justmotteingaround
No bio...
User ID: 2002
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
Nothing was more "move fast and break things" than entire neighborhoods of kids riding their bike behind "the fog truck" spraying DDT everywhere.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
Its worth keeping in mind the pitfalls of the media landscape. A fund manger posts screenshots of an AP article to 1.5M followers, with the incisive commentary "wait, what?!" What does the payoff matrix look like in this environment?
On one hand, information is spread widely and quickly. Great! On the other hand, I have an aunt who has long told me that Hitler put fluoride in the water to shrink the pineal glad of the populace, reducing their creativity and making them obey. She teaches anatomy and physiology at a community college, and loves listening to Coast To Coast on the AM radio. Crank it up fuckers!
But what does the article say? Well, the AP reported on this "long awaited study" two months ago. We didn't find this out this until quite recently. However, it seemingly only applies to 0.6% of US water systems, and then again only to children and pregnant women. For adults, more study is needed. The 300 page report was done by the National Toxicology Program, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. In 2015 Federal authorities revised their recommended level of fluoridation down from 1.2 mg/L to 0.07mg/L. This study pertains to levels of fluoridation of 1.5mg/L and above. How much above? I don't know, but the WHO currently thinks that 1.5mg/L is safe. The EPA actually mandates that water systems contain less than 4mg/L, the impetus in that case being fluorosis. This study extends research done in China in 2006 about cognitive effects of fluoride - naturally occurring and otherwise - and wait, what!? This is fucking booooooring. A bunch of nerds debating a the effects of less than one PPM of fluoride in a country that already recommends half the level studied? Fuck that. Give me Hitler. Give me chemtrails. Inject me with autism. Lets blast some Coast to Coast on the AM radio!
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
I'm pretty comfortable and drink liters of tap water daily. Always have. I always saw drinking bottled water at home as low class coded, like buying furniture on credit, or keeping a cc balance. Who pays that much for water? Tap water where I grew up and live has been pristine. Superfluous bottled water at events, or premium branded water is the real divide in America. I'd bet that anywhere in the developed world the the risk adjusted ROI for drinking bottled water is massively negative barring govt alerts (ie blue baby).
Trump got 12M more votes vs 2016. Fraud? I asked chatgpt to make a table of voter turnout by year, % turnout for D's and R's, and voter registration rate - for the last 5 elections. It supposedly took data from here:
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2022/demo/p20-585.pdf
2020 had the highest values in every singly category. I think a lot of people voted in 2020.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
If a weather forecast says there is a 50% chance of rain tomorrow, and it does not rain, was the forecast wrong? If a betting market says there's only a 40% of rain, and it doesn't rain, did the betting market crush the weather forecast?
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
This is kind of how it worked at the top levels of online poker in ~2016ish. Various groups spent 100kish each to build analysis software years before a dev released a version for sale. Top regs eventually pooled resources to build GTO bots, prompting top poker sites to learn how to ban them. For prediction markets the stats are way different (ie fewer trials, lots of noise) and a 10% edge wouldn't translate translate into a lot of money unless you could bet many millions, plus the variance would be insane. With active trading (ie more trials) I could see decent profits, but I don't know what liquidity looks like.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
Some further digging and it seems "election prediction by SM (usually twitter) sentiment analysis" is an academic area of research with dozens of papers going back at least to 2010, getting more advanced. However I can't find anyone doing publicly. This is why I wish the election prediction markets were more accessible and liquid. Eventually it'd be profitable to build the most accurate model even if you gained only a few percentage points in accuracy. With enough to be gained you'll get a Jim Simons team of election forecasters.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
Does anyone know if there are models that take into account sentiment analysis (ie ingest lots of data from TV viewership, FB,YT, comment sections, clean it, weight it, etc)? This is how I'd solve the game for betting purposes.
Just by eyeballing it, Trump seems to have a massive advantage. Trump-positive yt vids are more viewed and have a better like/dislike ratio than any vaguely Dem positive video. The top comments are often mostly pro Trump. A large percentage of MSM TV coverage is pro Trump, FB used to lean more pro Trump, Twitter is operated by a Trump fanatic. Polling leans old, this leans younger. The comment section of NYT, WaPo are obviously anti Trump, but these are comparatively microscopic players. What does themotte think, and what might I not be seeing?
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
Trump has been a brand for decades that has been plastered on buildings, steaks, planes, bottled water, casinos, vokda, perfume, sneakers, and more.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
Given that the election is a dead heat, the House is split and by thin margins, and a conservative leaning SC, perhaps there isn't any non-conformity so much as an extremely common difference of opinion. I'd wager that R's win elections because approximately half of voters are R's.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
hahah no I think Zorbas dedication is unimpeachable. This fleshes out what I gathered from perusing the megathread about the move. A Seattle sub mod chimed in about getting new admin attention over milquetoast issues like homelessness and trans stuff. I suppose the chilling effect was bad enough, though I do think they should have forced the admins to kick us off with an escape plan in place. On one hand, I have a very open to any mere speech, but I can well understand why a private company wouldn't want themotte on reddit even if I think its the pinnacle of moderated free speech. The move did what I expected, but it was perhaps inevitable.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
Specifically, did we ever see these threats? I hit bedrock here
On reddit Zorba:
Alright, so the admins are paying attention to us now. Not going into details, they aren't relevant and I don't want to draw their attention more; ask me again once this is done and I'll vent.
Poster:
Ok, it's a year later. Spill. I'm really curious about the fucked-up internal politics of Reddit.
Zorba
I am confused why this is coming up so often, you're the second in the last two days and I'd totally forgotten about it for months before that.
But anyway, out of a possible overabundance of caution, I'll PM it to you.
AFAICT, the threats were never discussed openly. I could be wrong. I only ask because this new threat rang some bells. Lots of arguably paranoid cloak and dagger stuff in the Meta: the motte is dead thread. I'm still grateful for all the hard work that goes into this place. Its the kind of place I can ask: does this place exist here because of a persecutorial complex; or was the move, like, justified...
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
Thanks! That fleshes out my memory, but I'm still lost as to what the mods knew regarding the need to move. Was it "safteyism"? Did they say 'we wont elaborate further at this time' or am I hallucinating that?
I'm interested in that because at the time I thought the move could be plausible, but was leaning paranoic. However, there is a lot I didn't know as a casual reader. I'm trying to put context around OPs claim that JD Vance allusion to a Scott Alexander article threatens the motte. Is this a pattern of persecutorial complexion, or am I off my rocker.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
Why did they put us there? I suggest you ask them.
This is a genuine curiosity of mine. Iirc, the reddit mods were explicitly not going to explain their actions beyond vague gestures to the Eye of Sauron somewhere around the time Scott (happily) landed in the financial security provided by substack.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
please engage with the substance instead of doing so with mockery.
Fair. As I've said here a few times, I loath safteyism. I find the hypothetical threat scenario so implausible that mentioning it screams of a persecution complex. I should have engaged more substantively.
I was against the move from reddit. I actually never saw a full explanation of why that was necessary. I recall a discussion of "((( )))" use trigging and auto-admin response). Iirc zorba said a full explanation would be forthcoming, but I missed it. I could be misremembering and no explanation was offered, but I remain open to one. That said, I thought having a backup motte was a good idea.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
Threats to our community aside
Are we going to move to an onion site now that the VP candidate made a 5 second vague reference to a writer whose comment section inspired this forum?
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
Grading Trump on a curve as, say, Ben Shapiro says he does, does not exclude dubious media hysterics over Trump. I think the shrinking institutional media leans hysterical while claiming objectivity, while new media tends to grade him on a curve, and simply says thats what they do.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
Random ideas:
Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote about "curing" his wifes SAD with a massive overabundance of indoor lighting. I forget the details. Likely a low probability of success, but no side effects beyond money spent.
Slowly get in elite cardio shape. Worth a shot. Mostly positive side effects even if it doesn't work.
Regular social responsibilities are correlated to positive mood. Lash yourself to the mast! Join an IRL social group or volunteer somewhere you'll be needed.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
Oral or topical minoxidil has low side effect profile. Finasteride works but might mess with hormones/ has low probability of high impact side effects. Electric micro needing is weird and gross, but works esp. in conjunction minoxidil.
Biotin and msm are low probability, but might thicken hair/ make your hair look better.
Get in shape to look more like prime Bruce Willis or other balding sex symbols.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
I think the way you use the word "science" conflates the method and the process with scientific institutions.
To be clear, I mean the institutions, because of the method. The institutions are more error prone than the method, but I'm arguing the institutions, on average, approximate reality better than legislators.
It's not like the avenue of legalizing it is completely sealed off
I never said it was. My argument is that it takes inordinately longer.
medical procedures (surrogacy, euthanasia)... how does banning this particular field of medicine set some dangerous new precedent?
It is necessarily a precedent because thats how case law (but not science) works. Again, Skrmetti would more permanently and more broadly allow legislators, not doctors, to determine if any procedure is safe, beneficial, etc.
I mean, that's a staple argument of all sorts of human-nature-denying idealists since forever.
This is a non sequitur. Its still a false dichotomy because you can have a regulatory state, informed by or deferential to some degree of scientific consensus, and imo this is the lesser of two evils. One need not deny human nature to argue this. The argument anti-ideological. It inveighs against scienceism - which is anti-science exactly to the degree it exists.
The question here is why did it need to be comissioned politically
The answer is irrelevant to the arguments I'm making because they commissioned science to be done, which is exactly what I'm arguing for. Science should not be conducted in the court room. I concede that science is imperfect. I'm arguing that its superior to the precedent set by Skrmetti because case law and consensus have different mechanisms.
I don't understand why you're so torn over this.
I think its because there is an inherent tension between rationality/technocracy/utilitarianism/ whatever the fuck I'm arguing for, and freedom of thought, which I also argue for. I'd argue that the limiting principles on peoples beliefs are less bound by reality than expert belief. Exceptions prove the rule because you'd make money betting they're less frequent. Experts could recommend putting lead in the water, but my argument is that their epistemic processes will get the lead out of the water faster, on average, than public opinion/legislators which enshrine a leaded water program. However, expert consensus should not trump the will of the people. The reductio that people should be able to vote to put lead in the water, or reintroduce chattel slavery, or trans all the kids, strikes me as a potential problem.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
How is this not already the case?
It functions as balancing act of political and scientific consensus, and I'm much more of a political doomer than a science doomer. MDMA is exactly the kind of situation I want to avoid. They held hearings on the scheduling in the 1980's, and sought scientific input. Neurotoxicity studies where central. They've since been critiqued. Recent interest has dubbed it a "breakthrough" therapy for PTSD. Like weed, MDMA remains a schedule 1 making it extremely difficult to even study. Like weed, it'll likely stay a schedule 1 drug for decades and decades and decades and decades after therapeutic uses has been discovered. GHB has a similar history, but a therapeutic formulation was granted strict control under schedule 3. So while its possible to penetrate regulatory caprice, it usually takes longer. Case law is slower. Numerous examples. Stem cells being particularly egregious imo.
abolishing the regulatory state
Strikes me as a false dichotomy. Science has varying degrees of confidence. In this case, WPATH etc are peddling what I believe to be bullshit science with bullshit confidence.
The Cass Review...
Commissioned, but real science was done. Sounds good to me. NHS is a governmental body anyhow. I do think it will lead to a reversal in the anglosphere. Srmketti will be permeant.
Good! This is the part that I wanted you to explain how there's anything bad about!
Easily the most challenging critique for me to contend with, but perhaps I'm just limited. On what principle should I argue against people voting for representatives that promise to put lead in the water? On one hand, I do think people have that right. On the other hand, I'm just sitting here with my dick in my hand wondering how I can escape this principle.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
what precedent is it setting?
As I stated, legislators can eschew medical/expert consensus for anything they please. Imagine the scientific consensus states that natal males in womens contact sports poses an injury risk. Well, Srkmetti would provide precedent that elected representatives can ignore that consensus. Is mifepristone safe? Thats now up for legislators to decide on their own. Does MDMA provide a therapeutic benefit to veterans with PTSD? Etc.
you should be arguing for the total abolishing of the regulatory state.
No, I want both internal and external experts to study things without their findings being handwaved away by politicians with an ideological agenda. Or course in this scenario, I don't trust the APA, AMA, and WPATH view on gender medicine. But experts will be mugged by reality far faster than case law. The cass report led to a reversal in the UK; science slowed down gender medicine in the Nordic countries. It takes far too long to get bunk science out of the legal system because the legal system is unscientific; relies on case law (eg bite mark analysis). In general, trust experts more than politicians because experts are responsible for the modern world.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
Unless I'm missing something Skrimetti is just about banning / age limits on gender medicine. I don't see how it's qualitatively different from banning heroin or other recreational drugs.
I think I've been pretty clear that entire reason I'm against Skrmetti prevailing has noting - whatsoever - to do with banning flawed gender medicine. The precedent it sets can be argued in favor of the next Bad Thing(tm). Just sue the current bad thing for torts.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
In 2017 Oren Cass published an a great article on the problem of "policy based evidence making" in my favorite magazine, National Affairs. Part of the thesis was a call against government expansion, which won't be the case if Skrmetti prevails. Unlike policy, science gets mugged by reality in comparatively short time spans. I'm confident that "gender science" won't hold for a hundredth as long as the precedence Skrmetti will establish. Moreover, it would broaden the scope of legislative intrusion. Imagine a scientific consensus emerges that natal males playing female contact sports poses statistically significant injury risk. An ideological legislature could dismiss that, and instead pursue their own policy, ethical, or ideological goals. The same principles are in play.
Science remains the best way to find out what is true, all else being equal. No passenger would be tempted to troubleshoot a high-flying faulty airliner by the legislative process; to defer to a representative for the best way to perform life saving surgery.
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/policy-based-evidence-making
Per the article, as of 2015 the US has the same 0.7mg/l recommendation as the upper limit. 0.6% of water systems in the US are above the 1.5mg/L studied. The EPA limit was arrived at separately, the impetus being fluorosis.
More options
Context Copy link