suoduandao2

If the problem of gaming the system could be gotten around, something very similar to internet comments could work - anyone can post a public review of anyone's work, in which case reputation would become the currency. Successfully criticizing someone with higher reputation than yourself would gain more status than praising them, but also come with more risk. It would also make it a lot less meaningful to get those 'not new ideas lol' comments that others on this thread have complained of.

I quite like the fact that whatever someone says on the internet now, the first comment is usually the best-argued counterpoint. It seems like a dynamic that could be brought to science quite well. I may not have the time to parse an entire paper in a field unfamiliar to me, but if I come across it and the top comment is 'there's a math error in table 6 that throws paragraph 4 into doubt', I can certainly verify that for myself. That sort of 'peer' review would make science much more accessible to the interested layperson.

Thanks! I've had the idea of writing a scientific theory in this format, and having a hard time with how I'd do it. maybe choicescript would be helpful in that regard!

Can you share a counterexample?

eh, my office has strong wfh policy and lots of young families, but I can still tell who's young and single - it's the ones volunteering for overtime whenever the call goes out. And that's really what I as a manager care about, not whether someone's entertaining their kids while the code compiles. Maybe it's different at google, but there are plenty of accidental reasons an org would age discriminate as well.

Different people require different levels of social interaction. I'm one of those people who require less than the average. Once I had the opportunity to work from home I spent quite a bit more time socializing outside of work than before - not because I had insufficient socialization now, but because I had more energy to put into cultivating those freindships I cared about. Working from an office I was constantly burnt out entertaining my co-workers who required more socialization than I did, and couldn't make time for the friends of my choice.

I see 'mandatory back to the office' talk as a demand by extraverts that their introverted co-workers subsidize their need for social interaction, and I feel resentment at the imposition on my limited social energy. To support a position touting the benefits of workplace socialization I'd need to see it presented with an attitude of 'the option of meeting your co-workers face to face is a costly perk I hope many employers will continue to offer', not an entitlement to my friendship.

The science on gluten is ongoing and controversial, but the position I believe will ultimately be vindicated is that some people seem to derive no ill effects while many others develop a mild allergy to it, which can fly under the radar and lead to all sorts of chronic inflammation issues if the person keeps eating it. As a result, there's no 'standard safe dosage' of gluten, some people become violently ill if they encounter a trace, others (myself included) find a lot of seemingly unconnected annoyances clear up if they avoid it for a few weeks. Excess weight gain seems to be one of those, though in my case the major symptom was actually an excessively fast metabolism.

Yes, but when people slack off in the office, they generally do so by engaging someone else in conversation. So slacking off in the office is ruins two people's productivity as opposed to one. Making it harder to slack off feels virtuous, but it's like criminalizing drugs to combat organized crime.

The hybrid varieties bred in the late 50's have about 50x the amount of gluten as previous strains of wheat did.

The bun probably causes inflammation/leaky gut for a lot more people than area aware it does. Modern wheat is a weird organism.

Okay fair, but I can still fork a project if I don't like how the rich are acting in it, and the value of the resulting project is entirely down to who decides to come with me - that seems pretty democratic as well. Web3 democracies do still devolve into oligarchies as they inevitably do, but the reigning oligarchs have fewer ways of preventing competition from new projects than in the current model.

You'd probably come across better if you avoided having both russophobia and bigoteering in one post. One or the other would just imply you have strong opinions, both implies something much less value-neutral.

If the last line was self-criticism reflecting that the russophobia is inconsistent with OP's request I apologize, that's not clear from your wording.

Well, yes. And the best military is so good at its job that it never needs to do it.

I'm sure there's a term for the slight problem that someone who's good at a job usually wants to do it - the Praetorian Paradox maybe?

Thank you! Never heard of Freenet but it sounds like an answer to my question.

Regarding your protections - I'd say anonymity is still the #1 protection in most online environments. Of course, adding money adds 'skin in the game', but you have a lot more control over how much of your identity you want to risk on any one manifesto.

>This statement is essentially saying "the entire field is bad at their job".

Well, are there academic historians who dispute that fact?

Whether you think it's an insincere sales tactic or not is immaterial to my question, which was, is anyone else trying the same sales tactic?

If a particular set of ideals are being used in marketing for only one space, that space is going to attract people who care about those ideals. Currently I see those people flocking to Web3, if there's an alternative I'd be interested to hear about it.

Do you see the underlying desire for Web3 (true democracy) being served anywhere else? There is certainly an eternal September problem in the space, and unfortunately many incentives to fleece the freshmen, but do you know of an alternative for those of us who believe in the ideals?

It also involves the kind of targeted propaganda that turns families against each other over their voting preferences... and I suspect we haven't seen the worst of it yet.

It's fun to imagine what would happen if Stewart Butterfield was given the rights to Half-life 3...

Judging by the US's price/outcome ratio compared to other developed nations, a little over half[1].

[1]https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2022/07/how-does-the-us-healthcare...

If you dislike decentralization, why not just use chrome?

I think it was one of the US founding fathers that said, "The primary responsibility of a democracy is the education of its citizenry".

It sounds like Bay area residents are working against their own interests (home values) by reducing housing supply, thereby making their city so unlivable that home values will collapse anyway. Getting people to see the problem and vote accordingly may be difficult, but it doesn't seem completely impossible.

Alcohol might be a bad example since it does lead to lowered inhibitions and, depending on the environment, often more brawling or risky driving than would happen without it.

The key here is probably the 'depending on the environment' bit. Hashish used to be closely associated with political assassinations, now... not so much. But it could be again, given the right(?) culture.

>they far more regularly act "decisively" to make things worse, to crush freedoms, to cover up their own corruption, etc.

That's why Democracy is the worst form of government excluding the alternatives. But it would be nice to have a democratic government that is also capable of acting decisively. I don't have any ideas how you'd do that, but it doesn't seem wrong to express the desire.

Why isn't there more interest in the dirigible launch/landing platform idea? Heck of an engineering feat to construct one of course, but nothing obviously defying the laws of physics and it would get us out of the thicker part of the atmosphere pretty effectively. And a self-landing rocket wouldn't need as much fuel for the return trip because the buoyancy of the landing platform would absorb some of the shock.

Cable news may be a bad example if we're talking about positive value delivered to society. But how much of the health benefits from modern sanitation are modern pharmaceuticals taking credit for? It seems an unreliable value proposition, particularly given how many new medications study-shop when comparing against existing ones.

Do you have an alternate theory to explain the correlation?

So many great products have been hamstrung by designing for the nearest-term metrics available. I don't understand why so many highly intelligent people keep making the same obvious (to the consumer) mistake.

I'm not sure younger people do age into a social media product. To give an example, I'm about the youngest (~35) that my cohort still uses facebook. people slightly younger than myself (~30) tend to use whatsapp and google calendar for the useful functions of Facebook and instagram for doomscrolling. They have no reason to switch, except if someone slightly older is 'pulling' them towards the platform. But the only time I've seen that happen is on facebook marketplace, where they're interacting primarily with strangers.

I don't think social media is like a minivan, where a different lifestyle suddenly makes it make sense to switch. People are on social media for the other people that are there, I don't see the incentive the other people would have to migrate at a certain age, seems more likely they'd change how they use it (as indeed happened with Facebook). Maybe I'm misunderstanding your premise?

Which game you play is certainly a factor. If you like composing original music that may be a game worth playing even if the odds are no better than an actual lottery.

Right, but you can't jump to the top of the charts without sticking the donk on the boing first (I assume that means uploading an original track?). I've seen a lot of references to the role luck plays in success, and I don't mean to diminish that role, but you can't get lucky without putting yourself out there. Sticking a donk on a boing takes real effort, as does any other 'shot on net' that one might take.