domain:alakasa.substack.com
f3zinker
Its A/B testing all the way down
11m ago
I'm sure some variation of this question has been asked n number of times in LessWrong and associated forums, but eh.
IQ to some extent determines the ceiling of how much about a given thing you can learn. You can probably learn more with more time but ain't nobody got the time. And in fast-moving fields like software engineering or research academia, perhaps just learning what you need to for once isn't a sustainable strategy since there is a constant stream of new things you need to stay on top of.
However, how flexible is the limit for the number of things you can cram into your head? I'm pretty sure there is a ceiling as a function of IQ there as well, but probably much less utlizied than the former for most people?
For example, I am probably reaching the point of diminishing returns of how much ML I can learn per unit of time with whatsoever hardware I have in my head.. Maybe now its time to expand sidewards into backend engineering and other fields of software engineering?
Other than intellectual pursuits, I have also noticed that I can probably get good at very many different things and I am nowhere near having to tradeoff (other than time) skill from one domain to another. So maybe for most of us higher than average IQ but not genius people, if we want to be the most "rounded" individuals, that is the best path to take ? As opposed to single-mindedly sticking to one domain.
orca-covenant
23m ago
This, of course, is exactly the same thing that leftist, or members of any other group, tell themselves -- when They break their stated principles for expediency, it's because They are treacherous faithless hypocrites; when We break our stated principles for expediency, it's because We really need to play dirty to win. As for principles like tolerance of differennt ideas, freedom of speech, or body autonomy, approximately nobody gives or ever gave a damn about them; a smattering of individuals here and there may care, but in practice they are ad hoc weapons against customs or laws one doesn't like.
pm_me_passion
אֲנָשִׁים נֹשְׂאֵי מָגֵן וְחֶרֶב וְדֹרְכֵי קֶשֶׁת וּלְמוּדֵי מִלְחָמָה
27m ago
Translated directly “בוא תיקח” sounds weird rather than defiant, so I’d go with translating the meaning rather than the words. “בוא נראה אותך” is “let’s see you (try)” works, or maybe “תנסה ותראה” which is “try and see (what happens if you do)”, akin to “fuck around and find out”. You’d have to change it to fit the speaker and subject, though.
Corvos
29m ago
Buying a rare painting from a private collector and then burning it is legal and unimpeachable
In the UK there is a system for protecting beautiful old houses, fully or partially. You are permitted to do whatever you like with a ‘listed’ house provided that you don’t damage the listed parts of the building. So you can knock down and rebuild the back of the building but you can’t damage the Georgian facade, for example.
There are occasional shenanigans but in general the system seems to work quite well, and strikes a good balance between ownership rights and protecting the public heritage. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were similar systems for notable works of art.
Corvos
36m ago
That said, selling corporate owned real-estate is a good thing for most businesses. There’s a reason why almost no major corporations other than super rich tech companies in the suburbs own their own corporate headquarters; when you own your premises, you’re a real estate company in addition to doing whatever else you do. Conglomerates are almost always undervalued by markets, it makes more sense for most companies to sign long leases, to focus on their core business as a pure play, and to leave real estate to asset managers and real estate developers who are valued on that basis and have expertise in that market.
Would I be correct in saying that’s mostly just the west? My impression is that in Japan at least, and maybe other Asian countries too, vertical integration is much higher. I would be surprised if Toyota/Panasonic/Yamato etc. don’t own their own land. Certainly they used to: during the bubble Sony’s real estate holding were worth more than the rest of the company put together.
Dean
43m ago
I thought we had enough previous interactions on other similar topics before that you'd know that I find the notion of "international law" to be somewhere in the class of Mohammad (PBUH) claiming that he received a revelation from God saying that Mohammad is his prophet and you must obey him, and so certainly whatever proportionality argument I make would not be intended as a reference to a "proportionality argument from international law".
Then your position makes less sense, and holds even less moral sway, as it becomes even more divorced from any coherent ethical system regarding conflicts.
Re: the other question, I think I responded to similar ones in parallel threads already. I leaned too far out of the window there and don't actually believe the Palestinians were de-escalating; I just don't think the Israelis were either.
Why do you think that a fraction of the air strikes in retaliation for the thousands of rocket attacks, as opposed to the ground incursions that have occurred both historically and in most other contexts where one side bombarded another, isn't a de-escalation?
Silverdawn
I wake up 🔄 There's another psyop
54m ago
Yeah it seems to be aimed at women which is why it’s strange, because most women know all this.
I dunno how to tell you this without offending you but I think you're wrong and possibly living inside a bubble. There are a huge number of women around me who seem to legitimately have no idea what men actually want. I base this on their clothes, their makeup and their idea of what "fit/fat" means.
Their behaviour seems to be very much based on social/cultural cues rather than objective truth. And I've even had experiences where I very gently suggested something along the lines of "nono, you should do X instead" and got a very harsh lecture or hate-filled glare in return.
Yes, the fact that people abuse all you can eat offers by sharing it among a group are "gaming" the system, the system is awfully stupid for letting that happen. Not a single buffet or hotpot near me allows sharing, for this very reason.
I don't know if its more illustrative that people were NOT abusing that system before and they are now, or its just distracting from the core argument that... ohhh wait, people were not abusing that system? I'm not from the west though, so my baseline is probably lower trust than most readers here.
More options
Context Copy link