@Jiro's banner p

Jiro


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 04:48:55 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 444

Jiro


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 04:48:55 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 444

Verified Email

This is why people talk about luxury beliefs. AI can't do legal services at half your rate. New immigrants, especially illegals, can't either. You can be rest assured that your ability to sell legal services depends on a bar exam, many years of education, and a lot of overhead costs such as opening an office. It's not possible for someone to undercut you because he's willing to live in poverty, forcing you to live in poverty in order to compete.

I think that's a good point.

These other colors are rarely mentioned and fall under "putting them in the list is OCD and is harmful to the goal of the list".

Insect welfare is what you get when you take ideas seriously, but normies have the ideas a lot without taking them seriously. Normies who "believe in animal welfare" don't take the idea seriously. Even vegetarians don't treat seriously the ideas that lead to vegetarianism. Actually believing the things the normies are saying and taking them seriously leads to this mess.

(In this case I don't think even rationalism would support letting the insects live. Insect welfare falls out from animal welfare because the sentience of an insect is small but there are billions of them. There are not billions of insects in your apartment, so the disutility of killing them is low even if you take animal welfare seriously. I would agree that this sounds more like OCD.)

"Wignat" is obviously a pun on "wingnut" which you really should mention in that entry. Also, I've never seen it here.

In general, rare terms shouldn't be in the glossary. The glossary is to help people, not to become an OCD magnet. There is a cost to putting a rarely used term in the glossary. I don't recall the last time I saw if-by-whiskey.

Also, any glossary should be posted with a heavy helping of "what do outsiders think if they stumble on us and read through the glossary", especially if they think we emphasize the things written there. And if you think an entry should be removed for this reason, remove it. Don't be coy about it. You're obviously not spelling out what HBD means because it's wrongthink to do so. In that case, leave it out. Putting in "yeah, but we won't tell you" is calling attention to it and is the last thing you should do; it gives the impression "we have something to hide".

Pascal's Mugging: A situation related to Pascal's Wager where people believe it's rational to act based on an unlikely event that has a positive probability and enormous consequences, but is not actually infinite. A standard example is one where a mugger claims to be a powerful being and says "Give me your wallet or I will cause this mathematically enormous amount of suffering". A naive rationalist may multiply the tiny probability that he's a powerful being by the enormous amount of suffering and conclude that he should be obeyed.

Someone else can do Roko's Basilisk.

I was, in fact, referring to a best-selling manga series with this description.

Naruto is an extremely noncentral example of a child soldier.

A more understandable rephrasing is probably "They who make compromise with sin, enslave their children's children".

She detests these people who have established a system that expects her to sacrifice her biological and spiritual drive to bear and raise beloved children in the name of economic productivity and ruthless inhuman competition.

Is that actually correct? Unrestrained capitalism, as far as it's political, is associated with the right. Women having equality in the workforce with men is associated with the left, and continues to be.

You could equally well have argued, in the years before women's rights, that companies wanted women to stay at home so as to support the men working long hours in the name of economic productivity and ruthless inhuman competition.

That already describes my priors and sampling method.

Looking at blades of grass won't help you because you have prior knowledge that blades of grass aren't crows, and actually looking at them provides you with no additional evidence that is not subsumed by your existing knowledge.

If you started picking random things in the universe without prior knowledge of whether they are crows, and then it turned out that they were all non-black non-crows, that would be evidence. It would be very weak evidence since the universe is filled with lots and lots of things, but if you kept doing it you'd be gathering more and more evidence and if you somehow managed to look at every object in the universe and they were all non-black non-crows (or black crows), you would indeed have proven the idea.

Women (are seen to) drive ticket sales, and they are perceived (not without reason!) as not particularly interested in the sort of sort sex scenes or nudity that populated major movie focuses of the 90s and early 00s.

Do we actually know how accurate this perception is?

Wingnuttery is not 99% recognized as false, Holocaust denial is, unless you're in Iran.

Is it classified as 'substantial' when the amount of people clicking the holocaust denial link drive it to the top of Google search results?

Just because they click it doesn't mean they want it. It's like clicking on a scam, except that unlike a scam, which is false and trying to take your money, this one's just false. People don't want false pages.

Why should they care how many people believe in false things?

Because Google is there to provide what people search for, and people aren't searching for false results.

why shouldn't progressives do the same for their outgroup

Because a substantial number of people want to find the things said by their outgroup, but no substantial number of people wants to find Holocaust denial (outside Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.)

'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 Googgle 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?

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.

Those kinds of changes are truly worth fighting over, not cosmetic changes to Harley's butt so it's less jiggly.

If there are fifty changes all of which makes the game worse to varying degrees, there may be only a few of them which are blatantly, inarguably, provably bad, but a whole lot of them which make the game a little worse but where a crafty debater can say "are you sure? You just aren't looking at it from the right angle." But the game becomes worse anyway, because all of these little changes with plausible deniability add up..

and from the outside for women, it's a tedious trope.

Don't women usually pick attractive characters in games? I believe there was a reference to that in one of the earlier discussions.

Whether it genuinely is a high value product, I have no idea. But I believe that he genuinely believes in it, and wouldn't offer it if he didn't believe it was valuable,

People have a way of convincing themselves of things that are convenient for themselves. Which means that a standard of "if they themselves believe it, it doesn't count as a scam" is unworkable. If they don't have some well-founded reason to believe it, they're indistinguishable from scammers even if on some level they've convinced themselves that their scam is really a good deal. You can't read their mind, after all.

?And why was it on top of Google?

Ss the unintentional effect of stupid algorithms. Again, by your reasoning since a lot of people click on spam, they want to read spam.

You keep oscillating between 'true/false' and 'minority'

It's both.

What I am suggesting is that you can't even have a discussion on whether or not something is true or not if you ban it.

It's not banned. It's just not shown to people who want something else. People who actually want will still get it if they search for it. You're acting as if Google won't return Holocaust denial no matter what you do. They're not doing that. They're not even making it difficult to find.

Besides, there is no "discussion" except among a tiny minority.

The people looking up the holocaust and related stuff obviously clicked on it.

Because it was on top of Google. You are trying to justify putting it on top of Google by saying that people clicked on it, but people only clicked on it because it was on top of Google. That's circular reasoning.

It's not false. It's true.

Oh come on now. Holocaust deniers really are a tiny, tiny, minority. Conservatives aren't.

You decide truth for the holocaust and ban it.

No, the world does. Holocaust deniers are a tiny minority, and they state false things.

Progressives decide truth for 'conservatives' and ban it.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should pay no attention to truth because someone might think false things are true?

Holocaust denial got the most clicks. But centrists don't like that so they want it banned. So screw any principle or fairness, I should just have my way because 'reasons'.

Right now Google is infested by SEO spam and SEO spam, of course, gets the most clicks. By your reasoning, Google should be sending people to the SEO spam and should not try to get rid of it in search results. It "gets the most clicks" because Google promotes it, you cannot use the clicks as a reason to say why Google should promote it--that's circular reasoning.

Holocaust denial is neither something that many people want (since they want truthful things and it's false) nor something that many people produce (since it comes from an extreme minority). So Google should in fact be not showing it prominently in search results that don't specifically ask for it.

Funnily enough, that's how the people banning 'conservative' stuff think. They see a tiny portion of the population.

"It's a tiny percentage" is false for conservatives and true for Holocaust deniers. That's a big difference; being true or false actually matters.

I'd expect the typical reasoning of 'Only do it to the smallest of outgroups', but given how demonstrable it is now that such reasoning does not hold when we are trying to uphold broad principles for big populations...

I'm surprised that you think "only do it to the smallest of outgroups" would be a useful description even when that's sort of what Google did.

Search is at least partly supposed to be a popularity contest. If the group that says something is small, what they say should be underemphasized. If the group that thinks it's true is small, that's another reason to underemphasize it because if there's 99% agreement that it isn't true, Google should be treating it as false and people don't want to search and find false information.

There are plenty of conservatives out there, and the truth of conservative beliefs is an active dispute, not something 99% of people take the same side on. But Holocaust denial? There are few Holocaust deniers, and no truth to Holocaust denial. Not returning results because Holocaust deniers are the "smallest of outgroups" is the proper thing to do here.

A "decent number of people" out of the size of the Internet is a tiny number of people.

I suspect a few people might be self-aware and cynical enough to do this on purpose, but given how such a defense is only good for the ego and not for profit,

Such a defense is good for media publicity. Media publicity can't make a bad work into a hit, but it can certainly increase the profit by some amount since it takes longer for people to figure out how bad it is.

Most people don't read classical literature (including nonfiction) except for a specific reason, usually school. The size of the population, let alone the size of the young male population, who'd 1) consider reading such things to not be boring drudgework and 2) actually get anything out of them is tiny. Reading such things is no longer considered high status in our society anyway. It doesn't matter whether you personally read them as a boy and found them useful; typical-minding is a thing.

What they should read, or watch, is a variety of things that they mostly read or watch for other reasons, but which have the occasional bit about using power properly because the idea is in the zeitgeist so writers naturally put it in their works every so often. And the only way you're going to get that to happen is to restructure society first. (Although there's an interesting conversation in Fate/Zero.)

Your list is useless unless a boy actually comes up to you and says "I'd like to read some classical literature about exercising power, what do you recommend?" In which case, recommend away, but that won't happen much. It's the political science equivalent of "how do I get my child interested in programming computers?" To which the answer is "You don't, most people are not interested in that."