Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
No bio...
User ID: 265
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3yr ago
I'd guess the lack of interest in metaphysics, then, is due to the wholehearted embrace of empiricism by rationalists. Most of us are mainly concerned with empirical claims, and this is pretty much a settled matter in this universe of discourse. There are no guardrails, of course, but maybe a lack of interest.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3yr ago
It's graded on a curve. The absolute scores are low (harsh and petty), but the curve is top heavy (generous with As)
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3yr ago
I'm really gonna need some examples to engage with this.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3yr ago
Arnold Kling on SVB points out mark to market vs held to maturity.
When interest rates go up, the value of a portfolio of fixed-rate bonds or mortgages goes down. Roughly speaking, if the bank paid $100 to buy a long-term bond with an interest rate of 2-1/2%, and now the interest rate on a comparable bond is 5%, the bank’s bond is worth about $50.
The regulators should make you mark down the value of your assets to their current market value and force you to shore up your capital. They should make you stop paying dividends and executive bonuses, for one thing. You should not be allowed to make any more risky loans, because of the moral hazard: if the risk pays off, you return to profitability; if it goes badly, then the taxpayers take a bigger hit via the deposit insurance fund. You have an incentive to take desperate gambles.
If the bank is genuinely solvent on a mark-to-market basis, then any gambles it takes are with the shareholders’ money. Once it is insolvent on a mark-to-market basis (or “semi-insolvent” as Tyler put it), it is taking gambles with the deposit insurance fund’s money.
But instead of requiring banks to mark long-term bonds to market value, the regulators give banks a loophole. They say that if you have your bond in a “held to maturity” account, which means you do not intend to sell it, you can pretend that it is still worth $100.
Indeed, it is true that when the bond matures, say, in twenty years, you will get your $100 in principal. But in the meantime, the interest rate that you pay to depositors will have gone up. If you have to pay 4-1/2 percent interest and you get 2-1/2 percent interest on your bond , then you lose $2 per year. For twenty years. You will run out of capital and be busted before the bond matures. When people can see that coming, there will be a run on your bank, and you will be busted right away.
The “held to maturity” loophole blinds regulators to the true condition of the bank. It allows the bank to keep taking in short-term funds, with which it can then try desperate gambles where the losses are borne by the deposit insurance fund. That is what the S&Ls did back in the 1980s. It did not end well.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3yr ago
the Fed’s unprecedented rate hikes
Unprecedented, or unexpected? Even the softer version seems tough to defend. Were we going ZIRP forever?
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3yr ago
I second that emotion. I definitely recall JBGC affiliation from reddit comments and maybe B&R podcast. I like hearing Yassine's takes, even when I have some quibbles.
The ensuing drama (both internet and legal) in turn lead to Ian catching a lot of flak from Karl and the John Brown Gun Club for "Associating With"/"Failing to Denounce 'Nazis' and 'Far Right Agitators'" like Mike Jones, the Volokh Conspiracy, and Administrative Results (who TBF between the Obi-Wan-Nairobi aesthetic and making his handle a play on "Executive Outcomes" kind of invites those associations) but even so.
This explains a lot. Also there is good info here: https://old.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/comments/sltls3/forgotten_weaponsheadstamp_controversy_summary/
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3yr ago
Before KE Arms announced the development of the KP-15 lower, the subreddit was very low traffic. Its tone mirrored that of the youtube channel, which had none of the weird racial and sexual politics stuff. For the 2-3 years of development and production of the KP-15 lower, the channel was pretty much all about eager anticipation and then people showing off their builds. Once the forum drama hit, there was a large influx of "supporters", and I think the brand and community will never recover the tone that I enjoyed.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3yr ago
Criticism accepted. I completely revised the post. Less than ideal, I agree.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3yr ago
Criticism accepted. I completely revised the post. Less than ideal, I agree.
2/2 (so far)
Note, this comment has been significantly updated and extended since first written (and replied to, sorry).
The fundamental difference between WWSD 2017 and WWSD 2020 is the monolithic polymer lower receiver, originally the GWACS CAV-15, and then later the KP-15 from KE Arms. The KP-15 is a successor design to the CAV-15 which had gone out of production (and with GWACS effectively dead as a business). While obviously inspired by the CAV-15 with similar features, it is a fresh redesign without reusing any specific design or feature from the CAV-15 while improving function with additional features (e.g. flared magwell). Extensive research and testing went into the production methods and polymer molds.
As KE Arms was ramping up production to meet the considerable demand for the monolithic polymer lower, two significant events occurred: GWACS sends a cease-and-desist to KE Arms over intellectual property concerns regarding the CAV-15, and a deal is struck with Brownells regarding marketing, distribution, and retail sales for the WWSD concept including both parts and complete rifles. KE Arms sues GWACS over the cease-and-desist, and GWACS countersues KE Arms as well as several related organizations and individuals. Kasarda is not named as a defendant but is deposed as a witness.
Fast forward to 2023. Due to COVID and legal interference, the production ramp-up for the KP-15 takes longer than expected, but the lowers are now produced in significant quantity, available from both Brownells and KE Arms directly. However, forum drama is about to upset the apple cart once again.
I wasn't aware of the forum drama or any of its basis until Karl himself posted to the InRangeTV subreddit, seeking consolation for what he felt were unfair attacks on him. The basis for the forum drama, as I was to find out, was mostly Karl's own social media posting, often under his InRangeTV brand. I was mostly just watching the YouTube channel, which had a pretty strict focus on guns, 2 Gun Action Challenge Match stuff, and occasional forays into First and Second Amendment issues and advocacy, along with complaints about Youtube content policies. The social media posting, mainly Instagram, was a different beast entirely.
One Father's Day, Karl posted:
Happy Father's Day!
Personally, I have chosen to not add more of us to this overpopulated planet as my gift to humanity. I highly recommend a vasectomy. Additionally, as a person of entirely Scandinavian descent, I am assisting with the extinction of the white race.
~Karl
Now, there is obviously some attempt at humor, here. Still, I find it pretty offensive and abhorrent. I love my dad, and it's largely because of him that I am comfortable with guns, gun safety, basic carpentry, basic mechanic skills, motorcycles, etc. To take something like Father's Day and twist it into a sick joke just rubs me the wrong way. Still, I have very thick skin and am pretty much a free speech absolutist, so Karl is welcome to hold and express these views. I just find the holder of such views to be disgusting.
He got a pretty negative reaction to this post, and tried to play it off as "just a joke" and not any sort of self loathing or promotion of genocide; it's not anti-white but anti-racist. Yet in the very same post and reply chain, he complains about white fragility. I find it very hard to square this circle. While I struggle to find the humor in the Father's Day post, there is a very obvious butt of the "joke". It's a troll post that targets white people in an attempt to expose white fragility (which he clearly admits).
A later post:
"DEATH to all who stand in the way of freedom for queer people"
This is pretty clearly a call to murder people, which Karl and his buddies attempt to deny. And which freedoms, exactly, are we talking about, Karl?
There is a lot more of this stuff, all posted by Karl to social media, going very much against the grain of American gun culture. As people started to notice this, compilations of Karl's material were posted to ar15.com forums. As the drama was blowing up, Brownells backed completely out of the WWSD deal, which Karl had some stake (5% of something, I forget) in.
I have some thoughts about what is motivating all this drama, which I will save for a further comment.
1/2 (so far)
The Saga of Karl Kasarda
File under: Internet Drama
Dramatis personae:
Karl Kasarda is very real person with a significant internet presence, whom I have paid attention to since maybe 2015. He is (or has been) partners with Ian McCollum, who runs Forgotten Weapons, initially a website, mostly famous as a Youtube channel, and lately expanding to other social media platforms. If Forgotten Weapons is Ian's baby, InRangeTV is Karl's baby, though Karl has rarely (never?) made an appearance on FW, while Ian is (or used to be) a regular on IRTV.
Ian's focus is mostly on rifles and handguns, occasionally shotguns, and often military weapons. If it fires a brass cartridge, it's a potential Forgotten Weapon. While the focus is mainly on lesser known and rare weaponry, Ian won't hesitate to cover ubiquitous guns like the AR-15. He is also known as Gun Jesus for his long hair, mustache, and goatee, and his extensive research and authoritative takes on niche subjects.
Karl's competency is mostly based on competition shooting. He's a cerebral guy with a network security career, who has historically competed in "High Power" rifle disciplines, as well as "Cowboy Action Shooting". In the last 10 or 15 years, he has been a big promoter, host, and competitor in so-called 2 gun Action Challenge Matches, which are mostly defined in opposition to 3 gun competitions. There is plenty of history and internet words spillage regarding "2 gun vs 3 gun", but here's the gist: "3 gun" refers to rifle, pistol, shotgun, while "2 gun" omits the shotgun. "3 gun" as a discipline and community has a focus on precision without much physicality. "2 gun" as a discipline and community has a focus on effective shooting with lots of physicality (action challenge match).
Mostly within the last 5 years or so, InRangeTV has featured Russell Phagan, aka SinistralRifleman. He is a skilled 2GACM competitor, and good friend to Karl and Ian, who are all based out of Arizona (AFAIK). Russell works for KE Arms which manufactures firearms parts, largely for the AR-15 platform.
WWSD (What would Stoner do?)
In 2017, it was widely recognized in the American gun community that the AR-15 rifle (aka M16 or M4 in its military designation) (5.56mm ammunition, 16 inch barrel, gas operated, with a buttstock) is a pinnacle of engineering and design. It was designed by Eugene Stoner in the 1950s, as a scaled-down successor to the AR-10, which used a larger 30 caliber round (7.62 mm). It's pretty wild that here in 2023, the best all-purpose rifle for Americans was designed nearly 75 years ago. Have there been improvements along the way? Abso-fucking-lutely.
So now it's 2017, and what would Eugene Stoner do? Well, one of the unifying principles his early design was to use modern materials, like aluminum and polymer, to reduce weight for the same effectiveness. Polymer science was very primitive in 1950 before carbon fiber and modern epoxies. Both aluminum and steel production have become much more sophisticated, consistent, and reliable. Small parts tolerances have improved with CNC and modern milling machines.
I have a lot more to say here, but Karl and Ian came up with a modern "build" of an AR-15 rifle that uses carbon fiber and polymer along with modern metallurgy and design lessons learned from the last 75 years. Importantly, this design was based off of a polymer "lower receiver" for the AR-15, which is the item that the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives) considers a firearm. The milspec lower receiver is a chunk of forged aluminum that is then machined or milled to its final dimensions.
There have been many attempts at polymer lower receivers throughout the years, essentially all of which have been failures in function, design, or sales. The WWSD 2017 design was based off the CAV-15 from GWACS, which is a one-piece polymer lower receiver which includes the grip and the buttstock. The milspec lower receiver does not include the grip or buttstock and instead provides attachment points. The so-called "monolithic" design of the CAV-15 gives it extra strength and reliability relative to other polymer lowers.
Then, in 2020, just before the COVID pandemic hit, we have a product called "WWSD 2020". Partnered with KE Arms, Russell Phagan's company, Karl and Ian want to produce WWSD AR-15 Rifles to sell for a profit. First of all, due to their following, there are thousands or millions of enthusiasts trying to buy CAV-15 polymer lowers, along with carbon fiber handguards, and pencil profile rifle barrels, and the suppliers cannot keep up with demand. Second of all, of course, let's "monetize" this following. No shade.
I have a lot more to say but I am running out of steam. I will augment this post within 12 hours.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3yr ago
You’re not wrong, but neither is it wrong to answer the question literally. Where it goes wrong, in my eyes, is when it turns into pedantry, dismissal, or antagonism.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3yr ago
To a large extent this viewpoint should alleviate absolutely GOBS of stress from your life. If you have constructive ideas you've been thinking of implementing but held back on because of self-doubt or the timing never felt right, maybe jump on those now. As long as you don't do anything unrecoverable, the risks pretty much round to zero, right?
Nihilism and Absurdism are two sides of the same coin, after all. I sometimes consider the possibility that right when we're on the cusp of AGI our alien overlords may reveal themselves and take away our toy before we kill ourselves. Or the Simulation masters reset us to 1975 to have another go at solving alignment.
If you feel like you want to make a difference then the only option seems to be Butlerian Jihad. There can't be but a couple hundred thousand people who are critical to AI research on the planet, right? (DO NOT do this, I do not endorse even the suggestion of violence).
Wholly endorsed.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3yr ago
Completely agreed. But I, for one, find him vindicated and gloriously so. So there's that.
Computers are absolutely terrible at this. There is software available that purports to do this, some of which is available online for free, some of which is built into commercial music notation software like Sibelius or Finale, and the utility of all of it is fairly limited. It can work, but only when dealing with a simple, clean melody that's reasonably in tune and played with a steady tempo. Put a normal commercial recording into it and the results range from "needs quite a bit of cleanup" to "completely unusable", and at its best it won't include stylistic markings or formatting. At first glance, this should be much easier for the computer than it is for us. We have to listen through 5 instruments playing at once to hear what the acoustic guitar, which is low in the mix to begin with, is doing underneath the big cymbal crash, and separate 2 sax parts playing simultaneously, sometimes in unison, sometimes in harmony. The computer, on the other hand, has access to the entire waveform, and can analyze every individual frequency and amplitude that's on the recording every 1/44,100th of a second.
But we are right at the start of an explosion of AI for all kinds of tasks. The past (and present) is no guide to the future, here.
And Bregman was just talking about the ability to separate instruments! A lot of transcription requires a reasonable amount of musical knowledge, but even someone who's never picked up an instrument and can't tell a C from an Eb can tell which part is the piano part and which part is the trumpet part. And then there are all the issues related to timing. Take something simple like a fermata, a symbol that instructs the musician to hold the note as long as he feels necessary in a solo piece or until the conductor cuts him off in an ensemble piece. Is the comuter going to be able to intuit from the context of the performance that the note that was held for 3 seconds was a quarter note with a fermata and not just a note held for 5 1/2 beats or however long it was? Will it know that the pause afterward should take place immediately in the music and not to insert rests?
And what about articulations? Staccato quarter notes sound much the same as eighth notes followed by eighth rests. Or possibly sixteenth notes followed by three sixteenth rests. How will the computer decide which to use? Does it matter? Is there really a difference? Well, yeah. A quarter note melody like Mary Had a Little Lamb, with each note played short, is going to read much easier as staccato quarters, since using anything else needlessly complicates things, and doesn't giver the performer (or conductor) the discretion of determining exactly how short the articulation should be. On the other hand, a complex passage requiring precise articulation would look odd with a lone staccato quarter stuck in the middle of it. A musician can use their innate feel and experience as a player to determine what would work best in any given situation. A computer doesn't have this experience to draw on.
Machine translation will vary, likely not easily matching what a random music undergrad or postgrad would transcribe. There will be three main angles, and I expect the third to win, handily. (1) is a direct reproduction of the audio input, via sampling (e.g. WAV file) (2) is vector form (not samples or pixels, but how to recreate the image, e.g. MIDI, hold this note for x seconds) (3) will be: send the music to a neural net trained to notate. This thing will have judgment, and it will be poorer initially and improve over time, given (potentially expensive) training.
The real question is, how do you train it? And there are several easy answers; maybe harder answers are more efficient
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3yr ago
Really, that's the part that I tentatively describe as "gaslighting" (hate the term). One questionable "dude" makes an absurd claim, and the rest of Twitter NPC falls in line. When any neutral reader would accept Jesse's straightforward interpretation.
Only a decade ago the "multiple personality" thing was recognized as larping social contagion, and now it's back to being treated seriously?
Scott Alexander has written about this, I feel pretty certain. Tulpas (intentional creation of additional personality) and victims (unintentional multiple personalities) seem to be real phenomena, if rarer than claimed.
Also, a more neutral take: https://elizamondegreen.substack.com/p/about-that-twitter-shitstorm-affirmationnot
Brief recap:
-
NYT shifts its coverage of medical concerns for trans issues from 100% supporting transition in all cases to a more questioning stance, particularly with minors
-
An open letter is sent to NYT laying out "serious concerns with editorial bias" in response to this shift
-
Jonathan Chait posts a critical response to the open letter at New York Magazine (no relation to NYT)
-
Chait gets dragged on twitter for being anti-trans, with a highlighted passage
-
Jesse Singal posts in support of Chait, showing the highlighted passage is directly in accordance with WPATH guidelines and explains what it means
-
E. Kale Edmiston, a trans man, posts in response that he, Edmiston, wrote the WPATH guidelines posted by Singal, and that Singal is misinterpreting them
-
Liberal media pundits and reporters pile on, when Singal defends the straightforward interpretation, demanding that Signal accept Edmiston's (frankly bizarre) interpretation of the quoted passage
-
Singal has done his homework and contacts several other WPATH authors, who all confirm Singal's interpretation of the passage and reject Edmiston's
-
Eventually this reaches Scott Leibowitz, overall head of the WPATH guidelines document, who says that Edmiston definitely did not write the highlighted passage, and later severely admonishes this lying and false attribution from within academia
-
Singal performs several victory laps on Twitter, demanding from the media pundits and reporters the apologies and corrections they had demanded from him
Good guys: Jesse Singal, Jonathan Chait, Scott Leibowitz
Bad guys: E. Kale Edmiston, Madeline Leung Coleman (NYMag editor), Michael Hobbes, Jeet Heer, Marisa Kasabas (MSNBC Columnist), David Perry, Eric Vilas-Boas (Vulture staffer), Miles Klee, Siva Vaidhyanathan
The most interesting, dire, and relevant info is from Eliza Mondegreen, linked near the top. Apparently there is a wink/nod system with the WPATH Standards of Care document, where the words are written a certain way because they must be, but they are interpreted much differently.
She concludes:
Theory and practice—the Standards of Care and what actually happens in the exam room—have nothing to do with one another. Everything in the Standards of Care that sounds cautious and responsible comes with an understanding that’s supposed to go unspoken: We don’t really mean it. We just need to say this. If a patient shows up with serious comorbidities, of course we have to say that they must undergo a “comprehensive” “assessment” and that the clinician must remain open to the possibility that the patient might not really have gender dysphoria and maybe shouldn’t really transition. But you know how important the work we all do is.
In other words, the Standards of Care are a lie that everyone involved in gender medicine pretends to believe. When reporters like Singal and Chait try to hold gender clinicians to WPATH standards (something I think is worth doing, by the way!), savvy clinicians will respond: Yes, of course we “assess” patients very carefully, what do you think this is, the Wild West?
Among other, more obvious mistakes, Edmiston’s most grievous error was not pretending to believe the lie.
EDITS: Signal, Single, Liebowitz. added Cast of Characters, Eliza Mondegreen quote
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3yr ago
An example I was fond of, about 15 years ago, which I have rarely ventured to trot out in the last decade: taxi cabs. They drive like assholes, in a rush, making last minute ill advised lane changes and turns with minimal signaling.
You’re a soccer mom driving a minivan full of kids down a 50 mph boulevard, from the suburbs going to the grocery store. You see a yellow car at a cross road, inching forward, obviously desperate to turn in front of you. Do you treat it like a taxi cab and take extra caution? Of course you don’t, bigot! You shouldn’t cross the street at 3am to avoid a thuggish man either!
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3yr ago
Eh, I don’t think the homeless actually represent any sort of voting bloc. And in representative democracy, wealthy landowners with local business ties and tons of skin in the game curry way more favor with politicians than those with nothing to lose.
If the politicians desire to turn a nice city into an indigent shithole, then I suppose that’s what they will have when people of means vote with their feet. See also, Detroit.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3yr ago
Keep in mind, this is the outcome of RLHF, the content moderation system, not unadulterated AI
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3yr ago
Cue Alex Jones on location in Paris: "THEY'RE TURNING THE FROGS GAY!"
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3yr ago
Isn't this just openAI's RLHF working as intended?
Perhaps, if you are cynical. I think that, faced with Rozado's findings, they would try to correct the bias. Open question: when judging an individual by its group characteristics or membership, assuming that unbiased is not an option, is it better to exhibit implicit bias or explicit bias?
Puritans
shakes head
More options
Context Copy link