DirtyWaterHotDog
No bio...
User ID: 625
DirtyWaterHotDog
10mo ago
if we engineer ourselves into immortal cyborgs
Hubris of the highest order.
We don't let humans so much as stitch up some skin unless they've gone through a decade of training. We don't let new engineers commit new code, unless they've spent time understanding the base architecture. What makes you think we know enough about what it means to be homo sapiens that we can go replacing entire parts wholesale ?
Just look at the last few decades. We put a whole generation of women on pills that accidentally change that characteristics of which men they're attracted to. The last-gen painkillers caused the biggest drug epidemic in the country. The primary stimulant of the century (cigarettes) was causing early death enmasse. We don't know why there is a detectable difference in immunity between c-section vs natural deliveries, and this is a difference of a few seconds. That's how little we know about these flesh-suits of ours. We have no clue what we're doing.
What's so special about the biped mammal vessel for a mind?
Don't take this the wrong way. What I'm about to say is definitely stereotyping a certain type of person.
But, I only ever see internet neuro-divergents ask these sort of questions. To normies, your question sounds like the equivalent of ,"What's so great about fries?". You'd only ever ask the question if you've never enjoyed a good pack of fries or a equivalent food that makes you feel that special thing. It reveals the absence of a fundamental human experience. To a degree, it reveals that you're less human or at least 'dis-abled'.
I'm entitled. I don't think I need to explain what makes some things special. The first day of the monsoon, petting a puppy, making faces at a toddler, a warm hug, the top of a mountain, soul food, soul music, the first time you hold your child, the last time you hold your parent, the first time a sibling defeats you at a game.
In a way, these unspoken common traits are what makes all of us human. I care about the survival of these consistent 300k-old traits, because I cherish these things. And I believe that a non-human would not be able to. Because we aren't taught to cherish these things. We just do. I don't expect everyone to have experienced all of these, in the same way. Civilizational differences mean that specifics differ. But, the patterns are undeniable.
Why do I care about the authentic experiences of my imperfect body and imperfect mind ? Because that is what it means to be human.
P.S: and I am every bit an atheist. Do I have to believe in divinity to believe in beauty ?
DirtyWaterHotDog
10mo ago
On further thought, I have met more cultists at some of these companies, but a majority (50%+) have been normal. Also, can't exactly scale those anecdotes up.
With that reflection, I'll take back my earlier comment.
DirtyWaterHotDog
10mo ago
Regression to the mean after selection happens because some part of IQ is non-inherited
So it is environmental.
But the answer to both questions is yes.
Wait, wouldn't the contradict your point ?
If it is straight up regression to the mean, then the child of any 2 identical geniuses is just as likely to be a genius as the child of any other 2 geniuses. Because all children of geniuses will regress to the overall mean of mankind at the same rate. (assuming the same environment)
So the answer for both would be 'No'.
I'd phrase my statement as : "Once you control for parents + environment, is the avg IQ of the parents' groups completely irrelevant?".
or
"Obama and Michelle's kids, can be expected to be as smart as a Chinese Obama and Chinese Michelle's kids".
DirtyWaterHotDog
10mo ago
Can you link me to literature on individual vs group contributions to cognitive ability ?
I've heard about regressing to the mean, where top percentile parents will the child's cognitive ability move towards their combined group means, rather than the parental mean.
IE, if:
inherited_iq = a*(mom + dad IQ) + b*(maternal group IQ + paternal group IQ).
Then what would a & b look like ?
Put simply,
-
If 2 geniuses from a low group IQ community have a child, then is the child less likely to be genius than children of other geniuses ?
-
If 2 normies from a group with high group IQ have a child. Is the child more likely to be genius than children of other normies ?
The companies being a cult is a big part of their strategy.
Information secrecy is top notch, everyone willingly works insane hours and you can get engineers to do borderline illegal things (around data privacy and ownership) without being questioned.
I know a few people at Facebook AI research, MSR and (old) Google Brain. They seem normal. But folks at OpenAI, Anthropic & Deep mind are well known to be ..... peculiar (and admittedly smarter than I am).
Paul Graham is the most honest billionaire (low bar) in silicon valley. Paul groomed Sam, gave him a career and eventually fired him. Paul is the most articulate man I know. Read what Paul has to say about Sam, and you'll see a carefully worded pattern. Paul admires Sam, but Sam scares him.
Before I write a few lines shitting on Sam, I must acknowledge that he is scary good. Dude is a beast. The men at the top of silicon valley are sharp and ruthless. You don't earn their respect let alone fear, if you aren't scary good. Reminds me of Kissinger in his ability to navigate himself into power. I've heard similar things about David Sacks. Like Kissinger, many in YC will talk fondly about their interactions with him. Charming, direct, patient and a networking workhorse. He could connect you to an investor, a contact or a customer faster than anyone in the valley.
But, Sam's excellence appears untethered to any one domain. Lots of young billionaires have a clear "vision -> insight -> skill acquisition -> solve hard problems -> make ton of money" journey. But, unlike other young Billionaires, Sam didn't have a baby of his own. He has climbed his way to it, 1 strategic decision at a time. And given the age by which he achieved it, it's fair to call him the best ladder climber of his generation.
Sam's first startup was a failure. He inherited YC, like Sundar inherited Google, and Sam eventually got fired. He built OpenAI, but the core product was a thin layer on top of an LLM. Sam played no part in building the LLM. I had acquaintances joining Deepmind/OpenAI/Fair from 2017-2020, no one cared about Sam. Greg and Ilya were the main pull. Sam's ability to fundraise is second to none, but GPT-3 would have happened with or without him.
I personally, struggle to trust people I consider untethered. MBA types, lawyers turned CEOs, politicians. Top 0.1 percentile autists must excel. In the absence of a grounding domain, they start demonstrating excellence in accumulating Power. Power for power's sake. Sam is a perfect archetype.
Moreover, Sam being a gay childless tech-bro means he isn't naturally incentivized to see the world improve. None of those things are bad on their own. But they don't play well with top 0.1 percentile autists. Straight men soften up overtime, learning empathy from their wife, through osmosis. Gay communities don't get that. Then you have silicon valley tech culture, which is famously insular and lacks a certain worldliness. (even when it is racially diverse). I'll take Sam being married to a 'gay white software engineer' as evidence in favor of my hypothesis. Lastly, he is childless. This means no inherent incentive to making the world a better place. IMO, Top 0.1 percentile autists will devolve into megalomania without a grounding soft touch to keep them sane. Sam is not exception and he is the least grounded of them all. Say what you want about Mark Zuckerberg, but a wife and kids has definitely played a role in humanizing him. Not sure I can say the same for Sam.
DirtyWaterHotDog
10mo ago
My weight has fluctuated 30-ish pounds over the last few years. (24-29 BMI, but semi-muscular. 24 would be ideal)
Nothing affects weight like stress. When things are stable, I find myself steadily losing 2 pounds/month until I settle around a 25 BMI.
But, stability is hard to find. I've changed 4 cities in 2 years & 10 cities in 10 years. There's immigration insecurity, loan payments, familial responsibilities & relationship tensions that can vanish for a few hours....if I allow myself to order fries. I'm no picky eater either. I'm actually an expert cook. But, when everything piles up, I just don't have anything left to give. And fries, fries taste so so good.
some sort of understanding
I like that phrasing. Understand that I know everything I 'should do' if I want to lose weight. But life doesn't happen in isolation. "I have a lot going on right now" is a good enough answer.
I don't want special accommodations.
I don't really care if people think worse of me because I am overweight: I think worse of me for being overweight.
I hate the "healthy at any size" movement and its derivatives.
All I would like to do is point out some of us overweight people don't fall into how you are observing a reality TV show.
100%
DirtyWaterHotDog
10mo ago
Hilarious followup.
Today, J cut myself on an open tin can. I never cut myself on knives because i take the appropriate care. But tins just sit them innocuously until you touch them and they tear you up.
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
These are golden. I'll try internalizing them in my future writing.
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
Football player Tyreek Hill
That's a gross mischaracterization. He was Miami's MVP of 2022. It's like not recognizing Zlatan in Sweden.
which isn’t a given
He was in a mclaren. That's a $400k car. So, the officers should've at least known that he was rich.
In Florida, officers have the right to command you to keep the window low enough for (1) communication and (2) officer safety
The officer asked him to keep his window down. And within the next few seconds, he did. The officer had no reason to escalate, drag him down and cuff him with the aggressiveness that they did. The stats for police officers shot from a McLaren is zero, and will stay zero. He puts his window down, then unlocks the car and is stepping out. The office still drags a clearly cooperating suspect onto the floor for no freaking reason. If the officer's life was at risk, then the suspect (Tyreek) would not have unlocked the car, had both hands up and let them grab him.
He is entitled. Yes. But, he was cooperating.
They would have every reason to treat him with precaution because of his domestic violence and assault record, meaning that a concern for officer safety is legitimate despite the subject’s fame
Officers don't have a person's record available off the top of their head.
We don’t want to do that, right? We should treat everyone the same.
Yeah. We don't want random people to be dragged out of their car if they're cooperating. Why did they double jump on him at minute 2:00 ?
Let's not pretend like people are going to be treated the same, ever. Old money families have multiple hit-n-run deaths on their hands. The police politely go to their houses and ring bells. So if you're rich, the system clearly treats you better. Set the money aside, and this is still baffling. I was poor and I have been stopped a couple of times for suspected speeding. I am not white, but the police were always nice. They took my license. Did the math. Realized I wasn't really speeding by enough and let me go on a warning. A normal human-human interaction.
Miami is not Baltimore. The police offers are not fighting gangs to death on the daily. Why so much hostility ?
The arrest is fine. That manner of it is, really odd.
that would never be afforded to a white CEO
Are white Americans that blind to how they're treated in the US ? Upper class whites (admittedly coastal) are treated like kings. Their usual attire, demeanor and tone signals authority. And white / coloreds alike fall in line.
I want to avoid making this about race. I'd rather talk about policing at large.
American police aren't dying in the line of action. It is a safe & boring blue collar job; traffic policing in coastal cities is doubly so.
Why so twitchy ?
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
How do improve at writing ?
I ramble. My sentences are long. My claims are laid with qualifications. In person I modulate. So sentences don't feel long. Works for impromptu speeches, but is cumbersome in writing.
I've come to hate my writing. My elevator pitches lack punch. The sharp edge of a well-made point gets lost in verbose filler.
I want to improve at conciseness. Where I can start ?
Thanks. I tried.
It's a little jerky, but is much improved.
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
This perfectly captures it !
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
Helmets don't reduce bike injuries either. Stats show that people drive riskier around cyclists with helmets than they do with ones without. Cyclists also ride riskier when they have helmets on. You can call it 'induced recklessness'.
Recklessness gets calibrated to perceived risk. If I know that falling off a trampoline means broken bones, I'm not going to be jumping as high.
IMO, the riskiest activities are ones that offer the optics of safety without any material gains. Large cars and soft suspensions are a classic example. Jumping into water from great heights is another. Free soloists (people who climb mountains without ropes) are renowned for dying young. Ironically, most of them die from non-free-solo activities. It's because they're willing to try activities with higher odds of failure than free soloing, if they think failure doesn't mean death. But, 1 badly clipped bolt when leading or a gust of wind in a wingsuit.....and you're just as dead.
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
How do you become a better writer ?
I think and speak in a casual rambly manner. It is good for story telling in person. I'm animated and do quite a lot of voice modulation, so long sentences don't feel as bad. It's allowed me be quick on my feet and can give an impromptu speech with zero notice.
But, in professional settings, it feels cumbersome. I hate reading my own writing back to myself and my elevator pitches feel lacking. The sharp edge of a well-made point gets lost in the layers of qualification and verbose filler.
I want to get better at being concise and pointed. Any suggestions for where I can start ?
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
I prefer Occam's razor.
Trump is a rich american man, holding the world's most powerful position, with none of his assets tied up with Russia. He isnt in Putin's pocket, because Putin has no leverage.
Even sexploitation is not useful anymore. Niether the stormy daniels nor hunter biden stories could sink either campaigns.
No one wakes up to having been compromised overnight. It is a decades long process of conceding leverage to a foreign authority. There are breadcrumbs everywhere and clear narratives emerge.
I cant imagine a single scenario or natrative where any sitting US president can be compromised by a foreign Govt. Trump or otherwise.
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
Unfortunate, but fair. The west city crime/homelessness problem is the biggest self-own. LA, SF, Portland and Seattle stand out. But there is no crime problem on the east coast. Urban areas of DC, Boston and NYC are very safe. Safer than most nice suburbs in the US. Not much homelessness either.
I haven't been to non-coastal American cities....so won't offer my opinion there.
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
I'll keep the conversation to urban areas, with dense urban cores. So.....Tokyo. I don't care much about towns or rural places.
Among developed cities, Tokyo has the lowest car use in the world. About 12% of trips are completed with a car,
In Tokyo, the majority does not drive cars.
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
The most miserable cities to get around are also the ones with the most car infrastructure (LA, Houston, Atlanta).
This isn't rocket science. Transit is a win-win for car lovers and transit lovers alike.
Cities have finite amount of people. These people have to get to places. Cars occupy the most space per person and transit is more compact. If those people use bikes, buses, trains and footpaths, then they occupy less space. So yes, when car lanes are converted to transit/bike corridors, traffic still goes down. No one benefits from transit as much as those who 'need' to use cars. We have the numbers to prove it. The bike-pilled Dutch happen to have a great driving experience.
Now, transit & biking in most American cities sucks balls. If that's your experience with it, I can understand why it feels horrible.
But, isn't it even a little bit curious that North America is the place where this car-only idea has any uptake ? Everyone else agrees that transit and bikes are good.
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
I didn't see the thread, but car ownership in Japan doesn't save time by getting you to a place quickly. It saves time by allowing the wealthy attend to their chores in the 'back seat' of a car. Because the wealthy don't drive their own cars. They have drivers.
If you don't have to drive, walk to parking, find your own parking or maintain the car......then yes, car ownership is cheap.
You prove my point. There isn't a revealed preference for cars. There is a revealed preference for being chauffeured. It is a revealed preference for having a Butler.
SF is nicer, but yes, I only attempt this in places where I'm surrounded by softer liberals. Well, I wouldn't live in places with aggressive bastards in the first place......so I self-select.
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
Yeah, I'd put them all together as 'impaired' driving. It sucks that it isn't easy to instantly detect how high someone is.
Still think an eye tracker will help with catching pot smokers.
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
The residential side streets in my area are wider and in fact have higher speed limits than that.
Yes, and yes. For instance recently I made it from Northern New Jersey to the Ithaca, NY area, a distance of over 220 miles, in less than 4 hours, in air conditioned comfort.
I don't think anyone here is against cars for long distance travel.
I am not against car ownership. Mostly just use of cars for urban transport. I have done that drive too; Niagara falls to NYC.
I think they're going to need several more lanes
yeah............sigh. You know that's what they thought when they had 20 lanes right ?
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
“A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transportation,”
Japan & Western Europe would be the obvious answers.
From the cities I've visited, it applies to - Paris, Geneva, Barcelona, Madrid & Zurich.
Manhattan, Brooklyn & Boston (before MBTA crumbled) do pretty well too.
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
I empathize. America's urban problems need to be addressed whole sale. Generally, a large parking lot is easy to secure. A few cameras + security and you're set.
My friends and I talk about this all the time.
"The only true privilege of the poor is hating on the rich. Therefore, it is the moral responsibility of the rich to hateable."
No, don't be relatable. Don't denigrate yourself in front of me. Don't be physically embarrassed of your stature. You've spent your whole life trying to not end up like the poor. You have a visceral dislike for that life. You go live in your world, and the poor hate on you like it's their god given right.
If I ever end up super rich, I'll be sure to fulfill my responsibility.
More options
Context Copy link