confidentcrescent
No bio...
User ID: 423
confidentcrescent
1mo ago
Technologically it's perfectly possible to let every user write their own algorithm
I think the technical hurdles to this are a lot higher than you expect. I'd like to see someone make a shot at doing it anyway, but I'm confident it will come with some significant trade-offs. A basic algorithm is probably more likely.
The main problem is that you need to run this somewhere and neither of your choices are good.
Running this on company hardware brings large performance and safety risks. Safety because some guy is going to try to get you to run an infinite loop or virus. Performance because search algorithms over large datasets are computationally intensive at the best of times, and code written by random strangers is not the best of times. Solving both of these without severely limiting the ability to create an algorithm would be a miracle.
Running this on a user's computer instead raises challenges around getting the data into the user's computer to be searched. If you're looking at Twitter and want to get today's tweets from accounts you follow that could be thousands of records. Download speed limitations will ensure you will never be able to run your algorithm on more than a tiny fraction of the full site.
confidentcrescent
1mo ago
The cops wanted the body cameras because they thought it would clear up false accusations/spurious complaints.
That doesn't match what I remember. Why did it take a national conversation to get body cameras in place if both police officers and reform advocates wanted them? Who else could have been getting in the way?
Additionally, unions in multiple large cities have demanded raises for wearing body cameras. This would be a very strange move by the unions if officers in these locations wanted body cameras.
confidentcrescent
1mo ago
Possibly! If we fix that problem, keep the body cameras, and the recruitment crisis goes away then the body cameras were probably an unalloyed good.
But as all three happened around the same time it's hard to untangle how much each of the former two contribute to the latter. Police certainly don't seem to have all-positive opinions of body cameras and I can see a number of reasons why even a good cop would hate wearing one.
confidentcrescent
1mo ago
OTOH, the widespread adoption of body-worn cameras has been a nearly unalloyed good
I think it's a bit early to say that. Haven't a lot of places been starting to struggle with poor police recruitment on a similar timeline to rolling out body cameras?
It could be that the loss of privacy from body cameras isn't relevant to the recruitment problems. Body cameras could even be helping recruitment by reducing officer concern over false accusations. But until someone identifies and fixes the cause of the recruitment problems I'd be reluctant to conclude body cameras aren't relevant.
Personally, I think I'd find it quite unpleasant to have a camera and microphone active for most of the time I spend at work. Especially when those recordings could be released to the public.
confidentcrescent
2mo ago
Based on the linked article I read, the couple was unsure about going forward with the surgery because it was unclear how much of the bill their insurance would cover. They got surprised with this last minute because their insurance dropped the ball.
None of the problems in this article are described as being caused by the healthcare provider and the author himself seems to think that these problems were at best only tangentially MSK's responsibility, including the following right after his criticism of them:
That said, MSK, like my wife and me, was downstream of UnitedHealthcare’s prior authorization system. The insurance company was the decider here, which puts the responsibility for quick and clear communication primarily on UnitedHealthcare.
Despite this, you spent most of your comment about prices in healthcare talking about doctors and providers. Why? How was this your takeaway from an article which almost entirely blames the insurance company?
You don't need to do this. You just need to ban pedophiles when people report them. Which Roblox seems to be refusing to do.
This seems trivial in theory but I encourage you to spend some time thinking about how this process would work in practice, keeping in mind that you need to deal with people who sometimes lie.
Do you just ban everyone who gets accused of being a pedophile? Trivial to implement but obviously abusable.
Do you just ban everyone who has documented proof of being a pedophile? People are willing to go to significant lengths to fabricate evidence, whether for their own fame and attention or to harm the target of a grudge. This adds a lot of work and I still don't think this would weed out false accusations at a satisfactory rate.
If you want a reasonably low false-positive rate I can't see a good way around actually investigating yourself. This takes a lot of work even if everything happened on your own platform. If the first step of the process is to establish off-platform communication and the bad behavior occurs there it's likely impossible to properly investigate.
Would you feel more comfortable with this process if we were able to produce date that illustrates that patients admitted with homicidal ideation are equally or more likely to kill someone as felons?
This seems to be a more specific group than previously discussed, so I'm not sure why data on them would matter to a discussion of involuntarily admitted patients as a whole. I also do not agree with rights being removed at a statistical level. Temporary violations of rights without due process are unfortunately necessary, but for a more permanent removal a just system requires an individual and adversarial process.
Fundamentally we need to establish what level of problematic behavior disqualifies from gun use.
I'm more concerned about the (lack of) process here, but given it's a right I'd accept taking guns away at the same level which would justify locking them up for an extended time. If you wouldn't feel comfortable tossing them in a jail cell for their behavior I don't think it's bad enough to take their guns either.
my co-workers [...] aren't going to abuse the commitment process for political reasons
Leading doctors in the US recently tried to distribute scarce health resources (covid-19 vaccines) by race. If that was non-political then non-political covers a lot I would consider political. I am concerned that some doctors will involuntarily admit a person for the purpose of getting them away from their guns long-term (i.e. past the immediate episode), and your word isn't sufficient to convince me that they aren't willing to do this.
Your usual crazy schizophrenic homeless person wandering around on the street was deemed safe to go home. How bad do you think the ones who get dragged in are?
I was under the impression these people do tend to get occasionally dragged in and involuntarily committed, then are eventually let go again.
confidentcrescent
4mo ago
Frequently (by no means all the time but often enough) that's grossly insufficient.
Why? You seem to be asserting that a risk of someone having a repeat episode while having a gun is unacceptable. I do not agree with this; disagreement with this is a primary reason behind why I'm against gun control. Freedom means authority figures should have neither the responsibility or authority to stop people from making shit decisions.
The modal involuntary patient [is] something like a schizophrenic who is so severe they just can't feed or care for themselves. Someone that disorganized isn't safe to own anything remotely dangerous, and if they had the financial ability to own a car (most don't) they probably shouldn't.
I agree this person is not safe to let out with guns, but the guns are irrelevant. The person you describe is not safe to let out, full stop. Not with guns or a car or even just their own fists.
The fact of the matter is that the vast vast majority of people who are involuntarily committed* really should not be allowed to own guns. Failures are rare. Should you find one (for instance someone who did a shit ton of PCP for ten years and then spent 50 years not using PCP and wants some guns) the expungement process works pretty well.
I do have disagreements regarding the place of suicidal people here, but I'll put those aside.
I don't trust that all of this is the case currently or that it will remain the case. The particular case described in the OP already does not look like the expungement process working well and I do not expect this to improve. There is a large group standing right behind your reasonable safety concerns who wants any possible excuse to keep guns away from people, and given your previous top-level post I'm sure you're well aware that doctors' politics lean heavily towards that group.
You're thinking of this system in the hands of an impartial party. I am expecting this system to be in the hands of an anti-gun crusader sooner or later and want it hardened against misuse.
confidentcrescent
4mo ago
I'd like the guy to go home to his guns after the medication works. This is a lesser violation of his rights than either option you have presented and no more complicated or expensive than the current system.
I can't speak for Nybbler but I read his comments as indicating he wants the same.
confidentcrescent
5mo ago
Enormously more efficient for the store, maybe. As a customer my perspective is that they just moved the cashier's job to you and gave you a shittier and slower interface to do it with.
The local self-checkout I'm familiar with requires you to scan items one at a time, takes a second to check the change in weight after you put each item in your bag, and if anything goes slightly wrong in this process you need the cashier's manual intervention which takes at least a minute. I'll usually take waiting for a couple people in line over that awful experience.
This whole thing only looks more efficient because the store isn't having to pay the customers to do this.
confidentcrescent
6mo ago
Removing these conditions makes for a very different argument than the original, which aims to sidestep the question of evidence for God by providing a chain of reasoning that assumes no evidence.
I'm less interested in going into a debate over whether the real world provides evidence for or against a God, but I've yet to see an argument that has moved me away from a position of ignorance on the subject.
confidentcrescent
6mo ago
I don't see how it could be otherwise than that they cancel out exactly.
Deciding a course of action is more likely than another action to get those infinite rewards would require some knowledge of God, knowledge that the Wager specifically excludes. The only state which is logically possible in our state of complete ignorance is therefore one where every action is equally likely to lead to infinite rewards. This would cancel out the infinite reward part when deciding which of two actions is better, as both are equally likely to get you there.
How would you go about figuring out which actions are more likely to lead to infinite rewards in this situation? Whence comes this knowledge about the unknowable?
confidentcrescent
6mo ago
Pascal's Wager is compelling because it claims to prove a benefit through logic. For the argument to still hold, may be possible isn't enough. I also have opposite intuitions and would find it incredibly surprising if we could logically go from zero knowledge to greater than zero knowledge.
If what you mean by more than one religion/source of infinite concerns is the modern version of Pascal's Wager that doesn't specify a religion and just says you should pick one, that version is still assuming a limited list of religions rather than the unconstrained list of any possible religion that a state of zero knowledge would require.
confidentcrescent
6mo ago
How can you estimate the probability space on a thing which, as the wager argues, is fundamentally unknowable through reason? Shouldn't every possible God be equally probable in a situation of zero knowledge?
The wager only works because it smuggles in the assumption that it's Christianity or nothing, but this is an unproven assumption.
confidentcrescent
9mo ago
I have trouble make an intellectual steelman of the people who are angry in the comments.
It seems obvious to me that they're angry because Scott just described them [opponents of PEPFAR] as being too callous to save a kid drowning in front of them.
"Do this thing you disagree with or you're a terrible person" is basically tailor-made to generate angry responses.
confidentcrescent
10mo ago
Good catch. I got mixed up between his mention of half leaving and timeframe of "gone in six months" to get an annualized 100% turnover. I'll edit my post to note that.
50% annual is better and a year makes the timelines a lot more reasonable for someone leaving post-training, but those numbers are still concerningly high.
Acquisitions usually have a higher turnover rate than usual, but a 100% 50% annual turnover rate is insane very high and I'm very doubtful that half your workforce immediately bounced from a job they were happy with just because they got some experience. Some people will absolutely do this the first chance they get, but having half a company made up of these guys would have to be the worst luck I've ever heard of.
In the end it's just the internet so I can't fact-check what you say, but training your employees only brings so much goodwill and I suspect that either the acquisition made their job a lot shittier or the job already had high turnover and you got suckered on the purchase.
The timelines are also very short here which to me also points to something more than just people getting poached with a better offer. People who already have a job usually take some time to find a good option when looking for a new one. That 50% who left within half a year either started looking immediately or wanted out badly enough they took the first thing that gave them an offer. For some of them, probably both.
To get back to the point about H1B workers, your post shows the problem with H1Bs very well. Your company is unable or unwilling to provide sufficient benefits to retain US workers, so you turn to cheap foreign labor instead. This is bad for local workers' pay and erodes the local talent pool as less locals can find jobs where they can gain experience.
Edit: Lewis2 below pointed out that the turnover was 50% over a year (I read the post as 50% over 6 months). Edited to strike a section and make a couple changes, but I still think the rate is high enough to be indicative of other problems pushing employees away rather than them just gaining new options.
confidentcrescent
10mo ago
I'm confused as to how you see his earlier estimate as better at all, much less vastly better. Are you saying you'd be happy with a price tag which consists of the range $4000 to $1500000?
The chance of hitting the $1.5m upper end makes this price tag functionally identical to "idk, could be anything" for most people. Unless you have millions in assets then 1.5 million is already enough to ruin your life and put you in a place where you're probably staring down bankruptcy. Whether the cost caps out at 1.5 million or 1.5 billion is irrelevant to people who can pay neither of those numbers.
confidentcrescent
11mo ago
I suspect they are entirely jury-rigged to make the 1 look infinitely more prescient than the 25.
I think the format is just inherently rigged, and in the opposite direction you'd immediately think. The implication of a 1 vs 25 is that the 1 is in the worse position (as in a physical fight), but I think when you have the real-time debate format the inverse is true.
Consider what participating from the 25-person side looks like. Unless you have a very non-real-time debate, the 25 need to share time between themselves and also need to carry on each others' arguments. They need to defend positions another person raised and follow through on a path of attack another person started. And being real time removes the main benefit of having numbers, which is being able to workshop a response and pull out the best ideas from all 25. The result is an inevitable mess.
In practice I suspect the single guy only needs to be moderately consistent with his own statements, not get stumped for a response on anything, and do a passable job of poking holes in the jumbled political positions of 25 people combined in an ad-hoc manner. These aren't trivial tasks but they're well within reach for an experienced debater.
Firefox released a patch to fix a sandbox escape* just a few days ago. Properly sandboxing a program has not been solved; it is an active problem that consumes a lot of developer time and current solutions likely still have many holes to be found.
Crooks mostly rely on users downloading and running scripts because it's easy and it works. Writing exploits against browsers isn't worth the effort when you can socially engineer people and get the same results.
Most sandboxing is also bad for performance. Javascript on a random webpage generally doesn't need to perform well but a recommendation algorithm will.
Any cut-off aggressive enough to meaningfully restrict denial-of-service attacks would make algorithm-writing functionally impossible for the majority of users and probably also prevent most of the possible algorithms people would like to write.
* I can't see the bug report but based on the reported severity this appears to be a between-page sandbox escape rather than fully leaving the browser.
More options
Context Copy link