curi blog comments Explanations for the curious en-us Anonymous Open Discussion
> vouchers could be used for one-bedroom apartments renting at up to $2,648 a month

> Tenants with vouchers pay 30 percent of whatever income they have toward rent, with the city subsidizing the rest.

DC moved a bunch of homeless into nice a nice apartment complex, at taxpayer expense. What could go wrong!?!? Read and find out.]]>
Wed, 17 Apr 2019 21:33:00 +0000
Josh Jordan Open Discussion
> I worked at Boeing for about 1.5 years in the 2008-9 time period and I can absolutely guarantee this happened... Boeing's corporate culture is the worst shitshow I have ever experienced. ...]]>
Wed, 17 Apr 2019 12:56:56 +0000
What caused the Boeing 737 Max 8 crashes Josh Jordan Open Discussion
Here's my summary of the video:

In 2010, Airbus, Boeing's main competitor, announced an upgrade to the engines on their most popular plane, the A320. The upgraded model, called the A320neo, would be 15% more fuel-efficient while flying essentially the same as the A320.

In response, Boeing rushed to make update their corresponding model, the 737. The result was called the 737 Max 8.

Due to differences in plane height, the 737 Max 8's engine didn't fit neatly under the wing like A320neo's engine. The higher location of the 737 Max 8's engine caused the plane's nose to tilt up during full thrust (e.g., during takeoff).

This uptilt was a significant departure from the flight behavior of the original 737. It would have required expensive pilot retraining. Rather than re-engineer the plane itself, Boeing added software, which they called the MCAS, to *automatically push the nose down if the pilot flew at too high of an angle*. The 737 Max 8s MCAS appears to have engaged at the wrong time, causing the two crashes.]]>
Wed, 17 Apr 2019 12:49:43 +0000
Anonymous Schizophrenia is a Lie > There is no difference between having schizophrenia and pretending to have it.

Heart of the matter right there.]]>
Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:29:33 +0000
Anonymous Podcast Discussion]]>
Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:56:22 +0000
criticism of a view on limited govt curi Open Discussion
> Ways to fund a proper government without taxation could include fees for government enforcement of contracts, voluntary donations, fines for lawbreakers, small fees for “losers” in civil trials, and lotteries.

I'll share criticisms of two of these.

If the government runs a lottery, it's competing with private businesses, no different than if it runs a steel mill or grocery store in order to fund itself. Or else the government has prohibited anyone else from running a lotto, which is even worse. I see no solution to taxation here and I don't see how any free market advocate could want governments to be involved with lottos.

Contract enforcement fees are a similar issue. If you are prohibited from fully enforcing your own contracts (the alternative being anarchy), then the government has a monopoly on a core part of life, and you have no real choice but to pay the government what they demand. That's not *voluntary* government funding. A tax or "fee" on people who interact in contractual ways is like a tax or "fee" for people who earn an income. It's essentially different than a use fee for a small, optional part of life like crossing the Golden Gate Bridge.]]>
Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:21:18 +0000
curi Open Discussion
Asking people to play "nice" gives a disadvantage to the "nicest" people. It's essentially asking each person to make up game rules and follow those. But then different people play by different rules, which is unfair and punishes the "nicer" people who restrict themselves more. And, anyway, people disagree about what kind of gameplay is desirable. Instead, a single clear ruleset for everyone is needed.

Are you going to continue our previous discussion? E.g. #12113]]>
Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:05:24 +0000
Justin Mallone Open Discussion
I'm not curi but here are some disorganized thoughts. What people consider "abuse" is often fine. I think using game mechanics effectively is fine. What would not be fine is stuff like DDoSing someone during an online game or breaking into someone's hotel room so you can get a look at their deck or something like that.

If a tournament wants to restrict some characters or technique because they are considered too game breaking, or if people want to agree to House rules for a similar reason, that can be okay. People are often bad at judging what's game breaking though. Lots of games (like SSBM) have had extensive discovery of techniques that would not have happened if people had been playing in narrow, self-limiting ways where they caved to every accusation of being abusive or cheesy. It takes some real skill -- the kind of skill that figures out potential game breaking stuff in the first place -- in order to be able to judge issues like whether something is too game breaking.

In general, if you're doing some activity, you should play to win, and not care about people calling stuff abuse, cheesy, whatever. Don't be a scrub

>For example I’m one the the best yugioh tcg players in my state, and I often have to create decks that involve “unfair” or “broken” strategists like winning on my first turn by creating a field that is so impossible to break that my opponent would have to forfeit.

That sounds fine. Though I'm curious what determines outcomes when first turn wins are possible. Is it a Rock Paper Scissors game of trying to guess what sort of deck the opponent will use, and if you guess right you're good and if you don't you're fucked?

Incidentally I had some mild interest in yugioh years ago, did not realize it was still played.

>Or for example if anyone knows super smash bros melee pro player hungryhox, and his controversial playing style where he plays jiggly puff and abuses him by ledge stalling. Are these actions “immoral”? I’m inclined to believe what’s true in your work is true in your hobbies as in knowledge is contextual and interrelated. Perhaps it’s not explicitly the same as committing fraud or manipulation of someone but there is a fuzzy line and I don’t like haveing contradictions in my life. I don’t want to accept a middle of the road thinking. What’s wrong with my thinking?

Not wanting to accept contradictions is good. Are you an Objectivist? Can you say more about what immorality you think is potentially involved?]]>
Tue, 16 Apr 2019 06:06:01 +0000
B Open Discussion Tue, 16 Apr 2019 02:20:08 +0000 curi Open Discussion Mon, 15 Apr 2019 19:36:54 +0000 good reddit discussion curi Open Discussion
I don't see what simplicity has to do with it and I find your statement ambiguous.

Is the issue: Can I get a 100% guarantee that this idea is the best possible idea given the current context? No. I could have been dishonest or unreasonable. I could have made a mistake when evaluating the available evidence and conceptual understanding. There's no way to absolutely guarantee those things didn't happen. This is the same whether it's something simple or complicated.

One doesn't need a 100% guarantee. What one needs is a judgment or conclusion. Thinking has to reach a point where you accept an idea, reject alternatives, and move forward. It can reconsidered in the future if new arguments are thought of or new evidence is found, but that's uncommon. At any given time, most conclusions stand and are not currently being reconsidered (so our ideas are largely stable, not in constant chaos).

So is the issue: Can I reach a conclusion? Can I stop pondering further and decide something and move on? Can I attain *knowledge* and act on it? Yes. And this doesn't depend on whether the issue is simple or complicated. We do this with complicated stuff too, e.g. judging that Rearden Metal is good was a complicated judgment but it was nevertheless possible to reach a conclusion about that matter. Simple stuff isn't special.

If "certain" means: "qualifies as knowledge, is good enough to form a judgment and proceed" then we have that not only with basic math but with many complicated things too. But if "certain" refers to 100% guarantees against error, then I don't think we can have that even with very simple stuff. So I don't see what fundamental difference simple vs. complex makes. It's just easier, as a matter of degree, to acquire knowledge about simple stuff. It takes less thought to reach a conclusion.

> Those two perspectives are equally valid.


> there is no one canonical representation of the table

You're not wrong, but: Some perspectives/representations are convoluted. Some are less useful for biological evolutionary survival value. Some are less useful for the pursuit of human values. Just because one can mathematically convert between two things shouldn't make one indifferent between them. (Also some perspectives are actually incorrect, but I think we're just discussing correct ones.)

I believe a lot of what Objectivism and CR are actually about, and the quest for knowledge in general, is how to break symmetries, how to prefer some representations or perspectives, how to differentiate things, how to get away from "there are infinitely many representations, which are compatible with all the data, and aren't wrong" (something CR uses against induction, because we think induction fails to solve that problem, and it has to be handled a different way) or "there are infinitely many places you could put the origin on that graph. with a different origin, that point at 2,2 could be at 3,3, or 7,42, or -20,-999, or at any other coordinates" or "there are infinitely many possible aliens who could be tricking us, in any of infinitely many arbitrary ways using infinitely many different logically possible advanced technologies". Each of the ways aliens could be tricking us is a perspective which is not factually, empirically wrong nor does it violate the rules of logic. Each alien scenario, if complete enough, comes with a representation of each table, sometimes as a hologram or anything else instead of as wood, and that representation is logically compatible with all our sensory evidence. Nevertheless, that kind of thinking is dangerous and can lead to postmodernism, skepticism, etc. FWIW I find the attitudes of some Objectivists like "just dismiss the arbitrary" as not a good enough answer, I think a more detailed rebuttal is merited and that CR has it. And, technically, there is no easy way to exactly define which things are arbitrary – that's a big part of the problem is actually figuring out, in a principled and comprehensive way, which things are arbitrary junk ("I know the arbitrary when I see it" is inadequate).

> We just need to form non-contradictory beliefs about our existence, in the widest possible context. For all intents and purposes, we just call that reality, but we don't actually know that there isn't a wider context beyond the one we have.
> So for instance, it "could be" the case (but it's arbitrary to assert that it either is or isn't) that all of our perceptions are merely simulated (like in the Matrix).

I *know* that I'm not living in a solipsistic dream world in the same way that I know 1+1=2. I used rational thinking to reach a conclusion. There are no counter-arguments that I irrationally ignored; all known counter-arguments have known refutations. I believe there are no known flaws, today, with my claim, and no reason to reopen it for further investigation. That is my judgment. (The arguments against solipsism which persuaded me are in *The Fabric of Reality* by David Deutsch.)

I also *know* that I don't live in the particular simulation presented in The Matrix. It's ridiculous. I'll omit the arguments though.

I think Rand would call this knowledge and would disagree with your "don't actually know". You don't need a absolute 100% proof to know something.

There are some simulation scenarios for which I'd say I don't know, I haven't reached a conclusion. (I know some anti-simulation arguments but I haven't spent a lot of time considering it, and I haven't decided they are conclusive, I'm not yet ready to make a judgment.) Then what? I consider: *Given that I haven't reached a conclusion about that issue, what should I do, what should I believe, and how should I act?* I reach conclusions about that. So while I may be stuck on some intellectual puzzles, I'm not stuck regarding living my life. What to believe is easy: that I don't know. How to act is: the same as if I wasn't living in a simulation. There are no behavior changes that would make sense. I have reasoning for that, but I'll omit it.

> To me, the fact that there is further transformation of the raw data after the eye makes an initial impression is of interest to science, but not particularly of interest to philosophy.

I agree.

> I object to this. Ancient humans (e.g. Greeks) were able to know a lot about what is out there, and they didn't know anything about the "algorithms" that modify the raw impression formed by the eye before the sense data is available to the mind.

They did know a lot about how to interpret the vision data which reached their minds so that their interpretation matched reality – which means, it correctly accounted for the nature of photons and of the human vision system.

It doesn't have to be scientific style knowledge, or written out as computer code or math, to be knowledge. They knew that water and smoke can distort vision, that blurry vision or blindness in general are faults of the visual system not of the external world (but that there are exceptions like fog and blindfolds), that human vision is orderly but can be unreliable in low light conditions, that an apple looks like an apple regardless of which country you're in or which day of the week it is, and so on. They knew their vision didn't make many special exceptions, and they knew some of the exceptions. That's a good understanding of the situation. I imagine they knew that accurate depth perception is hard in some cases, and much harder if you only have one eye. They knew their visual system was limited by distance, and that this was an issue of vision not reality (if they walked closer to a distant farmhouse, it's their vision which changes as they get closer, not the farmhouse itself). They knew, roughly, how light works: it goes in straight lines, does not go through most objects (opaque) but does go through some (transparent). You can't see what's on the other side of an object which is directly in front of you if it's large enough to block your field of vision, but you can look from a different angle. If you go further back from something, it looks smaller even though it's the same size, and now you can see some things past that were blocked before. Another vision limitation, which the ancients may well have known about, is the time delay between something happening and seeing it. This comes up in e.g. baseball. (I think they must have known about reaction times, which matter in combat. When you both stand still and swing a practice sword at someone, there is a delay before they start moving to block it. But I don't know if they realized that part of it was a delay in seeing things. They could maybe have thought vision was instantaneous and attributed the delay to the mind deciding to block or to the muscles being slow to act.)

This stuff is a body of knowledge. It has to be passed on culturally, or be inborn, or be reinvented by children. In each case, errors are possible both in transmission (or reinvention) of the knowledge and in the body of knowledge itself.]]>
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 17:56:03 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Ok thank you for your time.]]> Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:51:24 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:37:37 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Back again. Here's another badly done post I'm monitoring on roughly the same issue from a different culture sphere.]]>
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:33:37 +0000
reddit comment on how eyes work curi Open Discussion
I think we have disagreements about physics and computers. It's not just terminology.

In this post (and going forward, unless you refuse) I'll use my terminology re "compute". I think this is important. "Compute" will refer to what computers do (computers also "process" "information" or "data", and "run" "algorithms" or "software", all of which is equivalent to math). For what consciousnesses do which present-day computers do not do, I'll use the word "think" (also: guess, conjecture, hypothesize, brainstorm, conclude, figure out, judge, ponder, surmise, believe, conclude, etc.)

With that said, I'll try to explain eyes and see if we can agree there or not.

Our eyes have a particular nature or identity which was developed by biological evolution. E.g. they can see green but not ultraviolet. Our eyes give us some information about reality but not all information. Our eyes are a type of camera and work similarly to artificial cameras we've built. There's no fundamental difference. It's not like computers vs. minds (consciousness is a fundamental difference there).

The information from our eyes can be misleading *if* interpreted incorrectly. This is not the eyes' fault. The error is in the thinking about what one saw, not in the eyes. E.g. if my table looks blurry, that doesn't mean it is blurry – actually my eyes are physically deformed. Our eyes just follow the laws of physics and give us information. Using that information correctly can be complicated. Eyes can be damaged or broken just like a car motor. You'd never call a motor "wrong" or "misleading", but you would blame it as the explanation for why your car isn't moving and get it repaired. Similarly, I can blame my eye being partially broken or damaged for why the table looks blurry, and repair it with laser eye surgery or fix the issue with glasses.

Understanding the information from our eyes can be hard even when they're in perfect working condition. A straight stick looks bent when partially in water, but isn't. Men 10,000 years ago could learn it's not bent, and to be wary of what they see underwater, but a scientific understanding of what's actually happening was way beyond them. This is because our vision is related to how photons travel. Similarly, desert mirages are due to complicated properties of how light works (blue light from the sky travels beneath eye level and then back up, which is why people think they see blue below them. Then they assume it's water because of the color and apparent location).

This means: the correctness of our observations of reality depends on the correctness of the ideas by which we interpret the information provided by our eyes. If we make conceptual errors regarding the nature of our eyes, we can reach incorrect conclusions like that a smooth table isn't smooth, that a straight stick is bent, or that there's something blue below eye level when there isn't.

Furthermore, our minds do not have access to raw image data. I'll begin with iPhone cameras. The camera captures raw data, then the CPU computes mathematical/software algorithms with the raw image data as input and a different image as output. The goal is making the photos look better. The photo I see on screen and save on disk is different than the raw data the camera had. It's impossible, in principle, to reconstruct the raw camera data from the saved image.

So to understand what is really there in reality, using an iPhone photo, you must consider not only the nature of the camera it uses, but also the nature of the computations done to the image data.

Human vision works this way too. After the eye captures raw data, that data is processed and changed before one's mind gets it. Irreversible computation happens. To correctly interpret what is really out there, we must know something about the nature of our eyes *and* know something about the nature of the mathematical/software algorithms which take the raw vision data and input and output modified data.

There are many possible cameras and data processing algorithms. Some are better than others. Some are more useful. Some show the world upside down, and some show it right side up. Some see green light and some don't.

I regard the factual claims I've made as part of science.

None of this prevents us from using our vision to learn about reality. The nature of our eyes, and of the computation done on the raw image data, is not chaotic or arbitrary. It's consistent and understandable. Vision follows the laws of physics and the nature of the physical objects involved (table, photons, eye, optic nerve).

I would say we don't "directly" see a table, in my terminology, because the visual information that gets to our mind has causality like this: table -> photons -> eyes -> computation -> mind. It's not just table -> mind. (BTW we could actually break it down in more detail with more steps.) However, there is a real connection between the vision information my mind has access to and reality. I don't see illusions or delusions or what a trickster demon wants me to see. I see what it looks like when a particular type of camera, with particular data processing algorithms, is hit by photons coming from that table.

What do you think?]]>
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 11:57:39 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 15 Apr 2019 06:38:54 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 15 Apr 2019 03:41:08 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 15 Apr 2019 03:30:01 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 15 Apr 2019 03:24:27 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 15 Apr 2019 03:23:07 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 15 Apr 2019 03:14:02 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 15 Apr 2019 03:13:14 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion
> I'm saying it's not for me. I don't like it. Sorry?

Your views are false and unargued. If you want help you have to learn better ideas, not reject anything you don't already know.]]>
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 03:09:27 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion I'm saying it's not for me. I don't like it. Sorry?]]> Mon, 15 Apr 2019 03:06:29 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 15 Apr 2019 03:04:49 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 15 Apr 2019 03:03:14 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion It's an explanation from a particular perspective I am not interested in learning. Obviously this is not true for all people and cultures across the planet. Not sure why I have to spell out 'errors' in something I don't want or need.

I dunno. The material is being presented in a way like I would be preying on normal people by studying their ways and patterns. To my knowledge it's not slander to give my impression of what something makes me feel.]]>
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 03:01:16 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 15 Apr 2019 02:47:01 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion So I read a bunch of articles on that girl chasing site and everything about it seems alien and unwanted and totally unlike anything I have ever thought about wanting or even witnessed personally. I'm not looking to become a predator.

Also wondering if the lack of reply to #12152 means I'm unwelcome here. Since I'm too dumb to understand your perspective.]]>
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 02:41:46 +0000
continuing the reddit discussion curi Open Discussion
> Is it possible that the "eyes are opinionated" issue came up between you and HB more than once (i.e. in separate threads) on HBL?

Not with the word "opinionated" (I searched), but the topic did come up more than the two exchanges I discussed in my grandparent comment.

> But it may be that the "eyes are opinionated" discussion came just as he was in the stage of cutting you off. I strongly suspect that that is exactly the case.

I checked.

Discussion began Oct 17, 2016, and ended Nov 16. I said "eyes are opinionated" on Nov 6, not at the end. It's actually about half way because I initially discussed some other topics and posted criticism of some of Popper's errors. I think debate about Popper and epistemology began in earnest on Oct 26 when I wrote this:

So "eyes are opinionated" came around the middle of the debate. Note that in the linked post, rather than simply presenting an alien context, I did translations between contexts.

> P.S. Thanks for keeping things compact and civil so far! After my last post, which ran up to reddit's 10,000-char limit, I was afraid the conversation would spiral out of control.

Ditto. So far you're very easy to deal with, and civil, for someone with such a negative pre-existing opinion about me.

> Assuming that you are not a Kantian and also don't consider computers to be conscious (as a pan-psychic might), you and HB are really just objecting to the way the other uses certain words, rather than expressing an underlying philosophical disagreement.

I thought it was partly a terminology issue at the time, but I struggled to get others to acknowledge that and let me clarify what I and Popper meant by things. I found it was an ongoing problem. Hence HB attacked me for the earlier "opinionated" statement when he banned me, rather than accepting my clarifications of my view.

I have no interest in defending the way I used the word "opinionated". I can say that in other ways. But my use of "computation" is important in many fields, is precise IMO, and I don't know of any replacement terminology. What *do* computers do? What should "quantum computation" be called? And, related, are AGIs possible to build in principle?


I'm open to going into additional detail about the HBL exchanges or to discussing CR at this point. I think you see now that I have detailed reasoning for what I wrote about HB, so maybe, without persuading you, that is enough to set it aside for now. If you want to discuss CR now, you could reply to my HBL post linked above, or ask a question or say whatever else.]]>
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 01:44:28 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion If I didn't feel lost and looking for help I wouldn't be here. I thought a question was implied the way my post was phrased. Sorry if there's miscommunication. I'm not that good at intellectual stuff. Does that mean I'm not worth your time? Like, I said, point me in the right direction if this isn't the place for me.]]> Mon, 15 Apr 2019 01:35:01 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion
I don't think helping you is in my interest. You haven't shown value and I don't expect you to stay long. I don't think I'll benefit from writing five high-effort comments next, while you say things of the same quality as you have so far, and then you leave without explanation after that.]]>
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 01:26:23 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion This isn't strictly related to conventions as far as I can tell. I was fairly happy as a child and the world had that full spectrum of color emotionally, regardless of the activity. Also not sure if you're partially or directly arguing something about traditional memes having to do with feeling the impact of thoughts and actions. It's considerably more involved than that.]]> Mon, 15 Apr 2019 01:17:39 +0000 curi Open Discussion Mon, 15 Apr 2019 01:12:59 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion If this isn't the sort of thing to be asking here that's understandable, I guess. It would be helpful if someone could point me in the right direction. Thanks.]]> Mon, 15 Apr 2019 01:09:25 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion
The linked social dynamics are relevant to any type of social interaction. It teaches what the social games are and how they work. You can do some of them or you can have poor rapport with most people, your choice.

> The desire to be emotional is to bring back 'the light'

Conventional emotions are shallow and superficial. You were indoctrinated with memes. It never added real meaning to your life.

If you want to get it back, embrace being normal more. E.g. become Christian, that's some heavy duty stuff to reconnect you to tradition/convention.

If you want a rational alternative, learn Objectivism and FI. Objectivism might resonate with you, so try that. If it doesn't work easily, you'd have to learn it via intellectual study, which is a big project which you don't have teh prerequisites for, but you could work towards it over a period of several years if you cared enough and were honest enough.]]>
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 01:08:42 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion I don't think I'm that interested in cis women tbh. When I was cybering it was with a guy older than me and I thought there was a faint possibility of living with him in the future (quickly realized he was just fishing when his account went inactive the next day). I sort of dated a girl when I was younger. I dunno if I feel the same way anymore. Nearly all social games I want to avoid cause they feel immoral.

The desire to be emotional is to bring back 'the light', if that makes any sense. Life feels empty and pointless without feelings, even if problems are being solved. Which is why I'm suspecting I haven't found the right problems. Except I don't know where to look anymore and a lot of the time I'm finding myself looking for the exit to Life.]]>
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 00:47:45 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Why do you want to be more emotional?]]>
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 00:36:07 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Well, I learned how to meditate except that usually places me further away from my emotions. Most of my time is usually invested in doing hobbies by myself, during which I'm very good at keeping in touch with my mental and emotional state. However outside of this, like with other people, it all goes tits up. I'm unable to feel things or have much thoughts at all that involve people other than myself. Not like narcissistic. It's just an inability to be involved.

So lately I tried cybering with a stranger and it felt mostly awkward and creepy. I basically had to ignore my inner voice and just do what I thought would be the most genuine way to follow the intimacy meme. Interacting this way was like off-and-on feelings, and overall kinda bad.

Some time before this I went to a group event but was unable to approach anyone because my mind kept going blank.

And I recently was hanging out on a discord server for one of my interests and I couldn't relate with anyone. Most of my questions seemed to confuse and annoy everyone. So I ended up leaving.]]>
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 00:19:41 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 15 Apr 2019 00:00:11 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion I'm don't feel sad though. Rather, I have difficulty feeling anything at all. That is the problem. It makes life feel robotic and detached. It's not fun or enjoyable. How do I get the color back?]]> Sun, 14 Apr 2019 23:56:52 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion

> State steps you already took to find the answer yourself, and why they didn't work.

> Give specifics. I don't have a solution to "I am sad". That describes millions of different problems. (If you want a very general purpose answer like "Then do problem solving." you can state that you want a general case answer with no specifics.)]]>
Sun, 14 Apr 2019 23:51:32 +0000
comments on lying anticapitalists oh my god it's turpentine Open Discussion Sun, 14 Apr 2019 23:48:22 +0000 reddit comment on dispute with binswanger curi Open Discussion
>> He says my ideas are wrong. He selected one example to present, but it illustrates his own dishonesty.

> I consider this slander, because I disagree with your premise (explained subsequently in your post) that he evaded your point. In fact, he engaged with you on that point at length (the "eyes are opinionated" topic). In my view, you were completely wrong on that and his position is right. However, if I recall correctly, I didn't think (at the time) he handled that in exactly the right way. I would have agreed with him, but I would have said something a bit different. Anyway, to say that he evaded your point is, in my opinion, completely mistaken.

I appreciate the detailed response. It's too much to debate all at once, and it might be better to try talking CR instead. First, I'm going to respond to one point and see how it goes. I picked this one because it says "slander".

I think you're factually mistaken. I wrote in an epistemology post:

>>> As Popper put it: all observation is theory-laden. You need theories first. Raw observation is both impossible (because e.g. our eyes are opinionated--they let us see green but not infrared) and worthless (because there're infinitely many characteristics and patterns out there that one could observe).

HB quoted a partial sentence and said:

>> Is this serious? As stated, it is wild primacy of consciousness.

Later in that post he also said:

>> (I'm reminded of Quine's gavagai "problem," if you are familiar with that.)

Full post:

I responded with point-by-point answers. **HB did not reply.**

Regarding primacy of consciousness, I said:

> How so? There are many different possible designs for eyes, and we have a particular one with various strengths (can see green) and weaknesses (can't see ultraviolet). This isn't a claim about consciousness.

Regarding gavagai problem, I said:

> Do you have a refutation of it? I took a look at it and I thought the basic point is correct (that any finite data set is compatible with infinitely many patterns or interpretations.)

> This is one of the major logical issues I've been talking about. I think it refutes some claims about epistemology. One needs an epistemology that doesn't run into this problem. I have that. You don't.

So here, HB had brought up a named version of one of the major issues we were debating. Despite being tangential to the thing about eyes, it was highly on topic to what we'd been discussing before that. Great. And I asked if he had any answer to that problem he brought up (he'd put "problem" in quotes and his epistemology position requires an answer to it) and he did not reply.

This was not the only exchange related to eyes and perception. Here's another:


>>>> Also, as a scientific matter, computation is done on the information from our eyes before it reaches our mind.


>>> No computation is done there. That’s metaphor. There’s no computation done anywhere outside the human mind. Even computers don’t actually compute. In philosophy, we have to speak literally, not metaphorically.


>> I was speaking literally. Have you read science about our visual system? Information from the eye is processed in an lossy (irreversible, information-losing) way before it reaches the mind. In short, visual information is simplified according to some algorithms specified by our genes prior to perceiving it.

>> This is just like if you’re writing an iOS photography app but don’t have access to the raw images from the camera, only images which iOS has already modified with some algorithms. (Offhand, I think apps can access raw images now, but couldn’t in the past.)

>> But I don’t know what you’re talking about by saying computers don’t compute. My computer can compute 2+3 and NAND among many other things. I guess you must be using some non-standard definition of computation? To understand me, it’s important to read what I’m saying with my terminology, not some alternative terminology you prefer. (This came up a lot with Popper, too, where words he used were read with an Objectivist meaning instead of Popper’s own meaning.)

HB didn't respond substantively to this. All he said was:

> Read it? I worked as intern for over a year with one of the field's greats: Richard Held.

> I am not up on the the discoveries made since the 60s, however; but I don't think what you reference is anything discovered since then. By the way, Jerry Letvin, who discovered the fact that you cited earlier about frog vision, was also at MIT at that time.

The pattern here is *not* patient explanation from HB for several iterations and then giving up eventually. I never got basic answers about what he meant about some things. Note that my conception of computation is not a Popperian thing, it's standard (today but maybe not in the 60's, I don't know, that's rather early in the field of computers) in our society among people who deal with computation, e.g. among software developers, AI researchers, and physicists (who have a theory of quantum computation, among other things, which btw my mentor David Deutsch helped develop).]]>
Sun, 14 Apr 2019 23:39:37 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Sun, 14 Apr 2019 23:22:45 +0000 reddit comment about Oism curi Open Discussion
I agree with all of Objectivism (I mean Rand said, not anyone else), as far as it goes. That is, I think it is contextual knowledge. I'm unaware of any substantial errors where Rand had a worse view than the standard view, or clearly should have known better at the time. I regard Rand as by far the best philosopher.

I'll bring up two areas where I disagree, but in neither case do I blame her. You have to start with what humanity already knows and improve things from there. One can't normally be blamed for not having made even more improvements.

Note, this is not normal. Most people, even some of the best people, have a mix of good ideas and bad ideas. When they try to have different ideas (different than mainstream/standard/tradition), they improve some ideas and they end up with worse ideas in some cases. Popper, for example, made a lot of big mistakes. Lots of his views are far worse than knowledge he had available. He rejected some great ideas like, in short, classical liberalism and economics.

Back to Rand, I think she is wiser about femininity and gender roles than other people in general. She understands them better than regular people who accept them (understanding how they work and which parts are good or bad). And I think the people who just reject gender roles are, in general, clueless radicals. But I think she overrates the value of gender roles for extremely good, rational people like Dagny. I don't accept them as an ideal or a necessary part of life (we're born tabula rasa, not with a gendered mind). I won't go into why because this is a big topic and I don't think it's what you wanted to focus on, and it's not a major part of Objectivism anyway.

As far as epistemology goes, Rand said nothing about CR (Critical Rationalism). She said very little about induction. What she did say was either along the lines of the standard view or better. She said she didn't know all the answers about induction (hadn't studied it), and she was aware of some hard parts, some problems, which she personally didn't know the answers to (having not studied it). I think she believed there must be answers because clearly we do learn stuff, science works, reason works, etc. The parts of epistemology where she had more to say is great stuff. So basically, in epistemology, she improved some things and left some other things alone.

CR says that the problems with induction are insurmountable (and gives improved arguments beyond the prior anti-inductive criticism), and says that the same goals can be achieved by a different method. This can be accepted while changing very little about Objectivist epistemology, because Objectivist epistemology doesn't rely on or talk about particular details about how induction works. It just relies on us being able to learn in a way connected with reality, which uses observation somehow, and results in genuine, contextual knowledge. CR offers that. So you just use that instead of induction and it doesn't change much because the rest of Objectivist is reasonably separate.

I have found some Objectivists don't mind this perspective, but some are really hostile to any disagreement with induction. I'll pause here and see what you think of the outline of the situation, without going into what CR actually says.]]>
Sun, 14 Apr 2019 15:03:00 +0000
Soviet Central Planners Relied on the Sears Catalog. lol @ socialism Justin Mallone Open Discussion
> I referred earlier to the price setting arrangements which were established in the Soviet Union. There, economists located in the Gosplan offices were responsible for this function, and as an understanding of the implications of von Mises' arguments concerning the inherent incapacity of a socialist economy to generate prices for all the goods and services which are characteristic of a modern economy permeated through the West---it took forty years or more for that to happen---the question arose: Where did prices in the Soviet Union come from?
> In the late seventies and early eighties, American economists began to travel to the Soviet Union and Gordon Tullock, an American economist who should have received the Nobel Prize for his work in public choice theory, took the opportunity, on a visit to Gosplan in Moscow, to ask that very question. Rather sheepishly his respondent took out a rather ancient Sears Roebuck catalogue from his desk and handed it over. Tullock didn't know what to make of this until it was explained that the Gosplan officials used the prices quoted for goods in the catalogue to obtain relativities between this and that item. They would then try to match the goods of the catalogue to what was available in the Soviet Union and then fix prices according to the relativities prescribed by Sears Roebuck. Where there was no match of product they just had to guess. So prices in the USSR were determined by Sears Roebuck.
> What is extraordinary about the Soviet Union, in retrospect, was that it lasted so long, and was, for so long, such a very real threat to the West.]]>
Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:47:47 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Solution? Organize your learning but also have free time. Aim for a minimum of 50% of your time to do organized/planned stuff every month. The amount of other stuff can vary based on inspiration, but it shouldn't take over a whole month, that's dangerous.]]>
Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:41:48 +0000
Justin Mallone Open Discussion

>But one of my points is that at some level of understanding the law of diminishing returns comes in, and that plus opportunity costs makes me less likely to spend time talking about Oism the more I understand it

I don't think "diminishing returns" applies here, at least not in a straightforward way. If you got world class at understanding Objectivism, that would let you accomplish stuff in a variety of fields that you wouldn't be able to otherwise. Perhaps, given some set of goals, going *past* the point of world class would be unnecessary -- like you wouldn't want to be pioneering the next level of breakthroughs in Objectivism if philosophy wasn't your primary interest. But getting to world class in the first place is totally worth it.

And if somebody's world class at something, there's some evidence. George Reisman, for example, is a great economist, and it shows up in his writing. He studied under Rand and Mises. He's not a professional philosopher, but he's got tons of understanding of Objectivism.

I think people underestimate the level of philosophy knowledge that would be helpful to them in *any* goal by a huge factor, and also overestimate the philosophy knowledge they actually have (especially in terms of how much they've integrated it into their life versus learned it as concepts that aren't well integrated).
Also, regarding the role of discussing ideas in effective thinking, see]]>
Sat, 13 Apr 2019 18:53:58 +0000
curi Podcast Discussion Sat, 13 Apr 2019 15:01:20 +0000 Q Anonymous Podcast Discussion Sat, 13 Apr 2019 14:50:51 +0000 Dagny Open Discussion: Economics
Human Action Podcast: Mises on Liberalism and Political Economy

The guest, a Mises Institute senior editor, says at 46:45:

Paraphrase: Mises wrote that capitalism is the only means of organizing society. He must have forgotten a qualifier, like that it's the only *rational* way of organizing society. The host says yeah.

I think this is totally incompetent. This is one example of many where they try to correct Mises *casually*. They don't give him the benefit of the doubt enough, they don't think it's a big deal to disagree with Mises. They should give it more thought before they decide Mises is wrong.

This is a major Mises theme, so their unfamiliarity with it is disturbing. Capitalism (private property, protection from violence, and voluntary trade (for mutual benefit), which allow division of labor and specialization) is the only system of social organization. Everything else disintegrates society, destroys social cooperation and leads to warring factions and the collapse of civilization. There are no other options which are capable of creating a civilization or keeping one going.

What happens when society gets too far from capitalism, and the government raises taxes and debases the currency and distributes a bunch of handouts like grain for the poor? The fall of Rome and then the dark ages it led to. Mises has written about that, e.g. [Human Action excerpt](

Am I missing something or is the Mises Institute, and its scholars, badly broken?

Also the guest said he reread Mises' *Liberalism* book (the subject of the podcast) and it held up better than he expected. So he hadn't read it for a decade and hadn't be recommending it to people? wtf? It's such a great book. How could he not know that with his position? I fear the answer is because it's less focused on economics and math, it's more about political philosophy. Also the guest mentioned that he's religious.]]>
Sat, 13 Apr 2019 14:42:25 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
I'm not interested in talking with you. Only to other people reading this. They are far better and smarter than you.]]>
Fri, 12 Apr 2019 13:32:30 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> (BTW curi is completely clueless about that. Doesn't get it. Doesn't get anything really. His parents (or somebody) abused him and he coped with it by becoming this pathetic. It's a life long journey of proving Mama wrong.)

You're boring. If you have something to say regarding refutation, why don't you offer criticism instead of bland hate? I assume it's because you actually have nothing to say and are a poseur. Prove me wrong if you can. Otherwise, fuck off.]]>
Fri, 12 Apr 2019 13:24:42 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
(BTW curi is completely clueless about that. Doesn't get it. Doesn't get anything really. His parents (or somebody) abused him and he coped with it by becoming this pathetic. It's a life long journey of proving Mama wrong.)]]>
Fri, 12 Apr 2019 13:20:18 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> You're not a philosopher and you don't understand philosophy - you're a fraud.

> Most of your time is spent lying to yourself about these things.

> You'd be disgusting were you not so laughably pathetic.


>"Senor d'Anconia," declared the woman with the earrings, "I don't agree with you!"
>"If you can refute a single sentence I uttered, madame, I shall hear it gratefully."]]>
Fri, 12 Apr 2019 13:15:02 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
He spends a lot of effort trying to drag people into his narcissistic delusions. Time to say the truth.]]>
Fri, 12 Apr 2019 13:06:49 +0000
oh my god it's turpentine Open Discussion]]>
Fri, 12 Apr 2019 12:42:37 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
You're not a philosopher and you don't understand philosophy - you're a fraud.

Most of your time is spent lying to yourself about these things.

You'd be disgusting were you not so laughably pathetic.]]>
Fri, 12 Apr 2019 12:38:32 +0000
Roger Scruton: An apology for thinking Alisa Open Discussion
> I deplore the current use of [the word 'Islamophobia'], since it implies that there is some peculiar & irrational state of mind from which all objections to Islam proceed... I think of ‘homophobia’ as a similar word, designed to close all debate about a matter in which only one view is now deemed permissible.

> We .... are entering a dangerous social condition in which the direct expression of opinions that conflict – or merely seem to conflict – with a narrow set of orthodoxies is instantly punished by a band of self-appointed vigilantes.

Thu, 11 Apr 2019 15:18:36 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

Also Gab seem to be too stupid to have a blog. wtf!? I didn't want to link a tweet with a picture of text.]]>
Thu, 11 Apr 2019 13:02:30 +0000
Anonymous Time-Based Metric For Overreaching]]>
Wed, 10 Apr 2019 16:25:15 +0000
Anonymous Philosophy Side Quests]]>
Tue, 09 Apr 2019 21:36:36 +0000
Anonymous Getting Caught Using PUA
cd; mkdir mASF; cd mASF
wget "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" ""]]>
Tue, 09 Apr 2019 10:56:35 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Only 36?

Most "capitalists" in the novel were villains but the number seems really small]]>
Tue, 09 Apr 2019 09:58:15 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Within a few years, Chase had become one of the most prominent posters on the pickup artist community's mASF forum... Rated the #7 most valuable poster out of some 100,000 forum members, including nearly all of pickup's greatest names.

Chase, the best PUA writer, is from usenet and posted lots there, and mentioned it in in his Amazon marketing :D]]>
Mon, 08 Apr 2019 23:36:53 +0000
hitler's beneficiaries oh my god it's turpentine Open Discussion]]>
Mon, 08 Apr 2019 23:09:18 +0000
curi Open Discussion
> The **intensity** parameter is the force or strength of the music; it is a function of volume or the *amount of sound*, including simple loudness, and two forms of pitch density: the complexity of simultaneous sonorities, and the effect on any given moment of music of the full context that preceded and prepared it.

This is the first time he uses the word "sonorities" in the book. He doesn't explain what it means. I don't know enough about music to know what he's talking about. Maybe what he's saying refers to technical knowledge about music and makes sense and can clearly communicate to someone with the appropriate background. But this is one example of how his communication about music is not suitable for a lay reader.

Looking it up, I find out it means giving sound, or giving a clear or loud sound. If there is a technical meaning so this word communicates some important detail, I'm not seeing it. If it's just a fancy word with a simple meaning, then I don't think he's explaining well. I thought this word would have to have a special meaning for the passage to be meaningful.

Does the passage just mean this?

> Musical intensity comes from loudness, from using multiple sounds at once [somehow], and from interplay [somehow] between sound at different times.

Also, is there a particular passage focused on music which you think is great and which is readable by a non-expert?]]>
Mon, 08 Apr 2019 20:42:51 +0000
curi Open Discussion
Since you brought it up, I checked his blog and found some good points, so I looked through some of the book. I like some parts but also find major errors like his acceptance of psychiatry and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) in ch. 1. (For my answer to that, see Thomas Szasz's books.) I find some parts vague and fuzzy, like his claim that music is superior to other types of art (ch. 8). There are lots of minor errors like how he views "solipsism" – he doesn't seem familiar with that specific philosophy and then talks about the word like it has a less specific meaning. This stood out to me because solipsism is treated in a much more precise way in *The Fabric of Reality*. For Zachary's book, I don't think he should have mentioned solipsism at all. Another detail error was:

> The culture of ancient Greece, with its incredibly focussed and economical poetic and musical expression, with its exquisitely simple beauty and strangely pregnant melodic-emotional content, was first smashed by a conquest by the materialistic Romans (in the Battle of Corinth, 146 BC).

Athens was smashed by conquest, by Sparta, before that. Also, I object to using the word "materialistic" negatively.

I agree that with lots of what he says about emotions being based on ideas not genes, and often being related to childhood baggage that people haven't untangled. I think he makes it sound much easier to sort out than it actually is, though. I also agree that evil exists and that can be hard for more rational people to comprehend, and there's a problem and danger there. It's also dangerous to declare people evil and stop trying to interact rationally (what if I make an incorrect judgment like that!?), so this is a hard topic.

> The special method of the enemies of reason is relentlessness. Since they are not focussed on any productive activity, all of their energy can be channeled into the war on reason. Reason is a sorting faculty, which deals with incoming data by conceptualizing it and organizing it. Its enemies know the surest way to defeat reason: swamp it, overload it, confuse it, crush it under a weight of nonsense. Never give it a chance to achieve the clarity it needs.

I think the answer to this is developing reusable criticisms which refute entire categories of ideas. I don't think reason, properly organized, gets overloaded. Once you know a lot of criticisms of common errors, it gets hard to come up with new ideas that aren't *already* refuted. To save time, we must criticism patterns of error instead of every error individually. If someone finds ideas overwhelming to deal with, it indicates a problem with their knowledge and thinking methods. I think a harder aspects evil to deal with are, in general, *dishonesty* and *violence*, and, in our current culture, *social status contests*.]]>
Mon, 08 Apr 2019 20:32:23 +0000
curi Open Discussion
Do you have essays which people can review to tell you about some of your mistakes or missing knowledge, if they can spot it? (Or, in the alternative, they could agree with you and learn from you.) You should have some accomplishments where you say "I think this is good" and challenge anyone to tell you something you're missing. You should have something to represent the quality of your thinking which people can look at. These accomplishments should begin smaller – e.g. a few essays before a novel – so that you can get feedback more quickly with less work invested. Some of the early ones should be philosophy related so that your philosophy knowledge can be tested.

Also, you should survey all the major philosophies and have positions on them. That doesn't mean studying them all. It means having a general understanding of them (a survey book that covers many philosophies is OK). Then, either judge each philosophy is valuable and learn more, or else if you think it's bad then find a refutation of it written by anyone. That refutation should be held up as a challenge to people – can you refute this? – just like your own personal accomplishments. (And, again, readers may learn from it rather than attempt to knock it down. It gives people both options, a positive or negative reaction.) If errors are pointed out in the refutation you have accepted of a philosophy, then you should give the topic more attention to better understand what the existing arguments on the matter are and what position you should take (and whether you should actually start reading primary sources).

So instead of saying, "Marx? I haven't considered him yet." You say, "Marx? His views were refuted by Mises in his economic calculation argument and his book, *Socialism*. Did Mises make a mistake? Do you know something I'm missing?"

In the case where there are no quality refutations of a philosophy – no one has pointed out what's wrong with it - then it might be right and merits some attention now. It's not safe to ignore it. What if there are many bad ideas which haven't been refuted? Most bad ideas can be refuted in short, simple ways by reusing general purpose arguments. E.g. if philosophy P is subjectivist, then you can point to a refutation of subjectivism in general, rather than something which deals with philosophy P in particular.

These are some of the things I talk about in my Paths Forward material, and which I try to do as part of how I organize my knowledge and deal with the world. I find people don't do this, which means they ignore ideas I consider correct with no reason given, and also they don't put forward some of their own ideas to be criticized (and are actually willing to respond to questions and and criticisms – some people have a book or blog, but challenging the public to point out errors, and actually addressing counter-arguments, is rare.)]]>
Mon, 08 Apr 2019 20:06:57 +0000
Justin Mallone Open Discussion

>The threat of jail and being exposed to poor ideas are very different motivations, and I think those who realize the sacredness of their fire rarely let it go out.

Ideas rule the world. The Fountainhead:

>When the agents were gone, Wynand pressed a button on his desk, summoning Alvah Scarret. Scarret entered the office, smiling happily. He always answered that buzzer with the flattered eagerness of an office boy.

>“Alvah, what in hell is the Gallant Gallstone?”

>Scarret laughed. “Oh, that? It’s the title of a novel. By Lois Cook.”

>“What kind of a novel?”

>“Oh, just a lot of drivel. It’s supposed to be a sort of prose poem. It’s all about a gallstone that thinks that it’s an independent entity, a sort of a rugged individualist of the gall bladder, if you see what I mean, and then the man takes a big dose of castor oil—there’s a graphic description of the consequences—I’m not sure it’s correct medically, but anyway that’s the end of the gallant gallstone. It’s all supposed to prove that there’s no such thing as free will.”

Consider the effect a bad culture will have on whether or not people wind up realizing the sacredness of their fire.]]>
Mon, 08 Apr 2019 19:39:59 +0000
B Open Discussion Mon, 08 Apr 2019 19:38:58 +0000 Dagny Open Discussion
That seems backwards. You need to get the ideas right first, as well as you can, before writing novels to share them. When you focus more on being a philosopher, you will find out you were mistaken about some of your previous beliefs, and therefore that your novels contain mistakes that you could have avoided if you'd written them after you knew more.

One needs philosophy, particularly rational methods for thinking and learning, in order to do other things effectively. So one should be competent at philosophy (critical thinking skills, judging ideas, learning methods, understanding how to find and fix errors, etc.) before trying to do much else.

Our current cultural situation is: there are only a handful of competent philosophers. Unless you're at the top of the field, you're incompetent. It shouldn't be that way. It should be possible to just learn the basics and leave the rest to the experts while you do something else like a novel. But we don't live in that world. To get the basics of philosophy right makes you an expert today – and it's hard to get them right because most educational materials will teach you misconceptions. It currently takes extensive, serious study of philosophy, like a professional or expert, just to sort out the good ideas from the crap and become competent.]]>
Mon, 08 Apr 2019 19:21:28 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

>Those Americans who have "independent minds dedicated to the supremacy of truth" are not all perishing, but many are doing what Oism was created to help us do, live on earth.

>In many cases, how we live is not to proselytize or promote Objectivism (or a less well-defined yet honest/independent/productive way to live) with overt acts or plans, but rather through living our lives and potentially the odd conversation every once in a while.

I am all for living on earth. I think careful discussion of ideas helps with that. I am doubtful that independent minds dedicated to the supremacy of truth would be satisfied with "potentially the odd conversation every once in a while." Also, it's not even an issue of promoting or proselytizing Objectivism -- you need to discuss Objectivism extensively in order to have a thorough, first-handed understanding of it *for yourself*. You need to do *thousands of error corrections* in order to understand a hard topic well:
Rand pioneered Objectivism and helped us all enormously, but we still have to work -- a lot -- at understanding the details in our own minds. And if people are doing this, there should be some evidence.]]>
Mon, 08 Apr 2019 18:23:20 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 08 Apr 2019 18:07:39 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 08 Apr 2019 17:55:54 +0000 Why Super Mario 64 Is The Best Speedrunning Game Ever Anonymous Philosophy Side Quests
Great video!

Speedrunners want manageable games without too much noise and complexity so they can focus on playing correctly. They won't want to overreach with an overwhelmingly complex game. They want enough depth it's not to easy, but they want something they can be very, very good at. This is wise.]]>
Mon, 08 Apr 2019 13:01:45 +0000
Anonymous Philosophy Side Quests

It's about how looking down to reduce lag in Golden Eye was really unpopular initially. Many runners quit the game because they couldn't cleanly split it into a separate category.]]>
Mon, 08 Apr 2019 11:40:45 +0000
A 20 Year Old DOOM Record Was Finally Broken – Karl Jobst Josh Jordan Philosophy Side Quests
> Doom has one of the oldest and most storied speedrunning communities on the planet. Recently [23 Feb 2019], a 20 year old world record on the very first level [Hangar] was beaten [by 4shockblast]. In this video we take a look at the history of this level and the journey that made this new record possible. We also examine in greater detail the small details that make up this speedrun.]]>
Mon, 08 Apr 2019 11:35:07 +0000
curi Open Discussion
After learning chess and programming, I read *The Fabric of Reality* by David Deutsch, started having discussions with him, and got into philosophy. I think epistemology is the most important field. Bad intellectual methods harm progress in all other fields.

My studies have included writing/discussing a huge amount (I'm unaware of any philosopher who has done half as much) and these books, which are a list of some of the best:

BTW, regarding card games, I was the best Hearthstone player for a couple months early on. But I got tired of the game and quit. I also wrote [guides](

I've found the world's intellectuals disappointing and unwilling to debate ideas or learn/think much. They are fakers pursuing social status. Their problems date back to childhood, where their minds are largely destroyed by around age 7, as Ayn Rand discusses in *The Comprachicos*. David Deutsch explained it in more detail by applying Critical Rationalist epistemology to parenting/education (the result is called [Taking Children Seriously]( ).

Besides [advancing philosophy](, I've been trying to understand the world's irrationality and how to deal with it, and made some progress. Besides Deutsch's idea of [static memes](, I've developed the ideas of [Paths Forward]( and [Overreaching]( Paths Forward is about how to organize ideas and debate so that people can collaborate effectively instead of ignoring corrections and criticisms that other people know and are willing to share. "Intellectuals" don't do this. Overreaching is about how people fail at learning philosophy because they do things which are too hard, and their error rate exceeds their ability to deal with errors. These ideas can help anyone who is trying to learn or advance philosophy.

I'm always looking for people who are interested in ideas enough, and honest enough, to learn what's already known about philosophy and then contribute something new.]]>
Mon, 08 Apr 2019 11:19:24 +0000
Dagny Open Discussion
These are ambitious goals. Lots of people try these things and fail. What are you doing to accomplish this, and how does it differ from what's already been tried?]]>
Mon, 08 Apr 2019 10:51:17 +0000
Hello B Open Discussion Mon, 08 Apr 2019 02:41:36 +0000 Example of How Children Are Brutalized Anonymous Open Discussion

An Open Letter To Claire’s Corporate.

I am a former employee of one of your Edmonton, Alberta area Claire's locations. I didn’t mind piercing the ears of children who were excited to get new earrings, but nervous about the procedure. I’d do what I could to put them at ease. I had a couple "gray area" piercings, though; piercings where the children resisted heavily, were pressured and intimidated by the parents into settling down, and the children weren't happy with what had happened even after the earrings were in place and the standard lollipop had been dispensed. I didn't feel good about those, and I started to wonder at what point the piercer and the parent are actually violating a child's personal boundaries. Last week was a breaking point.

A seven year old girl came in to Claire's with her mother to get her ears pierced. I was to assist with the piercing, since it was what we call a "double," both ears at the same time. It's reserved for nervous kids who might change their mind after the first earring goes in. The girl pleaded and sobbed for thirty minutes not to be pierced. Despite Mom saying, "Honey, we can go home whenever you want," she was not letting her daughter go home. She was putting a great deal of pressure on her daughter to go through with the piercing. This child was articulate, smart, and well aware of herself and her body. She expressed that she didn't want us touching her, that we were standing too close, that she was feeling uncomfortable. She made it clear she no longer wanted to get her ears pierced. She begged, over and over again, for Mom to please, just take her home. That child's message was loud and clear to me: Do not touch my body, do not pierce my ears, I do not want to be here. I'm inclined to respect a child's right to say, "NO," to any adult forcing any kind of non-medical contact on them, so I told the other piercer I wouldn't be part of the ear piercing for this girl. To my great relief, in the end the mother respected her daughter's wishes, and took her home.

The next day at work, my manager asked about the previous day. I explained the child that refused the piercing and begged to be left alone, and I told my manager that I would not have been able to pierce that little girl's ears if Mom had insisted on it. I was firmly told, "You would have had no choice but to do it."

So I brought up the worst scenario I could think of. I wanted to know how far we were supposed to take this policy of piercing non-consenting children. "So if a mother is physically restraining her daughter, holding her down and saying, 'DO IT,' while that little girl cries and asks me not to, do I do the piercing?" My manager did not hesitate to respond, "Yes, you do the piercing."

I gave my notice that day. I had a choice between facing disciplinary actions (that would eventually lead to my termination) the next time I refused to pierce the ears of children who withdrew their consent, or leaving on my own terms. I chose the latter. My manager continues to assert that the other Claire's managers in this district are in agreement with her, and that our District Sales Manager confirms this policy is correct: Children can be held down and pierced. Children do not have a voice in the piercing process. The associate doing the piercing has no right to refuse to shoot metal through the ears of a child who begs not to be touched.

Your Policies and Procedures Manual offers only one policy, Policy 509, on the right to refuse a piercing. It is this: “We reserve to the right to refuse an ear piercing if a successful one cannot be done.” There is no mention of the use of physical restraint by the parent, or the employee’s right to refuse an ear piercing if their concerns are for the emotional welfare of the child. Basically, if I’m not going to get kicked in the head by that restrained child, or if that hysterical seven year old is unlikely to knock the gun from my hand, I must go ahead with the piercing.

This is, by my point of view, a deeply flawed policy that helps facilitate situations where children can be traumatized or otherwise subject to forms of intimidation and abuse in-store. The employee who refuses to be a party to these actions will be, “coached,” written up, and eventually terminated after enough write-ups.

I believe in upholding a child’s right to bodily integrity at all costs, and I will not be an adult that commits an indignity to a child. Kids who don’t want to endure the discomfort and pain of the procedure should not be forced to because a paying adult comes in, claims to be the legal guardian and insists upon the ear piercing. I cannot be part of a company that teaches a child that their right to say, “NO”, to invasive non-medical contact can be so easily overridden by an adult, and moreover, that they're supposed to accept that. This is about a child’s right to refuse to be pierced. This is also about an employee’s right to refuse to pierce the child that refuses to be pierced.

If you are a company that cares about kids, I implore you to consider changing this policy that blatantly ignores every child who vocally protests, cries, shows obvious signs of distress or is physically restrained by their alleged guardian while they sob and beg to be released. There needs to be something in place that protects both the rights of the child to protect his or her own body, and the right for the employee to refuse to pierce a heavily distressed child that adamantly refuses to have his or her ears pierced.

So I implore you now, as does everyone who shares this letter--Be better. Be accountable. Know what’s going on in your stores, and do something about it. And until you do, myself and perhaps many others have no interest in shopping at Claire’s and helping fund what we believe to be a cruel practice. Our children deserve better. Please do better by them.]]>
Mon, 08 Apr 2019 01:06:53 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
In his book *Game*, about picking up women, Roosh gives a short intro to some philosophy stuff. Ideas matter. Reading a book and agreeing is inadequate to change your ideas.

The beginning talks about cultural decline including rape accusations and "toxic" masculinity. Roosh tries to keep the book fairly non-political and avoiding placing blame, but says this stuff isn't ignorable, your way of dealing with women needs to take it into account.]]>
Sun, 07 Apr 2019 23:54:02 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion]]>
Sun, 07 Apr 2019 21:25:33 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
>Aubrey de Grey: No – in the end that program was not successful enough to continue with, so we stopped it. There is now more interest in ALT in other labs than there was, though, so I’m hopeful that progress will be made. But also, one reason why I felt that it was OK to stop was that cancer immunotherapy is doing so well now. I think there is a significant chance that we won’t need WILT after all, because we will really truly defeat cancer using the immune system.]]>
Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:30:50 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Sat, 06 Apr 2019 12:14:35 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Not really joking.]]>
Sat, 06 Apr 2019 11:50:48 +0000
Anonymous Podcast: How To Learn Philosophy Sat, 06 Apr 2019 00:24:17 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion]]>
Thu, 04 Apr 2019 13:04:30 +0000
curi Open Discussion

Brief summary is they got 8 million in funding, hired 20 ppl, didn't grow enough, fired 15, the rest eventually quit, but he didn't want to shut it down because it was paying like 2 million a month to creators. It has kept growing up to over 4 million a month sent out to creators and the business is stable now and makes some profit.]]>
Thu, 04 Apr 2019 11:07:33 +0000
Anne B Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings Thu, 04 Apr 2019 06:54:38 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Wed, 03 Apr 2019 13:42:35 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion
Wed, 03 Apr 2019 13:40:36 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion]]>
Mon, 01 Apr 2019 22:55:28 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
*Our Culture, What's Left Of It* by Theodore Dalrymple

> Having spent a considerable proportion of my professional career in Third World countries in which the implementation of abstract ideas and ideals has made bad situations incomparably worse, and the rest of my career among the very extensive British underclass, whose disastrous notions about how to live derive ultimately from the unrealistic, self-indulgent, and often fatuous ideas of social critics, I have come to regard intellectual and artistic life as being of incalculable practical importance and effect. John Maynard Keynes wrote, in a famous passage in *The Economic Consequences of the Peace*, that practical men might not have much time for theoretical considerations, but in fact the world is governed by little else than the outdated or defunct ideas of economists and social philosophers. I agree: except that I would now add novelists, playwrights, film directors, journalists, artists, and even pop singers. They are the unacknowledged legislators of the world, and we ought to pay close attention to what they say and how they say it.

Did he forget to include "pro wrestlers" after "pop stars"? Or perhaps it's their writers and producers who matter, who are close enough to film directors or playwrights already. (He must have thought TV matters too, not just plays or films, so I don't think we should read the categories narrowly).

Speaking of bad ideas and how they affect people's lives and the more "lowbrow" ones don't get thorough enough criticism, I was thinking of making a video complaining about this:

Only 2.4m views though it's only 2 months old. I heard it on the radio in an Uber the other day.]]>
Mon, 01 Apr 2019 20:23:31 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

Just a ton of fake angry fighting and violence.

Also it was dumb, cops would keep people who might fight each other more separate and not leave them in a position to try to drive away with the cop car]]>
Mon, 01 Apr 2019 19:29:41 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

1. Open girl with mild physical compliment while expressing ZERO sexual intent through non-verbals. This simulates a direct opener for the viewer but puts no pressure on the girl to think she’s being hit on.

2. Immediately tell her you’re NOT hitting on her, but are actually a talent scout for a business (e.g. modelling, PR work, waitressing). Crucially, MUTE this audio and disguise it by offering a voice-over pretending you are still hitting on her.

3. Continue to play the grey area where you say mildly sexual things verbally, with zero sexual non-verbals, and mute any time you disclaim hitting on her, or continue explaining the job interview you’re trying to set up.

4. When she agrees to the job interview determines if it’s an “idate” or a “day 2”. Mute some of the number close because that’s obviously interview logistics.

5. Record the “date” and do very light kino, which she’ll accept as simply you being a creepy boss and not take seriously as an attempt to fuck her.

6. Pass it off as a successful seduction to low-IQ Indians who desperately want to believe an ugly charmless Indian immigrant can get lots of white women. Accuse any critics of racism while you yourself play the race card to scam your very own countrymen.]]>
Sun, 31 Mar 2019 23:57:58 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Sun, 31 Mar 2019 15:56:26 +0000
Anonymous Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings Sun, 31 Mar 2019 13:32:46 +0000 Anne B Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings Sun, 31 Mar 2019 13:29:56 +0000 Justin's Publicist Open Discussion]]>
Sat, 30 Mar 2019 20:15:18 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion]]>
Sat, 30 Mar 2019 18:59:12 +0000
How astronavigation is similar to GPS navigation Josh Jordan Open Discussion
> The navigation system for the airplane is through what's called an "astro-tracker". It looks up to the stars. On top of the guidance group which we nicknamed as crew members "R2-D2", because it's smart, it does everything on the airplane, it orchestrates the cameras, everything. But on top of the guidance group is a gimballed platform, and on that gimballed platform is a telescope. And that telescope looks through that quartz glass window, and it goes into a search pattern called an ever-expanding rectangular search pattern. So it starts out, and it gets bigger, and bigger, and bigger, in this real rapid search pattern.
> Inside the R2-D2, we have the Julian day of the year, which is the sequential number of the day, like January 1 is 1, January 2 is 2. That's called the Julian day of the year... It has a chronometer in the computer, accurate to 1/100th of a second. And it's got a 64-star catalog of the 64 brightest stars in the Northern hemisphere.
> So the theory is, we know where all the stars are all the time. So if this computer knows the exact year, the exact day of the year, the exact time of the day, and it goes looking for this 64-star catalog, it'll search and look on, and eventually lock on to the 3 brightest stars in the Northern hemisphere that it can find. And it does that while we're on the ground taxiing out from the hangar.
> On a day like today, as clear as it is, it would lock on on the ground within about probably a minute, maybe. If it's hazy, it may take 2 minutes. If it's overcast, obviously you can't get anything until you get above the overcast, and the R2-D2 does its thing.
> But I've always been impressed how you pull out of the hangar, as soon as you taxi for about 30 seconds, on about a day like this, or a minute, it locks on to 3 stars. It gets them right away.
> And that's how you navigate. And when you think about it, and realistically, it's no different than a GPS today. A GPS that we use for our cars and airplanes and all kinds of navigation locks on to what? They lock on to *artificial stars* we call satellites, with an exact known position, a highly-accurate chronometer inside each satellite. So, what we're doing is using the real stars, and anyone with GPS is using the artificial stars for accuracy. So, same thing, just different means.
> It's very, very accurate. Once you're on course, what we call the "black line" of the map, the navigation system will keep you within probably less than about 1000 feet each side to the left or right of the course at Mach 3 all the time. It does a very good job keeping it on the course.

Sat, 30 Mar 2019 14:10:22 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

This copy is gross. They could say they explain the issue and answer the questions they pose. Instead they say the podcast is about why their side is right. They are viewing their audience like sports fans who want to cheer for their team, or they view the matter that way themselves.]]>
Sat, 30 Mar 2019 10:59:42 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Fri, 29 Mar 2019 15:45:32 +0000
Anne B Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings Fri, 29 Mar 2019 07:20:28 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Thu, 28 Mar 2019 18:17:55 +0000 FB to ban "praise, support & representation of white nationalism & separatism" Anonymous Open Discussion Wed, 27 Mar 2019 11:06:48 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion

> But whereas men consistently were held to the strict standards outlined in the Ranger School’s Standing Operating Procedures handbook sources say, the women were allowed lighter duties and exceptions to policy.

> Multiple sources told PEOPLE:

> • Women were first sent to a special two-week training in January to get them ready for the school, which didn’t start until April 20. Once there they were allowed to repeat the program until they passed – while men were held to a strict pass/fail standard.

> • Afterward they spent months in a special platoon at Fort Benning getting, among other things, nutritional counseling and full-time training with a Ranger.

> • While in the special platoon they were taken out to the land navigation course – a very tough part of the course that is timed – on a regular basis. The men had to see it for the first time when they went to the school.

> • Once in the school they were allowed to repeat key parts – like patrols – while special consideration was not given to the men.

> • A two-star general made personal appearances to cheer them along during one of the most challenging parts of the school, multiple sources tell PEOPLE.]]>
Tue, 26 Mar 2019 22:18:26 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:46:27 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
The idea that incentives can be responded too, and the overall system or process can know what it's doing even if an individual author doesn't *is very similar to how social condition and static memes often work*. Often the actor doesn't consciously know what he's doing, but due to the system of his thinking, the incentives of his emotional conditioning, and other stuff, the overall result is to act in a particular, purposeful, designed way that fits the meme despite not consciously trying to follow the meme.]]>
Tue, 26 Mar 2019 12:13:54 +0000
curi Open Discussion
It's possible to knowingly make a bad product and try to sell a bunch via advertising expertise and then move on to a new product under a new brand, but that is not typical behavior and is, in general, a worse way to make money over time compared to running a better business.

Advertising does favor products with a bit higher margins (so they can fit some advertising into the margins). But there's nothing wrong with that. If a product is too low margin to spare budget to communicate about it with customers, the product doesn't really work (unless e.g. you can get enough word of mouth going, or advertise it via a very cheap method like having a single twitter account for it and somehow getting it a million followers with a budget of the salary for one person working on it 20% of the time and $200/month expenses).]]>
Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:53:35 +0000
How Amazon dealt with its constraints Josh Jordan Open Discussion
> With an established pattern for solving the practical and bureaucratic issues that arose from infinite shelf space, Amazon began systematically removing bottlenecks to growth.


> ... in the world of infinite shelf space – and platforms to fill them – the limiting reagent for Amazon’s growth would not be its website traffic, or its ability to fulfill orders, or the number of SKUs available to sell; it would be its own bureaucracy.]]>
Tue, 26 Mar 2019 09:38:09 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

I have not read the study.]]>
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 23:43:55 +0000
Anonymous Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings Mon, 25 Mar 2019 12:30:26 +0000 Anonymous Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
Lady: How To Meet And Keep A Good Man For Love And Marriage

Maybe it'd interest you.]]>
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 12:22:53 +0000
Anonymous Blatant Lying Example
People lie so much, so blatantly, that this can be a meme.

Also people seeing this pic don't recognize it as lying. They don't think like "that girl is a liar" or "that girl is really dishonest, i shouldn't trust anything else she says". I think they just don't even analyze it, they don't think about it.]]>
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 12:20:58 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 25 Mar 2019 12:14:29 +0000 Anne B Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
I start feeling like I should be spending more time and effort in being attractive to men. But this doesn't make sense. I don't want any more sex or boyfriends or husbands or power over men. I don't understand what's going on here.]]>
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 06:46:36 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Date: March 24th, 2019 11:35 PM
Author: calishitlawguru

While I am a great business person and make a lot of money practicing law, I am far from a world class trial lawyer (and thats not really my business model).

However, as nerdy as it is, I am one of the top laser tag players in the world. I have done hundreds of events, competed in several countries, and have won national and international team, solo, and doubles events.

I was ranked Cal-I in counterstrike when I was in high school and I was definitely world class.

Edit: I also have won numerous state open bench press competitions in my weight class and the weight class above me through the US Powerlifting Association.

Its a goal of mine to become world class in more stuff. Wondering who here has reached that level in hobbies, sports, video games, etc.]]>
Sun, 24 Mar 2019 20:58:53 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
>> One of the things I endeavor to remind people of consistently when I am asked to speak to groups around the country is to consider the possibility that we are led by a pack of idiots. This is not out of any animus toward our leadership class, but borne out of experience. I have seen cabinet secretaries who type with two fingers. I have listened as senior staffers with authority over constructing legislation in a particular scientific field engage in debate on whether or not the moon landing was a hoax. I have seen a man charged with revolutionizing incredibly complex government information technology systems who did not know how to use a thumb drive. I have seen the bill from a highly paid consultant, an incredibly expensive bill, for a PowerPoint deck that I had seen him present for another client with different logos. And, more personally, I have been told at many varied points in my career by accomplished people why the thing I wished to build was impossible, why it would be a failure, and why I should instead join company X, Y, or Z, none of which are relevant or in some cases even exist today. This is why we should never forget the possibility that underneath the façade of government and business, which projects authority and success, there are a host of fools who are just along for the ride and got to where they are by dint of internal politics, a nice resume, and good timing.

This quote mixes some stuff together. The PowerPoint guy might be a fraudster or maybe even actually providing value depending on lots of omitted details and how he represented his work to the client. Both those possibilities (fraud or providing value) are different than two finger typing which is just incompetence]]>
Sun, 24 Mar 2019 16:09:49 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> One of the things I endeavor to remind people of consistently when I am asked to speak to groups around the country is to consider the possibility that we are led by a pack of idiots. This is not out of any animus toward our leadership class, but borne out of experience. I have seen cabinet secretaries who type with two fingers. I have listened as senior staffers with authority over constructing legislation in a particular scientific field engage in debate on whether or not the moon landing was a hoax. I have seen a man charged with revolutionizing incredibly complex government information technology systems who did not know how to use a thumb drive. I have seen the bill from a highly paid consultant, an incredibly expensive bill, for a PowerPoint deck that I had seen him present for another client with different logos. And, more personally, I have been told at many varied points in my career by accomplished people why the thing I wished to build was impossible, why it would be a failure, and why I should instead join company X, Y, or Z, none of which are relevant or in some cases even exist today. This is why we should never forget the possibility that underneath the façade of government and business, which projects authority and success, there are a host of fools who are just along for the ride and got to where they are by dint of internal politics, a nice resume, and good timing.]]>
Sun, 24 Mar 2019 16:05:24 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

but the left can make those too. not truth-seeking enough.]]>
Sun, 24 Mar 2019 12:47:57 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

A couple nasty comments about Jews but those are isolated rather than integrated into the rest of the content.]]>
Sun, 24 Mar 2019 01:59:54 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
patio11 has to retain a superstitious model of the world in his head, and think about what superstition says about lots of events in his life, in order to better pander to superstitious people. (or he genuinely likes superstitious thinking, or a mix of that and pandering)]]>
Sat, 23 Mar 2019 16:37:03 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
The background noises weren’t a distraction for me.]]>
Thu, 21 Mar 2019 18:54:49 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
deep linking to example of editing (there's some stuff before if you want full context)]]>
Thu, 21 Mar 2019 18:09:30 +0000
An interesting amateur tour of the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library Anonymous Open Discussion
Date: March 21st, 2019 1:37 AM
Author: CharlesXII (CharlesXII)

'Sup bros. I know a bunch of people want to learn about Budapest and Prague, but that's gonna have to wait for a few days. In the meantime, we need to drive a 2008 Honda Accord from Waterloo, Iowa all the way back to Washington D.C. Sure, we could do that in one day as a straight shot, but why do that when we can make a kooky weekend-long Bobby Digital roadtrip out of it?
Our first stop along the trip is the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library. Hoover is the earliest president to have an official presidential library, and while most of these libraries are in at least medium-sized cities, Hoover's is right next to his birthplace in the tiny town of West Branch, Iowa.

Hoover is one of America's lowest-rated president, but his library will do its best to make him seem like the most 180 American to ever live.

The first part of the museum quickly summarizes Hoover's early life. It's low on artifacts, but it does have a recreation of the shitty shack Hoover had to live in while leading mining operations in Australia.

Hoover graduated from Stanford at 20 with no job prospects. Rather than applying to law school, he took a more enterprising approach: A London firm wanted an experienced mining engineer, at least 35 years old. So Hoover just grew a beard, bought a tweed suit, and faked being an oldmo. This completely worked.

After maeking it in Australia, Hoover and his wife moved to China, where they learned Chinese, lived like mandarins, and survived the Boxer Rebellion at an age where you were using Purell at a cubicle desk. The museum has some of their China swag.

At the age of 28, Hoover was one of the most elite mining engineers in the world, and was salaried at $33,000 a year, close a million in today's dollars. That's just a standard biglaw PPP these days, but back then it made Hoover supposed the richest salaryman of his age in the world.

After a decade, Hoover was tremendously wealthy. But then, he did something incredible: He walked away from striving after wealth to become the world's most famous humanitarian. When World War I broke out, he quit his mining job to focus first on helping Americans flee Europe, and then masterminding food relief for the continent. Hoover made huge loans to help people flee Europe, and pledged his entire personal fortune multiple times in order to get his relief operation off the ground. The museum has a bunch of items sent to Hoover by grateful Europeans from across the continent.

One weird album from Germany has shitty kid art of brown natives in a far-off country harvesting food for Hoover's relief effort:

For some reason, the museum also has a jigsaw puzzle of Latvia:

After WW1 ended, Hoover was one of the most popular people in the entire world. The museum can't resist noting that FDR wanted Hoover to be president at this time:

In the 1920s, Hoover served as Warren Harding's and Calvin Coolidge's Secretary of Commerce. Under every other president Commerce has been a borderline irrelevant department, but Hoover made it one of the most visible and active departments in the country. He spearheaded the standardization of radio and the implementation of safety standards for car and airline travel. He turned the Census Bureau into a huge data operation for American businesses. He promoted home ownership and created the Colorado River Compact. Hoover's enthusiasm for work was so intense he routinely invaded other departments and took control of projects he thought other secretaries were mismanaging.

Now, of course, things start to go badly for Hoover. He wins the presidency in a landslide, but the economy tanks and Hoover takes all the blame. The museum tries very hard to make Hoover sound like a prophet who anticipated the stock market crash, but had his warnings ignore by greedy business interests.

The museum also highlights a surprisingly R-rated joke by Hoover.

A small exhibit highlights the extremely brave effort of Republican operatives who had to push for Hoover's reelection in 1932. It did not end well:

Media was really retarded a century ago, too. Some woman thought her knee creases looked like Hoover and it was a big story:

Hoover's wife (who had the badass hobby of collecting weapons) pissed off a lot of people by inviting a black woman to dine at the White House. The Museum preserves a deranged letter the First Family was sent by an irate Southern woman.

Teleprompters are apparently a lot older than I thought:

Lots of presidential libraries have a replica of that president's Oval Office. Fittingly for a man whose life was 180 except for his time as president, Hoover's library instead has a replica of his post-presidency office in the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. From here, Hoover wrote a mountain of books and articles that set the standard for an American post-presidency. Some of his ideas were good (he suggested banning ghost-writers in politics), and some were terrible (he wanted four strikes in baseball).

Outside the museum is Hoover's tomb, which lies within sight of his preserved childhood home.

That was a sedate but pleasant start to a very long drive. Our next stop will be a lot more energetic: We're going to Doobs' #1 truck stop.]]>
Thu, 21 Mar 2019 18:00:40 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Facebook Stored Hundreds of Millions Passwords in Plain Text, Thousands of Employees Had Access

Thu, 21 Mar 2019 11:32:11 +0000
JSON list of stores that sell Sprite Zero Cherry Josh Jordan Open Discussion

Replace 10001 with the ZIP code of origin and 150 with the maximum distance from that ZIP code.

Found this URL by searching Google for [buy sprite zero cherry], going to, selecting "Sprite Zero Cherry", doing a search, and inspecting the request that appeared in the Network tab of the browser's inspector.]]>
Thu, 21 Mar 2019 11:09:29 +0000
Alisa Open Discussion Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:10:07 +0000 Non-overreaching and the Apollo space program Josh Jordan Open Discussion
Non-overreaching looks to have been a contributing factor to the success of the Apollo space program.

[NASA, *What Made Apollo a Success?* (March, 1970), p. 10]( (OCR by [Google docs](, emphasis mine):

> After Apollo 9 another decision had to be made: *Were we then ready for a lunar landing, or was the step too big?* We decided that we faced too many remaining unknowns: performance of the lunar module in the deep-space environment, communications with the lunar module at lunar distances, combined operations with two spacecraft around the moon, rendezvous around the moon, and, of course, the lunar descent, landing, surface operations, and ascent. In lieu of a landing, we planned to do as many of these tasks as possible on Apollo 10 without actually touching down on the surface of the moon.

> *The entire series of flights represented a step-by-step buildup*, with each step leading closer to a lunar-landing ability. Our intent was to use the procedures developed on one flight on each subsequent mission. Changes were allowed only if they were essential for flight safety or mission success. By means of this buildup, we minimized the remaining tasks (descent, landing, surface operations, and ascent) that could be worked out only on the actual landing mission. The Apollo 11 crew was able to concentrate on these remaining tasks, to work them out in detail, and to carry them out with perfection.]]>
Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:06:38 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
long excerpt:

> In November, Fairway introduced a mobile app run by a New York-based company named FutureProof Retail, that allows customers to create an account and scan their own grocery items with their phones. The app is part of a slew of new cashierless check-out systems being rolled out by retailers to trim labor costs and speed up transactions for customers who want to avoid long lines.

> The Fairway app informs users that it employs a “spot check” system, in which shoppers are randomly selected to have their purchases reviewed against their online receipts.

> Last week, one Fairway shopper filled out a customer feedback survey in which he complained how the spot-check slowed his checkout, and received a disturbing response from a FutureProof customer service representative.

> The March 11 email attributes the random spot-check policy in part to New York City's diversity, which creates a society where people do not have the same “values and respect for laws.”

> Below is the full excerpt:

> > It occurs randomly so there isn't any discrimination or implicit bias expressed toward shoppers, it is an unfortunate consequence of the amazing diversity here in NYC. With all the different backgrounds, and socioeconomic classes shopping at Fairway we can't operate it on the honor system like kiosks in homogeneous population centers in Norway and Finland, since people can't be expected to all have the same class structure, values and respect for laws. This aspect of building the app has been very educational. Lot's of applied psychology and learning about other cultures.

> “I thought it was pretty shocking,” said the shopper, who shared the correspondence with Gothamist but asked that his name be withheld.

> He declined to provide the name of the employee who sent the email.

> Last Friday, he posted the response on Reddit with the name of the FutureProof employee blacked out. Reactions on the forum were mixed, with several describing the employee’s justification as “odd” and others denouncing it as “straight-up racism.”

> The next day, William Hogben, FutureProof’s CEO responded on Reddit with the following post:

> > My name is William Hogben, I am the CEO. Thank you for bringing this to our attention so we could take action. Thank you especially for preserving the privacy of the customer service respondent. We have discussed the situation, communicated with the employee, and we made the decision to terminate their employment. Again I really appreciate you taking the time to let us know. Please contact me directly if you have any questions. Will Hogben

> The Fairway shopper said he found the CEO’s response less than satisfying because it did not include a strong rebuke of racial discrimination.

> “In short, I wanted the company to take responsibility,” he told Gothamist. “Instead the employee was made responsible.”]]>
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 21:43:49 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
>> A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system.

That is related to not overreaching. People need to start with stuff they can succeed at and build up from there.]]>
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 15:12:38 +0000
Gall's Law Josh Jordan Open Discussion
> A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system.]]>
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 13:49:45 +0000
I reply to a guy who thinks he refuted Objectivism on reddit curi Open Discussion
You're attempting to refute a substantial philosophy with many man-years of effort put into it. Your refutation, by contrast, contains a blatant error in the second word:

> Objectivism implies that life is the primary value because

You clearly don't know what the word "implies" means (and had the poor judgment to use it anyway without looking it up).

Given your status of a beginner at reason/thinking/writing/English, you should try to get better at that stuff before judging or refuting philosophies. You're being too arrogant. It would help you to learn about overreaching, which is a mistake you're making]]>
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:50:13 +0000
curi Open Discussion Wed, 20 Mar 2019 10:38:19 +0000 anonymous Open Discussion]]>
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 09:54:45 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
>In 1977, Greenspan obtained a Ph.D. in economics from New York University. His dissertation is not available from the university[18] since it was removed at Greenspan's request in 1987, when he became Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. In April 2008, however, Barron's obtained a copy and notes that it includes "a discussion of soaring housing prices and their effect on consumer spending; it even anticipates a bursting housing bubble".[19]]]>
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:09:09 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
1 hour news report on how leftist policies are destroying seattle]]>
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 06:30:44 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

i see a bunch of ppl flaming him on twitter but haven't seen any factual disputes so far sigh]]>
Tue, 19 Mar 2019 20:42:27 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion]]>
Tue, 19 Mar 2019 20:40:18 +0000
Anonymous Podcast: How To Learn Philosophy Tue, 19 Mar 2019 20:10:34 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion
> A novel such as Camp of the Saints could not be published today. Even before it appeared, in July 1972, France’s National Assembly unanimously passed the Pleven Law against “incitation to racial hatred.” But in those early days, this novel law was not rigorously enforced, and Raspail’s book got in under the wire. Every few years, the scope of the Pleven Law is expanded or its penalties increased—usually by unanimous vote of the Assembly.

> Out of curiosity, Raspail separately consulted two lawyers who specialize in such matters, and they each found more than 300 lines spread over several chapters that would likely be found in violation of the law if newly published today.]]>
Tue, 19 Mar 2019 19:43:19 +0000
Anonymous Submit Podcast Questions Tue, 19 Mar 2019 08:19:10 +0000 Anonymous Podcast: How To Learn Philosophy Tue, 19 Mar 2019 05:51:02 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion
> Nigel Lawson, long-time No. 2 to Margaret Thatcher, wrote a short but pointed letter to The Spectator last week. He said that Lord Kerr, the British diplomat who drafted Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty that Britain invoked to leave the Union, told him that he had drafted it specifically so that it would be very difficult for any country to leave.

> He was certainly successful in this aim: for the philosopher-kings of the EU do not want any damned-fool population getting in the way of the implementation of their wisdom.

> This view accords perfectly with the founders of the “European project” over 60 years ago; they wanted to eliminate messy politics through neat, clean administration.

> Britain has been thoroughly humiliated by the whole episode, but history has no end, and Yugoslavian-style wars of secession may yet, in the distant future, occur.]]>
Tue, 19 Mar 2019 05:15:10 +0000
curi Open Discussion

Yes the problem with bad "CR" people, or bad intellectuals, is larger than Tanett. It includes David Miller:

The CR FB group:

And, sure, DD:

And Jordan Peterson, and, more generally, *lack of paths forward*:

Yes, DD and LT choosing not to explain why they left the TCS/FI community is bad. Even if they'd never been involved it'd be bad to dismiss it without sharing any reasoning (no paths forward, inactive/passive/closed mind, no way for error correction to happen). But as major participants it's much worse.


DD and LT are very different cases, though. You say "He is behaving like Tanett." but I disagree.

DD studied CR a lot, effectively. DD has accomplishments like books that contribute to CR. LT has never studied CR much, never learned that much about it, and has no accomplishments. DD tweets a mix of good and bad tweets, and the bad ones usually aren't super bad. LT tweets pretty much purely awful tweets. DD is not attempting to attack or undermine FI on purpose or directly, he just ignores it, whereas LT actually is trying to have a negative effect on FI. DD's tweets are not especially socially manipulative – less than average for an intellectual – but LT's are extremely socially manipulative. DD's tweets are also less dishonest than average while LT's are much more dishonest than average.

DD, as a philosopher, could be viewed sorta as retired after a productive career (and, yes, retired people are allowed to continue to tweet about their field and do some minor things), whereas LT gave up early on and now is lying about it and trying to build a fake career.]]>
Mon, 18 Mar 2019 09:37:07 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
>"I think that's ridiculous," Harris said. "The idea that you would deny a professional woman the opportunity to have a meeting with the vice president of the United States is outrageous."

Dems are never not lying.

Pence's rule is that he won't have DINNER ALONE with a woman not his wife, not that he won't have "a meeting." If Harris had said "The idea that you would deny a professional woman the opportunity to have dinner alone with the vice president of the United States is outrageous", her position would sound way dumber to lots of people. But that's what Pence's policy is, and here Harris is using vague wording about "the opportunity to have a meeting" to fool ppl about the content of Pence's policy. very vicious and nasty!]]>
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 20:34:40 +0000
Choice of words in "Best Optimum Batch Size" Josh Jordan Open Discussion
Ah, I missed that. :

>> ... optimum and optimal are both options when you want an adjective.]]>
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 19:10:21 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Sun, 17 Mar 2019 18:39:47 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 18:25:36 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
"Optimum" can be an adjective]]>
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:54:45 +0000
Choice of words in "Best Optimum Batch Size" Josh Jordan Open Discussion
1. ["Optimum" is a noun](, but it's being used here as an adjective. If it's meant as an adjective, I think it should be "Optimal".

2. I think "Best Optimal" has a redundant word. According to :

> Definition of optimal
> most desirable or satisfactory

I think "Best Batch Size" or "Optimal Batch Size" would have been better.]]>
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:42:04 +0000
my notes for making this podcast curi Podcast: How To Learn Philosophy how to philosophy?

read books AND DISCUSS

should read my writing and my book recommendations AND OTHER SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT. read a variety including FI stuff and other stuff and judge for yourself.

analyze texts and share analysis. books and articles (and podcasts and youtubes) are made to let audience think they understand more than they do. they aren’t designed to criticize the reader’s understanding as he goes and get him to realize his ignorance. this is extremely widespread including among good authors and great thinkers, not just intellectual fakers. it’s part of the very tradition of what a book is. so you can’t just read books, that doesn’t work and has never worked well (which is why, in most intellectual fields, there are only like a max of 20 ppl who are actually good at it and making progress at a time, most ppl are pretty useless)

later: write ideas and expose to public criticism
debate ppl and expose the debates to criticism from anyone willing: post to ur blog, share link on FI, etc

youtube and podcasts are OK. variety is good. but they shouldn’t be primary. writing is more precise, serious, organized and quotable. writing is also *less* social.]]>
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:34:14 +0000
curi Open Discussion: Economics
> For under government interference with business the unity of government policies has long since disintegrated into badly coördinated parts. Gone are the days when it was still possible to speak of a government’s policy. Today in most countries each department follows its own course, working against the endeavors of the other departments. The department of labor aims at higher wage rates and at lower living costs. But the same administration’s department of agriculture aims at higher food prices, and the department of commerce tries to raise domestic commodity prices by tariffs. One department fights against monopoly, but other departments are eager to bring about—by tariffs, patents, and other means—the conditions required for the building of monopolistic restraint. And each department refers to the expert opinion of those specialized in their respective fields.
> Thus the students no longer receive an initiation into economics. They learn incoherent and disconnected facts about various government measures thwarting one another. Their doctor’s theses and their graduate research work deal not with economics but with various topics of economic history and various instances of government interference with business. Such detailed and well-documented statistical studies of the conditions of the immediate past (mistakenly often labeled studies about “present-day” conditions) are of great value for the future historian. They are no less important for the vocational tasks of lawyers and office clerks. But they are certainly not a substitute for the lack of instruction in economics. It is amazing that Stresemann’s doctoral thesis dealt with the conditions of the bottled-beer trade in Berlin. Under the conditions of the German university curriculum this meant that he devoted a considerable part of his university work to the study of the marketing of beer and of the drinking habits of the population. This was the intellectual equipment that the glorified German university system gave to a man who later acted as the Reich’s chancellor in the most critical years of German history.
> After the old professors who had got their chairs in the short flowering of German liberalism had died, it became impossible to hear anything about economics at the universities of the Reich. There were no longer any German economists, and the books of foreign economists could not be found in the libraries of the university seminars. The social scientists did not follow the example of the professors of theology who acquainted their students with the tenets and dogmas of other churches and sects and with the philosophy of atheism because they were eager to refute the creeds they deemed heretical. All that the students of the social sciences learned from their teachers was that economics is a spurious science and that the so-called economists are, as Marx said, sycophantic apologists of the unfair class interests of bourgeois exploiters, ready to sell the people to big business and finance capital.3 The graduates left the universities convinced advocates of totalitarianism either of the Nazi variety or of the Marxian brand.
> Conditions in other countries were similar. The most eminent establishment of French learning was the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris; its graduates filled the most important posts in public administration, politics and higher education. This school was dominated by Marxians and other supporters of full government control. In Russia the Imperial Government did not admit to a university chair anybody suspected of the liberal ideas of “Western” economics. But, on the other hand, it appointed many Marxians of the “loyal” wing of Marxism, i.e., those who kept out of the way of the revolutionary fanatics. Thus the Czars themselves contributed to the later triumph of Marxism.
> European totalitarianism is an upshot of bureaucracy’s preëminence in the field of education. The universities paved the way for the dictators.

Free book download:]]>
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 11:49:30 +0000
Dagny Open Discussion
As the government gets bigger, this policy takes away the vote from a lot more people, but it's also a lot more needed. If you entrust 30% of the population with power over the other 70%, that's a lot more dangerous. Corruption, abuse and tyranny are larger concerns. And the government employees can form a political alliance with only 30% of the regular citizens and win votes against the wishes of 70% of the regular citizens.]]>
Sat, 16 Mar 2019 20:41:55 +0000
Dagny Open Discussion
If the government is giving you money, you shouldn't be deciding on government policy. It's a conflict of interest: it's in your interest to vote to give yourself more money.

I'd be happy to start with just people who work for the government more directly: politicians, clerks for government agencies, stuff like that.]]>
Sat, 16 Mar 2019 17:39:33 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Disenfranchising public school teachers, cops, and soldiers (among others) doesn't seem like a realistic reform.

I'd like to temporarily disenfranchise welfare recipients, but even that won't happen.

We can't even get people to support idea that *new immigrants* shouldn't be welfare cases even though that's the law.]]>
Sat, 16 Mar 2019 17:19:54 +0000
Dagny Open Discussion Sat, 16 Mar 2019 16:10:31 +0000 curi Open Discussion
Excerpt From: Ludwig von Mises. “Bureaucracy.” Apple Books.

> [Suppose] The contractor spends some money with the intention of reducing costs of production. If he succeeds, the result is—under the cost plus a percentage of cost method—that his profit is curtailed. If he does not succeed, the government does not reimburse the outlays in question and he loses too.

Cost-saving innovation is lose/lose under cost plus!]]>
Sat, 16 Mar 2019 12:16:25 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
This is false, mean, and self-contradictory.]]>
Sat, 16 Mar 2019 11:03:05 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
> It's neat how different epistemologies have radically different answers to:

> - What people, animals and computers are
> - Animal sentience
> - The capabilities of children
> - What AGI will be + how to make it
> - Whether narrow superintelligence is possible.

This contradicts TCS. The TCS view is that there are no other parenting philosophies. Parents do stuff and then their philosophy is tacked on second as a rationalization, rather than them deciding what to do based on philosophy.]]>
Sat, 16 Mar 2019 10:53:41 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion

> Judgment: Tanett won’t debate or consider criticism. She hides her ignorance of CR by having no mechanisms for her errors to be corrected. Then she tries to teach misconceptions while lying that she’s an authority on CR. This contradicts CR and is immoral.]]>
Sat, 16 Mar 2019 10:16:20 +0000
curi Open Discussion

> The couple's 19-year-old daughter, Olivia Jade Giannulli, is a freshman at USC.

> CBS L.A. reports she posted a video on social media last year in which she said she doesn't "really care about school."

> "I don't know how much of school I'm going to attend," she said in a video posted to her YouTube channel, which has over 1.9 million subscribers. "I do want the experience of game days, partying, I don't really care about school, as you guys know."]]>
Thu, 14 Mar 2019 13:21:20 +0000
Dagny Social "Intellectuals"
> An old friend of mine, who taught political science for 25 years at the University of Colorado, was known to tell his students that the real reason they were there was to marry people from the right social class.
> While perhaps a little overly cynical, this assessment certainly wasn't totally wrong. Few parents have ever been overly concerned with the supposed education their children receive at a University like CU. The real concern has primarily been the receipt of a degree from a respectable — although not "elite" in the case of CU — university. And, whether they are consciously aware of it or not, an additional benefit has been to ensure that little Susie and little Johnny also become accustomed to the social mores and habits of a certain socio-economic class.
> Even if Susie doesn't meet a doctor at college, it's still best to send Susie to a place where she learns to socialize and interact with the sorts of people who will eventually become doctors and engineers and successful business people. When one is finished with his or her "education," one has a nice degree to show for it, plus a social circle comprised of presumably soon-to-be-successful people.
> So, it shouldn't surprise anyone that it turns out rich Hollywood actors with intellectually and academically mediocre children have become obsessed with getting their children into high-status colleges. They employ bribes and fake test scores to purchase what they've always been able to purchase otherwise: a stylish consumer product, which is essentially all a college degree is for most people.]]>
Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:56:07 +0000
Dagny Open Discussion
I tried quoting Mises to show that Mises agrees with Popper on demarcation (except terminology) and the guy got dumb/mad/dishonest/irrational or something.]]>
Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:09:37 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Thu, 14 Mar 2019 10:28:31 +0000 Anne B Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
> Aren't life's precious moments worth a few minutes?
> Get your mammogram
> Make an appointment today

I think the sign had a picture of some people smiling at each other.

This was designed to pull strings of *if you want to consider yourself rational you should get a mammogram because of course it's worth a few minutes to get a simple procedure that could result in more precious time with loved ones* and *it's undisputed that women should get mammograms so you should*.

The sign-makers want people to think that any other concerns of theirs besides the trivial “a few minutes” are too unimportant to even be mentioned. I'm not an expert, but I think there is concern about false positives leading to unnecessary procedures, and concern about radiation from the mammogram possibly being harmful. There is debate about when and how often women should get mammograms.

Also, it's a lie that a mammogram takes a few minutes. Even if the end result is negative, you have to figure out where to get the mammogram done, make an appointment, get to and from the appointment, fill out paperwork, wait in the waiting room and the exam room, change out of your clothes and back into them, chat with the receptionist and the technician, and make sure the right people see the results. That's way more than a few minutes.]]>
Thu, 14 Mar 2019 09:12:16 +0000
Anne B Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings Thu, 14 Mar 2019 08:30:44 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Thu, 14 Mar 2019 03:59:03 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion Thu, 14 Mar 2019 03:25:50 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion
> However, their failure to adopt empiricism, made continued contribution difficult.

The comma after "empiricism" splits the subject (failure) and verb (made). It has no upside and due to the first comma it gives the appearance of creating a comma-delimited phrase. It's really bad.]]>
Thu, 14 Mar 2019 02:57:24 +0000
curi Open Discussion
Popper's demarcation criterion was used to reject Marx, Freud and Adler as non-science. They claimed the authority and prestige of science but used different methods. And they claimed to have a lot of explanatory power but that was because they were compatible with everything (can't be refuted, actually not really saying anything).

None of this is an attack on non-science in general. Popper himself was a philosopher. He didn't think non-science, such as philosophy of science, was all, as a field, bad or dumb or whatever.

If something isn't empirically falsifiable, *you can still criticize it*. Popper advocated critical thinking, critical discussion, and all sorts of types of criticism besides the type "contradicted by an observation". That type of criticism is what stands out about science (meaning empirical science, not meaning all rational or organized thinking), but it's not necessary to learning.

Learning in general, according to Popper, follows a schema presented in OK: P1 -> TT -> EE -> P2.

I'll just assume you know what that means, unless you ask. As you can see, it's not specific to the (empirical) sciences. It's a general purpose evolutionary epistemology which explains how we, despite our fallibility, can learn incrementally via creating ideas plus error correction.

Popper's acceptance of non-science included moral philosophy. WoP:

> I suggest, therefore, that a *new* professional ethics, fit not only for scientists, be based upon the following twelve principles.

Notice how he doesn't reject non-science or non-scientists. But the main point:

> I ask the reader to consider what I am proposing here as suggestions. They are meant to point out that, in the field of ethics too, one can put forward suggestions which may be discussed and improved by critical discussion, as Xenophanes and his successors, it seems, were among the first to discover.

Popper thinks his epistemology works *for ethics* because its focus is on critical discussion which can be done without empirical refutation. Economics is fine too. It's just not a "science" in a particular terminology designed to combat e.g. "scientific socialism", but not to attack all non-science (such as ethics, economics, or Popper's own work).

You bring up Hoppe, whose work on Popper is poor scholarship:

> Mises's own, entirely negative verdict on Popper can be found in his The Ultimate Foundation ofEconomic Science, p. 70.

This statement is factually false. Mises' verdict on Popper in that book is not on page 70, which contains a more minor point, nor is it "entirely" negative. Page 70 is the part where Mises complains about Popper's demarcation criterion. In his defense, Mises wrote that before C&R came out with its explanation of the demarcation criterion (which I explained above). Mises' primary verdict on Popper in the book is that Popper's epistemology is *correct* regarding the natural sciences, but doesn't apply to other fields (that's not an "entirely" negative verdict, it's actually quite positive in a huge way). This was written in 1962 before Popper had published developments of his epistemology beyond LScD.

For more on Hoppe and Popper see

If you want to learn about Popper's ideas, please consult my guide for which selections to read (note that all recommend selections were published after Mises' comments on Popper discussed above):

PS, re [Gordon](, that page appears to have a formatting error or typo rendering a key part unreadable:

> Now, consider this argument:

> p or q not-p

> q

Then it says:

> Once more, not-p should be falsifiable if p is, though Karl Popper has implausibly denied this.

Why is that implausible? Popper explained this. Gordon doesn't address Popper's reasoning, which I will now summarize: Consider "Zero swans are black" for p. You can empirically falsify that with one black swan. not-p is equivalent to: "At least one swan is black". You can't empirically falsify that. Observe 5000 white swans, or 5 trillion, and it could still correct.]]>
Thu, 14 Mar 2019 02:47:17 +0000
curi Open Discussion

Popper had a negative influence on Hayek in terms of methodology.

Of course Popper's philosophy of science provides a reason to reject Austrian economics, we can't verify the human action principle without introspection (aka can't verify it), and it's not something that we believe is falsifiable (going off of Quine's definition of a priori justification.) You really must be kidding? Popper's methodology labels AE as pseudoscience!

Both Hoppe and David Gordon have spent time discussing this in the past, I would recommend listening / reading to both.


Thu, 14 Mar 2019 02:46:48 +0000
curi Open Discussion
> Why some people says that the Austrian School of Economics isn't taken seriously in the academia?

Lots of reasons. A big one is because academia is a tool of the government which wants yesmen who support government control over everything (including the economy). It's complicated though, it's partly the other way around (government is a tool of the "intellectual and cultural elites").'

I recommend Mises's book on the anti-capitalistic mentality.


I also replied to a comment:

> A lot of it is due to the unwarranted adherence to Karl Popper in the sciences, which is separate from contemporary philosophy of science where he is dismissed.

What are you talking about? He dedicated a book to Hayek, so he's certainly not spreading the message that Austrians should be ignored... He said little about econ (he did write a bunch of criticism of Marx though). And his philosophy of reason doesn't provide a reason to reject Austrian econ.]]>
Wed, 13 Mar 2019 23:25:49 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Wed, 13 Mar 2019 21:25:07 +0000 Anonymous Submit Podcast Questions

> DD: Human well-being, yes. Now, I actually think that’s true, but I don’t think you have to rest on that. I think the criterion of human well-being can be a conclusion, not an axiom, because this idea that there can’t be any moral knowledge because it can’t be derived from the senses is exactly the same argument that people make when they say there can’t be any scientific knowledge because it can’t be derived from the senses. In the 20th century, empiricism was found to be nonsense, and some people therefore concluded that scientific knowledge is nonsense.

> But the real truth is that science is not based on empiricism, it’s based on reason, and so is morality. So if you adopt a rational attitude to morality, and therefore say that morality consists of moral knowledge—which always consists of conjectures, doesn’t have any basis, doesn’t need a basis, only needs modes of criticism, and those modes of criticism operate by criteria which are themselves subject to modes of criticism—then you come to a transcendent moral truth, from which I think yours emerges as an approximation, which is that institutions that suppress the growth of moral knowledge are immoral, because they can only be right if the final truth is already known.

> But if all knowledge is conjectural and subject to improvement, then protecting the means of improving knowledge is more important than any particular piece of knowledge. I think that—even without thinking of things like all humans are equal and so on—will lead directly to, for example, that slavery is an abomination. And, as I said, I think human well-being is a good approximation in most practical situations, but not an absolute truth. I can imagine situations in which it would be right for the human race as a whole to commit suicide.]]>
Tue, 12 Mar 2019 16:08:51 +0000
Lives worth living. Anonymous Submit Podcast Questions In a podcast of Sam Harris with David Deutsch (DD), DD said something that caught my ear. He said that he saw a situation where it's justifiable to the whole human race to commit suicide as a whole. And that lead me to think about that issue. Given that you spent so much time discussing with him, do you know what is that justification? What made me think about was the justification to end ones life. There are people that have truly horrible lives, so horrible that if you were to choose to give existence to that person before he (i'll assume he's a he for simplicity) was born you would increase the overall suffering of humans. So that presumably would be a bad thing. The thing for me that is troubling me is that once that live exists you can only end it by persuading that person to commit suicide. But we know that we have an huge bias against death. So even if that person knew that, he wouldn't kill himself. If he was being rational then he would concede that he was making a mistake. How can we proceed in this case? The truly best thing to do is to kill that person but he doesn't want that. So, killing him is a kind of violence? (because we did something to him without he's consent) Is this an exception where it's a good thing to apply violence?]]> Tue, 12 Mar 2019 14:09:32 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion
I think if it's a proper noun (so "Undoing" and "Aging" are capitalized) then "conference" is part of the noun and should be capitalized too.

"Undoing" and "Aging" are both modifiers, not nouns. The thing is an undoing-aging-conference. And it is a proper noun, that's correct. So "conference" should be capitalized.]]>
Tue, 12 Mar 2019 13:53:04 +0000
curi Open Discussion
> SENS Research Foundation (SRF) and Forever Healthy Foundation (FHF) want to see you at the second annual Undoing Aging conference, so with less than 3 weeks to go, you should definitely register as soon as possible to secure your spot!

Long. Boring. Buries lead (2 big org names, who cares). Generic (we want to see you). More boring ("second annual", who cares). Finally the point, "Undoing Aging conference". They could have just said "Announcing the Undoing Aging conference! Sign up now!" and it'd be way better. Their writing is incompetent.

It goes on though. They try to get ppl to join. They try to time pressure ppl and imply that ur spot is insecure. It's really clumsy tho. And:

> you should definitely register as soon as possible

"definitely" is clumsy, it's not pressuring, it's not snappy. it's telling ppl what to do ineffectively. it's really bad to try to lead and fail to. lead successfully or don't lead. the whole "you should" is bad. don't tell ppl what they should do. you can say "Register now!" and it's actually less offensively ordering ppl around.

"as soon as possible" is super weak. it's handing ppl excuses (it's not possible right now, i'll do it later). its setting an expectation that as soon as possible is NOT now. and it's wordy. and why are they going so out of their way to avoid the word "now"?]]>
Tue, 12 Mar 2019 12:46:24 +0000
curi Social "Intellectuals"
Find thinkers you like who have stuff you judge as high quality. It should be stuff where you can judge, e.g. an issue you know about, or a summary or critique of something you've read. If you've hardly read anything, you'll need to read some common ones so you can judge people's summaries and reviews for yourself.

Then you can use their opinions of other stuff you haven't read as tentative a starting point. And look for criticisms and contrasting views. For every counter argument, someone should have addressed it. If you can't find anything which addresses a counter argument, *don't go by reputation* – recognize you don't know or investigate yourself (or switch sides and agree with the counter argument, but then you have to see if that other view has addressed all the counter arguments against it, and you have to do quality evaluations of the authors on that side that you're going to get info from, and so on).

Instead of social status, it should be about *arguments about what is correct and mistaken*. They can be written down and evaluated. The correctness of summaries of the state of the field can themselves be argued about. Everything can be done with arguments you can judge for yourself, even though you don't have time to go into full detail on some matters personally.

Rational people say things like, "As far as I know, Rand evaluated Kant and Rand's evaluation is correct. Do you have a criticism which shows where she went wrong? If you do, I can look more closely at that specific part of her analysis. I have reviewed many criticisms of Rand already and found them very bad, and that badness is documented. I can provide dozens of examples by myself and others, if needed."

> If I don't care about social climbing I will end up having a bad job and that's bad. So I have to give some importance to it.

Most people need to get hired *fewer than ten times* for *important* jobs in their whole life. (You can get a temporary job at a coffee shop without social climbing.)

So instead of social climbing so you can impress lots of people, if the goal is to get hired for a good job, then it's better to put more effort into your job searches. Find some more rational people who are hiring and will look at skill and merit, and put some extra work into showing your merit to them. E.g. find a job which hires mostly based on *work sample tests* instead of reputation. You can be totally unacceptable to over 90% of employers in your field and still have *plenty* left to get hired at. You only need to please a handful of people, in your entire career, to get hired a handful of times.]]>
Mon, 11 Mar 2019 21:47:19 +0000
How should it be? perfeito2 Social "Intellectuals"
If I don't care about social climbing I will end up having a bad job and that's bad. So I have to give some importance to it.

I have a question: If reputation is fraudulent, how can I find good ideas without reading what every thinker wrote?]]>
Mon, 11 Mar 2019 21:13:07 +0000
Jamie Sucking In Your Gut Mon, 11 Mar 2019 20:57:15 +0000 Goldratt: In Japan, The Choice outsells The Goal Josh Jordan Goldratt vs. Japan
... when I came with *The Choice*, which is talking about the approach, the thinking, and so on, *The Choice* was a miserable failure in the [United] States. It was, and it still is, selling more in Japan than *The Goal*....]]>
Mon, 11 Mar 2019 19:41:53 +0000
curi Open Discussion
Jesus these people are idiots.

Is a private right wing anarchist subreddit that invited me a couple days ago.]]>
Mon, 11 Mar 2019 17:49:00 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Sun, 10 Mar 2019 22:52:23 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion
> Three months ago, the CEO of Gravity Payments, a Seattle credit card processing firm, announced that all of the firm’s employees would be paid a minimum of $70,000 a year, according to this story. Now, the firm has fallen on hard times, and some of the firm’s “higher valued” employees have quit. One employee who quit said, “He gave raises to people who have the least skills and are the least equipped to do the job, and the ones who were taking on the most didn’t get much of a bump.” Another who quit said, “Now the people who were just clocking in and out were making the same as me. It shackles high performers to less motivated team members.”]]>
Sun, 10 Mar 2019 15:46:04 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
AOC is a puppet.]]>
Sun, 10 Mar 2019 15:28:19 +0000
curi Open Discussion
Having options available has value whether they are contractually guaranteed (meaning: if the option goes away, you get paid) or not. This isn't an analogy. As I mention, non-contractually-guaranteed options are tangible enough to affect the prices people are willing to pay for homes. That's because in many cases they are highly predictable and reliable despite the lack of contract.

Tidal wave detection can be sold in lots of ways. It is, like everything, a good with many parts, some of which are easier to sell than others. You can sell the advertising that goes with the announcement, the name of the system, and control over choices about the threshold for sending out a notification and how many categories of notification there are and the alignment of the detector so it's better at detecting waves that will first hit in one place or another. You can sell access to data sets to ocean scientists. You can sell exclusivity: you only warn one particular news channel, so they get the info first and can brag about that (news stories of all sorts can be belatedly copied but having it first still has value, plus you can probably sue rival news channels if they use your info in any kind of official way.). Or a life insurance company could pay for detection so that fewer people die in tidal waves. I could go on and on.

Providing *all* goods is a creative process involving considering what to sell, how to sell it, and what not to sell. Tidal wave detection is *no different*. And it's routine that a good would be worth selling if you look at the good narrowly, but it's not worth it when you factor in some aspect of a particular method of selling it, e.g. it takes up too much shelf space to be worth selling at retail stores.

The broader point here is that there is no black and white distinction between public and private goods. The categories are wrong. They aren't sharp or exact categories. So the argument "X is a public good, therefore..." is just plain wrong. There is no category of "public goods", as distinct from private goods. There are mixed goods and their "degree of publicness" (a concept which has not been elaborated on due to the misconception that public goods are a sharp category rather than a blurry matter of degree) is actually usually not even a notable characteristic. Understanding the complex bundles of goods dealt with by businesses, some sold and more unsold, ruins the illusion of "public goods" as a well-defined, important category (and ruins the related illusion that businesses sell most goods they produce, and usually need to sell things in order to produce them). Understanding this perspective, this way of seeing business activity, makes it easy to see the public goods doctrine is nonsense which is trying to gloss over a lot of the world's nuance.]]>
Sun, 10 Mar 2019 15:08:55 +0000
curi Open Discussion
Salerno's paper is 80% philosophy, which is not his field. That undermines what he says. He wants people to be trained in Austrian Economics before participating in the field (at like a PhD level, not reading a few books), but he hasn't earned a philosophy PhD prior to making philosophical comments. Issues like how knowledge is created and advanced, and the proper and improper roles of tradition and authority in that process, are part of the sub-field of philosophy called “epistemology” and have been worked on by philosophers like Karl Popper.

People from other fields often stray into philosophy. That's understandable because it's the field which deals with *methods of thinking and learning*, including how to debate or evaluate ideas, which are needed by all other fields. I think people would do better if they *knew* they were dabbling in philosophy and tried to learn the field (not to a PhD level, but some).

This matter is confusing because currently most philosophy PhDs go to people with philosophical ideas with negative value – the credentialing authorities and famous names in philosophy are bad. So philosophy has a bad reputation among good people. So people like Salerno don’t respect it (at the same time that he asks for respect for the great masters of his own field). But it's nevertheless important to seek out good philosophers to learn from instead of just using one's intuitions about philosophy. Many intuitions were picked up from the culture and inadequately critically examined, and could be improved on with some study of useful philosophers (such as Ayn Rand, who Mises respected highly, and whose book “Philosophy: Who Needs It” explains why philosophy matters, see particularly chapters 1 and 2).]]>
Sun, 10 Mar 2019 01:01:47 +0000
curi Open Discussion

I'm not finished with the first article, by Salerno. I think it's interesting and he's wrong in some important ways but I predict the other side will also be wrong.]]>
Sun, 10 Mar 2019 00:04:21 +0000
Does this contribute anything to economics? curi Open Discussion

This relates to the 'The "Austro-Punkism" Debate' post. Salerno quotes Mises, Human Action p 873:

> There never lived at the same time more than a score of men whose work contributed anything to economics.

I'm curious if anyone can tell me, with details/reasoning, whether my ideas regarding public goods contribute anything to economics or not:

I have made some effort to review the existing literature (some of which I discuss at the beginning of the article) and I believe I say some new things. But I'm a philosopher, not an economist. I haven't thoroughly read the economics literature. BTW I was kicked off the Mises Scholars email list, over 10 years ago, for lack of credentials, for asking a question about public goods and sources to read, to try to get info related to this.]]>
Sun, 10 Mar 2019 00:00:11 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion Sat, 09 Mar 2019 18:11:23 +0000 Anonymous Submit Podcast Questions Fri, 08 Mar 2019 20:56:54 +0000 curi Submit Podcast Questions
Index funds for small or large sums of money. In the US, use Vanguard. They are good at it and have lower fees. The simplest type is a target date fund. If you want more info, try Ramit Sethi's book: I Will Teach You To Be Rich

The partial exception is if you have employer matching for your 401k. Like for every $2 you put in, your employer puts in $2 or $1, up to a limit. If you have that, max it out. That's super efficient. It might come with restrictions on investments so you have to get other index funds, but it's still worth it. It should allow index funds of some type.

Index funds are good because they give you more diversification. They are the opposite of trying to pick winners and losers. Basically you want bet on the economy as a whole (including international companies, not just US).]]>
Fri, 08 Mar 2019 13:47:44 +0000
Anonymous Submit Podcast Questions Fri, 08 Mar 2019 13:40:57 +0000 Anonymous Open Discussion
The teachers doing this *don't know how to think* and therefore *can't* teach children how to think. Expecting them to do a good job is ridiculous. Should recognize from this that they are incapable of doing a good job. They could hide their politics way more and keep it mostly out of their teaching, but they would still be bad teachers that I sure as hell wouldn't entrust my kid's education to.]]>
Fri, 08 Mar 2019 11:34:30 +0000
Anonymous Open Discussion
Horowitz, like ET, is a convert from the left. He was raised differently. More sensitive to certain kinds of humanitarian issues. I think that's relevant.]]>
Fri, 08 Mar 2019 11:32:54 +0000