@faul_sname's banner p


Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 20:44:12 UTC


User ID: 884


Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 20:44:12 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 884

Your reply makes me really want to know what OP said.

But (I think) there's no adblock in the world that could get past slatestarcodex's jpegs on the side of the page, which are fixed and just there like another part of the content.

With multimodal LLMs it should be possible to detect advertisements based on their content rather than their location on the page, even in cases where the advertisement is an image.

I'm thinking of a system along the lines of the one described here, but for blocking ads rather than distractions.

Of course, one issue with thesystem I'm envisioning is that, to quote the linked page, "this might be a problem for pages with sensitive content."


5th percentile conscientiousness sounds about right.

This may or may not work on children, but one thing I found useful when I worked in tech support and people refused to just do X is to ask "what happens / what do you observe when you try to do X" instead of saying "please do X", where X is some concrete specific action (e.g. "click the My Account menu item").

Ah, I read it as "bad for me (personally, because it will lower my wage personally)".

if you're the person who gets to pay slave wages and ignore worker protection laws you don't really notice the costs that you're imposing on other people

And likewise if you buy products where part of the supply chain of that product involved the labor of people who do not receive the pay or worker protections that American workers receive, you don't notice those costs, but you do benefit from the reduced prices. And if the labor involved was voluntary, I think that's basically fine.

I think if people choose their preferred policies purely on the basis of whether or not those policies personally benefit them, and choose whether to advocate for those policies based on how much they personally will be helped or hurt by those policies, we'll end up with some pretty bad protectionist policies (e.g. the Jones Act, rent-seeking licensing regimes, and other ways of burning the commons for personal gain).

If that makes me a neoliberal, well then I guess I'm a neoliberal.

Externalities are a very valid point, and one I am sympathetic to in some cases, if the case is actually made that the externalities exist and are not being addressed. However, KMC's statement was

I don't want monopolies for the same reason I don't want foreigners: it's bad for me. No hypocrisy needed.

That does not sound to me like an argument about societal costs and benefits.

I don't want monopolies (i.e. I think that people should be prohibited by law from colluding with other providers to increase the market prices) of goods that I buy, but for I want other people selling the same thing I sell (labor) to be forced by law to collude with me to raise the market prices.

Fair markets for thee but not for me.

"I support everyone else following principles that benefit me, but I don’t want to follow those principles myself because they dont benefit me" is like the definition of hypocrisy.

It was what I expected, based on recent gh activity. I briefly thought it wasn't, based on the title of the new thing, and then I looked at the location.

If the thing being tested is the thing I think it is, I think it's pretty exciting.

The judge's response to this argument is: Speech can be compelled by the government as long as it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest

So does this mean that companies can be compelled to post false warrant canaries? Or is the interpretation narrower than that / limited to compelled truthful speech?

I upvote if I want to see more stuff like what I just said, and downvote if I want to see less of it.

But the vast majority of comments I read I don't strongly feel one way or the other, so I don't vote.

An NPC is someone who chooses their positions based on answering the question of "what would someone in my role/context believe" rather than "what do I personally think is best/true". Someone could be an NPC in the context of national politics while having strong opinions about how the local HOA is run, or vice versa.

Because horse-trading is necessary to achieve anything in politics no matter how strongly you feel that your political opponents should just give you what you want with no concessions on your end?

One wonders what they imagine is responsible for producing things like modern healthcare.

Doctors and nurses, mostly. With a few scientists doing science to invent the medicine (this science may involve mixing brightly colored, bubbling things in beakers). And paid for by the economy, which is a blob of money which can be moved around to pay for whatever, but is mostly stolen by greedy people in finance and politics.

I don't think "the nanny who watches the kids of the banker who approved the financing for the construction of the hospital is an important part of the system which produces healthcare" is really a natural thought.

The toy model definitely does not capture the entire situation. It's mainly intended as a warning that the tails come apart. I specifically expect that the linear extrapolation would break down if you tried to use it very far outside the naturally occurring distribution, and proposed a toy mechanism of that.

you could just clone them

Yes, I'd expect that would work fine. In fact I'd expect that "clone a very high IQ individual" would work much better than "CRISPR up a baby from two average parents so that it has all of the SNPs that GWAS said were best".

Intelligence isn't caused by a few genes, but by thousands of genes that individually have a minuscule contribution but, when added up, cause >50% of existing variation in intelligence

I would bet good money that taking a genome, and then editing it until it had every gene which is correlated with higher intelligence, would not get you a baby that was even a single standard deviation above what you would naively predict based on the parents.

Consider a simple toy model, where

  1. Human intelligence is modulated by the production of a magical protein Inteliquotin (IQN), which causes brains to wrinkle.
  2. Human intelligence is a direct but nonlinear function of IQN concentration -- if IQN concentration is too low, it results in smooth brains (and thus lower intelligence), while if the concentration is too high, it interferes with metabolic processes in the neurons (and thus also results in lower intelligence). Let's say the average concentration is 1.0µg/mL.
  3. The optimal IQN concentration for inclusive fitness in the ancestral environment, and the average among the human population is 1.0µg/mL. However, the optimal concentration for intelligence specifically is 10% higher, at 1.1µg/mL (between those concentrations, improved fitness due to increased intelligence is more than offset to decreased fitness due to, let's say, "increased propensity for Oculoumbilical Tendency leading to elevated predation rates")
  4. The production of IQN is modulated by 1000 different genes IQN000 - IQN999, with the high-IQN variant of each gene occuring in 10% of the population, and where each gene independently causes IQN to increase by 0.01µg/mL.

If you have this scenario, each gene IQN000...IQN999 will explain about 0.1% of the variance in IQ, and yet using CRISPR to force just 5% more of the IQN genes to the "good" variant will lead to poorer outcomes than just leaving the system alone.

All that being said, you should be able to squeeze some results out of that technique. Just not multiple SD of improvement, at least not by doing the naive linear extrapolation thing.

Jury duty is an example of a service that people are universally compelled to provide. So looking at the working conditions and pay of jurors may also be instructive towards answering this question.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining.

Can you please explain for the rest of us? Because I don't entirely understand what that particular example was supposed to demonstrate.

Yeah, the whole "this would not be a problem if we actually enforced the laws that are already on the books" thing strikes again.

Though those cases do tend to suggest a course of action that is more along the lines of "apply political pressure towards enforcing existing laws" will be more effective than one that looks like "create yet more laws that will not be enforced".

And "existing laws are not enforced, and they should be" is, IMO, one of the strongest right-wing talking points.

What puzzles me isn't so much why my opponents have decided that having people go door-knocking to collect ballots is a very important civil right

My impression is that it comes down to a freedom of speech thing - it's not so much that there is a specific civil right to collect ballots as that a law preventing people from talking to their neighbors about certain subjects would be legally problematic.

That said I suspect "push for a law limiting the number of mail-in ballots a single person can mail in on behalf of others" might be a popular policy for the right to push. We don’t want to stop mobility-impaired granny from having her granson take her ballot to the post office. We want to stop an organized group from going door to door throughout a neighborhood, asking people how they plan to vote and then offering to collect ballots only from those who give the desired answer, and collecting hundreds or thousands of ballots that way.

If @do_something had looked at their posting history they would easily have seen that and the length to which @SecureSignals goes to follow the rules of the forum and to engage in constructive discourse.

"Goes to great lengths to engage in constructive discourse" is definitely not the pattern I have experienced when interacting with SS (nor, for that matter, has "follow the rules of the forum", though on that count I'm not sure he's actually worse than the median strongly-opinionated-poster here).

Example of the non-constructive discourse pattern of "throw out a bunch of claims, then when those claims are refuted don't acknowledge that and instead throw out a bunch more expensive-to-refute claims" here.

This post is not directly about the holocaust. It is instead about a case where someone claimed that a mass grave existed in Canada based on scans with ground-penetrating-radar (GPR), but that claim did not pan out.

As a note, GPR has ever been used to as evidence for the existence of mass graves from the Holocaust. The above post does not directly state that though.

I don't think this particular post is an instance of the "make a strong claim and then deflect when called to justify it" pattern. Though if you don't care about the CW surrounding residential schools in Canada you might still not find it interesting.

So, if I'm understanding this view correctly

  1. There exists a changeless thing. We call that thing "God".
  2. There exists some other thing which is not "God". We call that thing "the universe".
  3. The existence of "the universe" was caused by the existence of "God", but that causal graph is one-way in that "the universe" has no effects on "God".
  4. This "God" is not necessarily the same "God" that people refer to when they say things like "God is my shepherd, I shall not want, etc etc" or "Jesus is the son of God".

So, coming from a viewpoint of "for a statement to be meaningful, nontrivial, and correct, its negation must be meaningful and incorrect":

  • My guess on what is meant by "God exists out of time" as opposed to "God exists within time" is "there are no things which have a causal effect on God". So far so good.
  • I have no idea what the difference between "God knows all its actions" and "God does not know its actions" are. What does it actually mean for an unchanging system to "know" a thing? Why would we expect that the particular unchanging system that caused the universe we live in to exist has this property?

Also, is there any particular reason that we would expect that the universe we live in is one that is causally downstream of an instance of this specific type of god?