67IsTheNew69
No bio...
User ID: 4109
67IsTheNew69
11d ago
I enjoy that the DNC can't even agree on what the outcome of the 2024 election was. From page 17:
Democrats netted two seats in the House, flipping ten seats from the Republicans while losing eight.
[Red box: Data appears to be inaccurate and contradicts public reporting.]
The Wikipedia article "2024 United States House of Representatives elections" is also confused about these numbers in a few places (e.g. the values in the "By state" results table don't actually add up to the stated totals), I think maybe because it's not sure how to handle the fact that George Santos had been replaced by a Democrat in a special election earlier that year, but even it doesn't actually say that Democrats flipped 10 seats. (The generally accepted narrative seems to be that they only flipped 9 seats, for a net gain of 1.)
67IsTheNew69
28d ago
I think a more straightforward way to notice that this scenario detaches P(heads|you just woke up) from the optimal betting strategy is to compare it to the following scenario:
Some researchers flip a coin without showing you the result. On Monday, they interview you about the coin and ask you to make bets about its status. Then, on Tuesday, if the result was tails, the researchers play the videotape of your interview from Monday and perform all your bets a second time on your behalf.
Here, your belief that the coin landed on tails should clearly be 0.5 even given the condition that you're currently being interviewed. But if you make any bets, you need to keep in mind that they'll be executed twice in the tails condition. The optimal strategy is the same as in the original Sleeping Beauty problem, since that problem supposes that you were going to do the same thing on both days anyway. (That strategy is not as straightforward as "assign probability 0.6667 to tails" if you can bet things like "all the money currently in my checking account" rather than just fixed dollar amounts.)
So within the problem, the concept of "credence" is not as broadly applicable as it normally is; the conditional probability is different from the optimal betting odds (and those odds themselves differ based on details of the bet). You can either stick to the conditional-probability definition, say that the odds are 0.5 (0.6667 in the original problem), and not use that value for any practical purpose. Or you can say "I think there is a 50% chance that the coin is tails, and if that is the case any actions I take will happen twice", which is a more useful fact to know when strategizing.
67IsTheNew69
1mo ago
I'd say my health is decent. Like many people, I should maybe exercise a little more and eat a few more fruits and vegetables. As it is I take a multivitamin and walk thousands of steps a day, and have no ongoing medical issues or concerns.
I wouldn't say I get tired easily or feel exhausted all the time. I spend a lot of time and energy on leisure activities, but I do find long social engagements (multi-hour dinner parties etc) pretty uniquely exhausting. My guess is that I'm not used to those kinds of events so need to spend a lot of mental energy analyzing what's going on and figuring out what I'm supposed to do; that and I tend to act a lot more energetic and outgoing than usual when I'm around other people.
67IsTheNew69
1mo ago
The blue button is the optimal choice here. Either it gets 50% of the vote and nothing happens, or it fails and I get to go to Heaven, because risking my own life to save the lives of all the people who don't understand Monty Hall problems is the ultimate act of self-sacrifice.
67IsTheNew69
1mo ago
67IsTheNew69
1mo ago
I really appreciate the insight here. Personally I think that I am genuinely good with how things are, but people sometimes express mild concern about my lifestyle, in a "you really should get that mole checked out" kind of way.
To your point about culture, I do think part of it might be that society sees Internet activity as not really being "real" social interaction, even though hanging out on a forum is probably filling the same psychological need that hanging out at a pub would've done.
67IsTheNew69
1mo ago
All of my grandparents had pretty severe dementia, so I think I'm cooked no matter what I do. I'm just hoping my country gets MAID / right-to-die sorted out in time.
67IsTheNew69
1mo ago
Is "schizoid personality disorder" a real thing that the medical industry can help me with? I did some psychometric testing a while ago and was told I might have that -- I suspect primarily based on some questionnaire responses where I indicated that I was content with not really having any friends or engaging in any social activities. (I still mostly feel that way, but it's a bit of a panic whenever I need to scrounge up an emergency contact or a personal reference for something, and I sometimes wonder if it's like one of those Mr. Beast videos where a guy sees color for the first time and can finally appreciate the full richness and beauty of human existence.)
67IsTheNew69
1mo ago
as far as I know, Google was never a major provider of the game in the first place
The game wasn't available on Android (or iOS) at all until four months ago. I remember it doing pretty well when it came out -- I think it hit a million downloads -- but not nearly as well as the original Steam/Itch release back in 2017.
67IsTheNew69
1mo ago
Unfortunately the mobile and console versions of DDLC compromise pretty heavily on the
I almost think it's a net good to take down the mobile version of DDLC, if it directs more people towards the superior original PC version. (Of course, that's definitely not why Google took it down, and Google's actual reasons are probably bad enough to merit opposing this move regardless of its immediate effects.)
67IsTheNew69
2mo ago
I've heard that videos under ~5 minutes become shorts which don't get monetized
There was some panic over this in the early days of Shorts when YouTube was retroactively, non-consensually converting existing videos into Shorts, but these days, YouTube is pretty clear that only vertical/square videos less than 3 minutes in length become Shorts. So as long as your video is shaped like a normal video, it can be as short as you want without getting the Shorts treatment.
You can technically monetize Shorts now too, but I've heard it's not as lucrative as traditional videos.
67IsTheNew69
2mo ago
I wanna say it was around 2020-ish when YouTube changed their algorithm to put a lot less weight on channels' upload record / consistency and a lot more weight on individual videos' watch-time. (Hard to know for sure because all information about the YouTube algorithm is buried under a mountain of "how do I get rich on YouTube" slop articles.) Previously the dominant strategy was to release a lot of short, punchy videos, ideally on a daily release schedule; Captain Disillusion griped about that in his 2018 parody video. But by 2021, creators like Quinton Reviews were seeing success with five-hour monstrosities that were actually just a bunch of shorter videos combined into one upload for algorithm purposes.
"Short daily video" YouTubers and "long infrequent effortpost" YouTubers have both existed on the platform for a long time (and still exist), but now that long videos are a popular/successful format, I see a lot more low-effort attempts at making them. It doesn't help that YouTube Shorts (and TikTok) provide a better path to success for people interested in making short videos.
67IsTheNew69
2mo ago
In court you must pay deference to the judge (who, being very high class indeed, is often very disrespectful- “I just can’t with that history.” I wanted to jump her too.)
This is tangential to your main point, but I found a video clip on Reddit with more context, and it seems like the judge was responding to the defendant's lawyer saying "I think the court can trust that he will perform well on probation" (at about 6:30 in the video). So I think she was trying to straightforwardly say "I just can't trust [that he will perform well on probation] given his history", and wasn't, like, invoking Tumblr slang to disparage his criminal record.
67IsTheNew69
3mo ago
I think if the government gave out a few standardized food items to every benefits recipient, that would actually heavily encourage trading. They'd basically be minting a currency, except instead of coins that all contain the same amount of silver, it's bags that all contain the same amount of Kraft cheese product or whatever. There'd be big opportunities to take those items and smuggle them back into the regular supply chain en masse for cash, or sell them to people who want a reliable source of cheap Kraft cheese product.
Ideally, if you want to prevent trading, you want to give people stuff that seems valuable to those people, but worthless to everyone else. So they're incentivized to consume the items themselves rather than try to sell them. The mushroom "superfoods" described in OP actually seem like a excellent example of this principle in action.
67IsTheNew69
3mo ago
Another factor is that benefits are only sent out on certain days of the month. (Looks like in California it's the 1st through the 10th depending on your account number.) So you're more likely to see people using EBT on those days, or the weekends after those days, especially if people are doing the responsible thing and planning out a single big shopping trip to get all the stuff they need for the month.
67IsTheNew69
3mo ago
I followed the citations, and the "sexual aggression scale" the researchers used in their questionnaire involves asking questions with five possible answers ranging from "not at all likely" to "very likely". However, they got that 30% statistic by re-coding the answers as either "yes" or "no".
So this seems like the classic social-science trick where you inflate the number of "yes" responses to a question by providing one answer choice that means "no" and four answer choices that all mean "yes". And because they asked about both "rape" and "forcing a female to do something sexual she didn't want to", you get the bias where people want to answer that one is less likely than the other.
(The "Materials and Methods" section of the paper makes clear that the "something sexual" wording was what they actually asked on the questionnaire. The researchers seem to have paraphrased that as "force a woman to sexual intercourse" in their results, which also seems kind of misleading.)
67IsTheNew69
3mo ago
The dates given in the Wikipedia article for the incident suggest that the victim was about 59 years old at the start of the incident, and it continued until she was about 68.
Where I'm from, I think that'd be called "old age". And to @ActuallyATleilaxuGhola's point above, it seems like a stage of life where it'd be pretty normal to have a lot of unexplained aches and pains.
67IsTheNew69
3mo ago
I'm not a lawyer, but your proposed workflow sounds a lot like "CC a lawyer on an email conversation that you don't actually need to involve a lawyer in, solely so that you can claim attorney-client privilege on the whole conversation". That's something that big companies like Google have tried, but judges don't look very kindly on it: https://www.reuters.com/technology/landmark-google-ruling-warning-companies-about-preserving-evidence-2024-08-06/
67IsTheNew69
3mo ago
I do suspect Scott himself leans quite a bit further to the left on this issue (after all, he's managed to survive living in the San Francisco Bay Area), but the post does a good job describing the "bailey" version of the position that's more palatable to moderates.
67IsTheNew69
3mo ago
Indeed, the core argument of https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-made-for-man-not-man-for-the-categories/ is that using preferred pronouns is something you should to do to "make a little effort to be nice to people," in the same way that you might tell a little white lie to spare your friend's feelings (or, in the example that Scott uses, humor someone who jokingly declares himself Emperor of the United States).
A journalist reporting on a mass murderer probably doesn't owe them the same level of social nicety.
67IsTheNew69
3mo ago
I think OP is trying to recount his impressions as someone who stumbled onto Gamergate in, say, 2016 or so. Especially if you're a kid with a poor sense of time who hasn't looked into the details, I think it's fair that you might've gotten the impression that it had been going on for longer than it really had been.
A bunch of stuff that happened prior to The Zoe Post, like the backlash to the 2012 "Tropes vs Women" Kickstarter, kind of ended up getting rolled into "Gamergate" in retrospect -- people on both sides saw value in either joining the popular/trending movement, or painting all their critics as members of the same hate group.
I think this gets to the heart of the argument that the original tweet is making: the "egg cracking" movement also carries the same sort of implicit assumption that transitioning will turn you into someone attractive. It only takes a bit of scrolling through /r/egg_irl/top listings to find memes about how trans is when you want to be a hot anime waifu or pretty video-game princess.
This fallacy works even if people's perception of what a "woman" is is more realistic. If you're in the half of men that are below average attractiveness, and you imagine that transitioning will make you more like some composite image of what a typical woman is like (i.e., average attractiveness), that's still a positive change.
Those same men would also buy a button that magically transformed them into a man, if not for the fact that they are already men, and thus the expected outcome of the button is "nothing happens" rather than "I become what you'd get if you look up 'man' in a stock photo library".
Your first problem is that LLMs are bad at counting, so trying to get them to count is a waste of time. Instead you should ask it to assign a category to each row, so that you can then use Excel or something to count how many times each category appears.
Depending on how many rows you've got, this might require a multi-step process where you first get the LLM to come up with a list of categories, then assign each item to a category one by one. (Or some other process, such as going one by one through each item and deciding whether it fits in any existing category or requires a new category to be created.) You may need to write a script that calls the LLM's API and uses features like "tools" or "structured output" to force it to follow the process.
You should be prepared to try lots and lots of times until the LLM produces results you're happy with; a good rule of thumb is to spend at least as much time as it would've taken you to complete the task manually.
67IsTheNew69
4mo ago
The drug analogy I'm imagining is a scenario like this:
At a sleepover, one kid starts talking about the thrill of tripping on cold pills - "It's the most amazing high and makes you forget everything." Someone asks him/her how it's done, so they go into the bathroom and find some pills to crush up for a demonstration.
(source is a random worksheet I found on Google, because I couldn't find the one that I was given at school)
It is not necessary for the kid to be lying in this scenario; he/she could be telling the truth about the high, and just not be aware of the potential downsides of abusing cold medicine (or not believe the authority figures who try to tell him/her about them). People can hurt you by being mistaken, even without deliberately lying.
Looking at it another way, Amelia is kind of like the cool uncle who offers you a sip of beer even though you're only 16. Most of society thinks that's totally fine, but the police officer at the D.A.R.E. assembly wants you to know that it's a slippery slope to ruining your life with addiction, DUIs, and a painful, untimely death. I think the term "disinformation" is getting at the same kind of thing: the idea is that people should Just Say No to infohazards dangerous opinions, even if they appear benign or are factually true statements.
The problem for Pathways is that that's a really hard sell. (It was a hard sell for D.A.R.E., but it's an even harder sell for this.) I think a successful version of this story would involve Charlie getting more extreme and radicalized on their own, maybe even to a point where they push Amelia away or hurt her somehow, because the ideas themselves are just that dangerous. But even setting aside that that's a much harder story to write, and as you mention Pathways is too afraid of actually depicting or engaging with those ideas to convincingly portray them as being harmful, the game's creators ultimately wanted it to be a game about doing the "right" thing. You're supposed to choose the options where Charlie decides not to go to the protest and maybe speaks to a counselor about their career concerns. But if the alternative was a long and compelling story about how attending a protest was the first step in a radicalization pipeline that eventually led Charlie to abandon their family and gaming buddies and gruesomely murder Amelia, the "don't do that actually" button would just feel like an early game over.
I know everyone's already piling in to tell you "this is already happening", but... Unless you expect "modern" websites to look dramatically different in 6 years, I'd say websites in Japan are already pretty modern? There are definitely a few Craigslist-style companies out there with outdated design, and there are some differences due to local design taste and language (web fonts are much less practical to use for Japanese text, for example). But overall web design standards haven't changed much ever since the flat design trend took hold a decade ago, and most Japanese organizations have caught up.
Compare www.city.osaka.lg.jp to www.chicago.gov, for example.
More options
Context Copy link