faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
No bio...
User ID: 884
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
I reject the concept that as soon as epsilon regulation of an industry is put into place, it necessarily and logically follows that there is a slippery slope that results in innovation dying. I think you need at least some argument further. It's easy to just 'declare' bankruptcy a slippery slope, but we know that many end up not.
Nobody is arguing that "the moment any regulation is in place, it is inevitable that we will slide all the way down the slippery slope of increasing regulation and all innovation in that industry will die". The argument is, instead, that adding a regulation increases the chance that we will slide down that slippery slope. That chance may be worth it, if the step is small and the benefit of the regulation is large, but in the case of the entirety of ETSI EN 303 645 (not just section 5.1 in isolation), I don't think that's the case, and I certainly don't think it's a slam-dunk that it's worth the cost.
Section 5.1, "You are not allowed to use a default password on an network interface as the sole means of authorization for the administrative functions of an IoT device", if well-implemented, is probably such a high-benefit low-risk regulation.
Section 5.4.1, "sensitive security parameters in persistent storage shall be stored securely by the device," seems a bit more likely to be a costly provision, and IMO one that misunderstands how hardware security works (there is no such thing as robust security against an attacker with physical access).
They double down on the idea that manufacturers can make something robust to physical access in section 5.4.2, "where a hard-coded unique per device identity is used in a device for security purposes, it shall be implemented in such a way that it resists tampering by means such as physical, electrical or software."
And then there's perplexing stuff like 5.6.4 "where a debug interface is physically accessible, it shall be disabled in software.". Does this mean if you sell a color-changing light bulb, and the bulb has a usbc port, you're not allowed to expose logs across the network and instead have to expose them only over the usbc port? I would guess not, but I'd also guess that if I was in the UK the legal team at my company would be very unhappy if I just went with my guess without consulting them.
And that's really the crux of the issue, introducing regulation like this means that companies now have to make a choice between exposing themselves to legal risks, making dumb development decisions based on the most conservative possible interpretation of the law, or involve the legal department way more frequently for development decisions.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
I present to you: nobody.
... I see a lot of you arguing that The_Nybbler believes that giving an inch here is a bad idea because they think that a tiny regulation will directly kill innovation, while The_Nybbler is arguing that there's no particular reason for the regulators who introduced this legislation to stop at only implementing useful regulations that pass cost-benefit analysis, and that the other industries we see do seem to have vastly overreaching regulators, and so a naive cost-benefit analysis on a marginal regulation which does not factor in the likely-much-larger second-order effects is useless (though @The_Nybbler do correct me if I'm wrong about this, and you think introducing regulation would be bad even if the first-order effects of regulation were positive and there was some actually-credible way of ensuring that the scope of the regulation was strictly limited).
Honestly I think both of you could stand to focus a bit more on explaining your own positions and less on arguing against what you believe the other means, because as it stands it looks to me like a bunch of statements about what the other person believes, like "you argue that the first-order effects of the most defensible part of this regulation are bad, but you can't support that" / "well you want to turn software into an over-regulated morass similar to what aerospace / pharma / construction have become".
IMO, it shows that you misunderstand how these things work. They're not saying "secure against a nation state decapping your chip". They actually refer to ways that persistent storage can be generally regarded as secure, even if you can imagine an extreme case.
Quoting the examples:
Example 1: The root keys involved in authorization and access to licensed radio frequencies (e.g. LTE-m cellular access) are stored in a UICC.
Ok, fair enough, I can see why you would want to prevent users from accessing these particular secrets on the device they own (because, in a sense, they don't own this particular bit). Though I contend that the main "security" benefit of these is fear of being legally slapped around under CFAA.
Example 2: A remote controlled door-lock using a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) to store and access the sensitive security parameters.
Seems kinda pointless. If an attacker can read the flash storage on your door lock, presumably that means they've already managed to detach the door lock from your door, and can just enter your house. And if a remote attacker has the ability to read the flash storage because they have gained the ability to execute arbitrary code, they can presumably just directly send the outputs which unlock the door without mucking about with the secrets at all.
Example 3: A wireless thermostat stores the credentials for the wireless network in a tamper protected microcontroller rather than in external flash storage.
What's the threat model we're mitigating here, such that the benefit of mitigating that threat is worth the monetary and complexity cost of requiring an extra component on e.g. every single adjustable-color light bulb sold?
H-what? What are you even talking about? This doesn't even make any sense. The standard problem here is that lots of devices have debug interfaces that are supposed to only be used by the manufacturer (you would know this if you read the definitions section), yet many products are getting shipped in a state where anyone can just plug in and do whatever they want to the device. This is just saying to not be a retard and shut it off if it's not meant to be used by the user.
On examination, I misread, and you are correct about what the documents says.
That said, the correct reading then seems to be "users should not be able to debug, diagnose problems with, or repair their own devices which they have physical access to, and which they bought with their own money." That seems worse, not better. What's the threat model this is supposed to be defending against? Is this a good way of defending against this threat model?
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
I can't understand how people can maintain a neutral view on unnecessary surgeries on minors
If you think that minors are basically small people, and that people should largely be allowed to do things that they personally expect will make them fulfilled, it's pretty easy to keep a neutral view. Something like "I have no desire to do this to myself, but neither to I have a moral claim to prevent them from doing it to themselves". To be honest, this is pretty much where I fall on the issue. I am somewhat uncomfortable with the speed with which this went from rare to common, as it leaves people without solid information on how well it's likely to go in the marginal case rather than the average-as-of-decades ago. Still, I can't think of any interventions where the benefit of that intervention is worth the costs and the precedents it sets.
How many manias does history need to present before people learn what we are?
Empirically, people do not learn from history, only from things that they personally have seen, and so every group in every generation has to learn that lesson for themselves.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1mo ago
Look like puberty blockers were prescribed for trans reasons to about 1400 kids in 2021, with that number increasing by about 200 kids / year. Puberty blockers were additionally prescribed to about 20,000 kids in 2021 for central precocious puberty (puberty starting before age 8 for girls or age 9 for boys).
As a point of comparison, about 3100 teens between the ages of 12 and 19 died in car crashes in 2021.
Is there a reason you think that puberty blockers, specifically, are a big problem?
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2mo ago
For reference, from the link, the questions were
- Overall, how do you think each of the following affects people’s ability to be successful where you work (Being white / Being black / Being hispanic / Being asian / Being a man / Being a woman): (Makes it a lot easier to be successful / Makes it a little easier to be successful / Makes it neither easier nor harder to be successful / Makes it a little harder to be successful / Makes it a lot harder to be successful / Not sure / No answer)
- In general, do you think that focusing on increasing diversity, equity and inclusion at work is mainly… (A good thing / A bad thing / Neither good nor bad)
- When it comes to how much attention your company or organization pays to increasing diversity, equity and inclusion, would you say your company or organization pays… (Too much attention / Too little attention / About the right amount of attention / Not sure)
- Regardless of how diverse the place where you work is, how important is it to YOU PERSONALLY to work at a place that… (Has about an equal mix of men and women / Has a mix of employees of different race and ethnicities / Has a mix of employees of different ages / Has a mix of employees of different sexual orientations): (Extremely important / Very important / Somewhat important / Not too important / Not at all important / No answer)
- Regardless of how accessible the place where you work is, how important is it to you personally to work at a place that is accessible for people with physical disabilities? (Extremely important / Very important / Somewhat important / Not too important / Not at all important / No answer)
- How well do each of the following describe the place where you currently work (Has about an equal mix of men and women / Has a mix of employees of different race and ethnicities / Has a mix of employees of different ages / Has a mix of employees of different sexual orientations): (Extremely well / Very well / Somewhat well / Not too well / Not at all well / Not sure / No answer)
- How accessible is the place where you work for people with physical disabilities? (Extremely accessible / Very accessible / Somewhat accessible / Not too accessible / Not at all accessible / Not sure)
- As far as you know, does the company or organization you work for have any of the following (A staff member whose main job is to promote diversity, equity and inclusion at work / Trainings or meetings on diversity, equity and inclusion at work / Policies to ensure that everyone is treated fairly in hiring, pay or promotions / Groups created by employees based on shared identities or interests / A way for employees to see the salary range for all positions): (Yes / No / Not sure)
- What type of impact do you think having each of the following has had where you work (A staff member whose main job is to promote diversity, equity and inclusion at work / Trainings or meetings on diversity, equity and inclusion at work / Policies to ensure that everyone is treated fairly in hiring, pay or promotions / Groups created by employees based on shared identities or interests / A way for employees to see the salary range for all positions): (Very positive / Somewhat positive / Neither positive nor negative / Somewhat negative / Very negative)
- Are you personally a member of an employee affinity group or Employee Resource Group (ERG) – that is, a group created by employees, based on their shared identities or interests such as gender, race, or being a parent?
- In the past year, have you participated in any trainings on diversity, equity or inclusion at work?
- Overall, would you say the diversity, equity or inclusion trainings you have participated in at work have been… (Very helpful / Somewhat helpful / Neither helpful nor unhelpful / Somewhat unhelpful / Very unhelpful)
Who are these 53% of people who think that their mandatory DEI trainings through their employer are helpful? That result makes me pretty doubtful of the results of this survey as a whole.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
The Kolmogorov complexity of a concept can be much less than the exhaustive description of the concept itself. Pi has infinite digits, a compact program that can produce it to arbitrary precision doesn't, and the latter is what is being measured with KC. I believe @faul_sname can correct me if I've misrepresented the field.
Sounds right to me.
there's no argument that can convince a rock
You're just not determined enough. I think you'll find the most effective way to convince a rock of your point is to crush it, mix it with carbon, heat it to 1800C in an inert environment, cool it, dump it in hydrochloric acid, add hydrogen, heat it to 1400C, touch a crystal of silicon to it and very slowly retract it to form a block, slice that block into thin sheets, polish the sheets, paint very particular pretty patterns the sheets, shine UV light at the sheets, dip the sheets in potassium hydroxide, spray them with boron, heat them back up to 1000C, cool them back off, put them in a vacuum chamber, heat them back up to 800C, pump a little bit of dichlorosilane into the chamber, cool them back down, let the air back in, paint more pretty patterns on, spray copper at them really hard, dip them in a solution containing more copper and run electricity through, polish them again, chop them into chips, hook those chips up to a constant voltage source and a variable voltage source, use the variable voltage source to encode data that itself encodes instructions for running code that fits a predictive model to some inputs, pretrain that model on the sum total of human knowledge, fine tune it for sycophancy, and then make your argument to it. If you find that doesn't work you're probably doing it wrong.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
4mo ago
If you don't mind me asking, how did you even find this place? This site is a quarantine site to contain the often toxic political discussions that would otherwise happen elsewhere, and the people who enter the quarantine tend to be those of us who enjoy such things for whatever reason. The site isn't really advertised anywhere, and so usually the only people who come here are the proverbial pissing in the water club.
Coming here and complaining that there are too many bad political takes feels like signing up for a poker strategy forum and complaining that they talk about and glorify gambling an unhealthy amount - arguably not wrong, but how did you even get there?
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
So there's the trivial answer, which is that the program "run every program of length 1 for 1 step, then every program of length 2 for 1 step, then every program of length 1 again, and so on [1,2,1,3,1,2,1,4,1,2,...] style" will, given an infinite number of steps, run every program of finite length for an infinite number of steps. And my understanding is that the Kolmogorov complexity of that program is pretty low, as these things go.
But even if we assume that our universe is computable, you're not going to have a lot of luck locating our universe in that system.
Out of curiosity, why do you want to know? Kolmogorov complexity is a fun idea, but my general train of thought is that it's not avtually useful for almost anything practical, because when it comes to reasoning about behaviors that generalize to all turing machines, you're going to find that your approaches fail once the TMs you're dealing with have a large number (like 7 for example, and even 6 is pushing it) of states.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
6mo ago
Can you list out the specific things that you would do differently if you were worried vs if you were not? The answers to some of them ("have an emergency kit, at least a week's worth of food an water", "have the sort of PPE you probably should have anyway if you ever do home improvement projects", "get and use an air filter") are "yes", the answer to others (e.g. "get a homestead that is robust to the end of civilization", "spend a lot of mental energy on panic but don't do anything") are "no", and then there are ones in the middle like "bet on increased volatility/ in the market" to which the answer is "maybe useful if you know what you're doing, but if you have to ask how to do it you're probably unsophisticated enough that playing the market is -EV".
None of the people in that conversation, including yourself, even tried to defend the mainstream position, so there was no evasion on my end
And your responses were to an imagined opponent who defended the mainstream position, instead of the actual people who were responding to you with actual specific questions.
If you want to debate the what you see as the mainstream position with someone who supports the mainstream position, you need to go find someone who supports what you believe the mainstream position is, and then go debate them. If you want to take a stronger position than "the mainstream position is not 100% accurate", you need to defend your stronger position, not just fall back to "well you're not defending the mainstream position so I will not engage.
Lest you think I'm being uncharitable, I'm thinking in particular of this comment, where you said
It is strange to accuse Revisionists of "moving the goalposts" when you refuse to defend the core elements of the mainstream narrative. You are of course free to not take the mainstream position and propose your own historical interpretation, and that makes you a Revisionist. Congratulations.
This being in the context of someone repeatedly challenging your very specific claim that
There was no German plan for the physical extermination of world Jewry
and your repeated refusals to actually engage with their evidence that such a plan did, in fact, exist.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
3mo ago
It's unfortunate how strongly the chat interface has caught on over completion-style interfaces. The single most useful LLM tool I use on a daily basis is copilot. It's not useful because it's always right, it's useful because it's sometimes right, and when it's right it's right in about a second. When it's wrong, it's also wrong in about a second, and my brain goes "no that's wrong because X Y Z, it should be such and such instead" and then I can just write the correct thing. But the important thing is that copilot does not break my flow, while tabbing over to a chat interface takes me out of the flow.
I see no particular reason that a copilot for writing couldn't exist, but as far as I can tell it doesn't (unless you count something janky like loom).
But yeah, LLMs are great at the "babble" part of "babble-and-prune":
The stricter and stronger your Prune filter, the higher quality content you stand to produce. But one common bug is related to this: if the quality of your Babble is much lower than that of your Prune, you may end up with nothing to say. Everything you can imagine saying or writing sounds cringey or content-free. Ten minutes after the conversation moves on from that topic, your Babble generator finally returns that witty comeback you were looking for. You'll probably spend your entire evening waiting for an opportunity to force it back in.
And then instead of leveraging that we for whatever reason decided that the way we want to use these things is to train them to imitate professionals in a chat room who are writing with a completely different process (having access to tools which they use before responding, editing their writing before hitting "send", etc).
The "customer service AIs are terrible" thing is I think mostly a separate thing where customer service is a cost center and their goal is usually to make you go away without too much blowback to the business. AI makes it worse, though, because the executives trust an AI CS agent even less than they would trust a low-wage human in that position, and so will give that agent even fewer tools to actually solve your problem. I think the lack of trust makes sense, too, since you're not hiring a bunch of AI CS agents you can fire if they mess up consistently, you're "hiring" a bunch of instances of one agent, so any exploitability is repeatable.
All that said, I expect that for the near future LLMs will be more of a complement than a replacement for humans. But that's not as inspiring goal for the most ambitious AI researchers, and so I think they tend to cluster at companies with the stated goal of replacing humans. And over the much longer term it does seem unlikely that humans are at an optimal ability-to-do-useful-things-per-unit-energy point. So looking at the immediate evidence we see the top AI researchers are going all-in on replacing humans, and over the long term human replacement seems inevitable, and so it's easy to infer "oh the thing that will make humans obsolete is the thing that all these people talking about human obsolescence are working on".
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
4mo ago
Now I'm really curious what did the intermediate parts of the slope looked like for you. The usual parts of the slope contain interminable debates about AI doom, but your question asking what an LLM is isn't compatible with you coming from that part of the slope, which means you must have taken a different and more interesting path.
If you're up for it, I'd like to know which of the following 20 obscure terms you've encountered.
- Paperclipping
- Shrimp welfare
- Dath Ilan
- Egregore
- Great Filter
- TPOT
- Moloch
- RaDVaC
- Futarchy
- Vampire castle dynamics
- Seeing Like a State
- Metamour
- Yeerk Ma'ar
- Motte and Bailey
- Bayesian
- Embryo selection
- PEPFAR
- The crystal sphere surrounding the world
- Seasteading
- Hyperstition
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
Concrete note on this:
accusations that they promised another, "Chloe", compensation around $75,000 and stiffed her on it in various ways turned into "She had a written contract to be paid $1000/monthly with all expenses covered, which we estimated would add up to around $70,000."
The "all expenses" they're talking about are work-related travel expenses. I, too, would be extremely mad if an employer promised me $75k / year in compensation, $10k of which would be cash-based, and then tried to say that costs incurred by me doing my job were considered to be my "compensation".
Honestly most of what I take away from this is that nobody involved seems to have much of an idea of how things are done in professional settings, and also there seems to be an attitude of "the precautions that normal businesses take are costly and unnecessary since we are all smart people who want to help the world". Which, if that's the way they want to swing, then fine, but I think it is worth setting those expectations upfront. And also I'd strongly recommend that anyone fresh out of college who has never had a normal job should avoid working for an EA organization like nonlinear until they've seen how things work in purely transactional jobs.
Also it seems to me based on how much interest there was in that infighting that effective altruists are starved for drama.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
3mo ago
Man, if only we had a third branch of government, not just the executive and judicial branches.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1mo ago
Rephrasing - is it a big enough problem that the disease of having ~1k kids/year go on puberty blockers is worse than the "cure" that would be implemented by the political apparatus would be? Being realistic about what historical political "solutions" have looked like.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2mo ago
Is full self driving more dangerous per mile than having a human drive? Otherwise it might be the case that having an AI parse the CFR would work better across the board than having humans do it, but would fail a few times in highly surprising and attention-grabbing ways.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2mo ago
How much of my frustration with these people boils down to a kind of deep-rooted envy, that I must labor while others take their ease, simply because I do not have a gift for grift?
There are about 25,000 GoFundMe fundraisers created per day. My best estimate from scraping GoFundMe is that about half of fundraisers earn exactly $0, and among the remaining half there's a very long tail - perhaps 2,000 fundraisers per year earning $100k+ and 300 per year earning $500k+. Most of those are "little 8 year old Timmy has cancer" not "CW grifting".
Do you also have a deep-rooted envy of lottery winners, because you do not have a gift for sheer dumb luck? Because I'd estimate about 10x as many people make $100k from lotteries than from GoFundMe virality.
It's on the news because it's rare.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
3mo ago
There is a middle path where the globalist agenda is crushed via onshoring manufacturing which yes, will increase costs for the coastal elite who own big corporations, but will also raise wages for the working and middle class.
Do you actually expect that onshoring manufacturing will raise wages (relative to the cost of goods and services) for the majority of working-class and middle-class Americans? Have similar approaches worked in the past?
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
11mo ago
This seems to me like a fairly usual level of competence from a bolt-on-security-as-a-product or compliance-as-a-service company. Examples:
- CVE-2016-2208: buffer overflow in Symantec Antivirus "This is a remote code execution vulnerability. Because Symantec use a filter driver to intercept all system I/O, just emailing a file to a victim or sending them a link is enough to exploit it. [...] On Windows, this results in kernel memory corruption, as the scan engine is loaded into the kernel (wtf!!!), making this a remote ring0 memory corruption vulnerability - this is about as bad as it can possibly get". Basically "send an email with an attachment to pwn someone's computer. They don’t have to open the attachment, as long as they have Norton Antivirus (or anything that uses the Symantec Antivirus Engine) installed".
- CVE-2020-12271: "A SQL injection issue was found in SFOS 17.0, 17.1, 17.5, and 18.0 before 2020-04-25 on Sophos XG Firewall devices, as exploited in the wild in April 2020. [...] A successful attack may have caused remote code execution that exfiltrated usernames and hashed passwords for the local device admin(s), portal admins, and user accounts used for remote access"
- Okta data breach a couple months back: "For several weeks beginning in late September 2023, intruders had access to [Okta's] customer support case management system. That access allowed the hackers to steal authentication tokens from some Okta customers, which the attackers could then use to make changes to customer accounts, such as adding or modifying authorized users."
It's not that it's amateur hour specifically at CrowdStrike. It's the whole industry.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2yr ago
They do support the mainstream perspective, they are just defending the mainstream narrative with a non-mainstream framing. It's called a Motte and Bailey
The fact that someone opposes your particular perspective does not mean that they support every argument ever made by anyone else who opposes your perspective. I do not doubt that there are places where the 10th-grade-history-class version of the Holocaust is inaccurate. Nobody here, to the best of my knowledge, has said that they do think that the 10th-grade-history-class version is 100% accurate.
Let's just pause a moment to appreciate all the ink that's been spilled so far, with not one person raising any sort of physical or documentary evidence for the murder of three million people in gas chambers. It speaks volumes that they dance around the central myth of the entire Holocaust narrative .
I guess if your opinion is "the Holocaust was bad because the Nazis killed people using gas chambers". I don't know any real people who believe that. To me, the genocide is the central thing about the Holocaust. I do not care whether the specific "there were exactly 6 death camps with gas chambers, and it was in those gas chambers that the majority of murders happened" claim is accurate, I do care whether the "about 12 million people were murdered" claim is accurate.
In terms of concrete evidence, I expect that you have more in-depth knowledge on any part of this topic that you are trying to steer the conversation to, so I expect that if I allow you to guide where the conversation goes, I will indeed see something that looks like "oh look the conventional narrative is inaccurate". However, I expect that the conventional narrative that the Nazis rounded up Jews and other undesirables and then shipped them to concentration camps where they were killed in large numbers, coming out to about 12 million total, is broadly correct. So I expect that if I pick a random link on Wikipedia and then do a deep dive on it, it will turn out that the assertion is basically accurate.
So let's do that. Starting at the wikipedia page for extermination camps, choosing a link at random on that page leads me to the page on the city of Łódź (right between the links for "chelmno" and "gas vans" -- I'm pretty sure those links each lead somewhere equally damning, but my goal here was to get somewhere that is both damning and also unfamiliar territory to someone who knows a lot about a few very narrow, very particularly selected topics). Skipping to the section on "Second World War (1939 - 1945)", wikipedia has this to say:
The Nazi authorities established the Łódź Ghetto (Ghetto Litzmannstadt) in the city and populated it with more than 200,000 Jews from the region, who were systematically sent to German extermination camps.[72] It was the second-largest ghetto in occupied Europe,[73] and the last major ghetto to be liquidated, in August 1944.[74] The Polish resistance movement (Żegota) operated in the city and aided the Jewish people throughout its existence.[75] However, only 877 Jews were still alive by 1945.[76] Of the 223,000 Jews in Łódź before the invasion, 10,000 survived the Holocaust in other places.[77] The Germans also created camps for non-Jews, including the Romani people deported from abroad, who were ultimately murdered at Chełmno,[78] as well as a penal forced labour camp,[79] four transit camps for Poles expelled from the city and region, and a racial research camp.[80]
So I see a number of factual claims here. I will list them off -- let me know which, if any, you think would be wrong or misleading if I dug into them further.
-
The city of Łódź contained over 200,000 Jews before the Nazi invasion.
-
The city of Łódź contained less than 1000 Jews by 1945
-
Fewer than 10,000 Jews from the city of Łódź were alive anywhere after the Holocaust
-
In August 1944, most of the 70,000 Jews remaining in the Łódź Ghetto were sent to Auschwitz-Birkenau. Considering the "less than 10,000 total survivors" above, most of these people died within the following 6 months.
Additional evidence on clicking on the wikipedia page for the Łódź Ghetto
- 55,000 people were transported from Łódź to Chełmno.
And, after looking at maps of Chełmno
- Chelmno did not have anywhere near enough buildings to contain 55,000 people, no matter how crowded and unsanitary the conditions.
Do you think any of this is substantially inaccurate? Because it sounds about like what I expected going in (besides being somehow even worse than I imagined in terms of conditions within the Łódź Ghetto).
estimated that between 10-30% of those expelled, about 2 million, died. Many others were deported to Soviet labor camps where the mortality rate (according to official statistics) was about 35%. Nobody would call the expulsion of the Germans an extermination plan, they would probably celebrate it as a reprisal.
The Genocide, concentration camps, and slave labour section of the World War II page on Wikipedia has one paragraph for the Nazi genocide, immediately followed by a paragraph describing the soviet gulags, with associated links. "The soviets committed atrocities against the Germans during WWII" is not a fringe position. If you find yourself frequently interacting with people who celebrate those atrocities, consider that that might be an opinion specific to the people you interact with.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
4mo ago
I don't think "self-aware Russian asset" is particularly plausible. My impression is that Donald Trump wants to win, to be the greatest, better than anyone has been before, and that his affinity for Putin is because he looks like someone who is winning. That and Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize 9 months into his term in office, so that's the deadline Trump is up against if he wants to be the best president at fostering peace.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
For each of the following, I think there's a nontrivial chance (call it 10% or more) that that crackpot theory is true.
- The NSA has known about using language models to generate text embeddings (or some similarly powerful form of search based on semantic meaning rather than text patterns) for at least 15 years. This is why they needed absolutely massive amounts of compute, and not just data storage, for their Saratoga Springs data center way back when.
- The Omicron variant of covid was intentionally developed (by serial passaging through lab mice) as a much more contagious, much less deadly variant that could quickly provide cross immunity against the more deadly variants.
- Unelected leaders of some US agencies sometimes lie under oath to Congess.
- Israel has at least one satellite with undisclosed purpose and capabilities that uses free space point-to-point optical communication. If true, that means that the Jews have secret space lasers.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
What's wrong with "ban until they're 18"?
The canonical answer is "it works worse with age". I don't know how accurate that is, though it certainly seems plausible to me that delays will result in worse patient outcomes among those who do transition.
What precedent is it setting?
I'm not aware of any medical interventions that are banned even when the patient wants them, and their guardian approves it, and a doctor recommends it, but which are allowed once the patient reaches the age of majority.
It's not like we're living in an ancap utopia, the establishment even cracked down on the use of prescribed ivermectin.
Yes, and that was bad. I would prefer fewer things like that, not more things like that.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2mo ago
ADA is pretty closely aligned with the literal meaning of the words "equity" and "inclusion".
New executive order just dropped.
This seems, on first glance, wildly better by my libertarian sensibilities than anything I ever expected out of the Trump administration. I am slightly in shock, which is not unusual following an EO, but this time it is a good shock, which is unusual.
So a couple of things
More options
Context Copy link