[Previous] Written and Unwritten Rules In Discussions | Home | [Next] Discussions Should Use Sources

Open Discussion 2 (2019)

Discuss whatever.

If you post a link or quote, express an opinion about it, ask a question, say something. Also, if you think something is bad and are posting it for criticism, say so – the default expectation is you agree with, and have a positive opinion of, whatever you post. Or if it seems good to you but you're sharing it because you have doubts and want to find out if people have criticism, say that.

Elliot Temple on November 6, 2019

Comments (28)


> China to implement new regulation regarding gaming, will "ban users younger than 18 from playing games between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. They are not permitted to play more than 90 minutes on weekdays and three hours on weekends and holidays" (nytimes.com)

Strict, national screen time limits. *Not a free country.* Sucks for the kids.

Free Hong Kong!

Anonymous at 7:43 PM on November 6, 2019 | #14219 | reply | quote


> "Three days after his GSL semifinals, Life competed in the Iron Squid – Chapter II Korean qualifier, where he made his way to the finals at the expense of Sting, Polt and HyuN, but had to all-ined his games in the last match against Brown because he was about to be forced shutdown (in Korea, the law for the compulsory shutdown forbids the children under 16 years of age to play online from midnight to six in the morning).[28] The runner-up place still awarded a spot in the Iron Squid Chapter II though, making him the only player to attend both seasons of the French league by mean of qualifiers.

"All-ined" means playing very aggressive strategies to get the game over with fast – do a quick attack that sacrifices any chance to win later if it doesn't work. This is risky at best, and pretty much game-losing if your opponent knows in advance that you're going to do it.

Anonymous at 7:47 PM on November 6, 2019 | #14220 | reply | quote

NASA to send robot into space to re-fuel satellite

In December 2022 or later, NASA plans to send a robot into space to re-fuel a 20-year old satellite that was not designed for re-fueling.

Landsat 7, the satellite in question, was launched in 1999. It takes color pictures of Earth, many of which can be seen in Google Earth and other products.

Here's the plan. First, the robot will approach the satellite and, autonomously, grab onto it. Then, guided remotely by human operators, the robot will drill a hole in the satellite's fuel tank and inject over 100 kg of hydrazine. Finally, the robot will seal the hole, cover the satellite with a space blanket, and fly off into its own orbit.

Alisa at 4:32 PM on November 7, 2019 | #14224 | reply | quote

#14224 How much harder is it to do that compared with refueling a satellite that has a built in refueling mechanism?

Anonymous at 4:37 PM on November 7, 2019 | #14225 | reply | quote


It looks like drilling and re-sealing are the main steps that are harder (but I don't know *how much harder*) when a satellite hasn't been designed for re-fueling. According to Brent Robertson, NASA’s project manager for the mission (from the same article):

> "Cutting things and unscrewing caps and refueling, that's difficult. But the actual capture of a satellite and relocation—we have the capability to do that for a much wider spectrum of satellites."

The harder steps would be easier if the satellite had robot-friendly valves for re-fueling, but apparently no satellite has ever had those:

> "It's almost like a chicken or the egg thing," says Robertson. "Nobody has done robotic servicing, so until it's demonstrated, operators are reluctant to invest in servicing until they see that it's possible. I think when we actually demonstrate this on Landsat 7, you'll see [the] industry becoming more aware that there's an opportunity here."

Alisa at 5:06 PM on November 7, 2019 | #14226 | reply | quote

Math Problem

Flip a fair coin until you get heads twice (doesn't have to be in a row). What is the average number of tails you flipped?

Anonymous at 6:20 PM on November 8, 2019 | #14250 | reply | quote

#14250 I think it's 2 because if you flip until 1 heads, the average number of tails is 1. And I think flipping until 2 heads is like doing the 1 heads thing twice in a row, so sum the number of tails from each. Doing it twice will change the distribution of results but not the mean.

Anonymous at 6:24 PM on November 8, 2019 | #14251 | reply | quote

Telling the Story of Jordan Peterson


Filmmaker Patricia Marcoccia was midway through a film with psychology professor Jordan Peterson when he suddenly became an international superstar, and one of the most controversial and polarising figures on the planet.

Now her film, The Rise of Jordan Peterson, has itself been subject to controversy and cancellations.

David Fuller caught up with Patricia and the film's producer Maziar Ghaderi to ask what they make of the reception for their film, and how their views changed over two years making the film, right at the centre of the culture wars.

You can purchase the film online: https://www.holdingspacefilms.com/rise

Anonymous at 8:12 PM on November 8, 2019 | #14252 | reply | quote

1st newsletter: Sept 18, 2016.

100th newsletter: Nov 13, 2019.

That's 1151 days. One newsletter per 11.5 days.

I think the minimum time between newsletters has been 7 days. The max is probably around 21, maybe a few more. I've been consistent with no big gaps. I aim for around 10-17 days between newsletters. Early on I did them a bit more frequently.

curi at 11:34 AM on November 13, 2019 | #14303 | reply | quote

Anonymous at 2:58 PM on November 13, 2019 | #14306 | reply | quote

#14305 Please say what links are. In this case, it's Taleb being a unintellectual jerk to someone on Twitter. The underlying issue is that Taleb is a rotten bastard who opposes GMOs like golden rice. The paper linked in #14306 is epistemologically naive conservatism contrary to CR and David Deutsch in particular (it's also an anti-liberal attack on freedom which assumes it's the government's job to make decide things and control people's lives).

Anonymous at 3:10 PM on November 13, 2019 | #14308 | reply | quote

#14308 I call bull shit that you actually read the paper that fast.

What's your refutation?

Anon22 at 3:15 PM on November 13, 2019 | #14309 | reply | quote

#14309 Never said I read it. I read some of the beginning before commenting. The paper is refuted by the book *The Beginning of Infinity* which Taleb is aware of but doesn't address. His paper simply ignores existing literature about the issues. You can see the same issue on Twitter where he was referred to DD's arguments and his response was to flame someone and also to direct them to a paper that ignores DD.

Anonymous at 3:18 PM on November 13, 2019 | #14310 | reply | quote

#14310 If you did not read it how do you know BOI refutes it?

You're doing exactly what he's doing lol.

Anonymous at 4:46 PM on November 13, 2019 | #14311 | reply | quote

#14311 BoI covers the precautionary principle. Taleb ignores BoI and advocates the precautionary principle. What do you not get.?Are you just unfamiliar with the stuff you're flaming about?

Anonymous at 5:16 PM on November 13, 2019 | #14312 | reply | quote

Different precautionary principle than the one argued against in BOI.

Which you would know if you had read the paper, you illiterate buffoon. Bet you lied about reading BOI too.

actually literate at 5:20 PM on November 13, 2019 | #14313 | reply | quote


Example of how YouTube fucks with and bans users with no warning or explanation

Anonymous at 5:23 PM on November 13, 2019 | #14314 | reply | quote

#14314 sucks. But that's the power of unfettered Capitalism. Your livelihood can be taken away in the name of profits. There is no getting around it.

JLA at 5:29 PM on November 13, 2019 | #14315 | reply | quote

#14315 What capitalism? YouTube false advertises about their policies. In a free market country they'd be sued heavily over stuff like this. It's government protection and favors that let them get away with their initiations of force.

curi at 5:32 PM on November 13, 2019 | #14316 | reply | quote

#14316 Let's be real.

The algorithm is not a result of government intervention. It is simple dollar signs.

It is not meant to pander to the woke crowd, or to the government. Don't be naive.

It is meant to do one thing, and one thing only. M-A-X-I-M-I-Z-E P-R-O-F-I-T.

They don't give a fuck about you or me.

JaRule at 5:41 PM on November 13, 2019 | #14318 | reply | quote

#14318 Free market capitalism is a system in which initiation of force is prohibited. YouTube initiates force (e.g. via fradulent public statements about their products). They violate capitalism. They get away with it due to *lack of* capitalism in our society.

You didn't listen, didn't engage, and seem unserious. If I'm wrong, see https://elliottemple.com/debate-policy

curi at 5:43 PM on November 13, 2019 | #14319 | reply | quote

You libertarians and your utopian dreams.

And you call me unserious. Get a PhD in economics and then we'll debate.

YouTube Loves Capitalism at 5:48 PM on November 13, 2019 | #14320 | reply | quote

Re: Math Problem


> Math Problem

> Flip a fair coin until you get heads twice (doesn't have to be in a row). What is the average number of tails you flipped?


> #14250 I think it's 2 because if you flip until 1 heads, the average number of tails is 1...

It was not obvious to me that if you flip until 1 heads, the average number of tails is 1. I practiced my internet search skills and found these two discussions of the problem:



I didn't fully understand the math but I didn't see anything obviously wrong with it.

Now I'm practicing my skills at replying to blog comments without messing up the formatting of links and quotations.

Anne B at 12:44 PM on November 14, 2019 | #14342 | reply | quote


> It was not obvious to me that if you flip until 1 heads, the average number of tails is 1.

My explanation of this is below. It is similar to Ryan's answer on the stackexchange page you linked.

Suppose you have a (possibly-biased) coin that comes up heads with probability h. If you flip the coin until it comes up heads, the expected number of flips is 1/h.

To see this, let f be the expected number of flips remaining. You must flip at least once in order to know whether to stop. With probability h, that flip comes up heads, in which case you are done: you make zero more flips. Otherwise, with probability 1-h, it comes up tails, and you will have to flip again. Coins have no memory, so the expected number of remaining flips in that case is the same as it was before you flipped the coin, namely: f. Therefore, by expected value, f = 1 + 0h +(1−h)f. Using algebra to solve for f yields f = 1/h.

By definition, a fair coin comes up heads with probability 1/2. If you flip until you get heads, then stop, you will make 2 flips on average. You stop when you get heads, so all but the last of those flips will have been tails. Therefore, the average number of tails is 1.

Josh Jordan at 4:08 PM on November 14, 2019 | #14347 | reply | quote


Really long article with some criticism of feminism. Some interesting parts. I didn't finish it.

curi at 11:57 AM on November 17, 2019 | #14353 | reply | quote

Mises Institute promotion psychiatry, one of the major enemies of liberty:


I checked the blog of the show guest and he's anti-Szasz.

Anonymous at 5:08 PM on November 17, 2019 | #14354 | reply | quote


School children being locked in rooms, like solitary confinement at jails, often illegally.

There are 20,000 records of "seclusion" in Illinois in one school year.

Anonymous at 1:31 PM on November 19, 2019 | #14387 | reply | quote

(This is an unmoderated discussion forum. Discussion info.)