ulyssessword
No bio...
User ID: 308
ulyssessword
1yr ago
It automatically converts nitter and twitter links into each other. You can change which one it is in your user preferences.
EDIT: wrong person. These are talking about Abrams the politician, not Lawrence-Bundy the lawyer.
Let's check:
with the largest amount going to the self-described boutique law firm of the candidate’s campaign chairwoman.
But some outside the group questioned both the level of expenditures devoted to a single, largely unsuccessful legal action and the fact that such a large payout went to the firm of Abrams’ close friend and campaign chair.
“Beyond $10 million would be very shocking, I would say.”
some ethics watchdogs say the closeness of their relationship, combined with Lawrence-Hardy’s leading roles in Abrams’ campaigns, raises questions about a possible conflict of interest.
“It is a very clear conflict of interest because with that kind of close link to the litigation and her friend that provides an opportunity where the friend gets particularly enriched from this litigation,”
Through her campaign, Abrams declined to be interviewed.
Abrams didn’t congratulate Kemp after his narrow victory. Instead, she complained that the electoral system was flawed.
...and I stopped halfway through. I'd say that all of those statements in the Politico article are diminishing her qualifications in some way or another, to varying degrees.
EDIT: wrong person
I'd say that "ability to avoid conflicts of interest" is a qualification for political office, and she did not demonstrate that skill there.
ulyssessword
1yr ago
Oops, my mistake. I'm used to politicians coming from a legal background, and I didn't read the names closely enough.
ulyssessword
1yr ago
In the earlier years of his presidency he couldn't even build a wall, so I never thought he could build a dynasty.
He didn't seize the reins of power when people were begging him to do it in the COVID era, which laid my remaining doubts to rest.
ulyssessword
1yr ago
if I ask you what’s 22:00+2:00, you are likely not going to answer 24:00
I read that as "Twenty two minutes plus two minutes", which is obviously a duration of 24 minutes. Even if I had read it as hours, there's nothing wrong with 24 hours or even 30, 48, or 100. (A thousand hours might be pushing it, though.) Also, I will refer to midnight as 24:00:00. If it was three hours, then I wouldn't answer 1:00 like you're suggesting either. I'd say "01:00 the next day" because time isn't truly modular, it's just mixed base and convention says that we exclude the most-significant parts when possible.
Another claim in the same vein is that lines with constant distance (e.g. parallel) never intersect, this is again making an assumption: Eucledian geometry.
I'm not sure about more esoteric ones, but in spherical and hyperbolic geometries pairs of lines with constant distance simply don't exist. Lines converge or diverge (for spherical/hyperbolic, respectively), and the set of points that are a constant distance from a given line are a curve for both of them: you can either have a line or you can have constant distance.
In fact, proving that lines with constant distance never intersect is utterly trivial if you assume they exist:
-
intersection is when the distance is zero
-
the constant distance is nonzero
-
therefore, they don't intersect.
ulyssessword
1yr ago
You can also check https://www.themotte.org/log , and I don't think that the recent removal targeted the thread you're thinking of.
ulyssessword
1yr ago
I hadn't heard of any doxxing on their part, and I paid a bit of attention to them around the time of the NYT article.
It's not like it was ever hard to link Scott Alexander to Scott Siskind (Siskind -> Alexander was always more difficult and his primary concern). IIRC, I rediscovered his real name a couple of times when he posted links to some of his offsite writing.
ulyssessword
1yr ago
I've heard it a few times, but only from a generalized "exploitation"/pro-labor PoV. I haven't seen any arguments that would apply to programmers but not assembly line workers (etc.), but maybe OP has.
ulyssessword
1yr ago
I clicked the link but it didn't say.
???
Are you seeing what I'm seeing (see attached screenshot)?
ulyssessword
1yr ago
If you can do the entire election in a single shift (probably more than 8 hours, but that's a minor problem), then security becomes much simpler. If there is an observer who can vouch for the security of the ballots for the entire time between the first vote and the last report, then it becomes much harder to diffuse responsibility: "one of the dozen pollwatchers in the past 120 hours missed some misconduct" is a lot harder to fight than "Bob Jones missed some misconduct".
(I think it's actually a step back for fairness because a personal emergency is much more likely to last a day than a week.)
ulyssessword
1yr ago
Considering that all of these stories are far worse than the worst thing Brinton might have done, I'd hope that you'd have the same response.
I think I'm coming at it slightly different than @netstack, but I don't have the same response. Put simply, Brinton's group (defined broadly) failed in their duty to promote positive role models. This makes me distrust their judgement.
If you can find anyone who loudly supported Adam Lanza or Robert Gregory Bowers, then I'd lose some trust in them as well. I just don't think those people exist.
ulyssessword
1yr ago
The two-factor amendment, where security depends on something you know + something you have.
ulyssessword
1yr ago
Tested it on the dev site, and had a couple of thoughts about the small details:
-
Is the constantly-repeating comments an artifact of it being on the dev site? If not, check the selection algorithm.
-
Should they display upvotes? Should there be context included by default?
-
When you're done, it says "Head back to the main site". Could it return you to the originating page instead? (also, it's in a normal typeface so I read it as an instruction instead of as a link) (also also, an automatic redirect might be good instead of needing a click)
I'm looking forward to seeing if it works. It's a gamble for sure, but there's not much of a danger associated with failures IMO.
ulyssessword
1yr ago
Why even have them on if you won’t meaningfully engage with them?
Accepting your interpretation of the broadcast, they get to play both sides:
-
"We represent all viewpoints, and give everyone good information about the topics"
-
"This is a crazy idea that focuses on a microscopic niche that doesn't affect anyone."
If they didn't have alt-right people on the air, they couldn't claim neutrality. If they gave an informative interview, they might actually convert people over to his side.
ulyssessword
1yr ago
I would say that it's actually possible to occur, not just that people might hold that misconception.
Imagine the following model:
-
A random selection of women want to use sex to achieve their other goals, such as by becoming escorts.
-
The best retire at 25 and become trophy wives.
-
The worst quit and spend more time on their day job.
All of the remaining workers would have similar overall quality, but that means there's a tradeoff between attractiveness/interpersonal skills/business acumen/etc.: If they had it all, they'd leave the study population. If they had none, they'd also leave the study population.
Broad (and true) trends don't always show up how you'd expect.
ulyssessword
1yr ago
I've posted about this idea before, but it's still relevant: someone should create a code-to-book encoder/decoder. Imagine if you had the following Python code:
def bubbleSort(arr):
n = len(arr)
for i in range(n-1):
for j in range(n-i-1):
if arr[j] > arr[j + 1]:
arr[j], arr[j + 1] = arr[j + 1], arr[j]
You could rewrite it in a human-readable, deterministic and rigorous way as something like:
Create a new function named "bubbleSort" which has "arr" as a parameter.
Within that, assign the variable "n" to the value returned by the function "len" when it is passed "arr" as an argument.
Make a for loop with index "i" and the iterable returned by "range" when it is passed "n-1" as an argument.
Within that, make a for loop with index "j" and the iterable returned by "range" when it is passed "n-i-1" as an argument.
Within that, make a check testing the truth of the following statement:
the "j"th index of sequence "arr" is greater than the "j+1"th index of the sequence "arr"
If the previous statement is true, assign the variables "j"th index of sequence "arr", and "j+1"th index of the sequence "arr" to the value of the "j+1"th index of sequence "arr" and the "j"th index of the sequence "arr", respectively.
This concludes the if check initiated three paragraphs ago, the for loop initiated four paragraphs ago, the for loop initiated five paragraphs ago, and the function definition initiated seven paragraphs ago.
You could then publish it in .epub format and (hopefully) gain First Amendment protections because it's human-readable instructions. Someone else could download it and pass it to a program that knows "Create a new function named" translates to "def" and all the rest.
ulyssessword
1yr ago
Being forced to take it seems very relevant.
ulyssessword
1yr ago
You can also write the variables as Thot (from T<sub>hot<\sub>), but then I wouldn't get to laugh at "Thot policing".
Ultimately you'd end up with a two class society, between the Methuselahs (those who received a significant initial resource allocation block and have grown by countless death dividends) and the Children (those who start out with a zero or minimal block and have received fewer death dividends than the Meths).
I'm not sure if the math works out that way. I'm envisioning it as follows:
-
Every year, everyone gets +1 allocation point from other people dying
-
Families split their allocation evenly at each birth.
Let's look at several family structures that are stable over generations.
Large young family:
-
Inherit 16 points
-
Marry someone identical, and have children at 20, 22, 24, 26 years old
-
The family has 2 * 16 (inheritance) + 2 * 26 (parent's age) + 6 + 4 + 2 + 0 (children) = 96 points, split six ways = 16 points each
-
Live another 80 years, dying at 96 points of allocation.
-
Average approx 49.4 points during your life
Small young family:
-
Inherit 40 points
-
Marry someone identical, and have a child at 20 years old
-
The family has 2 * 40 (inheritance) + 2 * 20 (parent's age) + 0 (child) = 120 points, split three ways = 40 points each
-
Live another 80 years, dying at 120 points of allocation.
-
Average approx 90 points during your life
Small old family:
-
Inherit 80 points
-
Marry someone identical, and have a child at 40 years old
-
The family has 2 * 80 (inheritance) + 2 * 40 (parent's age) + 0 (child) = 240 points, split three ways = 80 points each
-
Live another 60 years, dying at 140 points of allocation.
-
Average approx 106 points during your life
I don't think that a mere doubling of resources is enough to entrench an aristocracy or cast someone into poverty. More permissive inheritance laws could make for stronger effects, but that isn't how I read the proposal.
ulyssessword
1yr ago
Replace "years" with "decades" and everything else will be the same. The mechanism simply doesn't allow for concentrating allotment the way that we can currently concentrate wealth.
ulyssessword
1yr ago
They are winning, not they have won. It's a process.
If they started negotiating today, they'd get some sort of a deal. If they kept up the war effort for another month then started negotiating, they'd probably get a better deal (even including a month worth of damage) because they would be in better position. That has held true from the first day of the invasion to today, and will likely continue on into the future.
They're begging for money and arms because it works.
ulyssessword
1yr ago
The mean score of the senate is 0.088, while the median is 0.055. I'm not sure what zero represents, but it isn't the center of the Senate.
ulyssessword
1yr ago
I looked it up, and it seems to fit. Relevant quotes from the first few links:
What point were you trying to make?
Play some hyperrogue, and maybe read the blog posts about it.
You will have to make a decent start on understanding hyperbolic geometry if you want to rescue the princess (~10% of the way through the game). I haven't got much farther than that, myself.
More options
Context Copy link