@DinoInNameOnly's banner p

DinoInNameOnly

Wow, imagine if this situation was reversed

0 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 06 17:23:50 UTC

I sometimes write about whatever I find interesting. Software Engineer by day. Rationalist-adjacent, I guess.

Verified Email

				

User ID: 873

DinoInNameOnly

Wow, imagine if this situation was reversed

0 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 06 17:23:50 UTC

					

I sometimes write about whatever I find interesting. Software Engineer by day. Rationalist-adjacent, I guess.


					

User ID: 873

Verified Email

If you Google "cheating scandal" right now, Google can't figure out which story you want. There's like six different things you could be looking for.

  1. Pro Poker Rocked By Alleged Cheating Scandal Where Winner Repaid $269K To Loser

  2. Chess Investigation Finds That U.S. Grandmaster ‘Likely Cheated’ More Than 100 Times

  3. Fishermen nearly won a tournament. Then weights were found in the fish.

  4. Nia Long’s Fiance Ime Udoka Suspended From the Boston Celtics Amid Cheating Scandal

  5. The Try Guys Release YouTube Video Laying Out Exact Timeline of Ned Fulmer Cheating Scandal

  6. Adam Levine Returns to the Stage After Cheating Scandal With Support From Wife Behati Prinsloo

First of all, obviously these are two different kinds of cheating. The first three are people gaining unfair advantage in competitions and the latter are men having sex with women other than their wives. But I think it's defensible to discuss these together. After all, there's a reason we use the same word for both behaviors. Both are a major ethical breach where one person gains an unfair advantage at something by breaching an agreement.

(If we broaden the scope to "ethics-related controversy" we can throw in the recent chaos on Twitch over gambling and an alleged sexual assault coverup to this list.)

Is it schizophrenic to suggest that maybe it isn't a coincidence that this is happening at the same time? It kind of sounds insane, obviously it's a coincidence. But I don't know, sometimes it just feels like there's something "in the water" culturally and there are suddenly similar things happening in many places at once. An example of this is how sexual harassment/assault/etc. accusations tend to come in waves against many people all around the same time. Another example is just about everything that happened in June 2020. But in those cases I think the explanation is that a political movement that had been gaining steam for a long time is behind the phenomenon and the fact that the media is paying attention to it fuels more activism in a positive feedback loop. In this case there's no political movement and it's not clear how e.g. Magnus Carlsen withdrawing from a tournament over suspected would make it more likely for a fishing tournament organizer to decide to cut open some suspiciously heavy fish in the same sense that Harvey Weinstein getting canceled for rape makes more women share stories of sexual assault in Hollywood or one statue getting torn down leads to activists to try to tear more down.

Maybe this is actually normal, and there are always this many cheating scandals going on? If so, what were the ones from before? I heard of all of these stories, and I didn't hear about any from 2022 before September. Maybe this is a media phenomenon where cheating scandals are getting more attention now because there are no other major stories to take up the oxygen? If there were any cheating scandals coming out in, say, the month after Russia invaded Ukraine, or the beginning of the Covid pandemic, or the weeks before a presidential election, they probably wouldn't get much attention because there's just more important things to talk about. But none of that is happening now, so the media is free to focus on the Try Guys and it bubbles up to my awareness in a way it wouldn't otherwise. Maybe there's somehow a cultural energy towards exposing cheating, and for some reason people in many domains are turning their attention to it.

Or maybe I'm being crazy and it's a coincidence. I don't know. I'd be curious to read what other people think of all this.

So... What happened with net neutrality? It's been 5 years since the FCC voted to repeal it in 2017. Net neutrality supporters promised a dystopia where small businesses and individuals are throttled by ISPs, and consumers have to pay for each website separately.

As far as I can tell... That didn't happen? Nothing happened? Did it even matter? I must be missing something, why would anyone bother trying to repeal or keep net neutrality if it doesn't make a difference? Biden apparently made an executive order in July 2021 asking the FCC to restore net neutrality, but they haven't done it. The Wikipedia article doesn't have much on what happened after 2017 other than legal developments (on the national level, there were two failed congressional laws and a failed lawsuit by Mozilla to restore net neutrality).

They say “the worst thing she can say is no” but I asked a woman who I’m sorta friends with on a date via text and she read the message but hasn’t responded for 11 days and that’s so much worse than “no.”

I’m pretty sure I didn’t do anything wrong but I guess I just want feedback on this message as a sanity check.

Hi [name]

I just want to say that I think you're really kind and intelligent and interesting and pretty and I'd like to go on a date with you some time if you're interested.

If not, it's not a big deal, we can pretend this didn't happen and keep being friends lol

I’m astonished that anyone ever managed to date without dating apps.

I’m a 25-year-old man. This year I have been living a very social, outgoing lifestyle. To explain what I mean by that, this is what I’ve done in the past month.

  1. I went to 4 concerts
  2. I went to a friend’s birthday party
  3. I went to 8 Meetup events. Most of them were with a group called “20 somethings in [city]” that mainly does happy hours but I also went to a few board game events and an improv session.
  4. I hosted 2 game nights myself.
  5. I informally gathered with friends at bars 2 times
  6. I went rock climbing with friends 2 times
  7. I went to a haunted house with some friends.

These weren’t all with the same friends. I have lots of friends and I make new ones fairly often.

I’m hoping to eventually find a girlfriend, and other than dating apps it’s common advice to be very social and meet new people. I do. (Not only for this reason, I also like it.)

The problem is the demographics of those friends. I made a spreadsheet of everyone I’ve done social activities with lately and it was like 70% men and 25% women who are in relationships. Even though it was like 60-70 people, only a handful were single women. And of course being single and female is not the only criteria for being a good match for me. I’ve still yet to go out with a woman I didn’t meet online.

I don’t really understand how anyone did this in the Before Times because I don’t really think my situation is that unusual. I think it’s normal for a man to have more male friends than female friends and it’s also normal for many people in their mid 20s to be in relationships.

For people who regularly find or used to find people to date by means other than dating apps / the Internet, how does it actually work? Is my problem that my milieu is really unusual for having a low ratio of single women? Or is meeting people to date at general social activities unusual for everyone, and “cold approaches” more common than I’d assumed?

It looks like a developer finally got around to hiding scores for 24 hours on this site (Thanks, FatherInire). I'm curious if people thought that the scores being shown immediately changed how they interacted with or saw the forum. For me it made things feel a lot more confrontational and higher-stakes, I'm glad we're hiding scores again. Immediately visible scores encourages dog-piling and "ratio-ing" in my opinion which goes against the goal of this forum.

Just got a RemindMe message from January and want to follow up on it. On January 3, one of @Highlandclearances's predictions for 2022 was that all mask and vaccine mandates in Western countries would be lifted by September. They said:

90% All mask and vaccine mandates in all Western countries will lift by September. 30% by June.

I said:

If you’re taking bets I’d take this one at even odds. This seems so extremely unlikely to me that it’s hard to believe you mean it.

They said:

I do. I think the median voter in most countries has pivoted from concern about Covid to exhaustion fairly rapidly. Even the most risk-averse people I know personally now want full reopening. Eventually power hungry governments will deliver reopening especially once vaccines are approved for children under 5 and there is no further milestone to justify waiting for before the end state is reached.

That said, I have a charitable view that governments are not using Covid to arrogate permanent powers and restrictions. I think very soon, if not now, their incentives from the public will flip to normalize as fast as possible and away from being biased toward social desirability (being seen to do more rather than less).

It's true that many mandates have ended. But they said all mandates would be lifted, and the US still has a mandate for healthcare workers to be vaccinated against covid. The Pentagon also has a vaccine mandate. Many colleges also mandate covid vaccines. I think I was right. I'd be curious to hear what Highlandclearance thinks they got wrong in this prediction.

(This feels like a mean callout post, but that's not my intention. I greatly respect people who are willing to go out on a limb and make falsifiable predictions. I didn't have a list of a bunch of 2022 predictions, so I recognize that there is some unfair asymmetry here.)

How did partnered Mottizens meet their partners? I appreciate all responses but more detail is more interesting, e.g. “we sat next to each other in our second year chemical engineering course and bonded by venting about our terrible professor” is more interesting than “college.”

Sometimes I wonder if maybe nothing in the culture has really changed at all and it just feels different to me because I'm older now and paying attention to politics more than I used to. Then I'm confronted with strong evidence that no, it's not all in my head, something important really has changed in recent years.

The most recent such thing: Cyberchase. Cyberchase is a children's show that airs on PBS Kids that premiered in 2002. I have fond memories of it and it was probably the only PBS show that I was still willing to watch as a child even after I figured out how TV remotes worked and discovered Nickelodeon.

Cyberchase is focused on exposing children to mathematical concepts in a way that is entertaining enough to hold their attention and presented at a level they can grasp. The way each episode works is that the villain, Hacker, tries to hack the Motherboard (the AI that controls the computers that run "Cyberspace", i.e. the Internet) in some way every episode and three kids, Matt, Jackie, and Inez (ages 9-11) have to thwart him. Along the way, they learn about some mathematical concept that helps them stop Hacker.

My favorite episode is Season 2 episode 10, "Raising the Bar," which is about bar graphs. It has stuck in my memory all this time because it blew my child mind when I saw it the first time, and also because I think its lesson is one of the most important for everyone to know. Hacker impersonates an exterminator and releases bugs in a cyberspace library instead of killing them. The children suspect this when they discover an unusual number of bugs in one section of the library, and they create a bar graph to show the library administrator. But Hacker presents his own bar graph that suggests the bug problem is minimal in every section, which calms the administrator. The kids are stumped until they realize that Hacker had changed the scale on the Y-Axis and deliberately left off the labels in order to make all the bars look small. They point this out to the library administrator, finally convince her, and save the day. To this day, I still think of this Cyberchase episode when I see a misleading data visualization.

One thing I love about Cyberchase is its faith in young children's ability to grasp complex concepts if they're presented well. It airs on PBS Kids, which has a target audience of children ages 2-8 but sometimes addresses concepts that are not taught to average students until high school. The list of topics goes beyond more basic concepts like multiplication and fractions and includes algebra, growth by doubling (i.e. exponential growth), data prediction, probability, symmetry, and 3D geometry. In its most ambitious episodes, the show targeted at 8-year-olds introduces game theory by having the kids find a solution for Nim, and introduces mathematical proofs by having them prove that it's not possible to make a triangle out of any three rods.

In a children's programming landscape dominated by shows that only prioritize entertainment and in a country whose school system often stunts and demoralizes its most curious and motivated students, Cyberchase is a gem. It introduces complex concepts to children at a level they can understand, and it does so while remaining genuinely entertaining and funny. Probably it has sparked a curiosity in many children that their basic arithmetic lessons couldn't, and helped them to grasp complex concepts more quickly when they encountered them years later in school. Probably it has played a role in encouraging more people to enter STEM fields and help us build the future. I know it did for me. In short, it's a great kids show, in my opinion one of the best ever.

...Well, it was, anyway. The focus of Cyberchase has shifted since its inception in 2002. All of the episodes I've listed so far have been from the show's first 5 seasons, which aired from 2002-2007 and were the ones most focused on math lessons. In seasons 6-8 (2007-10), many of the episodes focused on uses of math in real-world contexts like sports and weather, still a very worthy topic IMO but less rigorous than the concept-heavy topics in the earlier seasons. After season 8 ended in 2010, the series when on a three year hiatus and returned with a new director (J. Meeka Stuart replaced Brandon Lloyd) for season 9 in 2013. This is where the focus of the series really shifted. In the first episode, "An Urchin Matter," the kids save a kelp-bed ecosystem by releasing the sea otters that Hacker has captured because the sea otters are a keystone species that keeps the ecosystem balanced by eating sea urchins. In the second episode, they build a bunch of solar panels to light a skate park after Hacker's minions sabotage the power plant. In the third, they need to clear a giant trash heap that threatens to break through a certain cybersite's dome.

I'm sure you've noticed the pattern. The goal of the new Cyberchase, under the direction of Stuart, is no longer primarily to teach kids math. Its goal is to teach kids to be environmentalists. You can look at all the episode titles on the list and see that from season 9 onward every episode is about environmentalism.

There's still some math content. The solar panel episode, for example, has several moments where the kids multiply two numbers together to decide how many solar panels they need. Here's the first such moment, and the second. But in the first scene, one of the characters just says the answer, and in the second, one of them literally uses a calculator. There's no explanation of how to multiply numbers together, and no deeper exploration of the topic. One could argue that the focus of this episode is multiplication, but it sure feels like a shoehorned-in afterthought to me. Compare that scene to this one from Season 1 episode 19 that actually explains how to multiply.

I watched other episodes of season 9 while researching this post and everything I saw is like this. They use some kind of math concept somewhere but don't really explain, and they quickly move on to get back to the environmentalism. It feels like the sort of thing you would do if you wanted to make a show about environmentalism but you were hired to make a show about math.

Later episodes seem to have gotten even lighter on the math. I watched all of season 11 episode 5 and there weren't even any moments like that, it was all about the kids building a wind mill.

A lot of the focus of new Cyberchase seems like relatively uncontroversial stuff about how recycling is good or invasive species are bad, and some of it is scientifically educational. Remarkably, I couldn't find any references to climate change or global warming. I don't agree with all of the messages, in particular I think its treatment of solar and wind energy is biased. But setting all that aside, my argument is not that environmentalism is bad or that kids shows about environmentalism are bad. My argument is that environmentalism is not what Cyberchase was supposed to be about. I would feel the same way if it was turned in a show dedicated to pushing a message I 100% agreed with. There's no denying that when the show restarted in 2013, it was a different show what it was in 2010. Probably it will still encourage some kids to enter STEM fields, especially biology and environmental science. But what it won't do is teach them math concepts in a way that will help them actually succeed in those fields, especially the math-heavier ones like physics. It also probably won't be as effective at creating intellectual curiosity in kids like me, who was fascinated with logic puzzles like Nim, but wouldn't have been as interested in a story about building a wind mill.

Some might say that after 8 years of teaching math, Cyberchase was out of math topics and needed to pivot to something else. I completely disagree. It might have exhausted the purest math topics, but there's loads of math-adjacent topics it has never touched on. They could have had age-appropriate episodes about programming, logic gates, electricity, opinion surveys, genetics (despite the show's recent focus on biology, it never touches on genetics), space, optics, magnets, the law of supply and demand, airplanes, and so many more things. The new show is focused almost entirely on environmental science and a little biology and ignores physics, chemistry, computer science, astronomy, economics, and statistics. You might say that doing all of those things would be too much and it had to pick one subject, but the show seems to have exhausted all of the topics in environmental science a while ago and become repetitive. There are three different episodes about building gardens, for example (s10e3, s12e4, s13e10), and three about trash (s9e3, s12e1, s13e7). Also, I don't think repeating math topics would have been that bad. Approaching the same topic from a slightly different angle might help some kids grasp it better than they did the first time. This doesn't really apply to the message "trash is bad," which everyone can pretty much get the first time.

I guess that’s all I have to say. Cyberchase was amazing and now it’s just okay, and I’m sad.

Do you have kids? I think that's the thing that can cause more friction. For example, what do you do if your ten year old girl comes home from school and says she's a boy now? Not talking about politics isn't really an option anymore.

What is gained by censoring it? It's just letters arranged in a particular order, they can't hurt you. Treating words as though there mere utterance (even when just mentioning them) somehow causes harm is quasi-religious and stupid.

So why do young women hate conservative men?

Young women don't hate conservative men. Liberal young women hate conservative men (and conservative women), but conservative young women like conservative men. The majority of young women are liberal, as are the majority of young men. Conservative young men outnumber conservative young women, but not by very much. In 2020, 47% of people under 30 who voted for Trump were women.1 To the extent that this dating app is suffering from an imbalance of male and female users, it's probably for the same reasons that all dating apps suffer from that problem.

1 I calculated this number using exit polls. For men, there were 7,457 total respondents of whom 16% were under 30 and 41% of those voted Trump, for a total of 489. For women, there were 8,096 total respondents of whom 17% were under 30 and 32% of those voted Trump, for a total of 440. 440 / (489 + 440) = 47%.

Like who?

What's the limiting principle for this? Lots of people can be upset or offended by all sorts of things.

What if I find it offensive and upsetting when people censor words instead of spelling them out?

I think maybe they meant to add a count of how many children a comment has, like it does on Reddit

There's tons of protest music now, just like there's tons of all other kinds of music now. There's so much music being made now that it's not possible to keep track of it all. The question isn't "why isn't anyone making protest music?" it's "why isn't protest music very popular?" My take is that in such a hyper-competitive environment, nothing reaches the level of popularity required for the average Magusoflight to be aware of it except the most hyper-optimized pop music.

A few examples:

How often do you spend time socially with somebody 1-1 who is not a family member or someone you’re dating? What do you do, and how do you initiate the interaction?

I realized that I basically never do this since I graduated college, and wondering what other people’s experiences are.

Unemployed for a while before I start my next job. I’m staying with family and I’ve ruled out significant travel because I want to spend time with them. But I won’t be glued to them 24/7 so I have a lot of free time. How should I spend it? More importantly, how do I hold myself to whatever I decide to do instead of watching YouTube all day?

The report comment button is grayed out and clicking it doesn't do anything.

/images/16643033872165518.webp

I’d be more comfortable contributing money if I was confident it would be spent responsibly. Some kind of regular financial report or other kind of transparency would go a long way towards that.

Average Twitch viewership increased by around 80% from 1.4M to 2.5M between February 2020 and April 2020. It never really went back down. In September 2022, it's still around 2.5M. I think a lot of people dramatically shifted their day-to-day habits during the lockdowns and never went back.

Thank you. She’s not a big texter AFAICT and the most likely thing that happened was that she read this and thought about it for 30 seconds and forgot to reply because she was in the middle of something and had other more urgent messages which really isn’t that bad, but I can’t help overthinking.

I haven’t heard this before. Do you have any link about this?

A difference between Gawker and Alex Jones is that Gawker is a company and Alex Jones is an individual. What that means is that Gawker can file for bankruptcy as a company and leave much the personal wealth of the individuals involved out of it. The individual who published Hogan's sex tape, A. J. Daulerio, did not have his life ruined and pretty much carried on as usual; He went on to found a website and newsletter called The Small Bow. The individual who founded Gawker, Nick Denton, was "only" on the hook for $10M personally (this sounds like a lot but remember it's 1% of what Alex Jones was fined for) and is apparently running a venture called Dialog Engineers.

This seems plausible, but can you provide any evidence for this claim?