Jiro
18d ago
It depends on what the processes are.
If the processes are "this set of criteria means sanction, and this set of criteria means AAQC, and the criteria are defined such that no post can meet both sets at the same time", then they are working.
If the processes are "find a list of mod sanctioned posts, and explicitly exclude them from the candidates for AAQC", the processes are not working. If the criteria for AAQC were fair and applied fairly, you wouldn't need to explicltly exclude them.
Jiro
19d ago
If mod sanctions and AAQCs are done in a sensible manner, it should not be possible for a post to get both. If it is, that implies that one of the two processes has failed. The solution is to fix the process, not to arbitrarily separate them.
Jiro
19d ago
You are not going to get low risk and absolute fortune at the same time for anything in the real world.
Jiro
21d ago
The left absolutely subscribes to America being number one, its just their version of America instead of what America actually is or what the right and normies say they want.
If I'm from Mars and landed my saucer in America to take it over, would you say that I wanted America to be number one, I just wanted this to be an America run by Martians?
"I want America to be number one" has to imply a certain amount of respect for America as it is or the idea becomes meaningless.
Jiro
21d ago
I just said "risk aversion". That's the whole point. You can't make an absolute fortune without risk, and I don't want to take the risk. The implication of
You can make an absolute fortune on that prediction, if it comes true.
is that anyone who really believed that would spend their money on it in order to make a fortune, and that anyone who refuses to spend the money doesn't really believe it.
This implication is not true when there is risk.
This is just a slight variation on "you don't really believe it, because if you did you'd bet money like a real rationalist".
Jiro
22d ago
It is not possible to 1) lose nothing if it went badly and 2) make a fortune if it went well.
Jiro
22d ago
Sorry, risk aversion. The probability that would let you say "that's pretty likely" is not the same as the probability that would make it make sense to sink a lot of money into something. If I thought it was 80% likely, for instance, I certainly wouldn't take that 20% chance of losing my shirt. At best I might slightly change the distribution of money that I was going to invest anyway.
Jiro
28d ago
Define "good for". If you waste your life playing video games, but you would otherwise have starved to death, is that good for you? I would say that it is, ignoring semantic questions about whether "better" counts as "good".
Jiro
28d ago
As recently as the 60s Indonesia launched an anti-Chinese/anti-communist pogram that killed a few million people.
Wikipedia says half a million total and that the Chinese were "thousands".
We can start with "whatever anon_ thought it meant when he said that we could get an absolute fortune".
If I ask you "did this actually happen", and you said "no" (truthfully), then it is not real.
More options
Context Copy link