georgioz
9mo ago
I used the term fait accompli in relation to Russian invasion of Poland and Baltics. If Russians invaded Suwałki Gap, preventing NATO to supply Baltics, then they could march into Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania in hours or days. Once established there, it would be fait accompli. What would remain is for US/Polish/German/Spanish and other NATO troops to spill blood in house-to-house urban/trench fight to liberate their former NATO allies from the south. I can already see how enthusiastic the coalition would be in that case.
Also Mariupol was a done deal. It was surrounded in 2 days after invasion, the rest was mopping up operation without anybody able to do anything about it, with Russian tanks in suburbs of Kyiv.
georgioz
9mo ago
Per Wikipedia, Mariupol was conquered by Russia in May 2022, months after the Putins special operation had been begun.
What do you even know about the conflict? Are you not aware of siege of Mariupol, one of the most hard fought battles in the war?
Either your soldiers now fight Russia in your neighbors territory, or they fight them in a year in your own country, or they end up fighting someone else for Russia in two years. So the least-bad option would be to support your allies in a conventional war.
Exactly. Why even risk invoking article 5? Don’t you think?
georgioz
9mo ago
Saving lives was used as an underlying assumption, I freely admit it. But in the end this intuition was equated - or if you will sublimated into the form of serving the healthcare system. Then it took life of its own, the discussion revolved around what was good or bad for the system, human life was subtracted and extrapolated from in these discussions. That is why we got into the monstrous results of lockdowns.
georgioz
1yr ago
If there are Taelons 100 million ly away from us, it is highly unlikely they’d care about us.
Milky way diameter is only around 100 thousand ly, the closest Andromeda galaxy is 2,4 million ly. Even Voyager is travelling around 1 ly/18,000 yeas so it can get to the edge of the galaxy in around 900 million years. Parker Solar Probe, which is fastest moving man-made object has ten times the velocity, so it could travel to the edge of the galaxy in tens of millions of years.
Any sufficiently old civilization - let's say tens or hundreds of millions of years old - could reasonably have a probe in every star system in the Galaxy even with our current propulsion technology with no problem and it could even explore other galaxies if it is 1 billion years or older.
georgioz
1yr ago
Is it only me or are you guys also having dreams that are AI-like? Just yesterday I closed my eyes and I had literally an AI vision - the image assembled before my eyes so to speak with great detail changing scenery.
Was it always like that or am I dreaming of AI images I saw during daytime? I am not sure to be honest.
I actually don't think I understand your point overall but it feels like your point is we can't rationally prove that pain and suffering are bad, so checkmate rationalists, we're no better than anyone else. Which... okay.
No, this was not the point. Go and analyze pain and suffering of animals abused for bestiality compared to animals slaughtered for meat all you like in fine rationalist tradition. What I object is going to meta level of what are your personal feelings about this or that response to such thought experiments, in that sense a rationalist is not obliged to privilege your anecdotal emotional outburst. I may as well imagine somebody who is hurt by what you are saying - and believe me there would be no shortage of agitated people if I said that we are going to normalize bestiality.
And now voilà, you have some basis of understanding of what is going on, just by analyzing your own emotions. And we do not have to model other people as if they do not understand that pain and suffering is bad and they need you to explain it to them. They do understand it very, very well - only from their standpoint it is people promoting bestiality who are source of that pain and suffering for them. And it is you who opened this door for them by harping on your own personal feelings about the whole discussion, you made this meta discussion about how this original discussion makes people feel part of the game.
georgioz
1yr ago
Sure and I am using them as one of the examples now in this discussion, so we do give a shit in this sense. But it will not help Moriori people, so it is just discussion over spilled milk. Bygones are bygones, current ancestors of Māori people can just express some sympathy and move on fighting for the living nation instead of ruminating over the dead one.
If you want to understand Identity Politics, then it is best to go to the source of Black feminist group named The Combahee River Collective and how they defined it in their 1977 manifesto
This focusing upon our own oppression is embodied in the concept of identity politics. We believe that the most profound and potentially most radical politics come directly out of our own identity, as opposed to working to end somebody else’s oppression. In the case of Black women this is a particularly repugnant, dangerous, threatening, and therefore revolutionary concept because it is obvious from looking at all the political movements that have preceded us that anyone is more worthy of liberation than ourselves.
This is the true birthplace of the concept of intersectionality, The Combahee River Collective was a group of black women many of them were lesbians. They connected their identity to oppression, and posited that until the least privileged are free (black, queer women), nobody is free. Of course the identity politics in this sense is abhorrent as it automatically assigns value judgement to immutable characteristics such as sex, race etc. The way to get around this is to introduce systemic thinking. You are a man and even if you do not directly and consciously engage in oppression, you nevertheless have access to male privilege and you implicitly and unwittingly perpetuate the system of power - The Patriarchy (or White Supremacy or Capitalism etc.) - that oppresses people. You will never be able to tap into the lived experience of oppressed people, you will always lack this way of knowing, but you can be an ally and center these marginalized identities whenever possible. To center here it means literally, they imagine identities being on the margin of the circle while privileged people are in the center. Marginalized people have better view of the situation having the outside view, you have to shrink the circle and introduce margins into the conversation. You will see these concept in DEI training explaining it all to you. As Di Angelo says:
This work [anti-racism in this case] requires courage and commitment to a lifelong process.
It is lifelong work until patriarchy/capitalism/white supremacy/whatever is dismantled completely. But before then you have to give power to the marginalized so that the society can reorient itself in right direction under their expert guidance to dismantle oppression. Once that goal is achieved, the marginalized will abolish themselves as they will no longer need the power and we all end up in utopia.
That is the one minute summary of generalized dialectical conspiracy theory, their weltanschaung and ideas behind that worldview. It really is quite simple if you look at it. For sure at least in the way to identify who is the victim and who is to blame for everything as with many other conspiracy theories. Similarly to those there is also a huge rabbit hole to lose yourself for a lifetime, but the general gist stays the same despite complicated sounding jargon and the rest of it.
I have my own peeve with said comment, this supposed "rationalist Cross-Examination" makes people even more stupid and in the end everybody retreats into their own aesthetics of the situation. It is more stupid discussion the more basic the moral intuition is - like for instance "why murder is bad". I can put you on the spot here and it will be up to you to come to defense of your view that murder is bad ranging from defining murder to exceptions like war and whatnot. It almost always degenerates into sophistry (AKA dark arts) as the situation is of course nuanced and complex and you can spend lifetime cross-examining, unless of course you have certain end in mind. So in the end, it all comes down to normalcy, murder is murder and nepotism is nepotism.
So I guess intuition is very powerful and it is not always easily accessible to rational discussion which quite often leads to wrong conclusions depending on what path you take. Which is kind of a point even here in this discussion - you already see how people invent all kinds of defense to this, including this call of yours. To me, if I see a person pushing to hire somebody he fucks, this is nepotism. I do not understand what does temote work do with any of this, laid out your argument.
You are literally describing the same situation. Manager/Superstar researcher is using his superstar influence in order to secure job for somebody he fucks is the same as saying:
Manager negotiating a spousal hire as part of a compensation package is attempting to secure a business relationship that is in the best interest of the university and utilizing the various tools at their disposal to do so, including potentially that spousal hire.
Yeah, that is the point. Manager is negotiating with the company (hiring manager) to secure new business relationship (for his mistress and for himself to the extent of getting potentially a good fuck as a result) and it is in best interest of the company (or else he leaves in the middle of the most important project to competitor or whatever) and he is utilizing various tools at his disposal (e.g. a lunch with hiring manager and his manager etc.) to secure that relationship.
I understand corporatespeak, no need to remind me that "spousal hiring" and "best interest of the company" means "hire somebody I fuck" and "do as I say or else something bad happens". Nobody with IQ more than 80 falls for this shit.
georgioz
1yr ago
It is almost exactly the same scenario. There are three people: hiring manager, then there is the superstar fucker and then there is candidate that is being fucked. Superstar is pressuring hiring manager to hire his mistress "or else"- he leaves along with grants on his research or whatever. I can even construct it a such: superstar researcher with millions in grants comes to the hiring office that he fucks this student and she may be leaving for a job in other city. If they do not hire his mistress as an adjunct then he is going with her along with grants because he loves her. Now the same happens with my example of corporate manager: he fucks this young intern and she tells him that she has a good job lined up in another city. Manager sees this as a threat so he pressures his colleague in other department to hire his mistress, he even gets tacit approval from his own superiors because he is now responsible for crucial project and nobody wants to rock the boat for such a silly thing. How exactly is this different: except the fact that university has this as a written policy?
A good state of affairs can be that "everyone kinda knows, nobody makes a big fuss about it, it isn't officially condoned or supported or acknowledged, but people slightly judge the people involved in the deal and don't see it exactly aligned with the principles of a university." Plausible deniability is maintained, disbelief is suspended and a "quantum tunneling" has taken place. It's not necessarily good to separate everything into the black-and-white categories of legal (and therefore supported, and documented, and regulated and defined and socially accepted and considered moral) vs illegal (and beyond the pale and morally corrupt and unacceptable and you're an unperson for it).
Yes, this is called good old fashioned nepotism. When this manager in the team fucked his subordinate and then promoted her, everybody knew about it and many thought it was kind of piece of shit move. It also did not endear the newly promoted person in eyes of many of her colleagues. It was tolerated as lesser evil for many reasons by his superiors unfortunately. Little did I know that what he should have done was telling it transparently by saying that he was not promoting somebody for fucking his brains out, it was just normal HR benefit of "sex partner hiring" he was awarded during standard salary increase negotiations, no big deal. You see, he is really working hard and he works harder with hard-on that he needs to be motivated, his situation is special because he has no time to look for partners as he is working so much. Reading apologetics here in this thread I'd guess he would probably have much more defenders, silly him.
The fact that it hurts people's feelings to tell them that they squandered their opportunities to make something of themselves doesn't mean that they didn't squander said opportunities.
Sure, but this begs the original question. You didn't make it, so you had to squander your opportunities because we removed all the obstacles such as religion, race and so forth. This is basically restating my original position - if the outcome are not equalized it is hard to argue that opportunities were equalized.
But even if we abolish all of those barriers, you're still left with the uncomfortable fact (qua deBoer) that some people are naturally smarter, taller, faster, stronger, more charismatic etc. than others and will inevitably have better outcomes as a result, and there's precious little that social engineering alone can do about that.
Sure, however the messaging is different. You are genetically one of the useless lumpenproletariat and equality of opportunity will do nothing for you or your kids. The best you can get is to equalize the outcomes, meaning you have to basically extract rent from those more successful somehow. Be it political action for more welfare - maybe using low level violence to extort them to cough up the money, up to actual crimes. Those are avenues available to you.
Which BTW kind of questions the whole idea of merit as well, if somebody is successful it has to be somehow related to some merit, he may be the best programmer or best hustler or best drug dealer or whatever. To me it really is not that clear that a programmer developing one of the addictive gacha games shows more merit than literal criminal or that some unemployed person who uses his money to do graffiti has less merit than somebody who has ability to worm herself into liberal arts academia financed by government dole.
The LLM doesn't understand the content of the query or its response the way you or I do. It just understands them as probabilistic sequences of tokens and its job is to predict the tokens that should come next.
This to me seems like a pretty shallow explanation of understanding and the same criticism can be applied also to humans. According to some people like Scott Alexander, human brain is "just" a multi-layer prediction machine. It seems that the feeling of understanding itself is nothing extra special, some people on drugs like LSD feel as if they cracked the code and now understand the whole universe and their place in it. In practice understanding can be viewed as ability to give correct output given an input. We do not have access to many other methods, that is why we use tests to see if students understand things they learned.
Additionally I do not think that saying that the LLM doesn't understand the content of the query or its response the way you or I do. is that much reassuring. Quite to the contrary - LLMs give correct answer to very large set of problems and yet obviously they came to that place using completely different approach compared to humans. This makes them more alien, more inscrutable and thus more dangerous in my eyes.
georgioz
2yr ago
Which obviously raises the question: what does it mean to be a transgender woman if the transgender woman is also biologically a woman? How does she differ from non-trans biological women and is there a word to describe that difference, if it's not "biological sex"?
One way they may explain it is that saying "transgender woman" is a similar to let's say saying "tall woman". Of course it does not remove the problem of definition of the word woman. Which as far as I understand is then defined metaphysically, woman is somebody who "feels like a woman born in wrong body". So womanhood is metaphysical term, it is something like a soul.
georgioz
2yr ago
12/20, as a note I was really overthinking at the beginning. In the second half I just went by my guts and had a little better results. But it really seems like a random chance.
I am using it exactly as economists want it to. The only difference is that economists love to use examples of "good" nudging. Even in your examples the 401k and organ donations are supposed to be universally accepted as a good things and as long as the nudges are used in this good direction they get quality of the nudge. Except when some religious family finds out that they cannot bury their loved one whole because she was used as a source of organs automatically creating feeling of being tricked and used. Yeah, she should have opted out from the scheme, and fuck her religion anyway - we utilitiarian nudgers know what is best for humanity and it still counts as a nudge as opposed to trick, she and her family should have known better.
Also nudging is not only about opt-in/opt-out schemes, this is just the default type of the nudge. There are other nudges like creating a psychological anchor or changing the salience of certain options and many other tricks. I purposefully used examples of what community here would probably see as a "bad" nudge but that is to show the point. I could have used your organ donation example: to make it as a default option reflects certain ethos of technocratic "nudgning" class and they impose it on the rest of the population. My argument is that they are tricks and that "nudging" is just euphemism, paradoxically by anchoring the very existence of nudges as organ donation or 401k is in and of itself dishonest description that is supposed to psychologically predispose you to agree with the premise. They do not show negative examples of nudges, they make only the positive ones as salient. Go figure.
No, my main thesis is the nudging is just euphemism for tricking. I do not have any axe to grind against anybody. I used an analogy, it could have been anything else like for instance EULA "agreements" or something like that.
Additionally, the ecosystem of nudging also creates perverse incentives that diminishes the role of education. I could have used an example of End User License Agreements that are purposefully written in order for the public to not understand their choice by relying on impulse choice of the consumer to get to the thing they want just one click away. There is no TL;DR at the beginning of EULA in red and exclamation marks that describes what things are they giving up in exchange for the trinket. They just see one green "I agree" button and the reward behind it. And this is seen as some enlightened cutting of the proverbial Gordian Knot - no need to educate the public or explain anything. We just decide what they need.
So yes, for me the nudge really is just another synonym for deception.
We're looking at increase in M2 from ~$15.5 trillion to $18 trillion in one quarter, then continuing up over $21 trillion in the next few quarters. The United States has never spiked monetary policy to that extent
For some reason any analysis of M2 or money supply I see completely ignores the FED policy of paying interest on reserves that was introduced in 2008 with specific purpose of sterilizing effect of quantitative easing on inflation - which is a stupid policy if you ask me, but it is what it is. Interest on reserves basically turns money supply into substitute for treasury bills and thus renders analysis of most amateur economists who like to show "exponential growth of money printing" moot.
I think Putin did it. Goal? To force Germany out of support for war. Russia tried some tricks with Germany by pretending that they need some new equipment to start the gas flowing so Germans were supposed to break the embargo and cooperate on reopening of the pipeline. Blowing the pipeline up is a stronger signal, it is not just about turning the flow on, it is about forced cooperation with Russia.
People underestimate to what extent Germans depend on cheap Russian gas. Just BASF chemical plant in Ludwigshafen employs over 30,000 employees and consumes 4% of total German gas consumption. Cheap gas is necessary for renewable energy mix of German electricity production. No access to Russian gas has potential to knock down the very base of the whole complex German supply chain - no basic chemicals and expensive electricity will make export oriented German industry not competitive worldwide an it can lead to deep recession. Any alternatives look grim, for instance Qatar would be able to sign contract for LNG, but they require 20 year contract fixing in high price. Germany is between a rock and the hard place: negotiate with Russians and immediately become pariahs in diplomatic scene not only with US but also with rest of the EU. Do not negotiate with Russians and sacrifice your economy.
So Putin is rising the stakes, it may no longer be possible for Germany to play the double game of supporting Ukraine while holding their nose when buying Russian gas. Putin will ask more commitment from them if they ever want to access cheap gas again. This is a show of strength of sorts, Germany is on the crossroads independent of the outcome of Ukraine war. This is about strategic pivot and ability of Germany to truly turn away from Russia even for upcoming years with huge impact on the structure of their economy but also on their climate strategy and basically everything Germans touted last few decades - it all now hangs on a thread.
It looks like the closing price was 60.56 on Feb 19, 2020, and then it dropped to 41.65 at the close on March 18. That is about a 33% drop.
Yes, this is the infamous COVID drop many people "bragged" about how they managed to time their shorts. Only then many of those people continued to short the stocks "knowing" that COVID will be even worse and that markets will crash completely any time soon. Except the rest of the year stocks experienced strong growth that basically erased all the losses by the end of the year and the growth continued for the whole 2021 as well. Some people lost all they gained in February/March and then some. I am strongly against timing this stuff, I did not lose the nerve during the drop - I actually bough a little bit more as usual.
PS: Your annual gain is actually a bit less -- 10.27% per this formula: 72.28 = 53.11e^(3*x)
My formula was (72.28/53.11)^(-3). It also works backwards when you calculate 53.11(1.1081)^3 = 72.262. There is of course some rounding error. Also my gains were in EUR and it benefited from lately stronger dollar. In dollar terms the ETF had around 7.6% annual return, which is more then reasonable.
It has a higher cost (0.20 %) than VOO (0.03%), but that might not matter much.
Yes, it is literally World ETF so it also holds some Emerging Markets which results in slightly higher expense ratio. But in my eyes it is worth it, no need to construct some complicated portfolio rebalancing it all the time and losing money on fees.
georgioz
2yr ago
Young and Beautifu
I actually read Lana Del Ray "Young and Beautiful" Lyrics. And it to me seems like she said "I've seen the world, done it all". It is kind of defeatist music.
georgioz
2yr ago
Populism does not have to be without program or theory. One of the first recorded establishment vs populist clashes was that of Optimates vs Populares like Gracchi brothers in ancient Rome. Populists can have intelligent and well read champions and specific program like land reform, tax reform or election reform in case of aforementioned Populares.
In case of Bannon he named Sander's crowd who called for socialized healthcare, education and overall larger redistribution is one form of populism inside Democratic party, MAGA nationalism with things like subsidizing domestic industries employing workers can be used as populist strain of Republicans.
georgioz
2yr ago
I'm just curious to hear people's thoughts on this, both about this pattern of thought of erroneously retroactively changing worldviews or thinking events were inevitable, as well as about the 2016 election.
For retroactively changing worldviews, this I think is something very common in general life. My guess would be that people really think in narratives and stories. This is how humans make sense of the world, it is hard to keep track of myriads of possible worlds that could be spawned by butterfly flapping its wings somewhere in Amazon rainforest. One other area where I see it all the time is sports. You can have a great player who is MVP for five years and then if he bombs for a season you will see plethora of I knew he always sucked comments. Similarly people are also prone to overhype especially new players calling them GOAT after one season already having a narrative in their heads. In fact it often is these very same supposed fans who come hard on that player if he bombs, or even if he does something outside of the game that offends fans.
I remember one analysis of this fact mentioning that fans often project their own emotions and insecurities onto the player developing a strange parasocial relationship. If the player do well they have a kick of dopamine themselves, if the player does badly they can really get down. Inventing certain narratives especially those that externalize this pain can then serves as methods of dealing with cognitive dissonance for people. Inventing stories out of the whole cloth reduces inpredictability and thus anxiety and stress. Another one of those examples is centered around "Just World" fallacy - you have to have control over the world so if something bad happen it feels psychologically good to invent some reasons for that. Oh, she got harassed because she wore suggestive cloths/all men are pigs.
You are not the first one to point this out, rationalism is a terrible name for the movement. Mostly because rationalism already exists as a philosophical system, partially defined as opposition to empiricism. This form of rationalism is the belief, that the basis of all eternal truth comes from reason alone. Hence Descartes argument of cogito ergo sum which comes from total critique of validity of senses. Which is exactly the opposite to what Yud/Alexander "rationalists" espouse. Rationalists are really empiricists in this way.
First, this is silly. Rationalists were not the first ones to invent logic, this is too broad a definition. On practical level famoust rationalists are obsessed with movements like Effective Altruism, which is rabidly utilitarian. Scott Alexander described himself as consequentialist utilitarian. Alexander described also Robin Hanson as total utilitaian. Yudkowsky is not very clear writer on this, he often espouses consequentialist and utilitarian thinking, but he complicates stuff. I find this short tweet as a very good summary:
So 2 and a half or two and three quarters for three are team utilitarianism. So I do not think I misjudged that.
More options
Context Copy link