domain:drmanhattan16.substack.com
knob
28m ago
The reason to believe that paying so much gets you a good CEO is that companies that want to continue existing care about costs, and so if large compensation packages for CEOs didn't attract good CEOs, market forces would pressure them to offer lower compensation. So the fact that we continue to see successful companies pay CEOs a ton is reason to believe.
hydroacetylene
29m ago
Immigration enforcement/concern about trump authoritarianism(real or not, people are worried about it).
ulyssessword
30m ago
No significant amount of aid. The claim I've heard is that there's enough to serve as a fig leaf and no more. By any fair assessment it's an anti-Israel activist project instead of a direct humanitarian one.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
43m ago
In the long term, is that distinct from (2)? IIRC South Africa has had long-term white emigration that at some point starts to look like the "suitcase" option there, or sometimes worse. There was even that drama earlier this year when the current US administration looked to consider it as ethnic-cleansing-adjacent.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
44m ago
Abiah Folger, Benjamin Franklin’s mother. She had ten children.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
49m ago
Eventually someone is going to realize that grotesque jihadi violence is counterproductive and that they would get way more stuff if they kept the Jews around to milk welfare out of.
Because that someone will just get killed and replaced with someone else who values killing Jews over everything else.
BahRamYou
52m ago
Would you agree that, even if in general CEO pay is not a major expense on their companies, there are particular cases where it could be, and Musk at Tesla is one of those examples? And it's interesting that he wa able to get it past the board and all sorts of normal shareholder protections, to the point where it required a court ruling to stop it. It's not some perfect elegant self-maintaining system.
Quantumfreakonomics
53m ago
Why do you exclude South Africa-style reintegration? Eventually someone is going to realize that grotesque jihadi violence is counterproductive and that they would get way more stuff if they kept the Jews around to milk welfare out of.
stuckinbathroom
54m ago
What was stopping him before?
Domestic political pressure to bring home as many live hostages as possible.
Yes, Israel had been accused of callousness from without, and Bibi doesn’t seem to care (see e.g. his “super Sparta” remarks). However, his legitimacy and that of his coalition are hanging by a thread and so he is sensitive to political considerations from within.
hydroacetylene
54m ago
To be clear, if I was dictator of the US, and I decided not to do a maximum troll answer(let’s have $5 bills assigned to have Margaret Sanger or Phyllis Schafly at random…), I’d probably do Elizabeth Ann Seton and send the first run as bonuses to schoolteachers.
Bessie Coleman simply seems like an answer that makes everyone happy.
gattsuru
57m ago
If you're doing TCP, even small amounts of latency can have bizarre impact when you're dealing with relatively large bandwidth compared to the underlying MTU size, window size and buffer size (and if going past the local broadcast domain, packet size, though getting any nontrivial IPv6 layout to support >65k packets is basically impossible for anyone not FAANG-sized). I can't say with much confidence without knowing a lot about the specific systems, and might not be able to say even with, but I've absolutely seen this sort of behavior caused by the receiving device taking 'too long' (eg, 10ms) to tell the sender that it was ready for more data, and increasing MTU size and sliding window size drastically reduced the gap.
benmmurphy
1hr ago
it could also be you have a bunch of bad options for the TCP connection. tho, i suspect iperf would should have good defaults. a common problem with TCP application is not setting TCP_NODELAY and be a cause of extra latency. the golang language automatically sets this option but i'm sure a lot of languages/libraries do not set it. you can also have problems between userspace and kernelspace (but maybe not at this speed?). like if you can only shift 200 Mbps between the kernel and userspace because of syscall overhead on a single thread and in the multiple stream case you are using multiple threads then maybe that is why the performance improves. also, if you are using multiple streams you are going to have a much larger max receive window. there is some kind of receive buffer configuration (tcp_rmem?) that controls how large the receive buffer is and the thus the receive window. its possible this is not large enough and so using 10x connections means you effectively now have 10x the max receive window. also, there is tcp_wmem configuration that controls the write buffer in a similar way. cloudflare has an article on optimizing tcp_rmem https://blog.cloudflare.com/optimizing-tcp-for-high-throughput-and-low-latency/ which shows their production configuration.
Primaprimaprima
Aliquid stat pro aliquo
1hr ago
I don't think that the way Marx is treated is all that out of the ordinary compared to how other canonical historical philosophers are treated (and you can find other historical thinkers who have a bigger cult of personality, like Lacan imo). I think the locus of emotional investment is more in the cause of socialism itself rather than Marx as a person.
The particular attention paid to Marx's writings and Marx as a person may seem strange to people with a STEM background, where primary historical sources are never read by anyone except dedicated historians. But that's simply how things are done in philosophy. If you want to do serious scholarly or intellectual work using X thinker’s ideas, then you're expected to read what X actually wrote.
No one treats Marx's thought as an infallible edifice which can never be criticized or amended. The Frankfurt school thought that Marxism had to be supplemented with psychoanalysis and cultural criticism in order to address some of its blind spots. Wokes are intrinsically suspicious of Marx because he was white and male. Etc.
BahRamYou
1hr ago
you can just choose not to invest in companies that you think overpay their executives.
Well, I can't, because I'm not a finance genius who has devoted my life to picking stocks. My money is mostly in simple index funds, because (a) that's what everyone assured me was the smart thing to do and (b) those are simple and convenient for me to use as a regular person. My company 401k plan never offered me a "basically the S&P 500, but avoid stocks that overpay their executives" fund. Most other normal stockholders are in the same situation as me. I don't even get a chance to vote on proxy votes, since my share votes are handled by the index fund managers. And even when I did own individual stocks in the past, and I got a proxy vote as a regular stock holder, my vote was so small (a few shares out of billions at a blue chip company) that it didn't seem worthwhile to even mail it in. I had less power to influence them as a stockholder than I do to influence the US government as a voter, and that's a pretty low bar.
And most other players can't do this sort of thing either. Rich people might have their money tied up in stock for the company they worked for. Finance managers have to convince the rich people they work for that they're doing a safe, normal strategy. Hedge funds have to follow rules that mitigate risk for their institution. And most people just aren't interested in this sort of thing.
Ok, in principle there's room for some young Warren Buffet type to make his name by finding these companies, shorting them, and outperforming the market. But only to the extent that their excess compensation takes away from every other factor going on, and his efforts to short the stock would be countered by everyone else shovelling money into it. As long as the executives keep it below a few percent, it would be hard to notice.
But think about how far this has gone. It's no longer "the executives deserve this much money because it's what's best for the company." It's "they can pocket hundreds of millions without hurting the company in a way that anyone steps in to stop them." You could make the same argument for how a retail cashier could get away with stealing money out of the till, or how a middle manager could get away with embezzling from the accounting department, but for them it's illegal and there are protections in place to stop that sort of thing.
All of this to say- the market is not some omniscient, perfect entity. It's mostly efficient, but there are still plenty of efficiencies. I think there's a tendency among shape-rotator type people to assume that it's perfectly efficient because that makes for a much more elegant argument, but the reality is a lot more messy.
Also this:
It's the shareholders who are getting cheated here, not the general public or the employees
I would argue that the executives, especially the CEOs, are being disengenuous here. They're not just some shmuck working behind the scenes, they act as the public face of the company, for both its employees and the general public. Their personal life reflects on the company just like a politician's personal life reflects on his country. When the CEO tries to make himself seem like a moral paragon when he's obviously just there to grab as much cash out of the company as he can get away with, that's going to demoralize every single employee and tank their performance far beyond the actual cash impact of his salary.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1hr ago
The solutions usually require relatively simple debugging steps that build off of basic foundational knowledge, but the LLMs don't have the ability to reason through this foundational knowledge well, and I don't expect the transformer architecture to ever get that reasoning ability.
That is one of my big skeptic points with LLMs. They don't (and can't) reason, they are producing what is likely to be correct based on their training data. When having this discussion with my boss he argued "they know everything about networking", and I don't see how they can be accurately said to know anything at all. They can't even be counted on to reliably reproduce the training data (source: have witnessed many such failures), let alone stuff that follows from the training data but isn't in it. Maybe we will get there (after all, cutting edge research is improving almost by definition), but we aren't there yet.
Thanks for the story, as well. I hadn't considered an explanation like that so I'll have to take a look at that if we ever want to dig deep and find the root cause.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
That was an example to demonstrate the principle at work -- namely that viewpoint discrimination is intrinsically part of professional licensure. It wasn't some specific example.
If you can draw a direct comparison without it being a specific example, I don't understand what you're getting upset at me for.
At the least, the point remains that an adult can have (e.g.) her tubes tied.
If there are stronger restrictions in place, than I don't see how the point stands.
There isn't evidence, and so in its absence the establishment chose to believe something that wasn't forbidden to them by the research.
How is it "not forbidden to them by the research" in any sense that doesn't also absolve the "bad humors" or "spiritual decay" theory? Given the negative effects of the hormonal and surgical interventions in question, and the dispositive evidence for positive outcomes, what can possibly justify they're doing?
There's a famous Scott piece on the different epistemic burdens people put when faced with assessing things they do and don't want to believe. In the former it's "not excluded by the evidence" and in the latter it's "not mandated by the evidence".
In this case we can write "mandated by evidence" right off the bat. As for "not excluded by evidence", most things banned by licensing organizations aren't "excluded by evidence". Just take a look at the drama Scott got into around Ivermectin, there aren't studies categorically proving it cannot work, just studies showing lack of evidence for it working. That's standard fare in science, even "bad humors" and "spiritual decay" aren't "excluded by evidence" in the sense you seem to be using the term.
Obviously we both agree those beliefs were largely wrong, so what is left to debate here?
Epistemology, I guess. What constitutes "mandated by evidence" and "not excluded by evidence". Also, whether or not the medical profession actually follows the lofty standards you claim it does.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1hr ago
No, I'm not saying that a bad CEO can't destroy the company. I'm saying that we do not have reason to believe that paying so much gets you a good CEO. Notably, even a CEO who destroys the company tends to get paid a bonus for his trouble. That is the exact opposite of rational, and so we would expect to see such clauses get eliminated, but if I'm right (and CEO compensation is driven by good old boys helping each other out) it is completely expected.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
1hr ago
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
1hr ago
IMO this is likely the peak of Palestinian sympathizing as a media/cultural force.
You want to get out at the top, not ride your bit down.
Pre 10/7, Palestinian hard-liners found themselves being abandoned by their long term backers with no realistic path forward. Free Palestine on the western left was becoming a really niche bumper sticker, like Free Tibet or Zapatista tier. Arab powers were showing a willingness to make peace with Israel without reference to Palestine or even the Arab population of Israel. The Abraham Accords were a major step towards permanent defeat of the Palestinian cause. Israel was looking like a normal country with a thriving economy and no problems which would keep international investors out.
The goal of 10/7 realistically was to reopen the conflct, draw Israel into fighting, denormalize Israeli life and economics, isolate Israel on the international stage. At some point you've maxed out the effectiveness of using dead babies for propaganda, and further dead babies have a diminishing marginal return. And at some point, the destruction wrought onto Gaza is net negative for Hamas, the loss of life undermines their ability to govern and rebuild.
So at some number of dead kids and world outrage, they'll cash out and make peace-noises.
Or at least I think a lasting Israeli victory is the most likely to maximize happiness in the region for the Palestinian population if they cease agitating.
The only realistic solution that doesn't involve ethnic cleansing is one state, or effectively one state, containing most of the current populations. How one achieves that without destroying what makes Israel worthwhile is the problem.
I have observed this exact behavior before. Fun story time:
In 2015 I was living in North Korea and teaching computer science over there. Part of my job was to download youtube videos, linux distros, and other big files to give to the students over there. (I basically had full discretion about what to give and never experienced censorship... but that would surely have changed if I had been downloading transgressive material.) I discovered that a single tcp connection could get only about 100 kbps, but if I multiplexed the connection to do the download I could get >1gbps. The school was internally on a 10gps network, and I was effectively maxing out the local network infrastructure. I eventually diagnosed the problem as there was an upstream firewall that was rate limiting my connections. Despite what you might think, the firewall wasn't doing any meaningful filtering of the content (these were https connections, so there wasn't a way to do that beyond just blocking an IP, and basically no IPs were blocked; all content filtering at the time was done via "social" mechanisms). But the firewall did rate limit the connections. The firewall was configured to rate limit on a per connection basis and not on a per user basis, and so by multiplexing my downloads over many connections, I was able to max out the local network hardware. At the time, there was only a single wire that connected all of North Korea to the Chinese internet, and the purpose of the firewall rule was to prevent one user from bringing down the North Korean internet... which I may or may not have done... eventually I started doing my downloads on a wifi connection which provided a natural rate limiting that didn't overwhelm the wired connections.
I suspect that you are observing a similar situation where something in between your source and destination is throttling the network speed on a per connection basis instead of per user basis. My best guess about how this happens is that a device somewhere is allocating a certain amount of resources to individual connections, and by using multiple connections, you are accidentally getting more of the device's resources.
Aside: I am an avid user of LLMs (and do research on them professionally). Non-trivial networking is an area where I would be shocked to find LLMs providing good answers. Stackoverflow is full of basic networking setups, but it doesn't have a lot of really good debugging of non-trivial problems, and so these types of problems just aren't in the training data. The solutions usually require relatively simple debugging steps that build off of basic foundational knowledge, but the LLMs don't have the ability to reason through this foundational knowledge well, and I don't expect the transformer architecture to ever get that reasoning ability.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1hr ago
I would vote for Laura Ingalls Wilder.
She was canceled a while ago.
NPR:
A division of the American Library Association voted unanimously Saturday to strip Laura Ingalls Wilder's name from a major children's literature award over concerns about how the author referred to Native Americans and blacks.
In 1935's Little House on the Prairie, for example, Wilder described one setting as a place where "there were no people. Only Indians lived there." That description was changed in later editions of the book. And multiple characters in the Little House series intone that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian."
Most news stories covering the travesty of renaming the Wilder medal have cited the earliest known objection to Wilder’s representation of the Kansas landscape in Little House on the Prairie (1935) as empty of people. “There the wild animals wandered and fed as though they were in a pasture that stretched much farther than a man could see, and there were no settlers. Only Indians lived there.” Until 1953, the text read, “there were no people. Only Indians lived there.” A reader complained in 1952 to Nordstrom. Her response to the reader clearly reflected her horrified shock at the realization of how the passage read. “I must admit to you that no one here realized that these words read as they did. Reading them now it seems unbelievable to me that you are the only person who has picked them up and written us about them in the twenty years since the book was published.” The letter emphasized the response of everyone at Harpers & Row: “We were disturbed by your letter. We knew that Mrs. Wilder had not meant to imply that Indians were not people.” Indeed, Wilder responded just as Nordstrom predicted. “Your letter came this morning,” Wilder wrote on October 4, 1952. “You are perfectly right about the fault in Little House on the Prairie and have my permission to make the correction as you suggest. It was a stupid blunder of mine. Of course Indians are people and I did not intend to imply they were not.”
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
1hr ago
I'm not aware of a comprehensive hallucination benchmark, at least one that has been updated for recent SOTA models. If there was, I'd reference it, but hallucination rates have dropped drastically since the 3.5 days (something like 40% of its citations were hallucinate).
I almost never run into them, though I only check important claims. With something like GPT-5T, I'd estimate it's correct north of 95% of the time on factual questions, though I'm not sure if that means 96% or 99.9%.
The appropriate response to hallucination handwringing from luddites is “it doesn’t matter”, not “it’s not happening”, by the way.
Uh.. I don't think anything I've said should be interpreted as "they don't happen". Right now, they're uncommon enough that I think you should check only claims that matter, not the exact amount of salt to put in your soup.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
1hr ago
I wish I could do that dude. The stimulants already muck up sleep cycle, and I've never been the kind to be able to cat nap.
2rafa
1hr ago
It’s clear that the Nobel committee for reasons of generic Nordic internationalist liberalism could not stomach giving it to Trump directly (think of the humiliation at parties!) but decided to give it to a Trump-aligned Venezuelan conservative and anti-communist as a kind of consolation and gesture, in that Trump could hardly say she absolutely didn’t deserve it.
So many German books on the Hohenstaufen I will never be able to read... Oh well, I don't really need to, considering that Kantorowicz's Frederick II is an entirely true and accurate portrayal of just how great he was.
More options
Context Copy link