Jiro
11mo ago
Are stepmoms real moms?
The things that stepmoms may or may not be able to do that distinguish them from non-step-Moms are, except for a vanishingly small set of cases, not based on the stepmoms' physical traits. Whether you think they count as moms or not, or whether they should count in some cases but not others, that's very different from trans.
Jiro
11mo ago
You're also ignoring the distinction between different dead bodies. Why?
Because when we're weighing pros and cons and you discussion partner ignores a 2-3 OOM factor, perseverating on a dramatically less important factor is not helpful.
Whether the death happens to a victim or a perpetrator is not "less important". It's more important than just about everything else relevant to the situation.
But when utilitarianism says the costs outweigh the benefits by 10ish QALYs to ~0 QALYs
Only if utilitarianism doesn't distinguish between QALYs for a perpetrator and a victim. Also, using QALYs here at all produces bizarre results because it becomes much less bad to kill an older perpetrator than a younger one.
all while refusing to actually grapple with the fact that you advocate cutting 10 years of life from someone in expectation because of one dumb drunk decision at a bar.
Tossing a punch at someone is an attempt to kill, or a reckless act that may kill, and should be treated as such.
Jiro
2mo ago
'Rich person flaunts the law, confident they will never face consequences' is not a very unique or interesting story. It's certainly not 'brave' or anything...
"Rich person flaunts the law" implies that the rich person gets away with crimes because they can retaliate using their wealth and connections. Rowling doesn't have judges or lobbyists on speed dial, and she's not going to contact her friends in the banking industry or the Mafia.
"Rich person flaunts the law because they have enough money to pay for a good defense, and because if something absurd happens to them, the public will see how absurd it is" is a noncentral example of a rich person flaunting the law and is more like the rich person not being railroaded than it is like a typical rich person flaunting the law.
Jiro
2mo ago
The algorithm was fine. You saying it's 'unintentional' is just you saying it because you don't feel good about it.
I'm saying it's unintentional because it's unintentional.
Same is true for 'conservatives'? What is your problem here with anything exactly?
"Not shown to people who want something else" doesn't apply. Many people do want conservative viewpoints.
There are more people who don't believe in the holocaust than there are American 'conservatives'.
Google is not aimed at Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Jiro
4mo ago
Buying someone else's products retail in a store will let you get a couple of them, but not enough to be profitable to resell. In order to get enough of them that you can resell them, you have to make a purchase from a wholesaler aor from the company itself and those purchases aren't going to be "walk into a store", they will come with contracts and the contracts can forbid reselling below a certain price.
Furthermore, even if you could buy the company's products below cost and resell them somewhat less below cost, you'd still be competing with the company, who's directly selling their products below cost, so it wouldn't work.
Jiro
7mo ago
consooming
If I parse your post as you seem to have meant it, watching original Star Wars movies is just consuming, but watching reedited ones is "consooming". Could you clarify exactly what the distinction is between consuming and consooming?
Jiro
9mo ago
Charity is one of those things where some people need more, some people need less, and you can't aim the advice at the people who need it. And the reason we've come up with the quokka idea is that rationalists have a habit of not understanding that attacks are attacks and treating them with excess charity, like Scott not thinking that Cade Metz was malicious from the very start and if he had only been nicer to Metz, Metz would have written a completely fair article, or like this post.
People who are not weird Internet guys don't take bets. Betting because you believe something is going to happen is not a normie thing outside a few restricted cases like sports bets, and even then, that's done more out of the hope that one's team will win rather than the belief that they will.
Jiro
9mo ago
That link says "sure there are problems with it, this is a book after all so it has to show problems, but it could work out" without stating how to solve the problems.
Jiro
11mo ago
Stories don't exist in a vacuum. The meaning of the story limits the plot elements--"they forgot Narnia magically" cannot be what happened in the story, because it would contradict the metaphor.
Jiro
11mo ago
Exactly what else do you think it can explain that wouldn't be tied to IQ?
(I would think that something like low time preference is tied to IQ.)
Jiro
25d ago
In other words your solution removes the advantage of government force against entities that are less powerful than a government but more powerful than a normal individual.
"Government force against entities" assumes that the entity did something, and that the government force is being used to stop it. On the contrary; the entity didn't do anything, but the government imposed an obligation on them.
Jiro
1mo ago
The typical holocaust denier has far less interest at stake than, say, the typical online Israeli or Zionist.
Yet the typical online Zionist posts about other things than just Zionism.
Jiro
3mo ago
In other words, the half life of cover ups is shorter and the big crazy stuff is just not going to fly.
What about Epstein's "suicide"?
Jiro
3mo ago
"I want them to be immigrate and I want them to be moral" carries the connotation that enough of them aren't moral that you need to take that into consideration rather than just assuming the opposite. It doesn't just mean its literal words.
Jiro
6mo ago
That's a bad summary because it doesn't account for how frequent the things are. We haven't banned anyone for murdering their opponent even though that's a worse offense than either low effort or LLMs.
(And the proper comparison isn't LLMs specifically. You ban relatively fewer people for long grammatical, low information posts than you do for standard low effort posts. This creates incentives for long, grammatical, low information posts.)
How is "it's the victim's responsibility to find a place where their values are respected" different from "it's the victim's responsibility to avoid it"? (Where "it" means "their values aren't respected")
Jiro
9mo ago
Because Jefferson did enough important other things that saying "Jefferson is ultimate evil, so we should ignore everything else he did" is disingenuous. But you're calling him racist to imply exactly that.
I'm pretty sure that Western Jews live in materially more wealthy and comfortable circumstances than the third world. So I don't see how that's responsive.
(And if your answer is "Jews do, but not because of their religion", the answer is of course "whites do, but not because of their race".)
For that matter, Western Jews live in materially more wealthy and comfortable circumstances than white supremacists.
Jiro
11mo ago
Alternatively, an actress who refuses the casting couch does not really want the role, and will be trouble on set.
This makes the assumption that normal humans treat sex like ordinary financial transactions. This assumption is false.
'Conservatives' want to see those viewpoints. They are a minority.
There's a minority, being less than 50%, and there's a minority, being less than 1%. Conservatives are the first kind; Holocaust deniers the second, outside of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, which I have no qualms about saying Google should ignore.
Again, what is your problem here, exactly? You are OK with banning things you don't like.
Google is not banning Holocaust denial. Not showing it unless people ask for it isn't banning.
The extent of the worldview is 'my reasons are good, other peoples reasons are bad'.
What's the alternative to using reasons, even if you think your own are good and someone else's are bad--just don't use reasons?
Jiro
4mo ago
You can do it in small quantities that aren't enough to cause a problem for the big company, so Amazon sellers don't disprove anything. You can't do it in large enough quantities that it makes a significant dent in the big company's ability to weaponize selling below cost.
The more undersold it it the better an investment it is to get it now. The less undersold it is, the less you are being pushed out as competition.
How are you going to invest in it? You can't buy large quantities of the product under production cost because of the factors described above. And you can't invest in competitors because if the big company can keep this up long enough to drive competitors out of the market, investing in competitors won't gain you anything.
Low effort isn't a rule?
Also, if it doesn't violate any rules, but it's obviously something bad for the group, you should add it to the rules so that you can give out a warning next time someone does it.
More options
Context Copy link