cjet79
Anarcho Capitalist on moral grounds
Libertarian Minarchist on economic grounds
User ID: 124
cjet79
2yr ago
This subthread was a shitshow, and you racked up an impressive number of reports.
You need to speak plainly, and avoid making inflammatory accusations with little evidence.
5 day ban
cjet79
2yr ago
Isn't 3 pretty worthless as a restriction in practice? They keep making each rights violation more and more specific so that it's never been violated before. I'm on mobile and can't pull up specific examples, but I do remember there being some ridiculously specific rights violations.
This is not what we are looking for in a top level post. And is antagonistic. One day ban.
Edit (14 hours later):
I may have misread the antagonism in the post. There was a report saying the same thing, so I thought I wasn't the only one seeing it. Mea Culpa, but the ban was primarily for the other thing anyways:
The main problem is that this is a short single thought top level post. Closer to a journal entry. Right beneath it in the thread was a short low effort troll post.
I have seen this happen again and again. A bad top level post leads to other people making bad top level posts. Normally there are no consequences for mediocre or bad top level posts. But in order to prevent more of them from happening ... I added consequences. The next post was higher quality. I'm not confident enough to claim that the ban tactic worked, maybe those would have been the next posts anyways. But it didn't clearly fail either.
I would also like to point out that there is now a quality post on the JK Rowling and Harry Potter situation. One of the specific reasons that we don't want low effort top level posts is that they tend to crowd out high effort top level posts. What if everyone already got in all the JK rowling and trans discussion down here, and no one responds to the high quality post above? It creates an incentive to post quickly, and not spend too much time writing up an effort post.
This is not what we are looking for in a top level post. And is boo outgroupish. One day ban.
Edit after the fact (14 hours later):
I have seen a pattern happen before where a single troll posts a dumb question. We don't moderate it very quickly and the top level posts following the troll post also become low quality. There could be many reasons for that. Maybe the troll is setting the tone, maybe people think 'well if thats allowable, then surely my post is fine too', or maybe they are trying to be helpful and just knock the troll post from the top of the discussion list.
I wanted to short-circuit that whole downward spiral, but I was also about to leave for a few hours, and then would probably need to go to bed afterwards. I saw my options as: act quickly and stop the downward spiral with little explanation. Or leave it until morning and potentially have a lot more cleanup to deal with. Bad posts sometimes create good discussion, but they just as often create bad discussion (I've already had to go back and ban someone else for one of the sub-conversations that popped up from this).
I am always willing to offer explanations of my moderator actions, but because things tend to spiral so fast here, I can't promise I will always offer those explanations in the exact moment of moderation. Expect it within 24 hours if someone asks for it. If I know I don't have the time or energy to explain myself later I just add my report to the pile, rather than moderating the comment.
This top level post had something like 8 reports. I thought it was obvious that it was a bad top level post. It pattern matches a low effort trolling attempt. I am surprised that people were surprised by this moderation.
cjet79
2yr ago
You are not getting me with the whole programming metaphor. If you'd stop thinking that I was questioning your chops as a programmer for two seconds you'd maybe understand.
You have not committed a single piece of code in the theoretical world I made up where everyone has a unique OS. You have committed code in our world that just has basically three OS's you need to worry about.
In both worlds its not just about you following good coding practices or good writing practices. Its about the people writing the OSes also following good practices. In the theoretical world where there are a billion different OSes and they are nearly all written by amateurs, it doesn't matter how careful you are with your code, because its gonna be run on top of someone else's shitty code.
Does your program still work if the CPU doesn't know how to add 1+1? Or if the library running your code just randomly decides its gonna do garbage collection in its own special snowflake way and deletes a bunch of variables you need?
Your current programming ability relies on the fact that the computers it runs on are relatively stable and consistent.
Humans are not stable and consistent. Thus writing for them is not going to be the same as writing for a computer.
I shouldn't have written this last message. I'm done with this conversation. If you were correct about simple writing being effective then one of us should have convinced the other person in the first one or two exchanges.
cjet79
2yr ago
Would be funny if games just started saying we have x number of trans characters, without any need to identify them, or even think about it ever in the development process. Free controversy/advertising without effort.
cjet79
2yr ago
I think they are a bit like bumper stickers. Not actually that effective at convincing anyone, but perfect for signalling allegiance. And a bit self limiting, because of you cover your car in bumper stickers you just look crazy.
cjet79
2yr ago
There is a failure mode that happens for code refactoring. I hope you agree that some people out there, maybe not you, can fail at things like refactoring.
Refactoring is often easy for code related things, because in the end there is a simple test for whether a refactoring has gone well: just run the code again and see if the results are the same.
Imagine if you were coding, but everyone had a different OS, a different browser, and different versions of the code libraries you were using. You can be certain that your code refactoring is safe for your machine at this given moment. But you don't know with certainty that it is also going to run on everyone else's machine.
My point has always been that writing is not so straightforward, and it is closer to the hellish existence where everyone has their own unique OS, browser, and code libraries.
The whole point of refactoring code is that it is doing the same thing in the end. My whole point about writing is that we rarely understand what the hell it is doing in the first place, much less what happens when we change it. Why did reading Scott's stuff convince me so easily, but when I shared it with friends it didn't change their minds at all? Why do you find Scott's writings too long, while I find the length just fine? It is because our minds are different.
I am not trying to argue the impossible case that no writing can ever be simplified. I would just say that the simplification is a lossy and imperfect form of data compression. And that what is being lost is probably not apparent to you, because you are probably stripping the things that your mind didn't need in the first place, but that others might have needed. If I or others seem "offended" that you claim to be able to write lossless compression of data, then think of it as the same "offense" that physicists feel towards people that claim to have invented perpetual motion machines.
cjet79
2yr ago
I'm aware of how refactoring is supposed to work. Not everything goes perfectly with human endeavors.
I'm pointing out common failure modes, and your response is that they should just not fail.
cjet79
2yr ago
Because it's too simple.
Which is exactly what I said.
But if you try to do it in say two paragraphs you might be able to extract the gist of it.
Then why didn't you do it! This is on a post where you are arguing about the benefits of simplicity and you can't be bothered to follow your own advice?
I'm pretty sure I can come up with better versions of at least some of Scott Alexander's writings that are in fact simpler. I wouldn't be making the same points as him though.
If you aren't making the same points as him, how is it a better version? It is a different piece of writing. That is like saying "I could write a simpler word processing program than microsoft word" and then you show us notepad. Of course it is simpler, but it is not the same thing.
People have too much ego though and think that their ideas cannot be explained better by other people, or even find it offensive for example if I claim I can explain something better than Scott Alexander. Why?
Because sometimes you are removing features from a complex program, and claiming that you have made it simpler. Other people get annoyed because you have removed features.
In open source projects programmers have to get rid of that ego, and other people constantly suggest ways to simply the code, sometimes rewrite it completely, and guess what the original author says... Thanks. I've made better versions of some big wig programmers and nobody finds it impossible or offensive. We all think differently and some people think of thinks we just don't. Why would that hurt anybody's ego?
I have about a decade of coding experience. This is not a new concept to me. But sometimes a junior programmer goes in a removes a critical piece of code to the functioning of the program, because they didn't understand why it was necessary. I have done this, and people under me have done this. Sometimes during code reviews I even thought "oh hey that looks much simpler than what I wrote, good on them". Only to come back and redo my complex set of code a week later when I realized what bug they caused.
In programming there is often a logical set of reasons why a particular piece of code exists. In writing that connection is a little more tenuous. Or if you want to maintain the coding metaphor think of a piece of writing as a bit like a piece of code, but it is a set of instructions for the human brain rather than a computer. Human brains vary quite a bit, and they are also a bit more emotional than most machines. So two obvious ways that writing would differ from code:
-
There would be parts of the writing that is necessary for some brains, and unnecessary for other brains. If a piece of writing is 'unnecessary' for your particular brain, it doesn't mean it is unnecessary for all brains. You could remove it, but you don't know who you have lost by doing so. Its possible you lost no one, its also possible you lost everyone else.
-
Emotions in the brain can change how people interpret things. Sometimes you need to set an emotional ambiance in writing to be interpreted correctly. To compare to programing, you need to import some packages first. But the brain is a run-time language, not compile time. So its just gonna take whatever whacky shit you give it and run with that. This changes writing by requiring introductory sections that set the mood. Scott does this in his writing, where he has an introductory section on controversial topics. Those intro sections are often meant to pull your head into the clouds, think big picture, and hopefully calm you down a little if you were coming in angry.
cjet79
2yr ago
I generally like simplicity as well.
However, simple writings can be bad when trying to engage with others in a discussion. I've noticed that people tend to cut down on the simplicity of other's ideas first, and their ideas second.
An exercise: Imagine I summed up your post by saying "simplicity is good", and then argued against that position by saying "some things are just complex and you can't get around it". You would probably be rightly frustrated because you'd feel that you addressed that point, but my summary simplified your explanation away.
Another exercise: anytime you think a post is too convoluted, simplify it in your head, then see if you can imagine someone having objections to the simplified version that are answered in the more convoluted version. (I notice this with Scott Alexander's writings pretty often, where I think 'I don't need all this extra stuff', but then see comments from people that didn't closely read the piece. They object in a way that was answered by the thing I thought was unnecessary).
cjet79
2yr ago
This does seem possible.
I've been in a few different groups that had "sex pests". It does seem that many groups have developed anti-bodies to this type of problem. But maybe the EA anti-bodies to the problem is "make it a glaring issue with the whole movement, and thus make everyone hyper-aware of the problem."
The adult co-ed sports league I was in had the solution of 'macho guy gets offended that his girl got hit on by sex pest and threatens to beat the guy up'. The political groups I was in had the solution of 'ah that person might be a sex pest, never invite him to anything ever again, and don't tell him why'. The workplaces I was in had the solution of 'everyone breaks our byzantine set of rules at some point, threaten to fire them for breaking them, hope they quit so we don't need to explain to everyone else how the rules are still BS that you can mostly ignore'.
cjet79
2yr ago
Their actions seem to align more with a group looking for a sexual dynamic that is totally dominated by the female sex than an asexual workplace.
I don't really think so. There is competition among females in the workplace as well. I think I've seen more anger among women about other women using sex to get ahead in the workplace.
It can certainly be a personal benefit for men in positions of power, but that doesn't translate to a general gender preference. I've never been in a position to exploit workplace power for sexual favors. I am somewhat happy with that for a multitude of reasons:
-
I don't trust myself with that power.
-
I'd be a worse worker as a result of exploiting that power.
-
I'd probably become more interested in the exploitation of workplace power than the more honestly earned sexual results of my dating world exploits.
cjet79
2yr ago
I worked in gender imbalanced tech industry when I met my wife. Ratio was probably 70:30 :: Male:Female.
My wife was also far more aware of relationships between coworkers than I was. I thought it was uncommon, but with her connection to the social grapevine at work she told me of dozens of couples.
cjet79
2yr ago
This feels less like breaking social and sexual norms and more like the same old problem with mixed gender workplaces under a different name.
I don't think I have ever been in an adult work environment where there wasn't at least one couple. I met my wife at work, I had two other work romances before I met my wife.
If you put people together a bunch, and give them a common interest then they will at a minimum develop some friendships and social ties. It shouldn't be a surprise that some of the friends start taking it further if they share a sexual interest in each other.
I think people should be responsible and be adults. Which is a whole package of norms and expectations. And I'm guessing the EA crowd broke some of those rules.
However I sometimes feel like the metoo movement and some parts of feminist groups want a completely asexual workplace. I feel that such a thing is largely impossible, but would also be a travesty. Once an adult leaves college the workplace can become one of their best places for finding a compatible life partner. Apps and bars are a shitty replacement.
cjet79
2yr ago
I have been playing Icarus, alone (as always).
Its hard to know where to start discussing it.
First of all I'm loving it and playing the crap out of it (185 hours logged in just 1 month).
But second of all I do not recommend playing it.
Before I get into why those two things are at odds, I'll describe the game:
Shortest: Roguelite RPG action survival.
Mid: Get dropped off on a large map, built up items to survive, complete an objective, and then leave it all behind to do it again.
Longest: The survival mechanics are pretty standard. Pickup sticks and rocks, build basic tools. Chop down trees, mine some rocks and iron for better tools. Build some better crafting stations to unlock even better tools. Fight off the wildlife, hunger, thirst, and suffocation. But all of these mechanics are tight. They aren't trying to string you out on these mechanics for weeks on end. You are meant to progress through the stages of survival relatively quickly. Because you have to start from scratch each time you drop into a new mission. There is also a set of RPG type mechanics where you gain levels, each level gives you some perk points to spend on being better at some aspect of survival, and each level gives you blueprint points, which you use to unlock new buildable items. The planet you land on (called Icarus), has some nasty storms that can tear apart most buildings. So you are either building temporary shelters to huddle in, or sitting in one spot for a while trying to gather up resources for the more expensive concrete permanent structures. The planet also has some harsh environments. There is a temperate forest/river valley starting area. There is a hot desert area, and cold snow/tundra area. Both require some degree of preparation if you want to traverse them safely. Also polar bears are scary as hell.
If that all sounds great, you know why I am playing the game so much.
But now, the bad news, and why I don't recommend the game. I'm dealing with constant performance issues. The framerate can slow to a crawl during some storms (especially fires), and I'm playing on the lowest graphical settings (and have a decent rig).
This week in particular has been a rough week for the game. They just implemented some weather changes last Friday, and the changes were messed up in some way, and as a result there are nearly constant storms. If I hadn't already been playing on a map where I had a permanent base I might have just entirely dropped the game. As it is I spent most of my time playing this past week huddled up in a shelter while storms passed by. And before the latest update the 2nd highest tier of building material (stone) could withstand all storms, but after the update, only the highest tier building material (concrete) could withstand all storms. So if you want to have any permanent structures that won't collapse after a few hours you have to build up to concrete.
Overall this game has the potential to be one of the greats in the survival RPG genre. The updates are coming out every week, and the progress has been good. I'd suggest that people who are interested in this general genre keep an eye on the game, and keep an eye out for good deals on higher end graphics cards.
cjet79
2yr ago
Sorry for late response, just finding this while reading quality contributions list.
I find it hard to believe grey tribe doesn't exist.
There might be some super blue tribe group, but I never thought of them as grey tribe.
To me the grey tribe is the anti-tribe, or the tribe-less outcasts. The Matt Parker and Trey Stones of the world. The serial contrarians that can't help but feel incorrect when they agree with everyone around them.
I don't want to laude then, I consider myself grey tribe, but not with any pride. Instead I think my brain might be broken, or I'm missing a fundamental part of human psychology. I can't have sports teams I cheer for, I can rarely feel the energy of a crowd, I can't connect with any tribe, and I have no loyalty to any group of people.
When shown divisive personas like Trump I just have to shrug and say "I don't get it". I don't get the love or the hate.
My mother and sister are blue tribe, my father and brother are red tribe. I know what both sides look like. Neither side would claim me, and I wouldn't fit in either way.
Maybe I'm not this "grey tribe" that people discuss, but I strongly believe that society is not fully divided into a binary red and blue tribe.
My original comment has been edited to add explanation
More options
Context Copy link