faceh
10mo ago
Thing is, nobody ever gets fired or cancelled or arrested for coming to the defense of a woman, be she deserving or not.
Whereas getting the reputation as the person who thinks women should sacrifice for men sometimes, even if they don't want to, will get you some sidelong glances at best, and fired, cancelled, and possibly arrested at worst.
faceh
11mo ago
Well let me ask the specific possibility, if the 70-year-old eschews striking and just attempts to grab the opponent, what are the chances they are able to lock down the fight and just throw the female to the ground and hit her there? No elegant takedown, just grabbing on and throwing her down.
I'd speculate that a 175 pound geezer could sit on Amy Broudhurst's chest and obviate most of her cardio advantage right there.
faceh
11mo ago
How many street fights involve seventy year old men
Virtually zero! But not quite zero.
So my priors are not well informed on this but I still have priors.
So the speculation is fun! I have to consider a number of disparate data points and project outcomes into a realm of uncertainty and argue my case based on inductive logic and reasoning from whatever similar situations exist.
faceh
11mo ago
Yes indeed, I granted in the hypothetical:
Cardio will 100% be a factor here, but also, old man strength is REAL
I don't know how much the cardio will help if she actually gets caught by the opponent. She can certainly try to outrun him the whole time.
But again, 70 isn't inherently an age of fragility and decrepitude. It would be for many, I grant. But part of the reason I zeroed in on THAT age is its just high enough that we might question the outcome. I do reassert that I would bet on the 70-year-old, but I could lose money on it.
faceh
11mo ago
Yep. Have to assume that both sides are allowed to use whatever tactics and techniques they like or else the victor probably wins on a technicality.
Ironically the main thing that a trained female has going for her is less fear of being punched in the face, whereas an untrained guy might flinch and cower when he gets struck.
But the other thing an untrained male might do is flail and swing wildly, and the female CANNOT afford to take an errant hit by pure luck.
Sure... except golf isn't REALLY a 'rich mans game' anymore. Happy Gilmore is a bit outdated in that respect.
I happen to have already commented on this at length.
I am by no means rich and I grew up practicing golf along with a bunch of other sports. My solidly blue collar dad golfs all the time.
It's not like, say, Polo or high end motorsports where the barriers to entry are insurmountable.
Yes, rich people REALLY like golf. But to pretend that being good at golf makes someone less relatable to regular dudes is definitely not aware of actual golf culture.
faceh
11mo ago
By the time you're resorting to pure brute force you've probably lost so much legitimacy that you're asking for revolution or coup.
Of course this doesn't mean it'll actually happen.
faceh
11mo ago
Right, but its simultaneously hard to understand why their immediate response to seeing the boiling water in her hand is "I'm will shoot you in the face."
I guess I'm suggesting that their failure to control the scene was a problem. Okay, they don't see the boiling water as a danger until she's holding it. Maybe that's a training flaw in itself.
If they didn't think she was posing any danger prior to that point, I'm confused as to why that escalated to "I'm going to shoot" you nigh instantaneously. If they DID think she was a possible danger, then just keep her on the couch and shut off the stove off yourself, don't let her roam around to, e.g. grab a knife or set something on fire.
faceh
11mo ago
I think the odds of Trump being assassinated are low, but there's some value in speculating about it.
Any updates on your thinking here? Am absolutely curious.
faceh
11mo ago
If I were ranking potential assassination risks my top would be that if Biden is elected and has a Senate majority (even 50/50 with VP as tie breaker) the value of killing a right leaning SCJ would be very high in certain eyes.
Well now I'm genuinely curious, have you reassessed this at all?
faceh
1yr ago
faceh
1yr ago
Yes, and the Augur 2.0 solution was to add in an option for people to bet on whether a market was invalid in the market itself.
faceh
1yr ago
Yes, I'm just saying that the software is maintained by a company that may not make the best decisions for the end-users because incentives aren't quite aligned.
faceh
1yr ago
I'm now curious as to how much of this has started seeping into Law Review and Bar Journals, or if the standards there are still high enough and the reviewers still attentive enough that they'd get caught before publication.
faceh
1yr ago
Its going to have a direct impact on a particular segment of the population, though.
They're going to feel more a pinch, which will indeed reverberate out, but it'll be their belts that will have to be tightened.
faceh
1yr ago
Yep.
I think we can rigorously define certain behaviors that we don't ever want to become 'acceptable' but there are a lot that will be borderline at best. "Make everybody feel satisfied working 16 hour days 7 days a week" seems far beyond the pale, I don't even know how you'd argue FOR that ideal.
The Brave New World outcome where everyone is in a chemically-induced state of satiation is seeming less likely to me, but the version where Molochian incentives push us all into a very unfortunate part of the payoff matrix seems probable.
(As as aside, this is why I see the AI alignment problem as important. If the AI is 'friendly' but isn't actually in tune with what makes humans/humanity thrive, it'll come up with solutions that are subtly miserable.)
faceh
1yr ago
That's basically my understanding of it as a layman outsider.
Financial Markets are so large and complex and useful information is so dispersed that one trader can notice e.g. an arbitrage opportunity between the price of tea in China vs. Australia that allows them to front-run the market. Or perhaps they catch some more esoteric correlation like how when the tea shipments to a particular Chinese province are delayed, productivity drops by 15% or some such.
And the problem then is how do you bring enough capital to bear quickly enough to seize the opportunity without alerting other actors, and, ideally, turn it into a repeatable (algorithmic) bet to pump money out of the system.
faceh
1yr ago
This strategy seems pretty dependent on never becoming somebody who the IRS might eventually target.
That is, if your income grows over time, you have a real chance of becoming a big enough fish that they'll find it worthwhile to target you. And if they can target you for years or decades of back taxes, that's a pretty heavy hand they can bring slamming down.
Tax liens are not fun to deal with.
faceh
1yr ago
It's about the best they can muster under current circumstances.
I would just wait to see if there is any indication of a phase 2 to the plan.
faceh
1yr ago
So why would it be confusing that Hamas might YOLO in a similar situation where they are fighting against an inevitable outcome?
faceh
1yr ago
The smart phones didn't destroy the physical, real time connection, though. Not by mere dint of existing, that is.
I think a lot of factors contributed to that, and smart phones provided an alternative to such physical connections that managed to capture the masses as those physical connections deteriorated.
faceh
1yr ago
I can be sympathetic to that view, although I'd say social media is the real problem there.
But I don't see how you can suggest that smartphones, and the ability to have a computer with access to the near-sum of total human knowledge, hasn't been a boon for mankind in general, creating tons of value across the planet.
I might prefer to live in a world where Social Media was banned or never invented, wouldn't say the same for smartphones in general.
Its interesting because we're entering a period where you can use a computer to determine with certainty the optimal moves in a given scenario. Stockfish does this for chess, but I'd wager that you could take any given computer game and machine learning could produce an engine which can beat 99% of human players at said game given the same input/output signals.
So if you want to give your players a crutch in game, just simplify the mechanics down to "let the computer suggest three mostly optimal moves, and let the player select from among them." Leave the actual mechanics of the game under the hood and invisible to the player, let the AI figure out how those mechanics play out, and then give the player the 'choice' that will actually move the state of play along.
In this scenario, the player who takes time to learn the mechanics and fiddle around under the hood and decides they will make decisions without the AI advisor is almost certainly at a disadvantage, there's no way they can discover a better move that the AI missed.
But is the player who is at least trying to develop mastery of the game having more fun?
MAYBE!
More options
Context Copy link