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.
10mo ago
I got 30346, which it claims is more 99.99th percentile. So I took the test in Spanish and got 13330, which it claims is 75th percentile. In CEFR terms, my proficiency in Spanish is A2/B1 (i.e. I have ~2000 words of vocabulary and the English equivalent of my conversational skill would be "Hello and good mornings, I am faul_sname and it is good to be meeting you, my Spanish are not so well so please the talking slowly").
I have doubts about this test.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
9mo ago
My stock has 10x-ed in 1 year, but I feel like I'm I'm being pushed into roles that do not match my strengths and specially play to my weaknesses.
Is there by any chance a 1 year vesting cliff that you are coming up on?
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
9mo ago
I ask because "valuation goes up a lot and founders do a constructive dismissal right before an early employee's options vest and hope the employee doesn't file a lawsuits about it" is a pretty common pattern. The time to particularly watch for it is around months 10 and 11 of employment, if the vesting schedule is the standard "1/4 at 1 year, 1/48 per month for the following 36 months".
But yeah if the cliff is still 5 months out it's probably not that.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
9mo ago
shouldn’t you be more worried about white nationalists using sophisticated and high-effort argumentation in order to make our side look respectable and interesting
I personally think attempts to recruit by stating and a clear thesis and defending it by engaging with the central points of the counterarguments would be a significant improvement over the current trend, which seems to be "copy/paste kinda incoherent rants and hope it resonates with someone".
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
9mo ago
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
9mo ago
Alright, setting a reminder for crab day, because I have fondness for the blue hellsite, and I want to see the strategy of "make something the users like, and then ask them to give you money" succeed at least once.
You are not the main problem here, no. Although I don't know who you're referring to as someone who both substantively agrees with you and also engages with difficult questions (rather than e.g. changing or dropping the topic when challenged and then coming back with the same points a week or two later).
Edit: or at least I don't consider you to be the main problem. I don't speak for everyone.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
9mo ago
This is why docker is so widely used. It's like ctrl-c/ctrl-v, but for an entire computing environment (and there do exist docker containers specifically for running jupyter notebooks).
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
9mo ago
The majority of both plant's products work. If you have applications that need only a few working chips of a certain type, or individual working chips, you can use chips from either company without much bother.
But say you need 10 working chips of the same type, from the same factory. A single failure means the product is worthless. 0.97 x 0.97... = 0.74
0.94 x 0.94... = 0.54
On the flip side, if you have a test for chip quality which can diagnose bad chips with sensitivity and specificity of 75%, you can use that test to get from a 6% bad chip rate to a 2% bad chip rate if you're willing to throw away a little over a quarter of your chips. (Math: out of 1000 chips, there will be 705 good chips the test says are good, 235 good chips the test says are bad, 15 bad chips the test says are good, and 45 bad chips the test says are bad).
Even pretty crappy tests (0.75 is a terrible number for both sensitivity and specificity) can get you massive advantages over just relying on base rates.
So, by that thought process
Do you want a huge population of Afghans, Ethiopians and Sub-Saharan Africans coming to your country?
If we are capable of having the sort of process that is capable of predicting, not necessarily very well, just a bit better than chance, which particular applicants have an elevated risk of being a problem, and we're willing to use that process even if it unfairly rejects a significant fraction of applicants, then yes, I do want a huge (selected) population of immigrants from those countries coming here.
That said, I live in a country where the vast vast majority of residents have immigrant ancestors within the last 10 generations, and a solid quarter of them within the past generation (i.e. they are either themselves immigrants or their parents were). The "the country has a strong sense of solidarity because everyone belongs to the ethnic group that's always lived here" ship has not sailed, because that ship never arrived in the first place.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
9mo ago
If it's not politically possible to take both the factory of origin and also the test results into account, it would be worth doing the math to see whether the "use only priors" approach or the "assume uniform defect rates across all factories and calibrate your test accordingly" will yield better results.
Though it would definitely be worth checking if that constraint actually binds you. For example, if you live in a country that sets immigration quotas on a per-origin-country basis, that is not a constraint your country is operating under.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
9mo ago
What happens if there's a crisis and the bulk of the population is economic migrants?
Empirically national solidarity seems to increase when there's a crisis. Unless the crisis is economic, I suppose - if lots of people moved to your country because of the promise of prosperity, and then your country started doing worse economically, those people might go seek their fortune elsewhere.
But yeah, losing the possibility of national solidarity based on centuries of common ancestry is a cost, at least for places where that was ever on the table. I expect the benefits are generally worth that cost, especially in a context where you can only control immigration and not emigration, but it is a cost.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
9mo ago
One thing I've found is that if you can find a restaurant that specializes in food from a particular region within a country, the food will probably be better. E.g. food from a restaurant specializing in "sichuan food" will generally be better than one specializing in "chinese food", which will in turn be better than one specializing in "asian food".
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
9mo ago
Can this changeless, fully actual thing have downstream causal effects? If not, I don't think "we call this changeless, fully actual thing God, and God is the reason the universe exists" works as an argument for the existence of God-as-the-thing-that-caused-the-universe-to-exist.
If the changeless thing is allowed to causally affect things, the question becomes "but where did the system that contains the changeless thing and also the changeable universe come from, since the changing universe can't be a part of the changeless thing".
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
9mo ago
What could you say to me in response if you're saying experience can trump reasoning?
The obvious response is to ask what particular experiences you would have anticipated having in a world where atheistic buddhism was not the fundamental reality that you no longer expect to have now that you know that atheistic buddhism is the fundamental reality.
I'm not sure what it means that you "believe that atheistic buddhism is the fundamental reality", if there are no differences in your expected observations, even in principle.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
9mo ago
The changeless thing's nature is entirely, wholly, and simply to act, to bring into existence
Does the changeless thing that we're calling God know it has acted? Before it acted, did it know that it had not yet acted?
- If your answer to both of those things is "yes", the "changeless thing" doesn't seem very changeless.
- If your answer to either question is "no", the thing we're calling "God" doesn't seem very omniscient.
- If your answer is "God lives outside of time, and also entirely outside of causality", that sure doesn't sound much like the abrahamic God that e.g. gets angry at specific humans for specific things those humans did, and then takes particular actions in the world based on that.
(BTW if your faith is a load-bearing part of your personality, and you're not currently doing anything deeply maladaptive due to that faith, there's probably only downsides and no upsides of engaging)
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
9mo ago
So, if I'm understanding this view correctly
- There exists a changeless thing. We call that thing "God".
- There exists some other thing which is not "God". We call that thing "the universe".
- 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".
- 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?
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
8mo ago
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.
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.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
8mo ago
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.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
8mo ago
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.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
8mo ago
Can you please explain for the rest of us? Because I don't entirely understand what that particular example was supposed to demonstrate.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
8mo ago
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
8mo ago
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.
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
- Human intelligence is modulated by the production of a magical protein Inteliquotin (IQN), which causes brains to wrinkle.
- 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.
- 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")
- 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.
Huh, so per wikipedia there are a number of types of P-zombies -- I think I'm thinking of behavioral zombies (ones that behave in a way indistinguishable from a human with qualia but do not themselves experience qualia) while you're thinking of neurological zombies (ones that behave in a way indistinguishable from a human with qualia and due to the same physical process as the human with qualia). And yeah, a neurological zombie does seem pretty incoherent (I suppose it could be coherent if the qualia we experience are not the cause of our discussion of those qualia, but then it doesn't seem terribly interesting).
BTW you can probably round my perspective to "the predictive processing theory of consciousness is basically correct" without losing much information.
More options
Context Copy link