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
If all you have to offer is the value of your stuff why shouldn't a country just take your stuff?
Because if a country does that, people will predictably stop producing stuff for the country to take, and also will leave the country if they can.
Unless you mean "some of your stuff, but not enough that you're strongly incentivized to leave or stop producing stuff", in which case they're called "taxes".
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
How is the government in question distinguishing "cooperators" from "defectors" here, such that they are specifically taking the stuff of "defectors"?
If "defector" is a broad enough category, it might still be better to take only some of their stuff rather than all of it, even from the perspective of a government that only cares about obtaining resources for itself.
There is no, say, leftist equivalent of Stonetoss, that I know of.
My impression of xkcd the last few years is basically this. And, like stonetoss, the comics that are low-effort outgroup dunks tend to suck. More generally, I think that partisan media, and generally media that prioritizes sending a message over being good, just tends to suck a bit.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
It's definitely possible to do in O(n) in-place, but I don't think there's a workable solution that involves only processing each element once (but I think there is one that involves processing each element at most twice).
That said I expect return sorted(nums) is probably as fast as or maybe even faster than the clever solution in practice.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
I mean stonetoss being stonetoss isn't exactly funnier - here's the most recent one where it's just a low-effort dunk, vs this one, which is a bit funnier (though still low effort and not that funny).
On reflection I'd endorse both "the left can't meme" and "the right can't meme". Though is also possible that it's "nobody can meme in a way that people who don't spend all their time immersed in the same culture find funny".
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
Basically, we'd expect that differences in culture, diet, and SES might explain 100% of any observed differences in any particular trait
I don't think we would expect that. If there are other factors, including randomness, which contribute at all, the sum of the effect of the known sources of variance will be less than the observed variance.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
In the world as it is now, you have situations like "kids with fetal alcohol syndrome are more likely to grow up to abuse alcohol, and thus to abuse alcohol during pregnancy, and thus to have kids with FAS". Even if susceptibility to alcoholism has no genetic causes, we would still expect it to have nonzero heritability.
A world that resembles our own in which HBD is entirely false could look like one where there were many behaviors that were passed down in that way. We would expect to see substantial differences in outcomes within different subcultures of the same group in such a world, but I don't have a rigorous idea of how much more than one where the heritability of outcome-correlated stuff is due to genetics vs behavior.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
Yes, environmental stuff would be the rest. Controlling for environmental stuff is actually very very hard - that's why for science where we actually try to be correct instead of trying to appear to try to be correct (e.g. medicine), the gold standard is randomized controlled trials rather than observational studies.
That's not to say it's always impossible to get useful information from observational data. For example, there's clever stuff like this. Still, if you take the social science approach of "lol just control for a couple things, if it's good enough to get published it's definitely correct" your results will not be very robust.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
Indeed, Falconer's formula would give an estimate of 0 for heritability in the above situation.
So I suppose the concrete answer to "what does the world in which genetics don't play a significant role in determining outcomes look like" is
-
The children of alcohol abusers are more likely to abuse alcohol themselves
-
This remains true even if the children are adopted at birth.
-
The correlation in the rate of alcohol abuse is the same between identical and fraternal twins.
3 is something that it should at least in principle be possible to check in our world. At the very least I would be surprised if nobody has done it for height and BMI.
That is quite a clever metric, thanks for pointing it out.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
Getting in a car crash, winning the lottery, making friends with the right people... all the stuff we call "luck".
Group outcomes are made of individual outcomes. Particularly in cases like "making friends with the right people", those individual outcomes may be correlated.
Not that "early luck compounded into long-term differences" can't be mitigated through social policy, but doing so transparently and fairly and in a principled manner is hard for the same reason that "controlling for" stuff in studies is hard.
Because it doesn't have to be 'widespread' to have a significant effect on outcomes. Even accounting for how ambiguous that term is. If 50,000 fraudulent votes are cast in one precinct, that might not count since it wasn't taking place elsewhere?
I am not aware of anyone pointing out 50 fraudulent votes within a single district, let alone 50,000. If something like 50,000 in a single district was something that had actually been shown to have happened, that argument would be a lot more relevant. Particularly if those 50,000 fraudulent votes came from individual people who should not have been allowed to vote individually deciding to vote.
Basically my issue with this is the type of fraudulent vote they're going after here isn't the type of fraud that I would expect to swing elections.
Of course, the Dems spent years alleging Russian 'interference' with the 2016 election despite no direct evidence, so I also don't think they've demonstrated good faith on the issue anyway.
Agreed.
Honestly I feel like all the talk of fraud is a distraction from things that are legal but have significant effects on voter turnout (e.g. polling place locations, canvassing, changing laws around mail-in ballots, etc).
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
That sounds to me like "infighting on the far left", since I don't think it's the center-left doing the attacking, and "actual communist" is further left than it's possible to go without someone saying that Actually They Are Not True Leftists, We Are True Leftists And They Are Heathens.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
Here's some shared foundational rationality. No matter what a man is or does he cannot - in the logic of transexuality too - be or become a transman. Only a man can become a transwoman. Therefore transwomen aren't women, transmen aren't men, and this accords with the logic of transexuality.
You're playing word games, by saying "man" and "trans-man" when you are referring to the concepts "cis-man" and "trans-man". When using that language, your post becomes
Here's some shared foundational rationality. No matter what a cisman is or does he cannot - in the logic of transexuality too - be or become a transman. Only a cisman can become a transwoman. Therefore transwomen aren't ciswomen, transmen aren't cismen, and this accords with the logic of transexuality.
If this is not sufficiently illuminating, let's try with the following substitutions:
• cis -> native-born
• trans -> foreign-born
• man -> American
• woman -> Mexican
Here's some shared foundational rationality. No matter what an American is or does he cannot - in the logic of transnationality too - be or become a foreign-born American. Only an American can become a foreign-born Mexican. Therefore foriegn born Mexicans aren't Mexicans, foreign-born Americans aren't Americans, and this accords with the logic of transnationality.
Like you can find people who believe that but it's pretty clearly an argument over where the boundary should be drawn, and saying that it's "shared foundational rationality" is an attempt to consensus-build.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
Seconding interest in reading such a post.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
And is the ssc discord a leftist echo chamber? Like the poster said, I kinda figured because of the general discord userbase, but still sad if true. They must have to do a lot of self-gaslighting.
I would say much more of a libertarian echo chamber -- reddit leftists would probably froth at the mouth about equally much though for different reasons. Much heavier emphasis on guns, economics, and policy, much lighter emphasis on race and sex dynamics.
It's quite a bit more strongly moderated for tone over there though - posting contentious takes and refusing to back them up tends to result in a ban, and I do think that tends to happen more for right-wing contentious takes than left-wing ones.
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.
1yr ago
I don't think there's a substantial moral difference between killing a fetus and killing a full-grown adult that cannot survive independently and does not have a sense of self (e.g. unplugging the life-support of someone brain-dead). If anything, I think the moral case for allowing someone to pull the plug on a brain-dead adult is stronger than the moral case for allowing abortion.
I basically think of abortion as morally equivalent to pulling the plug on someone who is currently comatose, but has a good chance of becoming functional if given expensive life support until they awaken, and then a decade or two of rehabilitation (for the sake of the analogy, said comatose adult will never regain their past memories).
I unironically am pro "murder" in the case of the "pull-the-plug-murder" scenario above -- I genuinely think that killing someone in that situation because it is convenient is justifiable (though note that the "they will never regain any past memories" is a load-bearing part of that judgement for me).
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
I'm still pro availability-of-abortion, fairly neutral on frequency-of-abortion (i.e. I care about "legal" and "safe", but don't have a strong opinion on "rare"). However, I went from pro Roe v Wade to anti -- I think that was a terrible precedent to set, and I think this past year really opened my eyes to how often the supreme court has been legislating from the bench (and how rarely our legislators have been meaningfully legislating).
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr 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.
1yr ago
Flounder are nightmare fuel and we still eat them. Because they're delicious nightmare fuel.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
I think you're missing
8: Go meta. If someone has an idea, you should try applying that idea to itself. It's fine if it's a stretch, the idea of applying an idea to itself means that you probably read Godel, Escher, Bach, which means that you are Smart and therefore Good. Or at least it proved that you read a summary of it. Or interacted a lot with people who did.
(I say this as someone who does (8) way too much, including arguably right now)
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1yr ago
Maybe if we can make it edgy and high-status to be a decent human being without coding it red or blue, to value honesty, earnestness and a moral code we can rein in the brinksmanship and hatred coursing through our country's veins.
And then the barber pole, which turns eternally, would continue to turn, making it, as they say, "cringe" to be concerned with honesty, earnestness, and a moral code.
I recognize the higher-level point you're making, and I think it's a valid point, but on the object level I think you might need a steamer or an air fryer. If your experience is that vegetables suck, you may get a lot of mileage out of figuring out ways to cook them that you actually like.
If I have the choice between a bag of doritos or a bowl of lightly steamed broccoli with lemon, pepper, and a sprinkle of msg, I'll generally take the broccoli (assuming both are already prepared). As snacks go, chips are cheaper, and much more convenient, and much easier to mindlessly eat with one hand while doing something else, but I don't think I actually experience more enjoyment while eating chips than I do while eating vegetables that I cooked according to my own preferences.
More options
Context Copy link