@thomasThePaineEngine's banner p

thomasThePaineEngine

Lightly Seared On The Reality Grill

0 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 11 16:24:53 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 1131

thomasThePaineEngine

Lightly Seared On The Reality Grill

0 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 11 16:24:53 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1131

Verified Email

Isn't it all a matter of tradeoffs though?

What I mean is, do you think it's possible to make policy decisions that don't have undesirable side effects?

Take business as an example. You can't spend too much time on thoughtful deliberation, because you must react to multiple competing inputs and try to respond to them in line with your strategy as much as possible. You must make choices that are really only bets about the state of the world now and what you think is the future. Then, tomorrow, you can only hope you'll be perceptive and fast-thinking enough to avoid making the mistakes you made yesterday.

Except in terms of national policy, "tomorrow" might mean "next year". It's a big ship, hard to turn around, especially because it's captained by consensus.

Interesting points.

Starting from the end, I think you oversimplify the economics & laws angle. If humans were simple optimizers, then yes, they would all behave in a set of uniform, most optimal behaviors. There would be no new businesses, no new music, no new books, etc. Everyone in New York would just run laundromats, irish pubs, and sell hot dogs, to name a few things. But that's not really the case in reality--the laws, in the city and in most places in the US at least, are liberal enough for individuals to tinker, try new ideas, and find new ways of expressing themselves whether it's through commerce or art or whatever.

That's where I see the beauty of liberalism--let it provide a minimal set of laws that ensure more or less stability and... leave the rest up to people. In practice, given zoning and licensing and bureaucracy, this doesn't exist, but even in the much faded, weaker version of it that we have, we still see a ton of creative destruction. Much of it is garbage, but that's the cost of having monkey brains hitting two stones together until they find just the right stones that give sparks. This process, though, is made stronger by a steady stream of immigrants--whether internal or external--even though yes, after some n number of generations, they will likely meld in. However, by then, they will have very likely left a mark on the place.

I'm not sure I get the argument about surface diversity. If I set aside the EU angle, I don't see why it matters for a country to be able to be against gay rights? Like, if you live in Liberaltopia, there's nothing stopping you from not associating with gay people. There's nothing stopping you from forming a group with other people and having each other promise that you will not do gay things or associate with gays. There's also no size limit imposed on your group--it could be just your friends or half the country. Why would you want the state to interfere and set up some laws against gay people's freedoms? Surely, if gayness is in anyway bad, well, then in the free market of ideas, gayness will fade away while your non-gay group will grow and prosper?

This applies to other topics around enforcing culture.

I'll concede that my long-term thinking argument was a slippery slope. I should have constrained it by something like "moving to nuclear power sooner rather than later will be advantageous in this half century."

I'm not sure I understand your question about which countries have benefited from shutting down coal power. I want to say--all of them--which is why more governments are building reactors. India and China are building multiple reactors, and I suspect the cleanliness of the energy is secondary to its abundance, which also entails a larger degree of sovereignty. This seems obvious to me, which is why I think we're coming at this from very different angles. What's good about coal power? Does it outweigh the benefits of cheaper, more abundant sources?

I don't think his enemies would be a thousand times more critical. They're already at max critique. They'd critique him for using the wrong side of toilet paper to wipe his butt. Note that I don't consider myself in that camp. I just think he's lacking as a leader.

Because he exists? Your children and grandchildren might, but the coal miner is alive now and trying to live in the world today, and hopefully make any kind of world at all for his children and grandchildren.

Doesn't this argument justify all short-term thinking?

Also, why can't the coalminer find a different job? Yes, there's both a physical and mental cost to this. But does that justify forcing 330 million citizens to live under a worse energy policy so that 62 thousand of them don't have to re-educate themselves into a different profession? This is the USA--many people here have careers that span half a dozen professions.

Why are your children and grandchildren better than his?

I never said that, nor was it implied.

Also do you really think Trump would have been treated better if he'd backed out of Paris to ramp up nuclear?

Treated better--by whom? His enemies would be just as critical of him as they were always. His supporters would be just as supportive. A small handful of people who care about energy policy would be happy.

Is there a name for this?

Thanks, that's illuminating. Now I just have to adjust my monkey brain.

But isn't this picking one set of trade offs for another?

Japan has been wrestling with economic stagnation, where more and more younger people have to bust their asses even more for an uncertain future. Many of them are choosing to completely drop out of society altogether. They're also struggling with low birth rates to the point of working on robotic elderly aides. Also, high suicide rates.

I'm sure if I did the research, I'd find a lot of trouble going on in Korea, too.

That said, I would take all the places we're talking about (USA, most of EU, Japan, Korea, and a few others) as having their shit together enough to be classified as "working." Sure, they're all facing wicked problems, but on the whole, they still exhibit behaviors that signal they are capable of playing the larger game.

I'm not sure why you think his attitude comes from ignorance of how things work

It's a stab at understanding techno-pessimism. I can't be sure where the author's attitude comes from truly. But the fear/lack-of-agency is my main hypothesis.

I've been helping to build the shit machine for the past 20 years and I can see quite clearly what I've done.

Why is it shit?

Yes, it's kludge on top of kludge. Duct tape and bubble gum. Layers and layers of it, going back decades at this point. Yet, it works. Between everything from router buffer bloat to stupid bugs in JS libraries, thanks to layer and layers of fallbacks, including the fallback of last resort when the user has to refresh the page or reload the app--it works.

Or is your take more about what the machine is being used for? Porn. Funny cats. Surveillance. Social media addiction. True, that's all there, but there are also people doing incredible things. Plus, one does not rule out the other, since a person might spend 6 hours a day browsing stupid stuff on Reddit, then go ahead and make helpful videos on youtube.

That's my view more or less. Why do you think it's a shit machine?

I should have added more meat to my post, my bad.

I collected some snippets straight from wikipedia on the subject in this comment: https://www.themotte.org/post/75/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/9901?context=8#context

So it appears that whole-word has no effect whereas phonics has a positive effect. Neither probably affect all kids, but given that phonics has a positive effect on at least some kids whereas whole-word has none, it seems like phonics should be used--at least until we find something more effective.

This is like saying communism must be winding down, because I'm not hearing about as many shootings of kulaks and imperialist agents. No Shit. Who the fuck is left to cancel? This is what complete victory looks like. You don't need to hit people over the head because everyone agrees with you they just want you to shut up about it already. Yes, communism might be entirely antithetical to human nature and party officials, together with everyone else might cynically use the black market on the side, but no one will openly question government ownership of everything and everyone will claim to hate the capitalist parasites.

Well, didn't it though?

Communism--revolution of the proletariat, utopia around the corner, full employment, 3-hour work week--were all the rage in the beginning of the 20th century. Even after WW2, there were still many people, many fellow travelers, championing the cause despite more and more reports about the purges and gulags coming out of Soviet Russia or Communist China. And yet, but the end of that century, communism had few open supporters. Sure, you had the Noami Kleins and other angry activists, but they were mostly selling tired tropes to angry teenagers. Also, true, today there seems to be a revival of anti-capitalist sentiment, but it seems to be mainly a side dish to the main course that is identity politics. No one is starting communes, no one is talking about seizing the means of production--except a bunch of hipsters trying to organize a "May Day" that attracts a total of, what, 100 people out a metropolis like New York that numbers over 8 million residents?

Every bloody media company in the country spent the 90s aggressively telling the free spirited teenagers you are talking about; "Hey aren't your parents and elders boring, repressive shits..." Who, is telling them that now? Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro?

I don't know. I don't hang with teenagers. But I can make out movements of large masses of popculture and it looks like woke-filled pieces like Velma or Rings of Power aren't really getting much of a following. What appears to be gaining popularity is the dirty grungy style of the 90's. Of course, this could be a fad. Maybe it's all just about the aesthetics and not about the substance. But if it's not, we should see more stuff like Tarantino's movies, more heavy music--and an increasingly strong resistance to the morally pure elders that make up such a large chunk of millennials.

Yes, worlds rarely end, things can go on and get eternally worse forever - Do "rest easy"!

I'd rather rest easy than get carried away by the rapacious currents of dooming.

Why do you care? How does it affect your life or the lives of anyone you care about? Do you have any relatives or loved ones who are even remotely likely to end up dying in a similar matter? Is the extremely rare death of the occasional junkie ex-con seriously worth devoting any significant political capital toward preventing?

What about caring for the maintenance and running of a complicated machine like the court system or the police system? Am I not to care that parts of this system seem to be defective in certain area of my country, a country I care a lot about? Should I just ignore that these core institutions are producing false positives at a rate higher than acceptable?

I imagine the answer is no.

But I also imagine that you could argue that the existence of people like Floyd outside of prison is the sign of the system being broken. With that, I agree wholeheartedly, but I must push back against the idea of not caring about the health of fundamental institutions. And arguably, a court and police that's in better shape would have more appropriately handled the such a case as Floyd's by, most likely, isolating him from society. But the same system killing even a man like Floyd by mistake is even more cause for alarm than letting one like him walk about freely.

I've had my website come up a few times during or after interviewing. Sometimes it was related to a tech-related post (or how-to) I've written, but more often it was about the non-programming content, eg. "Hey, I saw you wrote about X on your blog, I'm a big fan of X...".

I think that and my github profile (empty-ish, but has some project w/ 50+ stars) add color to my applications.

From the interviewing side, I would always look at a candidate's website if they included it. For junior candidates, it often served to help to figure out where they're coming from. Like one guy wrote a ton about rust and microcontrollers, another about web development. It helped me put them ease by first asking about these topics and also to answer the question "will this guy here be excited by what we're working on?

A few years back an idea came to me to use markov chains to generate content and submit it to scientific journals that I thought were already publishing low-quality, ideological stuff. A sort of DDOS against the human editors of journals that publish things like "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Ore.,".

I never even started on it, and I think markov chains wouldn't really be adequate to the task anymore. But today, I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years we'll read an NYT article about how whole volumes of certain types of "scientific" journals were actually the product of a band of merry pranksters armed with chatgpt.

I'm not long enough into my career that I feel the need to "lock in" to a specific field. Also, economically, web dev is just about 10x more prevalent than Data Science.

How does the income distribution look like in Data Science?

In webdev, at least a few years ago, it was multi-modal with a huge deviation. You had webdevs making $30k/year and webdevs making $200k/year. That, and the lack of interesting challenges, were what eventually chased me out of that subgenre.

I don't see what calling these things infohazards or sociogenic illnesses adds.

I guess there's an element of choice in mimicry, but no choice when it comes to illness? It's not specified in the source whether the affected people decided to imitate a popular youtuber or just found themselves replaying the youtuber's behavior.

I believe that when you, @curious_straight_ca, and now me talk about developer operators/devops/sre, we're all talking about different things. From talking with people, this part of the industry seems to be undergoing a complete headfuck of an identity crisis.

Many companies simply changed labels from "sysadmin" or "operations" to "devops" or "sre" and called it a day, with the people doing what they always did: maintaining hardware, producing an endless stream of small automation (bash scripts, yay), and managing LDAP/other access (your next post seems to describe this group). Some companies created a true group of automation developers--tool and systems makers. Yet others have formed groups inspired by manufacturing that are using statistical modeling methods to design and maintain systems.

What I think this points to is that the industry is struggling with the problem of reliability, specifically, reliable product delivery (availability, durability, latency, etc). Up until fairly recently, no one from the industry spent time to devise a production process(1) to produce reliable software, so it's pretty much a wild west composed of at least two dozen or more different groups trying to figure it out (or make money and disappear), all of them using the same two labels.

I'm urging caution because it seems there's a strong disconnect between map (job titles) and territory (job responsibilities) to the point where two people with the same title probably can't even communicate because they do vastly different things.

(1): I'm not counting tools like formal verification or Erlang ("nine nines")--I'm thinking of the whole process including people, skillsets, organization, etc.

I lurked themotte for a long time. One day, not too long ago, I decided I want to get more serious about participating. I can think of a few pull factors that motivated me:

  • I have something valuable to share, either because of my unique perspective/experience or because I've picked up something that not many do.

  • I'm curious to be proven wrong. It's happened at least twice that I got feedback that shook me on a deep level because I realized that I overestimated my understanding of a topic.

On the technical side, some answers to your questions:

  • I've grown to like writing, so each post or comment that I write is a little fun exercise.

  • Some posts of mine were first drafts while others took a week or two to draft and redraft until I was satisfied with the level of clarity.

    • This was a major hangup of mine in the beginning. I was nervous about how people would perceive my writing. It turned out that most are curious and I feel like every time I post is a chance to get sucked into a scintillating discussion. This realization really helped alleviate part of my perfectionism and bring my perception more in line with reality--in other words, I worry less and post more.

    • The times when I post the first draft, I've usually turned the idea around in my head for a while or talked it through with friends. The times I need more drafts are usually because the idea is vague and I don't know how to structure before transmitting it in words.

  • The quality of comments my writing gets here is astounding. I do not feel like I'm yelling into the void.

(This comment took somewhere between thirty and forty minutes to make as a point of comparison. I have no idea if that is a lot or a little. It feels like it is so much more than it should be).

There's a lot to unpack here probably, if you're willing to bear the discomfort.

Good luck!

I'd love to hear how you like things there after you've had a few weeks to settle in.

Boosting this.

I lead a fairly active lifestyle, making sure to get adequate exercise. But on a friend's suggestion, I went to see a PT about my posture, which has turned into a multi-month journey into addressing various imabalances and weakeness that I never thought about because I took many things for granted, eg. a painful left knee while running, problems with stretching my hamstrings etc.

Turns out, I was using my body suboptimally, which lead to favoring certain parts over others, which then lead to minor but evergreen injuries. A good PT can easily spot these and, given their experience, figure out a good plan for addressing these problems.

As far as how to find a good PT, the only heuristic I've learned is to look for people that had training at the https://instituteofphysicalart.com/. Not sure if true, but I get a vibe from them that they are the rationalists of the PT world.

Thanks for writing this. I found it accessible, despite being fairly weak on stats (though I do remember what a beta distribution is).

Your piece has a vibe of a warning for young rationalists that goes something like, "Beware, for not all who claim to be skeptics are ones." Would you say this is a correct interpretation?

Perhaps this is asking too much, everyone being Internet strangers and all, but how do you spend time with your relative? Do you approach them with compassion? With persuasion? Or do you just accept them as they are, right now, in their bad moment?

Another interpretation is that companies are still optimizing for producing value, but this value isn't shareholder dollars. It's status. Status might come from size. Or great parties. Or scoring high on "best place to work at $insert_year", etc. These could all make hiring lots of HR people seem like a good idea. And I'm sure if you hire great HR people, you could increase your employee satisfcation, but like with anything, it's hard to find these great HR people. I wouldn't be surprised if every HR employee beneath the 90th percentile of quality is just clocking in and clocking out.

Not much, really, because I focus my well-being energy on eating, sleeping, and exercising.

But the few things I'm optimizing for specifically are:

  • Bright lights. I got high-CR Cree LED bulbs and put the equivalent of 100-260W in each room (these are very small rooms btw). I'm not sure of the effects, but it's more comfortable for me to do anything in those rooms. On the flip side, whenever I go to others' house, I'm surprised by how dark it is.

  • Keeping my bedroom cold before sleep.

  • Keeping my bedroom free from electronic devices. It's mainly a reading, sleeping, and exercise room. With carpets and blankets, it feels very safe and cozy.

  • Keep myself from buying snacks. If snacks aren't home, then I can't have them, so I will force myself to make a proper meal. Even a shitty sandwich is better than most wheat-and-salt snacks, which are already on the healthier side of the spectrum. (I'm trying to limit sugar intake and increase protein, fat, and fruit/veggie intake).

Is there something in humanity which will reject the matrix and turn away from the algorithmic dopamine machine? Will people get exhausted or can the machine adapt and transform to keep people hooked?

I think this is your central point. And I think the answer is yes, just like we tamed other unhealthy forces in our environment like alcohol or fast food. Meaning, my bet is that we'll develop social rituals, habits, taboos around software tech (social media first, probably) that will limit its unhealthy effects and eventually steer it toward something useful and acceptable. But we'll never be completely free of its side effects, just like we'll always lose people to alcohol or fast food.

That true life is living off the berries of the forest, fighting mammoths and facing the beasts of the night, and watching your children die, that that's what chisels a firm soul.

I don't think high tech and self-reliant ruggedness are at odds. Instead of fighting mammoths and faces the creepy crawlies at night, we're fighting against surveillance, addiction, and control. It's a very real fight for survival, perhaps less physical and more about soul/agency. But it's strenuous, demanding both instant action and long-term strategic thinking.

Maybe, just maybe, this is actually the escape hatch from our all too comfortable physical lives--being forced to fight for your the life of your soul and agency, your very humanity, against a growing, sly, unthinking machine.

What makes you afraid of the holy wards failing? Genuinely interested.