blog and having his fans sign a petition and cancel their subscriptions. None of those actions are unreasonable: he is free to delete his blog for any reason or no reason, and anyone can make in a petition. What is the problem here?

UBI (your second point) is a common idea advocated by many people other than Bill Murray.

This is the first time I've heard it described as white supremacy and eugenics although I'm sure it won't be the last.

Which of those do you think is more likely to draw a large audience? That's the one that will be more common.

"yet"

They've been trying since 2014. Somehow it never seems to happen.

I'd say the people who have invested time, forethought, and organization into how to evade law enforcement are scarier.

No official ministry, but the private parties appear to be acting with a great deal of coordination.

If you’re worried about giving programmers too many options, R is already a nightmarish lost cause...

Not only that, but in many cases conformity to group ideas will lead to better outcomes than individual thinking. The world is complicated, and you as an individual probably don't really have the time or brain resources to figure it all out from scratch. But group norms have evolved over time, incorporating the experiences and knowledge of many people. See [1] for many examples.

Of course, in the modern world group norms may not have caught up with our rapidly changing environment, so there are likely to be more cases where individual thinking can improve things. There should clearly be a balance between following the group and thinking for yourself; neither is good on its own.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Our-Success-Evolution-Domestic...

Discussions about censorship like this tend to take a sort of God’s eye view—-should we have censorship or not, as if ny of us get to decide and implement whatever we want.

Here’s a more practical question. Suppose there are two alternative social networks, one censored and one uncensored. Which one would gain market share?

Which is to say, this debate may not be settled via argumentation. But rather, the technical viability of uncensored networks, plus people’s free choices, may mean that we don’t get to decide at all.

The context is helpful; it shows that her claim is even more unjustified.

While it sounds difficult for her, I can't imagine how Google's behavior here amounts to not acknowledging someone's humanity.

> "civility" is not objective/neutral, often relies on codifying the norms of a dominant majority, and also preserves the status quo.

In this case, the norm in question was respectful argumentation grounded in empirical evidence. Why does it matter that that norm belongs to a dominant majority?