curi blog comments http://curi.us/comments/recent Explanations for the curious en-us Anonymous Open Discussion
> The U.S. school lunch program is making room on menus again for noodles, biscuits, tortillas and other foods made mostly of refined grains.

> The Trump administration is scaling back contested school lunch standards implemented under the Obama administration including one that required only whole grains be served. The U.S. Department of Agriculture said Thursday *only half the grains served will need to be whole grains*, a change it said will do away with the current bureaucracy of requiring schools to obtain special waivers to serve select refined grains foods.

Emphasis added. One step towards evil, half a step back to reasonableness? This still sucks. Same with allowing only low fat chocolate milk instead of none, it's only making it partially better and it's still worse than the past.]]>
Mon, 10 Dec 2018 14:53:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11457 http://curi.us/comments/show/11457
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Take that ghastly soul-destroying document, the curriculum vitae. It is as inherently inflationary as clipping the coinage or fiat money. A friend of mine, whom I knew to be competent and conscientious, consistently failed to be appointed to positions for which he was eminently qualified. My wife, who knew the ways of modern appointment committees, asked to see the curriculum vitae he was supplying with his applications for the jobs.

> She was horrified: He would never get a job with such a curriculum, it was far too old-fashioned. It gave merely his formal qualifications and the positions he had previously held, with references. No, no, said my wife to him, what you need is to boast. You have to make out that your piddling research might be chosen very soon for a Nobel Prize, that your occasional good deeds were as at great a personal sacrifice as those of Mother Teresa, and that you are a person whose outside interests are carried out at levels equal to the professional; in other words that you are multitalented, multivalent, and quite out of the ordinary. Moreover, your ambition must be to save the world, to be a pioneer and a path-breaker, not merely to do your best in the circumstances. You must be grandiose, not modest.

> Of course, every other applicant would be similarly boastful, and so, like star architects trying to outdo each other in the outlandish nature of their buildings, my friend’s boasts had to be preposterous, quite out of keeping with his admirable character. But once he had swallowed the bitter pill of realism, he was appointed at once. We all have to be Barons Munchausen now.]]>
Sun, 09 Dec 2018 06:08:17 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11456 http://curi.us/comments/show/11456
Anonymous Harry Binswanger Refuses To Think
https://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/03/04/amnesty-for-illegal-immigrants-is-not-enough-they-deserve-an-apology/

> Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants Is Not Enough, They Deserve An Apology

He ignores, for example, illegal immigrants who come here and use welfare. And he repeatedly compares America's defenders to Nazis.

Not a word of the article engages with the arguments of the other side. The whole point of the article is to grant the sanction of Ayn Rand and capitalism to the left.]]>
Sat, 08 Dec 2018 12:40:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11455 http://curi.us/comments/show/11455
curi Open Discussion
![](https://curi.us/img/lhOWM0sJJAwFHhX-677x714.png)]]>
Fri, 07 Dec 2018 13:38:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11454 http://curi.us/comments/show/11454
curi Open Discussion
![](https://curi.us/img/BBRY2xpc9YEwqq6-405x89.png)

He wrote a *very very very* good book on capitalism. Left sidebar: http://capitalism.net]]>
Fri, 07 Dec 2018 08:04:24 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11453 http://curi.us/comments/show/11453
internetrules Open Discussion
it literally never mentioned calories in vs calories out, and at 6:25 it says "stick to low fat and low calorie food", how does that help for weight loss? so what if its 50% fat? how many calories is it? calories is the only thing that matters for long term weight loss

it dissed fast food as well for no reason. i guess its a common enough cultural believe that fast food is bad, that you can mention fast food in passing in a video on how to lose weight, and it implies fast food is bad.

it also is spreading myths to make you eat more, at 2:46 "everyone knows you cant have dessert until after you eat your dinner, but maybe its time to skip dessert all together", but what if dessert is my favorite part? does that mean i HAVE to eat dinner if i am only interested in the dessert? why cant i just skip dinner? or maybe have a dinner i actually like so i dont feel like i need dessert. it never answers those questions, or gives alternatives.

good advice in the video: dont shop while hungry, that makes sense. when your shopping for food, youll look at a food and think "yeah id eat that" and then buy it, even if you dislike it compared to other foods that you usually buy, or you buy to much food cuz you constantly think "id eat that" cuz your hungry right now.]]>
Fri, 07 Dec 2018 06:20:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11452 http://curi.us/comments/show/11452
Anonymous Open Discussion
> This kind of self-serving self-promotion is not reliable as information about other ppl like Trump.

I agree Tucker is self promoting but his criticisms also seemed kinda fair overall.

> Also, when Carlson says those things – wall, fixing healthcare, stop tax-funding PP – are lost causes, doesn't that mean he in fact *does not* know how to get things done? Cause it doesn't sound like he's saying they are lost cause *for Trump* but he could do them. We need a prez who thinks those are NOT lost causes! (esp wall and healthcare, the PP thing is a way smaller issue)

It was ambiguous to me what he meant by lost causes. He could mean doomed to fail from start, or lost cause at this point in Trump's term with Dems taking House (but maybe hope in future), or now a lost cause forever cuz Trump failed.]]>
Thu, 06 Dec 2018 17:18:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11451 http://curi.us/comments/show/11451
Anonymous Open Discussion
This kind of self-serving self-promotion is not reliable as information about other ppl like Trump.

Also, when Carlson says those things – wall, fixing healthcare, stop tax-funding PP – are lost causes, doesn't that mean he in fact *does not* know how to get things done? Cause it doesn't sound like he's saying they are lost cause *for Trump* but he could do them. We need a prez who thinks those are NOT lost causes! (esp wall and healthcare, the PP thing is a way smaller issue)]]>
Thu, 06 Dec 2018 14:40:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11450 http://curi.us/comments/show/11450
Anonymous Open Discussion
> “His chief promises were that he would build the wall, defund Planned Parenthood and repeal Obamacare, and he hasn’t done any of those things,” Carlson said, adding that those goals were probably lost causes. Trump, he said, doesn’t understand the system, and his own agencies don’t support him.

> “He knows very little about the legislative process, hasn’t learned anything, hasn’t surrounded himself with people that can get it done, hasn’t done all the things you need to do, so it’s mostly his fault that he hasn’t achieved those things,” he added.]]>
Thu, 06 Dec 2018 14:30:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11449 http://curi.us/comments/show/11449
Anonymous Fallibilism
So you disagree with the blog post but you didn’t explain why you disagree.

You titled your comment as a response. I think a response that disagrees with what it’s responding to should include an explanation for the disagreement.]]>
Thu, 06 Dec 2018 13:42:33 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11448 http://curi.us/comments/show/11448
Response Brendan Fallibilism Wed, 05 Dec 2018 22:31:11 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11447 http://curi.us/comments/show/11447 Anonymous Open Discussion
Fraud by Samsung. Advertising the pictures their phone can take using pictures taken by other cameras. Again.]]>
Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:41:20 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11446 http://curi.us/comments/show/11446
Anonymous Discussion About Casual Gamers and Game Design, Difficulty, Development and Playtesting
Hoplite has a tutorial that teaches the basics in steps.]]>
Mon, 03 Dec 2018 08:00:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11445 http://curi.us/comments/show/11445
GISTE Discussion About Casual Gamers and Game Design, Difficulty, Development and Playtesting
Hoplite is awesome. I play it a few times a day on my iPhone. The more I play it the more I love it.]]>
Mon, 03 Dec 2018 07:58:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11444 http://curi.us/comments/show/11444
anonymous Discussion About Casual Gamers and Game Design, Difficulty, Development and Playtesting Mon, 03 Dec 2018 07:11:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11443 http://curi.us/comments/show/11443 anonymous Discussion About Casual Gamers and Game Design, Difficulty, Development and Playtesting >
> strategy THINKING would be the WORST thing u could put in a game if u want it to be mainstream
>
> that’s probably why the ipad boardgame-like turn based battle games i liked (like battle of the bulge) went out of business

Does anyone know of a good single-player strategy game?]]>
Mon, 03 Dec 2018 07:02:17 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11442 http://curi.us/comments/show/11442
Evan Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations Wed, 28 Nov 2018 23:33:46 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11441 http://curi.us/comments/show/11441 Anonymous Open Discussion
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2018-11-28.html]]>
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:48:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11440 http://curi.us/comments/show/11440
curi Open Discussion
get ublock origin.

for chrome just google it. for safari use this link:

https://safari-extensions.apple.com/details/?id=com.el1t.uBlock-3NU33NW2M3

alternative: download the videos, e.g. with youtube-dl]]>
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:43:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11439 http://curi.us/comments/show/11439
Anonymous Open Discussion
https://xkcd.com/2078/]]>
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:12:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11438 http://curi.us/comments/show/11438
Anonymous Open Discussion
>> These people – almost everyone – only state requests as a last resort, as a major escalation. So if you make a request to them, they think it's an ultimatum, a very strong demand with no flexibility, no remaining opportunity to negotiate or discuss.

> My guess is that in most social situations Evan would probably act like most ppl and consider a verbal request a big deal. He’d want to get along with ppl and have smooth social interactions. In order to achieve this, he’d take requests seriously. Furthermore, like most ppl, he’d often try to guess what the other person wants and then preemptively do that so they don’t even have to verbally ask (this fits with him being altruistic).

Evan being relatively conventional when it comes to requests is also consistent with him not wanting to come out and directly ask for what he wants. Dagny talked about this in #11415.

>He just doesn't want to say or think about what he *is* asking for.]]>
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:15:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11437 http://curi.us/comments/show/11437
Anonymous Open Discussion
> What a jerk to do things he expects to be hated and knows are unwelcome. And why "eventually" instead of literally today? But anyway, he thinks that all verbal requests are minor things and actions (banhammers) speak louder than words. It's a very common and bad attitude to life.

I’m unsure about this last part. How do you integrate it with this:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/fallible-ideas/rbw7OXCH6Jw/PuGYDOqSBwAJ

>These people – almost everyone – only state requests as a last resort, as a major escalation. So if you make a request to them, they think it's an ultimatum, a very strong demand with no flexibility, no remaining opportunity to negotiate or discuss.

My guess is that in most social situations Evan would probably act like most ppl and consider a verbal request a big deal. He’d want to get along with ppl and have smooth social interactions. In order to achieve this, he’d take requests seriously. Furthermore, like most ppl, he’d often try to guess what the other person wants and then preemptively do that so they don’t even have to verbally ask (this fits with him being altruistic).

But this social situation is *different* to him.

I don’t know exactly what’s going on, but he clearly doesn’t give a fuck about the interaction going well. He’s fully expecting (maybe welcoming??) being banned or hated or whatever and doesn’t seem to care. So, with these ideas by his side, maybe he’s given himself license to be a jerk and try to attack and hurt ET. He sort of comes off as though he’s fed up (with something?) and not going to take it anymore. Also, he sort of comes off as though he’s testing the situation. And when there’s no downside to him (e.g. he’s not afraid of being banned or hated in this case), then he’s willing to see just how far he can push it.]]>
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 07:35:55 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11436 http://curi.us/comments/show/11436
44783 Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
Evan, I’m not sure I understand correctly but are you thinking that I’m Elliot ? I’m asking cuz you seemed to be replying to me and you addressed me as Elliot. Or maybe you didn’t mean to do that.]]>
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 05:05:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11435 http://curi.us/comments/show/11435
Anonymous Open Discussion
> President Trump has hundreds of unfilled presidentially appointed positions because Democrats have stalled the nominations process out as much as their diminished power in the post-nuclear Senate has allowed. But it is the Republican majority that has placed a total blockade on the usual safety valve for temporary appointments – the recess appointment power – by refusing to go on recess for the last two years. And with Democrats set to take the House and be in position to deny the Senate consent to recess starting January 3, there is a real possibility that President Trump will go an entire presidential term without being able to make recess appointments.

> It has been nearly eight years since the United States Senate officially recessed – a streak aided by the practice of holding so-called pro forma sessions every three days throughout every adjournment.

> President Bill Clinton used the recess appointment power 139 times, including 96 full-time positions. President George W. Bush used it 171 times, including 99 full-time positions.

> You might reasonably expect no president will ever get recess appointments again except when the same party controls the House, Senate, and president. But for the last two years, the same party – the Republican Party – has in fact controlled the House, Senate, and president. And yet, the Senate has never recessed.]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:44:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11434 http://curi.us/comments/show/11434
Evan Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
you're using "contradict" incorrectly. My actions are consistent with your paranoid theory about me, yes. They are also consistent with the negation of that paranoid theory. Elliot you are emotionally troubled, petty, and inauthentic. And an uninteresting person because you waste all your time doing that.]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 21:20:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11433 http://curi.us/comments/show/11433
Dagny Open Discussion
- "interesting" is vague and unclear
- "interesting" often means "bad"
- "interesting" is a way to draw attention to things while avoiding saying what you think about them
- "interesting" is a way to attack people while having plausible deniability that you attacked them (you can say they are overreacting to nothing if they respond negatively)]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 18:57:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11432 http://curi.us/comments/show/11432
44783 Open Discussion
Maybe the social thing I was oblivious of is that Evan didn’t really think that dagny was paranoid and rather it was just an attack for the audience to see.]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 18:25:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11431 http://curi.us/comments/show/11431
Anonymous Open Discussion
Oh and if it’s socially oblivious, I wanna know more details. Oblivious of what social thing ?]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 18:23:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11430 http://curi.us/comments/show/11430
44783 Open Discussion
> This comment is either passive-aggressive (against Evan) or it's really socially oblivious. "Interesting" can be literal, but it's a very commonly used word for equivocations and not directly saying what one actually means. In this case, it appears to be a standard interesting=bad kinda use where the person meant that Evan was wrong and dumb, and wanted to draw attention to the issue, but didn't want to say it openly.

That’s interesting too.

How can I or you figure out which one it is?

If I was passive aggressive I wanna fix that and never do it again.]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 18:21:35 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11429 http://curi.us/comments/show/11429
Dagny Open Discussion
This comment is either passive-aggressive (against Evan) or it's really socially oblivious. "Interesting" can be literal, but it's a very commonly used word for equivocations and not directly saying what one actually means. In this case, it appears to be a standard interesting=bad kinda use where the person meant that Evan was wrong and dumb, and wanted to draw attention to the issue, but didn't want to say it openly.]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 17:18:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11428 http://curi.us/comments/show/11428
curi Open Discussion
god i have *so many* fans i'm not even confident about guessing who wrote this. can't keep track of them all! i feel a bit confused. commonly when ppl write that much i can tell who it is.]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 15:25:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11427 http://curi.us/comments/show/11427
the same anon as before, now i'm 44783 Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
i didn't explain my comment well. i tried to use the word "Apparently" to convey that i'm speaking of only what evan said (rather than addressing his hidden premises). and evan only talked about dagny making a mistake and being self-unaware. he didn't mention his (hidden) premises.

example hidden premise that evan has (but consciously or not): dagny is trying to win at a social game. the social game has winners and losers. the winner wins over the audience. the audience concludes that the winner is the smart one and his arguments are right, and the loser is the dumb one and his arguments are wrong. in this game, the one trying to win is not truth-seeking.

and i think evan thinks that he's not playing this social game. but his actions seem to contradict this. he insulted dagny ("piece of garbage") which is a way to try to win at such a social game.]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 15:21:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11426 http://curi.us/comments/show/11426
curi Open Discussion
thx

FYI the Twitter DMs Evan is referring to began with

> Try meditating to porn. rsd fucked me up.

Then there are 5 more messages (that's it) on the same topic. RSD is Real Social Dynamics (a PUA group that i think is pretty good) e.g. https://www.youtube.com/user/RSDTyler

Saying he tried to help me in Twitter DMs is not honest. It wasn't even about philosophy. He just tried to get me to hate/reject PUA or something ... while knowing absolutely nothing about my personal/dating life and what problems it does and doesn't have.]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 15:10:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11425 http://curi.us/comments/show/11425
44783 Open Discussion
> Dagny by insubstantial I was referring to your claim that I'm not open to your better way of learning that you won't state. To make that claim out of nowhere is so socially repulsive I would guess you have no friends. You could learn that it's incorrect to do this by going outside ever and talking to someone. Paranoia means theories about people that are irrational and cause you fear.

i find it interesting that evan has interpreted the situation as though Dagny is experiencing fear.

> Elliot you are a person who wastes his time slandering people. I'm sorry I didn't respond to Alan's last comment for awhile but I was homeless and hungry, looking for jobs and places to stay for a few months starting roughly around that time. I fully expect that you will eventually hate me so much that you block me on all your websites or whatever. I don't know what goes on in your head and I find your particular emotional problem uninteresting because you even explicitly oppose altruism. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.

How would evan know that elliot’s position on altruism is dumb? he doesn’t say whether or not he’s even investigated it, let alone understood it to the point that he could make an honest judgement of it.

> I've had moral integrity from a very young age and can't relate.

I don’t think Evan knows what the word integrity means. he's sorta implying that elliot has doesn't something that goes against his principles but as far as i can see, elliot has not done that, and evan has not explained (nor even stated without explanation) that elliot has acted contrary to his principles.

> You need socialization badly. I tried to help you in twitter dms. Maybe you have a delusion that you shouldn't do things people recommend until they respond to the games you play with discussions and launching highly irrational criticisms at every detail of people's claims, making your discussions intractable.

evan doesn’t seem to be giving elliot the benefit of the doubt. whether or not somebody should take somebody else’s suggestion depends on whether or not he’s convinced that doing the suggestion would benefit him. so if somebody suggests that i read something, i’m not doing it unless i’m convinced i’ll benefit. that may involve asking the suggestor to tell me what’s good about it, how it will benefit me, etc. if that discussion ends without me being convinced, i’m not reading what was suggested.

> I come on here to discuss important things like philosophy, and the only use you can find for it is to try to create interpersonal drama. It is no wonder no one likes you, and you will only get dumber and dumber if you keep wasting your time like this.

but it’s not true that no one likes elliot. i think he’s the best. i’m glad to know him and glad for our interactions.

one thing i especially like about elliot is his honesty. especially his honesty about how i’m behaving. *especially* his honesty about cases where i’m being dishonest. he’s shining a light on something that i’m refusing to shine a light on myself (and no else i know has shined a light on). i appreciate that very much. No one else is good/smart enough to treat me that way. (Well maybe there are others who are good/smart enough but they haven’t done it, so I wouldn’t know.)]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 15:01:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11424 http://curi.us/comments/show/11424
Anonymous Open Discussion Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:49:27 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11423 http://curi.us/comments/show/11423 curi Open Discussion
http://curi.us/2126-open-discussion?comments=40&start=11400

Unlike the comment limit, it's not maintained if you click links.

This lets you permalink a specific comment and also have a fast page load.

Let's say I like #11419

Then I will use that id as the start, and choose how many extra comments, i want, say up to 9 more after it:

http://curi.us/2126-open-discussion?comments=10&start=11419

This will let me make newsletter links that load faster. The comment limited feature couldn't be used with permalinks before because if you limit to the 20 latest comments and ppl post 20 new comments then the thing you were linking wouldn't be included anymore.]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:38:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11422 http://curi.us/comments/show/11422
❓🤔❓A Mysterious Person ❓🤔❓ Open Discussion
> That struck me more as *sadly typical* :/

:-(]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:05:31 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11421 http://curi.us/comments/show/11421
Anonymous Open Discussion
That struck me more as *sadly typical* :/]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:03:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11420 http://curi.us/comments/show/11420
❓🤔❓A Mysterious Person ❓🤔❓ Open Discussion
This is a combination of

1) ignorance of Ayn Rand's moral philosophy and
2) vicious, nasty, cruel personal attacks

What's interesting to me is that Evan engages in this combination of ignorance and malevolence while pleading his moral integrity.]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:02:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11419 http://curi.us/comments/show/11419
Anonymous Open Discussion
> There are a lot of ppl who basically only listen to punishments and think if you don’t punish then you aren’t serious and don't mind.

This is kinda like someone thinking that if you don't call the police right away, then they are welcome in your house]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 13:59:22 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11418 http://curi.us/comments/show/11418
Dagny Open Discussion
There are a lot of ppl who basically only listen to punishments and think if you don’t punish then you aren’t serious and don't mind.

It’s awkward here cuz TCS people don’t like punishing or forcing. So they often *ask* for things instead, but then people react like "oh he's only asking, so that doesn't really matter and I can just do whatever".

So Evan got told he was unwelcome to do certain things, then did that. And he expects to get banned for it, but he does it anyway. He thinks bans are just part of how normal interactions between people go. It doesn't occur to him to stop when he's unwelcome and has been asked to stop, rather than to keep pushing and troublemaking until he has to be banned.

Evan's warning yesterday was posted by curi:

http://curi.us/2124-critical-rationalism-epistemology-explanations#c11408

> Evan, please don't post here unless you dramatically change your attitude. What you're doing is unwelcome.

Evan's response to that is to keep flaming people and doing the unwelcome things, and then also saying:

> I fully expect that you will eventually hate me so much that you block me on all your websites or whatever.

What a jerk to do things he expects to be hated and knows are unwelcome. And why "eventually" instead of literally today? But anyway, he thinks that all verbal requests are minor things and actions (banhammers) speak louder than words. It's a very common and bad attitude to life. Things shouldn't have to escalate so much for problems to get solved.]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 13:57:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11417 http://curi.us/comments/show/11417
Anonymous Open Discussion
Doesn't matter. You could have continued on your schedule, whenever you were available, e.g. now, instead of switching projects to these Popper questions and to flaming FI people. You have a history of dropping projects, not just by delays but by then focusing on some new project *instead* of continuing, which is different than being busy with non-philosophy for a few months.]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 13:39:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11416 http://curi.us/comments/show/11416
Mentoring and Tutoring Dagny Open Discussion
Mentoring is different than tutoring. It's commonly an unpaid, longterm thing done for people who are especially promising/deserving (as against tutoring which is commonly done with whoever wants to hire a tutor, not necessarily a good student). Mentoring is earned by being a great learner who is a joy to work with, so the mentor is happy to pass on his knowledge. In return the mentor gets interesting questions, an energetic person studying and discussing things he cares about, and a new person to share the knowledge with others in the future. There are various ways that Evan is not behaving like a good mentoring candidate. And he hasn't asked for mentoring, nor for tutoring. He just doesn't want to say or think about what he *is* asking for.

In general, a tutor works for a client and helps the client with the client's goals. A mentor has his own goals and the mentee values and helps with the mentor's goals, and is receptive to advice about what to learn, what to do, what goals to have, the mentor's advice about what approaches to use to make progress, etc.

Asking for mentoring basically requires openly admitting being below someone. curi had no trouble doing that (with DD) because he doesn't have a big ego (in the usual sense of the term), but it's a big problem for most people who are age 20+ and think they are smart (and often really are smarter, in lots of ways, than most people they've met). Some people may believe that it's easier to ask DD for mentoring than to ask curi because DD is more prestigious (he has higher social status: a published book and some physics awards and papers back then, and a PhD and being an honorary professor, now a second book and he joined the royal society and gave some TED talks). Those people who focus on social status, and are not adequately impressed by curi's accomplishments, are poor candidates for curi to mentor anyway. They often try to treat curi as a peer, lose several arguments (often they stop replying before a clear conclusion), and then curi thinks that was enough of a demonstration that they should change their attitude but they don't get it.

People who don't acknowledge curi as the best living philosopher are not going to respect his time and value his help as much as people who do. So they generally offer a worse deal to curi who, in any case, spends a lot of time on his own stuff which often outcompetes people's requests for help (but he does remain available a fair amount and it could be more if a person or project interested him enough).

Evan is not alone in this ambiguity about what kind of help he wants: mentoring/tutoring/something-else. He also keeps it ambiguous about whether he wants a lot of help (as part of some longer term goals or plans) or just the occasional individual little thing. People on FI are, in general, pretty vague about whether they want mentoring, tutoring, or something else.

And Evan, like a fair amount of people, is very hostile to meta discussion, so it makes it harder to figure out things like this.]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 13:32:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11415 http://curi.us/comments/show/11415
Evan Open Discussion
Elliot you are a person who wastes his time slandering people. I'm sorry I didn't respond to Alan's last comment for awhile but I was homeless and hungry, looking for jobs and places to stay for a few months starting roughly around that time. I fully expect that you will eventually hate me so much that you block me on all your websites or whatever. I don't know what goes on in your head and I find your particular emotional problem uninteresting because you even explicitly oppose altruism. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. I've had moral integrity from a very young age and can't relate. You need socialization badly. I tried to help you in twitter dms. Maybe you have a delusion that you shouldn't do things people recommend until they respond to the games you play with discussions and launching highly irrational criticisms at every detail of people's claims, making your discussions intractable. I come on here to discuss important things like philosophy, and the only use you can find for it is to try to create interpersonal drama. It is no wonder no one likes you, and you will only get dumber and dumber if you keep wasting your time like this.]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 13:24:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11414 http://curi.us/comments/show/11414
Evan Open Discussion
Left side is probability of a conditional, second term of the right side is conditional probability.

---

If we *don't* know about the rules (c) of the betting game, p(if c then a) > p(a) because as Anne said

>'if c then a' is *also* true when c and a are both false. So it's true in more cases than just those when a is true.

so that conditional statement can't be what we're betting on.

And if we *do* know about the rules, we *are* betting upon the conditional probability of a: it's p(a|b) because b includes c.]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 13:09:29 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11413 http://curi.us/comments/show/11413
a new anonymous Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
I don't think that's why Evan is mad. But I can't articulate very well what I think Evan is mad about. It has to do with social stuff. Maybe Evan thinks Dagny is trying to make Evan look bad or to put Evan down and thereby gain relative social status over him or something.]]>
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 08:57:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11412 http://curi.us/comments/show/11412
Anonymous Open Discussion
https://twitter.com/MachinePix/status/1067266284914585600]]>
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 20:03:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11411 http://curi.us/comments/show/11411
Anonymous Open Discussion
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/a0b70b/what_killed_your_passion_for_something_you_once/eagdxop/]]>
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:15:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11410 http://curi.us/comments/show/11410
Anonymous Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
Evan is mad. Apparently because he thinks Dagny is self-unaware (made a mistake).]]>
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 13:07:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11409 http://curi.us/comments/show/11409
curi Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations Mon, 26 Nov 2018 13:04:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11408 http://curi.us/comments/show/11408 Evan Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations Mon, 26 Nov 2018 12:54:33 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11407 http://curi.us/comments/show/11407 Anne B Open Discussion
Thank you. You are correct about what I meant.

Now I see that I was unclear.

A possible rewrite of my last sentence: If c and a are never both false at the same time (that is, the probability of c and a both being false at the same time is zero), then the probability of a is equal to the probability of 'if c then a'.]]>
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 12:26:24 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11406 http://curi.us/comments/show/11406
Anonymous Open Discussion
I initially read this as meaning c and a both can't be false, individually. But I think you meant they can't both be false at the same time, together (but one or the other could be false). The writing is a bit unclear FYI.]]>
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:08:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11405 http://curi.us/comments/show/11405
Anne B Open Discussion
I want to try to explain this.

Here are the possibilities for 'if c then a':

c true, a true: 'if c then a' true
c true, a false: 'if c then a' false
c false, a true: 'if c then a' true
c false, a false: 'if c then a' true

'if c then a' is true in the cases when a is true. And 'if c then a' is *also* true when c and a are both false. So it's true in more cases than just those when a is true.

If in a particular example the probability of both c and a being false is zero, then the probability of a is equal to the probability of 'if c then a'.]]>
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 06:19:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11404 http://curi.us/comments/show/11404
curi Open Discussion
I also think your distaste for thinking and talking about goals/plans, background knowledge and learning methodology makes it much harder to help you successfully and also harder to know what success looks like and whether that is even something I would want. (You could use the help to spread misconceptions about Popper while doing a better job of sounding like you know what you're talking about, or just it to impress friends with. You might or might not aspire to do things that are important to me, I don't know. And if you do aspire to things that are important to me, you might or might not have reasonable ways to pursue those achievements, but based on the limited info available to me currently, I'd guess not. This stuff is important. I have helped educate people before who have then used the knowledge for purposes that I think make the world worse.)

If you just want individual answers to individual questions, without any bigger picture being involved, that is tutoring and you should pay money for it. If you aren't trying to engage in a joint project or join the community, you just want help on demand with the problems of your choice for your own unstated purposes, and you don't want to offer stuff in return, then buy it.]]>
Sun, 25 Nov 2018 20:39:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11403 http://curi.us/comments/show/11403
Dagny Open Discussion
> still you don't want to suggest an actually *substantial* criticism

I don't know what you're talking about. Telling you how logic works – and that you didn't know it – is a substantial criticism. It has substance (about the nature of logic). It addresses the issue. And there is a criticism there, not only positive education.

The format of what I said was to deal with the substance *and* then to also say a second thing.

Your comments about paranoia are unwelcome (unproductive, hostile, Szasz-contradicting, and not backed up with paths forward) and discourage me from responding to you. "horrible personality" was also unproductive nastiness. All of my meta comments were intended to address an actual problem I see, but you don't seem to follow the same policy.

Are you willing to change anything you're doing, or are you just going to keep asking for help with specific chunks of stuff, while offering no value in return (and being quite hostile which makes it way harder), and also not using learning methodology I think is effective? If you plan to continue in the same vein, give me some reasons to respond to you further, or I expect that I won't. (I don't think this problem, involving me considering just ignoring you going forward, is ignorable to focus *only* on the substance, but I did give you the substantive answer too, I did both, which I think is reasonable.)]]>
Sun, 25 Nov 2018 20:25:21 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11402 http://curi.us/comments/show/11402
Anonymous Open Discussion
>Example:

>a = my dog will die this year

>c = my dog is over 50 years old

>*if my dog is over 50 years old, then my dog will die this year* is more probable than *my dog will die this year*.

if c = *my dog is under 1 year old*, then why couldn't the probability of if c then a be 1% and therefore less than the probability of a which is 10%?

And what laws of probability inform your argument? I still don't see how Popper shows that this violates the laws of probability.

>This is a very basic thing. This is supposed to be trivial for a person who is going to follow Popper, so this and many other basic things can be built on and the reader's focus can ~all be directed to more advanced issues. It seems you're trying to read things while missing the important prerequisites. I think you're fooling yourself about your capabilities and it is sabotaging your progress. I don't think you want to hear that criticism. But it's not reasonable to ask for help while not wanting the perspective of someone who knows the answer and thinks in line with this forum's ideas. I think you could learn a lot more, and a lot faster, by a different approach, and this is important, and that you are not open to this possibility and that, given your refusal to even consider doing things a better way, you should stop asking for help from the people you disagree with and are dismissive of.

I don't know why you create paranoid theories about me such as that I don't want to hear criticism the content of which I am unaware of. By commenting on this platform, I am openly subjecting myself to your horrible personality already (and because you replied to me I guess you could predict I *would* read your reply and subject myself to it), and still you don't want to suggest an actually *substantial* criticism because you fear I wouldn't be open to *that*, and you prefer to bear the cost of sinking your time and reputation into insulting me with empty paranoia, rather than state what you think is useful information?]]>
Sun, 25 Nov 2018 20:06:41 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11401 http://curi.us/comments/show/11401
Anonymous Open Discussion Sun, 25 Nov 2018 19:33:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11400 http://curi.us/comments/show/11400 Anonymous Open Discussion
https://twitter.com/SouthPark/status/1066521107367428096]]>
Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:38:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11399 http://curi.us/comments/show/11399
curi Open Discussion
https://www.reddit.com/r/OverwatchUniversity/comments/9zwukn/stacks_that_do_not_join_team_chat/eady3h8/]]>
Sat, 24 Nov 2018 13:13:24 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11398 http://curi.us/comments/show/11398
Anonymous Open Discussion
![](https://curi.us/img/NNO1DbGjrZBFU7U-956x232.png)

This is an important point. On official forums for a game, the game company can delete criticism, and they often do. On the Facebook page, they can and often do delete criticism. But they can't delete critical tweets. If you want to see if people are unhappy with a decision by a big company, or what the majority of people's reaction is, looking on twitter will work better than looking on facebook (which they can censor just as much as their own forum).]]>
Sat, 24 Nov 2018 12:10:33 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11397 http://curi.us/comments/show/11397
curi Open Discussion
Thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Competitiveoverwatch/comments/9zu9af/people_who_clamour_for_dva_nerf_is_missing_the/

Single comment (doesn't show the original post I'm replying to, cuz reddit sux):

https://www.reddit.com/r/Competitiveoverwatch/comments/9zu9af/people_who_clamour_for_dva_nerf_is_missing_the/eacg5wb/]]>
Fri, 23 Nov 2018 22:10:31 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11396 http://curi.us/comments/show/11396
Dagny Open Discussion
> Since 2012, the Tuesday following “Black Friday” has been publicized as “Giving Tuesday.” Touted as a “remedy” for the “selfish commercialism” of the holiday shopping season, the idea is that charitable contributions (“giving back”) will relieve the guilt you’re expected to be feeling.

> Ayn Rand observed that, while there’s nothing wrong with helping others who are worthy of help when you can afford it, charity is not a moral duty. More importantly, she thought people should act on the “trader principle,” freely exchanging value for value to mutual benefit.

> **So, at ARI we decided to turn #GivingTuesday into #TradingTuesday.**

> We are proposing that you make an investment in an ARI program of historical significance—the recording of twelve oral history interviews with people actively involved in the Objectivist movement at the early stages of its development. Your support will allow us to preserve these powerful stories and share them with generations to come.

> Here’s an example of an oral history audio clip with Dina Federman, a philosopher who participated in ARI’s advanced training programs in the 1990s. She lectured and wrote for ARI before her untimely death from cancer in 2016.

> **A group of anonymous donors has pledged to match #TradingTuesday contributions to ARI, up to $50,000.**

> If we achieve our goal of $50,000, we’ll have raised a total of $100,000 (including matching funds). This could produce **twelve oral histories in the next year**, ideally recorded in people’s homes with our video crew. The twelve individuals we hope to interview are in their 80s. Some were close to Ayn Rand and all were present at the founding of the Objectivist movement.

ARI is complaining about "Giving Tuesday" and saying that *Trading* Tuesday would be better.

Then they say they got some *donors* to pledge 50k, they are doing scammy donation matching on it, and they want you to donate too. How the fuck is that trading? They are such dishonest liars. This is total bullshit. This is no different than any other charity asking for a donation and in return what you get is the charity uses the money to fund their mission (and you donate cuz you like that mission, whether it's breast cancer cure research or recording oral history of Objectivists before they die.)

No doubt George Reisman (who is in his 80s) is *not* one of the twelve individuals they would like to interview.

I sign my posts here Dagny. I'm far more worthy of the name than ARI is.]]>
Fri, 23 Nov 2018 13:12:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11395 http://curi.us/comments/show/11395
curi Open Discussion
Consider the part:

> Did you really just compared Zac with Jjonak
> Jjonak is 1000 time better than Zac will ever be

That's a really common type of logical fail. It is complaining about an unlimited/universal comparison (comparing two things *in general*) in response to a limited/specific comparison (comparing two things in *one particular way*). And he's correct that the two things are quite different *in general* (MVP player of season 1 overwatch league vs. a player who was on a tier 2 team, like the minor league basically, and is now gonna be promoted for season 2 and is fairly likely to be a bottom-50% level player, not an MVP.)

I see this a lot. I make a comparison between X and Y regarding issue Z. People say "X and Y are not comparable" because they think of some other point of comparison. It's like "Apples and oranges are a similar size" and they are like "Apples and oranges are not similar, they taste totally different". They wouldn't make this error with that exact example but they will make it when things get slightly more complicated or less clearly communicated, especially when there is some sort of major difference (like literal MVP vs. more middling player, or if you're doing a comparison involving Hitler).

Example where people would fuck it up: you're arguing about some random artist, call him Joe, who you think is a hack. So you discuss a bit and the guy says "artists are all inspired wonderful people" and you say "no, some artists are bad, see hitler" and he says back "Hitler and Joe are totally different, wtf is wrong with you for comparing them?". Logically that's a clueless response, and it's understandable for Hitler to come to mind as an example of a bad person who was also an artist (tho as a practical matter it may be wiser to pick another example if you aren't talking to a highly logical person). Point is it's the same issue where you made a comparison *for a specific purpose* and his response is that the two things are different *in general* (which is true but irrelevant).

The reason this happens a lot is people are what I call *gist thinkers* – they think/read/listen in terms of vague, approximate gists instead of the actual precise meanings of things. They read something in order to figure out the rough idea or ballpark of what it says, but they don't know what it actually says. For a person who does that, they will see two things are being compared (which really is the rough idea of what was said) and respond that way. (Within the methodology of what they are doing, they get everything right! They are correct that the vague gist was a comparison of X and Y, and they are also correct that X and Y are quite different in major ways.) Many people approximate stuff to the rough idea of it all the time (the main exceptions are people who are good at one thing, which is usually their profession, and do some good precise thinking about that – there are quite a few people who are good at something but then dumb in general, and that is more common than being good at two things let alone good at lots of things).

The gist thinker thing was one of the main issues in this discussion with Scuro about perception:

http://curi.us/2153-induction--perception-discord-discussion

Specifically when he was claiming that Ayn Rand wrote that *perception develops* in ITOE, the issue was Scuro can't read precisely. He could only read some rough approximation of what Rand said – which he interpreted as himself having read what she actually said (he doesn't know the difference, doesn't know that he's thinking in rough approximations and that other people think more precisely – and if you try to tell him that he'll just hate you and it won't lead to progress). So what would happen is he'd try to show the text said it by quoting a sentence where he saw it being said, and then I would read that sentence and it just plain did not say that. And because he can't think precisely, he could never say *where* in the quote it said what he claimed it said, he couldn't do word-by-word analysis because all he can do when reading is take a whole section of text and then get the gist of it. But there's no clear, precise logical process by which he does that, so he can't break it down into steps and show me, logically, the steps by which he gets from the words as written by Rand to his claim about them. I asked him for that but he just couldn't do it and dropped the subject and moved on to something else (and then a bit later, he went to sleep instead of answering some point and then didn't follow up the next day, nor the next, nor the next) – but then, weeks later, he remembered it as him having won the debate on that point!]]>
Fri, 23 Nov 2018 10:17:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11394 http://curi.us/comments/show/11394
Anonymous Open Discussion
https://www.dangerous.com/50463/i-too-must-bid-adieu-to-the-proud-boys-a-spunky-pro-western-mens-club-defamed-to-death/]]>
Fri, 23 Nov 2018 08:50:35 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11393 http://curi.us/comments/show/11393
Dagny Open Discussion
*a* is *a* universally, unconditionally. *if c then a* is a conditional, limited version of *a* saying that *a* must be true in some scenarios (*c*) but not making that claim for some other scenarios (non-c). so it's a weaker claim.

Example:

a = my dog will die this year

c = my dog is over 50 years old

*if my dog is over 50 years old, then my dog will die this year* is more probable than *my dog will die this year*.

This is a very basic thing. This is supposed to be trivial for a person who is going to follow Popper, so this and many other basic things can be built on and the reader's focus can ~all be directed to more advanced issues. It seems you're trying to read things while missing the important prerequisites. I think you're fooling yourself about your capabilities and it is sabotaging your progress. I don't think you want to hear that criticism. But it's not reasonable to ask for help while not wanting the perspective of someone who knows the answer and thinks in line with this forum's ideas. I think you could learn a lot more, and a lot faster, by a different approach, and this is important, and that you are not open to this possibility and that, given your refusal to even consider doing things a better way, you should stop asking for help from the people you disagree with and are dismissive of.]]>
Fri, 23 Nov 2018 00:30:26 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11392 http://curi.us/comments/show/11392
Dagny Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations Fri, 23 Nov 2018 00:16:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11391 http://curi.us/comments/show/11391 Realism and the Aim of Science question Evan Open Discussion
"It may be said in passing that the subjectivist would be mistaken if he believed he could interpret [betting] by saying that we do not bet that a will happen but rather upon a conditional statement. For the probability of a conditional is very different from a conditional (or relative) probability, as may be seen as follows. Let b again be our total knowledge, c the conditions of the game; then, he may suggest, we do not bet upon a (given b) but upon 'if c then a' (given b); and after applying the rule of absolution, upon 'if c then a', absolutely. This interpretation is not compatible with the laws of the probability calculus, since 'if c then a' will have higher probability than a; unless, indeed, c is part of b, in which case the condition c loses its force; that is to say, we have in this case b=bc, and as a consequence, p(if c then a|b) = p(a|b) and there is no reason why, after applying the rule of absolution, we should obtain the present probability of 'if c then a', rather than the present probability of a."

Why will 'if c then a' have a higher probability than a, and how does that violate the laws of the probability calculus?]]>
Thu, 22 Nov 2018 23:19:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11390 http://curi.us/comments/show/11390
Evan Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations Thu, 22 Nov 2018 23:10:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11389 http://curi.us/comments/show/11389 curi How To Create Knowledge
http://fallibleideas.com/discussion]]>
Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:33:58 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11388 http://curi.us/comments/show/11388
Anonymous Open Discussion
https://pudding.cool/2017/05/song-repetition/index.html]]>
Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:40:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11387 http://curi.us/comments/show/11387
FF Globalism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AtOw-xyMo8

He doesn't seem to like capitalism. He is speaking the words of the left.]]>
Wed, 21 Nov 2018 07:26:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11386 http://curi.us/comments/show/11386
Anonymous How To Create Knowledge Sun, 18 Nov 2018 14:13:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11385 http://curi.us/comments/show/11385 PAS Open Discussion
I agree you only stated the problem and had not proposed any solution, statist or otherwise.

But I also think that claiming there's a problem with something being a violation of privacy is not like claiming there's a problem with the weather being awful or life being too short. There's an important cultural context to claiming that something is a violation of privacy. Politically powerful movements exist to forcibly restrict what data is allowed to be collected, stored, shared, processed, etc. It's a matter of active controversy.

Privacy is a right and the state is currently a big part of how rights violations are addressed in our society. If you complain about DNA databases being a privacy violation and you don't propose a solution, people will reasonably assume you are likely in favor of some kind of government regulation of such databases. Maybe you're not! Which is why I suggested perhaps you had some non-statist solutions in mind.

Do you disagree about the cultural context of claiming that something is a privacy violation?]]>
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 19:35:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11384 http://curi.us/comments/show/11384
Dagny Open Discussion
You also compared the DNA thing to some past stuff, and I pointed out some ways they were different.

I wasn't talking past you. My comments were responsive. You're now talking past me by changing the topic to basically implying I'm a statist, though.]]>
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 11:24:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11383 http://curi.us/comments/show/11383
PAS Open Discussion
> How DNA Databases Violate Everyone's Privacy

...and your (Dagny) statements seem to imply you agree that DNA Databases violate privacy.

What do you propose?

Should it be illegal for people to consent to having their DNA sequenced and results stored in a database where those results can be used to identify others who did not consent?

Should it be illegal for DNA sequencers to offer sequencing for one price if you don't consent to being in their database, and another (lower) price if you do? My understanding is that's effectively what's going on now - sequencing is artificially cheap because the sequencers expect to profit from the data, not just what they charge you for sequencing.

Should it be illegal to pick up genetic material from your own property and sequence that? Should it be OK to sequence it but not to match it using a database of public records of stuff like relationships + the DNA of people who consented?

Or should the databases and sequencing and matching be legal but only certain uses of them regulated (like marketing or politics stuff)? What uses should be OK and what illegal?

Or instead of laws do you want some or all of the above enforced by social conventions and shaming/boycotts of violators or other non-government/non-force methods?

Or...?

As I said before I'm personally uncomfortable with people using identification tech for certain political and marketing functions. But I can't see a way out of it without violating other rights.

I don't really care if the technology is automated face recognition, walk recognition, speech recognition, MAC or IMEI identification, fingerprints, passport or other RFID sources, or DNA sequencing. I don't think it makes sense to single out one technology from the others. I'd look for some general principles that would include an explanation about what's private and what's not, and who can do what with private information. And I'd look for that to be compatible with our traditions about other rights like property.

European regulations such as GDPR attempt to do this...with (IMO) disastrous and highly rights-infringing results. I think such regulations are worse than nothing.

What do you think? Do you have a better idea?]]>
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 08:31:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11382 http://curi.us/comments/show/11382
Anonymous Induction & Perception Discord Discussion Fri, 16 Nov 2018 20:06:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11381 http://curi.us/comments/show/11381 Scuro Induction & Perception Discord Discussion
I indicated some in the preceding response:

>>As the basis of all subsequent knowledge, precisely what is given on the perceptual level has implications not only for its own validity, but also for concept formation. If concept formation is the integration of percepts, and percepts are the automatic but *programmable* integrations of sensations, you would require a guide for proper perception, for proper integration programming, as you require for concept-formation. It solves the problem that people have in which they attempt to infer entities from sensations, taking them as the epistemological primary.]]>
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 19:59:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11380 http://curi.us/comments/show/11380
Anonymous Induction & Perception Discord Discussion
What important epistemological implication?]]>
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 17:45:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11379 http://curi.us/comments/show/11379
Response Scuro Induction & Perception Discord Discussion
The extent is yes, I'm merely saying there *are* limits.

> and the word "automatic" does not mean non-programmable. do you agree?

Yes.

> what do you mean by saying it remains automatic? that adults don't usually go through a conscious process of figuring out what they're looking at? if so, i think that's uncontroversial. if you mean something else, what?

Your first guess is definitely a factor. I'm also saying that many non-conscious processes of the mind are not programmable, and these continue to operate automatically.

>You think I'm *combative* because I made an argument plus you believe my argument to be mistaken? Those are the criteria? Surely that is something you do all the time (make an argument to someone who then judges it to be incorrect) and not something a person can reasonably avoid.

Since we resolved this on discord I'll move on. The quick version is: I wanted a correction so I would understand your position, not an argument conjecturing about how I arrived at my incorrect version.

>Do you disagree with me that the claim you attributed to me is nonsense which is refuted by the definitions of the words?

Not really, hence my confusion.

>And that I never said it but you created it by some sort of process of translation?

Here was my attempted summary of your position: "organising raw sense data into differentiated percepts is not automatic, but is a conceptual process of classification" .

Here are some of the quotes I used to arrive at my summary:

"you perceive things more like blobs of colors, and you have to figure out what's what, that's not automatic" "you can't perceive entities at all. you have to use intelligent thought to categorize what you see into entities." "it's not clear to me there's combining of *different* senses at the perceptual level".

>And that my actual position is more precise and scientific than that summary statement?

I was sure it would be, hence my question. I was actively trying *not* to misunderstand you, I was hoping you would see where I was at in terms of understanding you, and that you would correct me.

>The thing you stated as my position is not recognizable to me as similar to my position. That constitutes a significant issue in discussion! And it has causes, which matter to trying to untangle things!

Agreed, hence me seeking clarification.

>You think what claim, specifically, is important?

I think the claim that we perceive distinct entities through an automatic and uncontrolled process has important epistemological implication, as does a claim to the contrary. Whichever is the case, it's important to know.

>Can you restate your main point, briefly, preferably using only simple words or, failing that, including definitions of the words which could cause trouble?

In its simplest form: human beings automatically perceive discriminated entities.

The slightly longer version: Perception, as the automatic retention and integration of sensations into percepts, gives human beings awareness of discriminated entities. This process of sensory integration and its products are the given, the self-evident, and come prior in human development to the conceptual level. You directly perceive entities, the process of integrating sensations proceeds automatically, and this includes the integration of different sensations. Perceiving entities does not involve conception or categorisation, only perceptual differentiating and integration. As far as psycho-epistemology is concerned, conceptual knowledge, which develops later and after the awareness of entities, later becomes tied in with perception and changes the conscious experience, but nevertheless the process of perception in and of itself does not change as a result. Conceptual knowledge only affects how you consider an entity as you perceive it - that is, you consider it implicitly as a unit. You perceive the entity along with automatized conceptual knowledge. This does not change perception qua perception, rather, it changes the conscious experience of perception.

>And say *why* it's important, what difference it makes (what would it matter if it were false?) and what problem it solves (what it's useful for)?

As the basis of all subsequent knowledge, precisely what is given on the perceptual level has implications not only for its own validity, but also for concept formation. If concept formation is the integration of percepts, and percepts are the automatic but *programmable* integrations of sensations, you would require a guide for proper perception, for proper integration programming, as you require for concept-formation. It solves the problem that people have in which they attempt to infer entities from sensations, taking them as the epistemological primary.

>What you are given is what your *conscious mind* is given, yet you seem to be making claims about which of the earlier layers do which things. How can you tell that based on what material is given to your conscious mind, other than by science?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking here. Are you referring to sensation and perception as layers? The automatic processes?

>What period of time? And how do you know that? And doesn't that claim involve science? Or do you think, as a matter of logic, that nothing else could possibly work?

The period between the sensory chaos of infancy and the beginning of conception. It doesn't require science to establish that consciousness, as awareness of reality, must precede from the awareness supplied by the senses, to perception as an integration of sensations, to conception as an integration of percepts.

>You then provide quotes from ITOE without analysis, without arguments, and without a statement of the purpose of any of the quotes. What is that supposed to accomplish? There was a specific disagreement about whether a particular passage said a particular thing or not. This is not a followup which addresses that.

They were supposed to demonstrate agreement between Rand's position and what I am saying. After we get clearer on our disagreement, I can be more thorough with the analysis of the quotes if you like. Yes I recall that disagreement, I'm not sure I have anything new to add regarding those pages that I haven't already said. Are there any quotes that you believe line up with your position? I'm not sure if you provided some last time.]]>
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 07:06:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11378 http://curi.us/comments/show/11378
Anonymous Induction & Perception Discord Discussion
but the ideas are the most important part of the person. criticizing their ideas is *especially* threatening.

kinda like: don't attack the toes, only the brain.]]>
Thu, 15 Nov 2018 21:51:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11377 http://curi.us/comments/show/11377
Ad Hominem curi Induction & Perception Discord Discussion
[9:11 PM] GISTE: @Scuro argumentative? I looked up definition in m-w. It says: : given to argument : tending to argue : having or showing a tendency to disagree or argue with other people in an angry way
[9:12 PM] GISTE: So you think Elliot was angry?
[9:14 PM] GISTE: To be clear, I’m trying to understand what you meant by “...came off as rather argumentative...”
[9:15 PM] curi: he feels insulted because my comments don't exactly and carefully stay on a particular side of a culturally-defined line, which varies significantly by person, about what is ad hominem and what is a criticism of an idea. his comments don't either. it's to be expected. the thing needed here is a lot of tolerance.
[9:19 PM] curi: separating people from their ideas is hard and complicated (and doesn't entirely make sense – are "you are mistaken" and "your idea is mistaken" really so different?), and people with different perspectives shouldn't expect to be totally in sync about it. and if everyone is really conservative about it, to try to avoid risking offending someone who views things differently, than that hampers discussion and limits what can be said.
[9:20 PM] curi: you can say "I think the idea X is mistaken" but there are difficulties with never mentioning who said X. a straightfoward one is what if you want to use an exact quote. then how will you avoid mentioning the author? unsourced quote?
[9:21 PM] curi: and it's kinda just verbal games. the point is still the same, and people understand the meaning: if you say X is false, and they believe X, they know that you mean and believe they are wrong, whether you specifically point it out or not.
[9:22 PM] curi: so my advice is: if you see a productive purpose of a statement, focus on that and take it as a positive discussion contribution. if you can't see a productive purpose of a statement, point that out and ask what's going on.
[9:27 PM] curi: Rand and Popper both had reputations for failing to always manage to socially please people and sound nice/friendly to them. They focused too much on discussing the ideas instead of on managing audience perceptions. I sympathize with them.
[9:27 PM] GISTE: @Scuro when people tell me that I’ve said something mean, I ask them: “how would you change what I said in a way that wouldn’t have seemed mean to you?” I notice they have a hard time coming up with anything. So like if it was so hard for them to come up with a way to make my idea sound less mean, then they should not blame me for failing to have found a less mean way of saying my idea.
[9:30 PM] curi: Mises to Mount Pelerin Society: You're all a bunch of socialists. Ad hominem? Shouldn't have been said? Important, substantive comment?
[9:30 PM] curi: Rand called Hayek "poison". Was that combative? Bad to say?
[9:32 PM] curi: Her issues with Hayek were his ideas, not his personal characteristics – how his voice sounded, height, weight, skin color, sexual orientation, what his hobbies were, who he married, etc, etc.
[9:33 PM] curi: you could substitute a very different person in Hayek's place, but with the same published ideas and public statements, and Rand would have thought and said the same thing. so does that mean calling him poison was not ad hominem, since the claim was independent of the person behind the books?
[9:34 PM] curi: my best answer is: the concept of ad hominem is not actually precise or all that well thought out.]]>
Thu, 15 Nov 2018 21:39:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11376 http://curi.us/comments/show/11376
Discord Replies curi Induction & Perception Discord Discussion
isn't the extent of such limits a scientific matter? but you claim not to be making scientific claims.

and the word "automatic" does not mean non-programmable. do you agree? what do you mean by saying it remains automatic? that adults don't usually go through a conscious process of figuring out what they're looking at? if so, i think that's uncontroversial. if you mean something else, what?

> @GISTE - "that is not my claim, you're getting lost because you aren't familiar with the field. you're attempting to describe my beliefs about software and hardware in terms of less precisely defined terms – you're doing a translation job that makes it worse – and you ended up with nonsense." - this came off as rather argumentative and untrue to me.

You think I'm *combative* because I made an argument plus you believe my argument to be mistaken? Those are the criteria? Surely that is something you do all the time (make an argument to someone who then judges it to be incorrect) and not something a person can reasonably avoid.

Do you disagree with me that the claim you attributed to me is nonsense which is refuted by the definitions of the words? And that I never said it but you created it by some sort of process of translation? And that my actual position is more precise and scientific than that summary statement? You apparently don't like what I said that you quote, but which part do you dispute? The thing you stated as my position is not recognizable to me as similar to my position. That constitutes a significant issue in discussion! And it has causes, which matter to trying to untangle things!

> I think it's [the discussion] important.

You think what claim, specifically, is important? I tried to clarify what you were claiming but you didn't respond to those parts. One attempt was:

>> your basic point seems to be that the conscious mind of an adult isn't directly dealing with low-level pixel data. i know that and never said otherwise.

Can you restate your main point, briefly, preferably using only simple words or, failing that, including definitions of the words which could cause trouble? And say *why* it's important, what difference it makes (what would it matter if it were false?) and what problem it solves (what it's useful for)?

> the claim is about the perception of entities coming prior to the ability to integrate percepts into concepts. I'm essentially saying "this is what I am given", I don't know how, biologically, this happens, but that's the beginning of abstract understanding.

What you are given is what your *conscious mind* is given, yet you seem to be making claims about which of the earlier layers do which things. How can you tell that based on what material is given to your conscious mind, other than by science?

> I'm saying that, at the very least, there is a period of time where the perception of entities is totally automatic and non-volitional, that sensations are automatically integrated into percepts and this is the given material for abstract thought and the basis for all knowledge.

What period of time? And how do you know that? And doesn't that claim involve science? Or do you think, as a matter of logic, that nothing else could possibly work?

> I recall quoting ITOE extensively, but I can provide more if you like:

You then provide quotes from ITOE without analysis, without arguments, and without a statement of the purpose of any of the quotes. What is that supposed to accomplish? There was a specific disagreement about whether a particular passage said a particular thing or not. This is not a followup which addresses that.]]>
Thu, 15 Nov 2018 21:07:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11375 http://curi.us/comments/show/11375
Anonymous Open Discussion
https://twitter.com/MKBHD/status/1062368253316603905]]>
Thu, 15 Nov 2018 11:45:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11374 http://curi.us/comments/show/11374
Dagny Open Discussion
There are already robots wandering the streets in some areas for food delivery purposes (and for testing purposes). A DNA pickup thing could go on the same robot.]]>
Thu, 15 Nov 2018 11:31:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11373 http://curi.us/comments/show/11373
Dagny Open Discussion
(Trusted people will often give info about you *if an important crime was committed*. But maybe won't talk about you in most other situations, e.g. to a marketer.)]]>
Thu, 15 Nov 2018 11:27:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11372 http://curi.us/comments/show/11372
PAS Open Discussion
The database just tells them "that hair came from Joe" where without it they'd just have a hair to try to match when they found a suspect by some other means.

Assuming I'm right about that, I'm unsure whether the database is a privacy violation in that particular application.

For thousands of years people have been able to see your face, and recognize it, and know (and tell authorities) you were in a particular place. That's just a less reliable method than DNA matching. People might not see your face, or they might not recognize you, or they might lie.

In particular this matters more in modern, large cities where you are mostly around people who do not know you (so can't recognize your face). Today you can conduct most of your activities and be seen but generally not recognized. That's something relatively new in human times. And also perhaps fleeting with the proliferation of cameras and face recognition.

But the fundamental problem of people knowing you were in a particular place whether you want them to know that or not has always existed. If you did, in fact, leave a hair at a crime scene I don't know that it violates your privacy to be able to identify that hair as yours prior to the existence of any other suspicious evidence about you.

Other than reliability, it doesn't seem different from the ability of someone to say "I saw Joe at the crime scene" prior to there being any other evidence you committed the crime. Neither prove in a legal sense or any other that you committed the crime, but both are reasons for the police to investigate you further.

Where I'd be concerned is if you leave a hair at a political protest or in a store, and someone uses that hair to identify you for political or marketing purposes. But I'd be equally concerned if they took your picture and used face recognition or pulled your fingerprint off a door handle or identified you by the MAC address of your phone's wifi adapter.

Basically I'm thinking the privacy violation is in who is collecting the sample to identify, and why they're collecting it. Not in the existence of a database to which samples can be matched.]]>
Thu, 15 Nov 2018 07:25:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11371 http://curi.us/comments/show/11371
Anonymous Open Discussion
> How DNA Databases Violate Everyone's Privacy

> [2018.10.15] If you're an American of European descent, there's a 60% chance you can be uniquely identified by public information in DNA databases. This is not information that you have made public; this is information your relatives have made public.

> Research paper:

> "Identity inference of genomic data using long-range familial searches."

>> Abstract: Consumer genomics databases have reached the scale of millions of individuals. Recently, law enforcement authorities have exploited some of these databases to identify suspects via distant familial relatives. Using genomic data of 1.28 million individuals tested with consumer genomics, we investigated the power of this technique. We project that about 60% of the searches for individuals of European-descent will result in a third cousin or closer match, which can allow their identification using demographic identifiers. Moreover, the technique could implicate nearly any US-individual of European-descent in the near future. We demonstrate that the technique can also identify research participants of a public sequencing project. Based on these results, we propose a potential mitigation strategy and policy implications to human subject research.]]>
Thu, 15 Nov 2018 01:21:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11370 http://curi.us/comments/show/11370
Alisa Open Discussion Tue, 13 Nov 2018 14:36:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11369 http://curi.us/comments/show/11369 Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 12 Nov 2018 21:52:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11368 http://curi.us/comments/show/11368 Alisa Open Discussion Mon, 12 Nov 2018 21:23:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11367 http://curi.us/comments/show/11367 Democrats often make claims 'without evidence,' but you'll rarely see it mentioned in the headline Alisa Open Discussion
Is there an accurate term for this tactic of applying a principle or rule only when one thinks it helps one's own side? "Double standard" and "inconsistent" don't adequately convey the evil and dishonesty involved.]]>
Mon, 12 Nov 2018 21:22:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11366 http://curi.us/comments/show/11366
Alisa Bad Scholarship on VDare
> But they're NATURAL REPUBLICANS! From 80 to 60 Percent White: How to Lose a Congressional District]]>
Mon, 12 Nov 2018 11:50:58 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11365 http://curi.us/comments/show/11365
Anonymous Bad Scholarship on VDare
>In 2008, Virginia’s seventh congressional district was 79 percent white. Today, it is 65 percent white.

...

>What do all three have in common besides a shockingly similar demographic change in the last decade? All three had been considered solidly Republican for decades, and the last week, all three Republican incumbents lost to Democrats.

the Virginia district was REDRAWN in a way which hurt Republican Dave Brat

https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/judges-impose-new-va-congressional-map-redrawing-rd-th-districts/article_0ad5053b-6818-5d7e-b96e-c9ce02ad45cb.html

vdare guy is trying to make some point about immigration and demographic change leading to GOP losses, leaves this detail out...]]>
Sun, 11 Nov 2018 15:28:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11364 http://curi.us/comments/show/11364
Anonymous Open Discussion Sat, 10 Nov 2018 15:24:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11363 http://curi.us/comments/show/11363 Anonymous Open Discussion
> Independent sellers who offer new and used Apple products on Amazon will have their listings removed after January 4, 2019, under the new deal. Those sellers will need to apply to become Apple authorized resellers on Amazon to continue to offer their wares.

> As CNET points out, while this deal will provide customers with access to a greater selection of Apple products at standard prices, it could potentially impact the used Apple device market on the platform.

doh, a downside]]>
Sat, 10 Nov 2018 12:54:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11362 http://curi.us/comments/show/11362
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Amazon Inks Deal to Sell New Apple Products Like iPhone XR, iPhone XS, and 2018 iPad Pro]]>
Sat, 10 Nov 2018 12:52:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11361 http://curi.us/comments/show/11361
curi Bad Scholarship on VDare
![](https://curi.us/img/RjlNyW8wPId6i4o-300x437.png)

Then in comments, he claims:

> I'm a lot better at this than you are--that's fine, I've been doing it for a long time

It's easy to discover that I have a blog post from Jan 2003 on this site. And I started before I had a blog. So it seems I've been doing it longer. He should be more careful about making false factual assumptions (he appears to assume he's being doing this longer than I have).]]>
Sat, 10 Nov 2018 12:26:34 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11360 http://curi.us/comments/show/11360
curi Bad Scholarship on VDare Sat, 10 Nov 2018 12:19:24 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11359 http://curi.us/comments/show/11359 curi Bad Scholarship on VDare Sat, 10 Nov 2018 12:12:46 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11358 http://curi.us/comments/show/11358 curi Bad Scholarship on VDare
How many of those respondents are dems? We can't know exactly but we can calculate a range. The *minimum* is: ceil(ceil(18778 * 0.405) * 0.865). Why? The lowest they'd round up to 41% is 40.5%. And they'd round 86.5% or more up to 87%.

So here's the math with ruby:

>> ((18778 * 0.405).ceil * 0.865).ceil
=> 6580

Let's sanity check that. What does the naive method get?

>> 18778 * 0.41 * 0.87
=> 6698.1126

Similar. Sanity check passed.

That naive method was actually used by Audacious Epigone, see https://twitter.com/AudaciousEpigon/status/1060703381176627201

Ok and what about the top end of the range?

>> ((18778 * 0.415).floor * 0.875).floor
=> 6818

So there is a range of 239 different numbers of individual respondents that CNN would have reported as it did. Audacious Epigone is factually and mathematically wrong.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to correctly calculate the possible total numbers of dems who responded to the poll and to then figure out maximum and minimum percentages of dems who think whites are favored, and then see if the answers are all in the range 75.05% to 75.15% that could be correctly represented as 75.1%, or not. (Based on estimating it, I will be happy to bet money on *not*).

PS I know this depends on rounding rules. I assumed the naive rule of rounding .5 or more up and .49999 down, except also I fudged it and let .5 round down when convenient (but .50001 would round up, so I doubt that mattered).]]>
Sat, 10 Nov 2018 12:02:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11357 http://curi.us/comments/show/11357
Anonymous Bad Scholarship on VDare
It's important to show your original work in order to get mistakes corrected, which is something your *best* readers might help with.

Regarding SPLC etc, it is helpful to them if their opposition offers low quality scholarship that is easily refutable. The way to avoid this is by using good methods like being rigorous, showing your work and properly documenting sources. You don't seem to be a big fan of this approach, and are thus yourself (unwittingly) the left's handmaiden.

Finally, having a strong spirit of frank public criticism is good. Why should we limit our criticisms of scholarship to DM like fragile snowflakes? Doesn't VDare like spirited exchanges of ideas like at the Mencken conference or whatever? The left is gonna be vicious regardless - whispering our disagreements won't appease them.

I'm not curi, and I like VDare in general, but can't say I'm impressed with your response here pal.]]>
Sat, 10 Nov 2018 11:35:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11356 http://curi.us/comments/show/11356
Dagny Bad Scholarship on VDare
Re 3, if people don't want to see something, that is what footnotes are for. ez.

Re 4, You simply can't work out the exact absolute numbers based on rounded percentages. There are a bunch of different absolute numbers of responses that would result in the same rounded percentage being published. This is obvious. You are being careless because you're rationalizing instead of thinking.

By being so sloppy and then refusing to correct your errors, you are helping SPLC and ADL. You are making the lefty "fact checkers" partially correct when they attack sites like VDare.]]>
Sat, 10 Nov 2018 11:32:21 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11355 http://curi.us/comments/show/11355
anepigone.blogspot.com Audacious Epigone Bad Scholarship on VDare
3. Almost nobody wants to see the figures presented worked out. It's a blog post, not a research paper (though most people who read research papers also skip over the parts where authors show their work.

4. No, you are incorrect. Obviously Edison/CNN asked questions, got absolute numbers in their responses, and then put rounded percentages next to them. The absolute numbers are not difficult to work out. Having obtained them, I then created a graph with those absolute numbers of responses and rounded to the nearest tenth of a percentage.

Literally every single complaint you made, publicly, to try and grab a little attention for yourself was invalid. You're not doing VDare or our movement any favors with ignorant concern trolling.

I'm a lot better at this than you are--that's fine, I've been doing it for a long time--so if you have concerns you should attempt to have them addressed privately via DM. There are organizations like the SPLC and the ADL who love having useful idiots like yourself blow smoke for them. They use it to create the vague perception that VDare cannot be trusted. It can be.]]>
Sat, 10 Nov 2018 11:19:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11354 http://curi.us/comments/show/11354
Not surprising Previous student of Justin Justin Kalef vs. Paths Forward Thu, 08 Nov 2018 08:42:21 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11353 http://curi.us/comments/show/11353 Anonymous Open Discussion
https://www.reddit.com/r/Competitiveoverwatch/comments/9v094w/dafran_the_end_i_hate_the_game_thought_i_could/e98cepi/]]>
Wed, 07 Nov 2018 12:40:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11352 http://curi.us/comments/show/11352
Anonymous Open Discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAIVRR4Ss0U]]>
Wed, 07 Nov 2018 12:31:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11351 http://curi.us/comments/show/11351
FF Globalism Wed, 07 Nov 2018 11:44:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11350 http://curi.us/comments/show/11350 Dagny Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations Sun, 04 Nov 2018 22:33:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11349 http://curi.us/comments/show/11349 Evan Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
So I just gave one rule, but tentatively, I'll say a variant is any permutation of any of the information variables that instantiate the explanation. Analagous to a variant of a gene.]]>
Sun, 04 Nov 2018 21:10:43 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11348 http://curi.us/comments/show/11348
Evan Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
Aren't ideas of the form "X or Y" where X and Y are consistent and Y is something irrelevant we already know (like 8=8) usually just labeled "X" by a person with background knowledge that includes Y? E.g. Einstein's field equation contains an 8, and presumably anyone who understands them also knows and has no criticism of "8=8".]]>
Sun, 04 Nov 2018 21:07:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11347 http://curi.us/comments/show/11347
Richard Globalism
Related to your discussion: here Dr. Yoram Hazony also argues against one world government.

https://mises.org/library/dr-yoram-hazony-liberalism-nationalism-and-globalism]]>
Sun, 04 Nov 2018 10:09:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11346 http://curi.us/comments/show/11346
oh my god it's turpentine Globalism
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4053/eu-regulations]]>
Sat, 03 Nov 2018 04:00:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11345 http://curi.us/comments/show/11345
Anonymous Jordan Peterson is a Traitor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dKS8QM2S-A

The thing about Peterson, from my perspective, is that *all* the intellectuals are badly wrong and don't have Paths Forward. And the critics are like that too: Vox Day, Charles Tew, Owen Benjamin, Roosh V, C.B. Robertson (the guy linked in this comment) ... they too are wrong about major things and don't have Paths Forward either. They are better than JP in some ways, but not a particular way: they don't have *positive contributions to good ideas* to compete with JP – they have less useful info to teach me. I will readily admit JP got a bunch of ideas from Jung (and from the Gulag Archipelago and some other places), rather than inventing them himself, but still he merits some credit for finding some good ideas and sharing some of them in some modern, accessible ways. These other people are OK, and perhaps better on average, but they don't have as high a peak value to offer, IMO. However, JP is never going to come anywhere near his old peaks in his new material. 12 Rules is super dumbed down in addition to actually being scientifically false and unscholarly. Besides shifting left, JP's been going more mainstream, more getting along with people and networking, and less eccentric intellectual. RIP.]]>
Thu, 01 Nov 2018 20:56:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11344 http://curi.us/comments/show/11344
Anonymous Jordan Peterson is a Traitor
> Then they came for YouTube

> And there was no one to defend it from the censors, because YouTube had already censored or suppressed everyone with the inclination to fight.

> > YouTube’s CEO has urged creators on the popular video site to organize against a proposed EU internet regulation, reinforcing fears that the infamous Article 13 could lead to content-killing, meme-maiming restrictions on the web.

jfc]]>
Thu, 01 Nov 2018 20:31:20 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11343 http://curi.us/comments/show/11343
Dagny Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
> It seems to me like adding crap doesn't produce a variant of the theory unless the crap contradicts parts of the theory.

This seems to be a claim that "X or Y" is not a new or different theory – therefore it's the same theory.

If you add one thing and you don't get a variant, aren't you saying it's still the original thing, unchanged? Or are you claiming that adding one thing just make a new non-variant? If so, you'll really have to clarify what you think the rules are for what counts as a variant (something DD ought to do as well, but has not done).]]>
Thu, 01 Nov 2018 20:28:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11342 http://curi.us/comments/show/11342
Dagny Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
I don't know what you're talking about. You didn't say that, I did. I am telling you that "X or Y" is a variant of "X". And it solves the same problems. I'm hungry. What is a *correct* answer to how to solve that problem? "Eat McDonalds". And also, "Eat McDonalds or play Overwatch" is a true answer. And also "Eat McDonalds or 3=3+1" is also a correct answer. It's not wrong. One or the other will work, as it says. And it works if you change the 3's to 4's or 5's or 6's.

I can assure you that DD knows this kinda stuff about logic, and agrees with these logical facts.]]>
Thu, 01 Nov 2018 20:24:05 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11341 http://curi.us/comments/show/11341
Anonymous Jordan Peterson is a Traitor
When he was 14, Jordan Peterson wanted to be the head politician. So he said at an NDP event (New Democratic Party) and got in the news for.

and Vox Day on Gab:

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/10/godaddy-bans-gab.html

> I'm not going to pretend that I don't find this extremely amusing, or that I did not anticipate this result when Andrew Torba refused to remove libel, pornography, and fake rape photoshops from his site at my request. As I said more than a year ago, Torba lacks the temperament and the detachment required to run a company, particularly in testing times such as these.

And he has some good points, in that post, about how stuff like this, and all the "terms of service" and EULA crap, and software as a service, is an attack on property and contract.]]>
Thu, 01 Nov 2018 20:18:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11340 http://curi.us/comments/show/11340
Anonymous Jordan Peterson is a Traitor
> and it's very clear that they don't believe everything that they say that they believe when they're on camera. A lot of them just don't believe. they're just actors, they're actors, I don't know how else to put it.

Owen Benjamin said something similar. He was saying how he'd tell some politically incorrect joke, and his CAA handlers and some of his buddies would take it badly, and he'd be like "look at me and tell with you don't think that's funny", because he knows them as people and knows they actually agree with him about that particular thing.

> Had one person who I went on their show and I was in the greenroom, which is like the makeup room before you go on camera, the host of this show comes in, and it's like hey Blair you know small talk, hey Blair I wanted you on for a while, so glad you're here, nice to meet you, let's take a picture. They pull me aside and say I just want you to know Blair, I don't feel any negative way towards you or trans people. I know we talked about trans people a lot on the show, but that's just because it's kind of what the fans want, it's just kind of where we're at right now. And I was taken aback because I felt like that's really fraudulent, that you would feel the need to go on air and say something negative about trans people or transgender and some or whatever but it's not really how you feel. He also said he has like a trans cousin or something like that and that he feels bad that they're the butt of every joke on his show or whatever, but almost every person I met after him was almost always consistently like that. You start learning things like, oh almost all of them hire people to tweet and Facebook posts and Instagram on their behalf, tweeting out opinions on their behalf , which I feel like is unethical because if people were following you because they believe you're some intellectual and they trust your opinion and they're gonna shape their opinions a lot of times on an issue based on your opinion and it's not even actually your opinion! It's something you paid someone to assume as your opinion and you're so much of a rigid, like, a binary thinker, that it's easy just to pay someone to tweet out the standard response and this is what it's like.

jfc

> I don't respect that. I don't really know what it is about me in particular that makes people feel comfortable to sort of reveal to me that they don't believe all the things that they say they believe on camera. And I'm not talking about small things either, you guys, I'm talking about like huge principal positions. I'm talking about like the kind of stuff that a lot of you guys follow these people for they don't even actually believe. It's just crazy. Months ago I was gearing up to do a tour which never happened because the tour company completely screwed me over, but regardless, I had started promoting it and someone who's very prominent in the social political commentary sphere hit me up, and you know, what this person told me, they told me to plant fake protesters outside of your event. Not only that, they said make fake signs because you're probably gonna get protesters but you want to amp the numbers. This person instructed me, or my team and myself to make signs saying things that were super, super ridiculous to put outside and bulk up the numbers of people who may protest. And it made me sick because clearly this person has done that and this is someone who, although hated by many, is also loved by many, and many who let him believe that all those people were real.

there is a power structure, the elite ruling class, putting on a show for the plebs, the mob, the workers.

and a lot of people who believe something like that, they turn to the left. but the elite is left dominated! you know what's not a ruling elite today? who doesn't have the support of the media and hollywood and soros? blue collar christians. trump voters. and, of course, *real "classical" liberals* – Objectivists, austrian economists, the people who care about the ideas which originally freed society from the shackles of kings and lords.]]>
Thu, 01 Nov 2018 20:12:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11339 http://curi.us/comments/show/11339
Anonymous Jordan Peterson is a Traitor
Charles Tew edited a recent Jordan Peterson discussion video down to show how empty it is.]]>
Thu, 01 Nov 2018 20:04:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11338 http://curi.us/comments/show/11338
AGI/Education and what is a variant of a theory Evan Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
And crucially I think that figuring out human learning is the same problem as building AGI. The knowledge we'll use to build an AGI program (that remembers unexplained observations and works until it has explained them) will also be able to correct the coercion in our education system, by allowing kids to use resources (e.g time, or resources contained in e.g. laboratories, libraries, or the minds of teachers) to solve their problems.

>> It seems to me like adding crap doesn't produce a variant of the theory unless the crap contradicts parts of the theory.

>DD would never agree with you. Logically, "X" and "X or Y" are different theories. He's made similar points himself (no specific source, sorry). Y can be any of infinitely many different things (errors or trivial truths are easy enough to come by, e.g. form statements by iterating N through the integers, from 1 to positive infinity, and have Y be "N = N" or "N = N + 1" (substitute in the current specific number that N is to get another statement)).

I don't see where I used the idea that "X" and "X or Y" are the same theory. And adding some n=n+1 would prevent a theory from solving the problems it solves without the n=n+1 detail, so it's excluded by Deutsch's statement of the criterion.]]>
Thu, 01 Nov 2018 19:59:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11337 http://curi.us/comments/show/11337
Anonymous Jordan Peterson is a Traitor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiCfEcDw_Dg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuUgS3TRQ9k

Around 7min he talks about how the highest IQ people are weeded out of stuff b/c they are disruptive (not obedient followers, do things in different ways, don't always follow orders). Says the most successful people have 120-130 to IQ, avg IQ for Cambridge professors is 130, police don't want ppl over around 110-115 IQ.

And says there's huge problems communicating between people who are over 30 IQ points apart, the dumber ppl can't follow the smarter stuff.

I'm not totally comfortable with this stuff but it's partly kinda right.

Also I think he's exaggerating about knowing two 175 IQ people. 175 IQ is around around 1 in 3.5 million people rarity.

I think it's good that some people talk about IQ. It shouldn't be so taboo.]]>
Thu, 01 Nov 2018 19:55:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11336 http://curi.us/comments/show/11336
Anonymous Jordan Peterson is a Traitor
> Jordan Peterson in the Belly of the Whale - Owen Benjamin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIgu0F7VhQE

Benjamin says the IDW put him on the website, tried to include him, and he rejected it. He is a former JP fan.

also:

> 131 Jordan Peterson empowers a mob, Kavanagh gets confirmed, and music!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbRMX6TKtZg]]>
Thu, 01 Nov 2018 18:57:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11335 http://curi.us/comments/show/11335
Anonymous Jordan Peterson is a Traitor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HllDdQl7lI]]>
Thu, 01 Nov 2018 18:39:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11334 http://curi.us/comments/show/11334
Anonymous Jordan Peterson is a Traitor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpA5AqQtByw]]>
Thu, 01 Nov 2018 18:17:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11333 http://curi.us/comments/show/11333
Anonymous Open Discussion
https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts]]>
Wed, 31 Oct 2018 10:45:35 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11332 http://curi.us/comments/show/11332
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Apple Pencil 2 Rumored to Feature Gesture Support, New Charging Method and Minimalistic Design

supposedly it can magnetically attach to the side of the ipad. that's nice. the "where to put it" problem was real.]]>
Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:27:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11331 http://curi.us/comments/show/11331
Dagny Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
Will AGIs get huge benefits from having more CPUs with more cores? It's non-obvious how to take huge advantage of that.

And even just fast single thread performance doesn't automatically mean you can do the same stuff faster. For example, if the code calls a SLEEP or WAIT function (wait 500 milliseconds then continue), a faster cpu won't speed that up. Why would it do that? Well people do things like put food in the microwave then wait 3 minutes instead of trying to think during that time. People wait in line, or wait on hold on the phone, or whatever, and they could read a book or something productive but they just don't. People sing in the shower instead of thinking about anything important – and they don't sing as fast as possible, they match the song tempo. Or they have some success at something and then they stop thinking about it and have a celebration dinner, instead of continuing to do it more. They don't even try to do it more until later – so there's a large time window where they aren't working on it and more CPU wouldn't help. And people don't think much while playing sports or at the gym or during sex or lots of other times. People watch TV in a thoughtless way instead of trying to give much thought to what they watch. I think they actually waste tons of their time in ways kinda like this, where they aren't trying to think much, they have set most of their compute power to be idle, on purpose, by design, similar to just calling a sleep function in code.

If you gave people more CPU speed, some of them would be more painfully bored, others would drink more. I think lots of people would find it a problem – it makes all the ways they waste time be worse for them because they are wasting even more than before.

(Also, to give credit, I learned lots of what I'm saying to you from ET. In prior comments too.)]]>
Sun, 28 Oct 2018 13:53:49 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11330 http://curi.us/comments/show/11330
Dagny Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
Distractions or focusing on a less optimal area are not the type of waste of compute power I had in mind. I think people never use all their compute power, even when focused on an important topic and doing their best. Also, this isn't about most people, it's literally everyone: I don't think *I* ever use all my compute power. I just don't think compute power is currently the bottleneck. I'm sure extra computing resources (that are more directly accessible than my iPhone) would be useful sometimes, but I don't think it'd rapidly change the world. Would it change the world when combined with much, much better educational ideas? That's hard to evaluate because I think the educational ideas would change the world, by themselves, without the AGI or computing stuff.

> Buildling more Aubrey deGreys at least, that would be significant.

Do you mean cloning his mind into computers, or just making AdG caliber people? If we were better at education, we could make millions of people who are more productive and smarter than him; and if we aren't better at education, AGI won't help. So I don't think AGI (and the its potential to create some people with some extra compute power) is the issue. BTW if compute power were the main issue, it may turn out to be easier to hook computers up to human beings than to invent AGI. No law of physics stops human hardware from being augmented with a more direct interface than a keyboard and mouse, touch screen, or eye tracking! Making a person in silicon sounds harder to me than connecting silicon to a person, though it's really hard to know which is harder to invent because there are a bunch of unknowns involved in each project.

> At 13:30 here, Deutsch says he's gone through different definitions. "Pretty equivalent" is a vague label, but I don't see what he fails to understand about knowledge in that regard.

He thinks "hard to vary" has some sort of special status, some particular importance, rather than just being a slight rephrasing (with slightly different emphasis) of various other things he could have said instead. He thinks he came up with something really special and innovative. He's mistaken about that, and his book fails to argue the point and compare. Everything else he says in the book could be rewritten, pretty easily, without talking about "hard to vary" – but he thinks "hard to vary" is essential to the book and to epistemology. He doesn't discuss or work out how equivalent it is to other ways to looking at knowledge, or what all the qualifiers it needs are and how they change it from what the short version sounds like. He's paying selective attention to one thing of many because he incorrectly deems it more important – he has some familiarity with lots of the others, but he thinks his version is better in some way that is not explained or correct.

> It seems to me like adding crap doesn't produce a variant of the theory unless the crap contradicts parts of the theory.

DD would never agree with you. Logically, "X" and "X or Y" are different theories. He's made similar points himself (no specific source, sorry). Y can be any of infinitely many different things (errors or trivial truths are easy enough to come by, e.g. form statements by iterating N through the integers, from 1 to positive infinity, and have Y be "N = N" or "N = N + 1" (substitute in the current specific number that N is to get another statement)).

BTW that reminds me that DD has never seriously, rigorously addressed what *is* a variant of a theory vs. a non-variant. I don't think it's a very important problem to make more precise, in general, however it's elevated to crucial importance if you think "hard to vary" is super important. (I'm confident DD would agree that "X or Y" is a variant of "X", but I have no idea how he'd draw the line in other, less clear cases, and I think he doesn't know either – I think it's an unsolved problem.)

> Right - doing what?

Not using it. Leave it idle. You know how bad software on your Mac will be slow while leaving a lot of compute power idle? You can see idle compute power in Activity Monitor (like Task Manager on PC). Even good software never gets consistent 100% utilization over time. How much compute power is used depends on software design – software has to actually know how to use compute power or it won't use it, it's not used automatically.

It's kinda like that with people *and* then, on top of that, they generally don't like thinking. People dislike analyzing things, going into detail on things, etc, and avoid it. (Cuz of their awful educations.) Most people actually want to be bored a lot (I'd call it bored, they would use other terms) because bored means not doing things they hate, so they like it better. In school, they hate having to do "work" and think about what the teacher told them to, and if they finish early they don't ask for more to do, and they will get in trouble for socializing, so often they just sit there and waste time. Some people want more to do and do things – take out a book, move on to the next chapter – but most people prefer not to do that, they don't try to optimize their life for using a lot of their compute power.

> Interesting! Better books would make reading fun even for someone with bad philosophy.

Sure, but that's a separate problem from AGI. AGI just means creating a person in silicon, even if he's just as irrational as other people. Which would be great in lots of ways, just not automatically as great as some people seem to think.]]>
Sun, 28 Oct 2018 13:20:35 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11329 http://curi.us/comments/show/11329
Have vs sue Evan Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
I meant *have* a different epistemology, sorry.]]>
Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:45:11 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11328 http://curi.us/comments/show/11328
Evan Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
>And not *all possible* AGIs have a design that allows plugging in extra memory or CPUs.

>be careful with strong phrases like *all possible*.

Right, you said "all possible" and I kind of ignored that, because I thought the implications of *some* AGIs being better at thinking than humans for this argument were obvious.

>I don't think reading speed is primarily constrained by CPU or RAM. I think *human reading is not constrained by those things*. People don't use all their brainpower while reading (or anything else), they leave some idle. People waste large amounts of computational resources.

Right - doing what?

>Maybe, as part of figuring out the education problem better, we'll make much better books. But then is AGI really the key breakthrough? Or is it the books the enable billions of human beings to be much better thinkers!

Interesting! Better books would make reading fun even for someone with bad philosophy.

>I figured you just thought AGIs would magically be super smart and design better AGIs which would design better AGIs which would quickly lead to god-like brilliance (as the majority of AGI fans seem to think)

>but if it's not that then you better give more explanation of how you get from building the first AGI to solving aging.

Buildling more Aubrey deGreys at least, that would be significant.

I think working memory is something creating detailed criticism depends on. People could run VR experiments in their head for, e.g., anti-aging technologies better if they could just hold more conditions in their mind at once. It would allow side effects to be identified much quicker. Like how chess and go engines today can see side effects of a chess move way down the line.

>all knowledge is infinitely variable while still solving the same problems or doing the same job: just add some extra, irrelevant crap. So that doesn't adequately address the variation rules.

It seems to me like adding crap doesn't produce a variant of the theory unless the crap contradicts parts of the theory. Adding the existence of carbon to general relativity doesn't create a different version of general relativity than the one you see in textbooks because it doesn't contradict it.

*Changing* crap (like changing the laws of thermodynamics to say that there do exist perpetual motion machines) does count as varying a theory.

>And as ET said:

>> There are many ways to look at knowledge that are pretty equivalent.

>DD doesn't know that.

At 13:30 here, Deutsch says he's gone through different definitions. "Pretty equivalent" is a vague label, but I don't see what he fails to understand about knowledge in that regard.

Does he disagree with any of the other definitions you gave?

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-ted-interview/e/56853300?autoplay=true&fbclid=IwAR1XUgN36irzl-5Kw9qwMMgu4zMeuC1IuhBZznb9RdVnEaLJ3BOUoyZZdos]]>
Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:43:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11327 http://curi.us/comments/show/11327
Dagny Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
Oh, then why would they solve aging or nuclear war? Wouldn't that they be more like solving pregnancy, then? Presumably building the hardware would be more convenient than pregnancy. But then you build it and you just have another person. And we have billions of those already. And it has no legs, arms or eyes, unless you build those too, which increases the expense.

And not *all possible* AGIs have a design that allows plugging in extra memory or CPUs. You want an AGI from a limited subset of all designs which has certain characteristics that you see advantages in. Perfectly reasonable of you, but be careful with strong phrases like *all possible*.

I don't think reading speed is primarily constrained by CPU or RAM. I think *human reading is not constrained by those things*. People don't use all their brainpower while reading (or anything else), they leave some idle. People waste large amounts of computational resources. And what we really care about is *thoughtful* reading, yes reading books off an SSD is faster than using eyes to read off a screen or page, but the bottleneck will be thinking related rather than on inputting the information. (I think human speed readers may be able to hit bottlenecks related to eyes or something more in that ballpark when reading very easy books, but most people do not come near that bottleneck, and it's not a relevant bottleneck when reading books that require more thought. I've read some very easy material at ~1200 wpm before and that number is increasable with more practice and skill, but people normally read at more like 200 wpm for material that isn't even very hard, and I rarely read at anywhere near 1200 wpm b/c i slow down for material requiring more thought.)

Also, more importantly, if you take a person and let him read 1000 more books ... most people wouldn't even want to. They dislike reading. And even if they did read 1000 books, they'd still be an idiot with awful ideas who didn't understand much of what they read. It wouldn't solve their problems. Similarly if you let someone live an extra thousand years, so he had more time to learn and think, i think he still wouldn't do much – it's not an issue of resources like time or computing power. Like how you can give a person a week to make an important decision and, often, he will barely do better than if he had a day.

Maybe, as part of figuring out the education problem better, we'll make much better books. But then is AGI really the key breakthrough? Or is it the books the enable billions of human beings to be much better thinkers! If AGIs are just people, *possibly* scaled by computational resources (but debatably not because people waste tons of computational resources and i'm not even convinced it's a proportion rather than just all the extra no matter how much that is) ... then the educational improvements are the breakthrough and the AGIs won't do so much. If you build a million AGIs with a thousand times the compute power of a human, it's like increasing the population by a billion, which we've already tried without it accomplishing very much intellectually. *Is your plan to build so many AGIs with so much compute power that it's like increasing the population by 100x or more?* Have you done any math on that? My wild guess is that currently all the compute power of all computing devices in existence is less than the compute power of all human brains in existence, so building compute power that's a large multiple of 7 billion human brains sounds quite hard, but I haven't really investigated the math on this. Have you and this is your plan, or is there something else to it? I figured you just thought AGIs would magically be super smart and design better AGIs which would design better AGIs which would quickly lead to god-like brilliance (as the majority of AGI fans seem to think), but if it's not that then you better give more explanation of how you get from building the first AGI to solving aging.

> Deutsch usually gives the qualification "while still solving the same problems it was created in order to solve"

That text is not in BoI. The shorter section, "solving the same problem", also isn't in BoI. No "while solving" either.

There are some somewhat similar things, e.g. search for "vary while" and there's 5 results, such as:

> Shaffer and Wheeler were describing the same attribute: being hard to vary while still doing the job.

But anyway all knowledge is infinitely variable while still solving the same problems or doing the same job: just add some extra, irrelevant crap. So that doesn't adequately address the variation rules.

And as ET said:

>> There are many ways to look at knowledge that are pretty equivalent.

DD doesn't know that. He thinks his particular way of looking at knowledge (hard to vary) is special and superior. That's his mistake. The way of looking at knowledge is OK. Not super useful because when you flesh out the details you don't end up with anything more actionable than the older idea of critical thinking. But worth knowing, *just like all the others* – e.g. that knowledge is adapted information or that knowledge is problem solving information or that (Elliot's original idea) knowledge is information which breaks the default symmetry of a contradiction (by default you have no way to take sides when two ideas contradict, and you have to do something to break that symmetry – knowledge is ways of taking sides instead of merely saying "in a contradiction, at least one must be false").

---

Search FoR group at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fabric-of-reality/info]]>
Sat, 27 Oct 2018 20:19:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11326 http://curi.us/comments/show/11326
Disagreements with DD Evan Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
Is that this?:

>Hard to vary given what constraints?

>Any idea is easy to vary if there are no constraints. You can vary it to literally any other idea, arbitrarily, in one step.

>The standard constraint on varying an idea is that it still solve (most of) the same problems as before. To improve an idea, we want to make it solve more and better problems than before with little or no downside to the changes.

Because I don't see how that's a criticism of hard to vary, Deutsch usually gives the qualification "while still solving the same problems it was created in order to solve". Is the last sentence I quoted a criticism of that standard constraint?

I agree it's an unintuitive and clunky phrase. "Hard to safely vary" would be good.

>There were some related debates, like about whether justificationism is inherently and necessarily infallibilist (I said no). You can search the BoI archives (available on the google group or at http://curi.us/ebooks ) for some of the later discussions with DD and also especially i remember there was a debate on FoR list. i found a post from it. i think it spanned weeks and many subject lines, but here's (at the end of this comment) a sample to start finding stuff.

How do I search the FoR list?]]>
Sat, 27 Oct 2018 19:20:24 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11325 http://curi.us/comments/show/11325
Evan Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
>You seem to be bringing some political ideas into this which you haven't explained. Disarming is a type of prevention

What do you think of my attempted non-prevention, solutions-focused phrasing then? "Preventing death" isn't preventing problems, or preventing anything really, it's disabling things that destroy problems. Like creating interventions for aging. We want to retain the freedom to explore states of mind like alzheimers or whatever and have whatever fun there is to be had there (not "preventing" alzheimer's, like "preventing" kids from playing video games), but only if the technology exists to get us back to a non-aging state.

>> The AGI could read all the research on aging much more quickly than a human could today. It would be good at making arguments and explaining what is preventing uncooperative states from approaching discussions rationally.

>That depends on the details of the AGI. Not all possible AGIs would be faster than humans at reading.

Doesn't how much you can read and understand increase quickly with working memory, which the AGI could have more of with hardware add ons?

>And why would it be good at making arguments? You are bringing in some ideas about AGI that ET/DD/etc disagree with. They think AGIs would be universal explainers, just like humans are, rather than having some fundamental advantage. They think AGIs would need an education, and we'd be just as capable of doing education badly as we currently do with human students.

I don't think they'd have a fundamental advantage over humans at creating arguments, they'd just be good at it like humans. Isn't figuring out education necessary to figuring out AGI?]]>
Sat, 27 Oct 2018 18:40:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11324 http://curi.us/comments/show/11324
Ranking problems Evan Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
>More important than what? Than an idea that only solves the nuclear disarmament?

More important than either solving aging or solving nuclear war.

>As Elliot said, if both ideas don't contradict each other then we can have both, if not, we shouldn't choose one on the basis of "solves more problems".

I agree you shouldn't choose one already-instantiated solution over another, but it seems like e.g. it's worse to solve problems in, say, video games for years (like, as a character in the game) and then die at age 80 from aging than it is to solve aging first, and then be able to play video games or do whatever else for much longer. There's an apparently normative ordering of problems to solve. I give below an explanation of this ordering using subsets/supersets.

---

>Also, regarding the conversation, supersets are rarely a useful way to compare because of how rarely you can actually compare interesting things as supersets. E.g. suppose the rapid AGI development thing was correct and the AGIs would find a cure for aging a week after AGI is developed. Solving aging a week later is *not* a superset of solving aging right now, it's a different thing with some but not all of the same benefits.

>I don't think cooking and money making stuff offer strict subset/superset relationships. To make money, you have to take extra actions to sell stuff which aren't part of cooking. There is *partial* overlap.

Ah, good point.

>Philosophy is powerful because it offers methods of thinking, and thinking is needed in other fields. But it doesn't tell you everything you need to know about those other fields (e.g. it doesn't tell you how to cook, only certain things about how to learn to cook) – it's not a superset, it just has partial overlap.

Maybe people should choose to work on the most fundamental problems first because their solutions can be used to solve less fundamental problems faster. It would be too much boring work to solve them without fundamental knowledge (e.g. it would be too boring to solve aging without an AGI, or factorize a large prime number without a quantum computer, or cook toast without a stove.) Solving AGI first is more fun. That is because the explanation of how it works is more fundamental than explanations of specific things people can do. The repertoires (in terms of physical transformations) had by the classes of objects that the theories explain can be ordered into supersets and subsets.]]>
Sat, 27 Oct 2018 18:12:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11323 http://curi.us/comments/show/11323
Justin Mallone By Any Means Necessary: A Violent Marxist Cult Sat, 27 Oct 2018 13:17:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11322 http://curi.us/comments/show/11322 curi By Any Means Necessary: A Violent Marxist Cult Fri, 26 Oct 2018 16:17:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11321 http://curi.us/comments/show/11321 Thank you for sharing! Alex from Detroit By Any Means Necessary: A Violent Marxist Cult
One side note though--I'm female!]]>
Fri, 26 Oct 2018 15:16:58 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11320 http://curi.us/comments/show/11320
Anonymous Learn Super Smash Brothers Melee and Philosophy! Mon, 22 Oct 2018 20:08:20 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11319 http://curi.us/comments/show/11319 Anonymous Learn Super Smash Brothers Melee and Philosophy! What would be the best way to introduce myself to it? Go headlong into Melee, warm myself up with Project M, or perhaps something else?]]> Mon, 22 Oct 2018 19:50:35 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11318 http://curi.us/comments/show/11318 curi Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
DD quit philosophy around the time I figured out https://yesornophilosophy.com (years before creating that educational material). I asked him to engage with it but he never engaged much. He chose not to learn and respond to it, I think for similar reasons to why he quit philosophy in general. There were some related debates, like about whether justificationism is inherently and necessarily infallibilist (I said no). You can search the BoI archives (available on the google group or at http://curi.us/ebooks ) for some of the later discussions with DD and also especially i remember there was a debate on FoR list. i found a post from it. i think it spanned weeks and many subject lines, but here's (at the end of this comment) a sample to start finding stuff.

It's certainly not the only disagreement that DD chose not to address. Another was my criticism of "hard to vary" which I shared before BoI was published (a version of it is in the blog post at the top). you can also find some debate about mirror neurons on FoR list, which I don't think DD adequately addressed. DD also dissented from Szasz in some major ways, shortly before quitting, and didn't explain that adequately or address Szasz's (or my) arguments that i had previously thought him to be an advocate of.

as to the linked paper, that's long after DD quit philosophy. he no longer thinks well about issues like that. he's intentionally distanced himself from the epistemology community that he had helped create. he doesn't want to know what we think, persuade us, be persuaded by us, answer or ask questions, give or receive criticism, etc. there are no paths forward and so his comments no longer matter. his 2 books predate his quitting philosophy, but for a 2016 paper *he is no longer the same person who thought of the ideas in FoR and BoI*, nor is he now the kind of person who debates and seriously studies such things.

---


Begin forwarded message:

From: Elliot Temple <curi@curi.us>
Subject: Solidity is degree of justification (was: Mirror neurons at autopsy)
Date: December 22, 2012 at 11:44:40 AM PST
To: Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com


On Dec 18, 2012, at 2:53 PM, David Deutsch <david.deutsch@qubit.org> wrote:

> (Well, I say we know this -- but that explanation is not nearly as solid as the ones above.

This is justificationism.

-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/
---




From: David Deutsch <david.deutsch@qubit.org>
Subject: Re: Criticism and explanation versus justification
Date: January 1, 2013 at 5:53:16 PM PST
To: <Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com
---


From: Anonymous Person <unattributedemail@gmail.com>
Subject: Justificationism
Date: December 31, 2012 at 12:05:42 PM PST
To: Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com
---


From: Elliot Temple <curi@curi.us>
Subject: Re: Solidity is degree of justification (was: Mirror neurons at autopsy)
Date: December 25, 2012 at 3:58:41 PM PST
To: Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com]]>
Sun, 21 Oct 2018 23:15:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11317 http://curi.us/comments/show/11317
Dagny Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
I don't think cooking and money making stuff offer strict subset/superset relationships. To make money, you have to take extra actions to sell stuff which aren't part of cooking. There is *partial* overlap.

Philosophy is powerful because it offers methods of thinking, and thinking is needed in other fields. But it doesn't tell you everything you need to know about those other fields (e.g. it doesn't tell you how to cook, only certain things about how to learn to cook) – it's not a superset, it just has partial overlap.

> I said nuclear disarmament because I agree with Deutsch that problems shouldn't be prevented but solved and didn't want to solve the apparent contradiction - can you?

You seem to be bringing some political ideas into this which you haven't explained. Disarming is a type of prevention, whereas creating a world where no one wants to hurt each other would be more of a full solution IMO (cuz if you disarm while still wanting to kill each other, that's only a partial solution).

I'm no doubt bringing in some political ideas too: I (and ET and DD) believe we live in a world where nuclear disarmament is an ongoing activism issue by certain anti-American types who want to disarm us – which would foolishly lead to more violence.

> The AGI could read all the research on aging much more quickly than a human could today. It would be good at making arguments and explaining what is preventing uncooperative states from approaching discussions rationally.

That depends on the details of the AGI. Not all possible AGIs would be faster than humans at reading.

And why would it be good at making arguments? You are bringing in some ideas about AGI that ET/DD/etc disagree with. They think AGIs would be universal explainers, just like humans are, rather than having some fundamental advantage. They think AGIs would need an education, and we'd be just as capable of doing education badly as we currently do with human students.]]>
Sun, 21 Oct 2018 22:56:21 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11316 http://curi.us/comments/show/11316
Refutation Evan Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
> You don't need a better idea in order to decide that an idea won't work – that it fails to solve the problem you thought it solved.

Doesn't DD disagree with this (p8 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.02048.pdf requires a rival theory for a theory to be refuted)? Are there any written arguments about this online (esp involving Deutsch) that I could read? Anyone know why he disagrees?]]>
Sun, 21 Oct 2018 22:49:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11315 http://curi.us/comments/show/11315
Quality vs quantity of explanation Evan Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
Deutsch's use of the phrase "refuted and abandoned" in BoI (p341), my mis-remembering his use of the pencil+paper+waste paper basket analogy in BoI) p355, and the use of 'discard' here (1st instance) https://conjecturesandrefutations.com/?s=discard.

>>>>a. Corollary 1-1: We should prefer theories that explain more over those that explain less. In other words, we should prefer theories that have fewer problems (things it can’t explain) over ones that have more problems.

>>>Don't judge ideas on quantity of explanation. Quality is more important. Does it solve problems we care about? Which problems are important to solve? Which issues are important to explain and which aren't?

>> What is there to quality except problems which are supersets and subsets of other problems? E.g. the solution to the problem of AGI solves the problem of aging and the problem of nuclear disarmament, so solving AGI is a more important problem. That's quantity in the sense the emailer was talking about.

>problems are not countable without a measure (a method of counting) and no reasonable measures are known. even if we found some measures, we should not expect them to actually be good for the purpose of judging idea quality – we'd need a particular measure designed to that purpose. but then we're building knowledge of idea quality (like which problems are more important to solve, which is not what would normally be considered a quantity issue) into the measure itself, so we're still basically judging by idea quality.

Maybe not all problems, but problems of explaining the unexplained seem to be orderable into sets and subsets. Like, it's conceivable that solving the problem of how to make money is a sub-problem of someone's problem of how to do stuff that requires a stove. This is how I understand the importance of philosophy - philosophical problems are sub-problems of many other problems - it's hard to do things correctly and without making huge mistakes unless you understand philosophy. See page 449 of BoI about some problems being more fundamental than others. To me that seems to imply subsets and supersets.

>also it's debatable that building an AGI will lead in some kind of direct or immediate way to solving the aging problem or the problem of preventing nuclear war (which i take as the real problem being referred to there). i don't think it would, nor does ET nor DD.

The AGI could read all the research on aging much more quickly than a human could today. It would be good at making arguments and explaining what is preventing uncooperative states from approaching discussions rationally.

I said nuclear disarmament because I agree with Deutsch that problems shouldn't be prevented but solved and didn't want to solve the apparent contradiction - can you? The criterion of nuclear war not happening soon should be met - is that a counterexample to the "solutions, not preventions" idea? Problems are inevitable - that's a good argument for why ultimately the strategy should be like "nuclear-war-proof-cities and buildings". I guess a solutions-focused way to phrase disarmament would be "discard the vehicles for the execution of government employees' genocidal ideas, because they've been morally refuted" - or "turn them into safer vehicles for the execution of those impulses" (by disabling the nukes, thereby turning them into effectively toy replicas or whatever).]]>
Sun, 21 Oct 2018 22:28:24 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11314 http://curi.us/comments/show/11314
Anonymous Open Discussion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliced_bread#1943_U.S._ban_on_sliced_bread

> During 1943, U.S. officials imposed a short-lived ban on sliced bread as a wartime conservation measure.[6][7] The ban was ordered by Claude R. Wickard who held the position of Food Administrator, and took effect on January 18, 1943. According to The New York Times, officials explained that "the ready-sliced loaf must have a heavier wrapping than an unsliced one if it is not to dry out." It was also intended to counteract a rise in the price of bread, caused by the Office of Price Administration's authorization of a ten percent increase in flour prices.[8]

> In a Sunday radio address on January 24, New York City Mayor LaGuardia suggested that bakeries that had their own bread-slicing machines should be allowed to continue to use them, and on January 26, 1943, a letter appeared in The New York Times from a distraught housewife:

>> I should like to let you know how important sliced bread is to the morale and saneness of a household. My husband and four children are all in a rush during and after breakfast. Without ready-sliced bread I must do the slicing for toast—two pieces for each one—that's ten. For their lunches I must cut by hand at least twenty slices, for two sandwiches apiece. Afterward I make my own toast. Twenty-two slices of bread to be cut in a hurry![9]

> On January 26, however, John F. Conaboy, the New York Area Supervisor of the Food Distribution Administration, warned bakeries, delicatessens, and other stores that were continuing to slice bread to stop, saying that "to protect the cooperating bakeries against the unfair competition of those who continue to slice their own bread... we are prepared to take stern measures if necessary."[10]

> On March 8, 1943, the ban was rescinded. Wickard stated that "Our experience with the order, however, leads us to believe that the savings are not as much as we expected, and the War Production Board tells us that sufficient wax paper to wrap sliced bread for four months is in the hands of paper processor and the baking industry."[8]

btw you might recognize the name Wickard from this infamous case, which destroyed the Constitution forever:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn]]>
Sun, 21 Oct 2018 19:03:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11313 http://curi.us/comments/show/11313
Guilherme Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
All those positive virtues do not deal with the content of the contradicting ideas and how they relate to one another. It's like ignoring the contradiction and choosing by following some authority.]]>
Sun, 21 Oct 2018 16:17:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11312 http://curi.us/comments/show/11312
Anonymous Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
He presumably thinks they will be superintelligent and rapidly self-improving and rapidly solve virtually all problems. That kinda view.

---

Also, regarding the conversation, supersets are rarely a useful way to compare because of how rarely you can actually compare interesting things as supersets. E.g. suppose the rapid AGI development thing was correct and the AGIs would find a cure for aging a week after AGI is developed. Solving aging a week later is *not* a superset of solving aging right now, it's a different thing with some but not all of the same benefits.]]>
Sun, 21 Oct 2018 15:45:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11311 http://curi.us/comments/show/11311
Guilherme Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations >>>a. Corollary 1-1: We should prefer theories that explain more over those that explain less. In other words, we should prefer theories that have fewer problems (things it can’t explain) over ones that have more problems.

>>Don't judge ideas on quantity of explanation. Quality is more important. Does it solve problems we care about? Which problems are important to solve? Which issues are important to explain and which aren't?

>What is there to quality except problems which are supersets and subsets of other problems?

Elliot said what is there to quality:

>Does it solve problems we care about? Which problems are important to solve? Which issues are important to explain and which aren't?

>E.g. the solution to the problem of AGI solves the problem of aging and the problem of nuclear disarmament, so solving AGI is a more important problem. That's quantity in the sense the emailer was talking about.

More important than what? Than an idea that only solves the nuclear disarmament? As Elliot said, if both ideas don't contradict each other then we can have both, if not, we shouldn't choose one on the basis of "solves more problems". If they contradict we should create another idea that will solve the contradiction. The solution will show that one or both ideas were wrong.

Also, why do you think that the solution to AGI solves aging and the problem of nuclear disarmament?]]>
Sun, 21 Oct 2018 15:39:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11310 http://curi.us/comments/show/11310
Anonymous Open Discussion
http://www.danielpipes.org/18546/still-skeptical-of-trump-israel-policy

> Question: The Trump administration seems to be following the logic of MEF's Israel Victory Project launched in January 2017: it recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, closed the PLO office in Washington, and cut funds to UNRWA and other Palestinians entities. With this, has your initial skepticism about President Trump's attitude towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict changed?

> Answer: I remain skeptical. I see Trump's grand Middle East goal to weaken the Iranian regime. Toward this end, he has rewarded the Saudis with arms sales and the Israelis with Jerusalem. The steps against the Palestinian Authority serve as pressure on it to come to the table and receive what I expect to be its reward, namely recognition of Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital. If I am right, things will not turn out well.]]>
Sun, 21 Oct 2018 12:40:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11309 http://curi.us/comments/show/11309
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Our rural environs are often home to hard-working immigrants, but also to various Mexican gangs, drug dealers, and parolees. I hesitate to offer too many details because in the past I have incurred the anger of dangerous neighbors who got wind of filtered down stories of their criminality. It is enough said that sirens, SWAT teams, and ICE raids are not uncommon.

> A month ago a gang member shot up a neighbor’s house. He was arrested, released, and rearrested in a single night after trying twice to break into the home. The armed homeowner stopped his entry. I know of no nearby resident who is not armed. I cannot remember anything remotely similar occurring before 1980. In the 1970s we had no keys to our doors, and houses were permanently unlocked.

> Some of those with criminal records and gang affiliations were born in the United States. Perhaps America often does not seem as much a promised land to the second generation as it did to their parents, who arrived destitute from impoverished Oaxaca, Chiapas, and Central America. Arriving from one of the poorest regions in the world to one of the wealthiest and most culturally different— without the competitive requisites of English, legality, and a high-school diploma—in an era when the salad bowl is preferable to the melting pot, can easily result in the frequent chaos described below.

> I object most to the environmental damage in our rural areas. By that I mean the tossing of household waste or even toxic chemicals onto farmland. Staged cock- and dog-fighting is also not uncommon. I have found a few carcasses ripped to shreds, some with ropes around the dead dogs’ neck.

> Picking up tossed junk in my orchard is a routine experience. The perpetrators often leave plastic bags of their bulk mail (with incriminating addresses!) among soiled diapers and wet garbage. Local authorities have enough to do without hunting down dumpers to cite them for their antigreen habits.

> Every once in a while amateur and illegal collectors, who freelance for immigrant households that do not pay for “supposedly” mandated county garbage pick-ups, will come in at night with panel trucks and trailers. They dump literally tons of garbage such as mattresses, sofas, TVs, appliances, tires, junk mail, and car seats on alleyways and in vineyards.

> Not long ago someone jettisoned in our vineyard hundreds of used florescent light bulbs, about 100 paint cans, and fifty-gallon drums of used oil and chemicals. Needles and drug paraphernalia are not uncommon. I’ve seen about five stripped-down cars abandoned on our property after being stolen. Last summer a huge semi-truck was left on our alleyway, picked cleaned down to the chassis.

> I used to ride a bicycle in our environs. I quit for a variety of reasons.

> If one is bit by unlicensed and unvaccinated roaming dogs— and there are many out here— and if their masters do not speak English or do not have legal status, then a nightmare follows of trying to get authorities to find the dogs and impound them before the owners or the dogs disappear. It is up to the bitten whether the decision to play the odds and not get painful, and sometimes dangerous, rabies shots is prudent or suicidal. As a doctor put it to me when I was bitten: “Rabid dogs are almost unheard of in the United States, but I have no idea of what is true of Mexico. Your call.”

> Less dramatically, I got tired of watching local canteen trucks drive out on our rural roads, pull their drainage plugs, and dump cooking waste or toss leftovers on the road.”

The Diversity Of Illegal Immigration
https://www.hoover.org/research/diversity-illegal-immigration
via Instapaper]]>
Sun, 21 Oct 2018 07:18:58 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11308 http://curi.us/comments/show/11308
Anonymous Open Discussion
> In that terrible summer, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey’s Islamic tyrant, finished securing his absolute hold on power with the coup as his Reichstag fire. The alleged coup became a blank check for the mass arrest and torture of countless thousands of political prisoners. Amnesty International estimated that 50,000 had been detained. The UN listed a figure as high as 180,000. They included 300 journalists.

> Lawyers described clients being brought to them covered in blood.

> Erdogan went after professors, judges, law enforcement, the military and the last remnants of a free press. A Human Rights Watch report documented electric shocks, beatings with truncheons and rubber hoses, and rape by Erdogan’s Islamic thugs. Heads were banged against walls. Men were forced to kneel on burning hot asphalt. Medical reports showed skull fractures, damage to testicles and dehydration.

> The media didn’t show any of the hysterical outrage at these crimes that it has over the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi. The media cares more about Khashoggi, a former media mouthpiece of the Saudi regime before it turned on his Muslim Brotherhood brothers, than about 300 Turkish reporters.”

>Jamal Khashoggi: The Media Fights for a Muslim Brotherhood Pal of Osama Bin Laden
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271623/jamal-khashoggi-media-fights-muslim-brotherhood-daniel-greenfield
via Instapaper]]>
Sun, 21 Oct 2018 07:12:31 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11307 http://curi.us/comments/show/11307
Dagny Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
> By "rejected", do you mean "thrown away"? Throwing away ideas for how to solve a problem just because they don't work disables you from modifying them to find a solution.

no you don't throw it away, and for the reason you said. you can try to fix it and, failing that keep it in the pile of false ideas which you can look through for inspiration or metaphorical spare parts (or try again to fix, later, after learning something new). (minor tangent: this is what Popper said, and Deutsch said, and me. i thought you had read a fair amount of them, so i don't know where the throwing away misinterpretation is coming from, since we all contradict it and we never advocate it *and* you already understood why it's wrong and what is better, in line with Popper.)

rejected means. you 1) think it's false (your best judgment). 2) you *do not act on it*, b/c you are *rejecting it as a solution to your problem*. (that does not mean rejecting a *different idea*, which is similar, if you can invent one, nor does it mean rejecting the idea as a solution to a *different* problem like the problem of having a flawed intellectual starting point to try to build on, which can be useful, which is the point in the prior paragraph.)

throwing away ideas is bad even if you have a strictly better one *in the usual sense* – strictly better at solving the original problem – b/c the worse idea could still contain some "spare parts" that the better idea doesn't have. however "strictly better" could be interpreted broadly enough to mean strictly better as spare parts in addition to strictly better at its primary function, in which case you can safely throw away strictly worse ideas, sorta, except the thing is the better idea will contain the worse idea and more and that's how it managed to be strictly better in the stronger sense.

> What is there to quality except problems which are supersets and subsets of other problems? E.g. the solution to the problem of AGI solves the problem of aging and the problem of nuclear disarmament, so solving AGI is a more important problem. That's quantity in the sense the emailer was talking about.


problems are not countable without a measure (a method of counting) and no reasonable measures are known. even if we found some measures, we should not expect them to actually be good for the purpose of judging idea quality – we'd need a particular measure designed to that purpose. but then we're building knowledge of idea quality (like which problems are more important to solve, which is not what would normally be considered a quantity issue) into the measure itself, so we're still basically judging by idea quality.

also it's debatable that building an AGI will lead in some kind of direct or immediate way to solving the aging problem or the problem of preventing nuclear war (which i take as the real problem being referred to there). i don't think it would, nor does ET nor DD.

but anyway, the *reason* you think that solving AGI will be so beneficial (and btw i do agree it'd be really valuable) is your understanding of the value of that achievement – it's your judgment relating to a quality issue (value of achievement, what the achievement would do), not a quantity issue, that is leading you to think it would solve aging and nuclear war. you think it'd solve those because of your understanding of what the accomplishment would be, what sorta benefits it'd have, etc, not b/c of anything that looks like a quantity measurement.]]>
Sat, 20 Oct 2018 17:59:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11306 http://curi.us/comments/show/11306
Quality vs quantity of explanation Evan Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations >Don't judge ideas on quantity of explanation. Quality is more important. Does it solve problems we care about? Which problems are important to solve? Which issues are important to explain and which aren't?

What is there to quality except problems which are supersets and subsets of other problems? E.g. the solution to the problem of AGI solves the problem of aging and the problem of nuclear disarmament, so solving AGI is a more important problem. That's quantity in the sense the emailer was talking about.]]>
Sat, 20 Oct 2018 17:43:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11305 http://curi.us/comments/show/11305
Refutation Evan Critical Rationalism Epistemology Explanations
> You don't need a better idea in order to decide that an idea won't work – that it fails to solve the problem you thought it solved.

By "rejected", do you mean "thrown away"? Throwing away ideas for how to solve a problem just because they don't work disables you from modifying them to find a solution.

Throwing away ideas only if there's a strictly better idea doesn't have that problem, because whatever improvements could be made to the worse ones could be made to the better one.]]>
Sat, 20 Oct 2018 15:58:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11304 http://curi.us/comments/show/11304
breaks curi Open Discussion
https://www.dejal.com/timeout/

i set it to 20s break every 20min and 3min break every 90min.

i think it's good. you can delay or skip breaks, but i often do them.]]>
Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:55:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11303 http://curi.us/comments/show/11303
ad blocking curi Open Discussion
i reloaded a page where 3 separate big ads had appeared just at the top, and they were all gone. adblock sucks. i think i also semi-recently tried adblock plus (which is different but similar) with similar results.

if i have trouble with ublock, i will get 1blocker which is supposed to be great except that it doesn't block ads within youtube videos. i have 1blocker on ios and have had good experiences with it, and i read some reviews recommending it on both mac and ios. 1blocker costs a small amount of money which is perhaps why it's superior.]]>
Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:53:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11302 http://curi.us/comments/show/11302
curi Turgot on Criticism and Parenting Fri, 19 Oct 2018 18:45:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11301 http://curi.us/comments/show/11301 PAS Product Release: Yes or No Philosophy
(1) Assume the close: Instead of getting you to say yes or no, they slowly and carefully move from the pitch into finalizing the transaction as if you said yes. They only stop if you stop them by saying no. If you don't stop them, by the time you actually have to say yes by handing over money or signing or whatever, they act like you were the one being deceitful and changing your mind if you try to say no.

(2) Don't take no for an answer: They take even a clear no as just another request for more information before you say yes. To get them to stop you have to say something like no and please go away immediately.]]>
Fri, 19 Oct 2018 06:55:34 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11300 http://curi.us/comments/show/11300
patio11 on yes or no answers curi Product Release: Yes or No Philosophy
> That is called "asking for the sale" and, while that [example] is a very unconventional way to ask for the sale, a *ridiculous* portion of all energy expended in the art of sales is to get conversations to the point where someone has to actually say yes or no.

> Relatedly: in the highly likely event that you get an answer which is not a yes or no, effective salespeople follow up until the sun goes nova waiting for either a yes or no.]]>
Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:42:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11299 http://curi.us/comments/show/11299
Anonymous Open Discussion
> If Elizabeth Warren had been Jewish in Nazi Germany, her 1/64th, ancestry, let alone 1/1024th, would have been considered too small to keep her out of the Nazi Party or the SS. That’s how insignificant the worst racists consider it. She’s gotten a lot of mileage out of nothing.

Good comparison by George Reisman.]]>
Mon, 15 Oct 2018 22:04:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11298 http://curi.us/comments/show/11298
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Bustamante said that Warren’s test results show the “vast majority” of her ancestry is European, but that “the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor,” likely 6–10 generations ago.

how did she know she's *cherokee* in particular if she had one indian relative 200 years ago, and has no idea what their name was, their gender, who they were, where they lived, what tribe they were in, etc?

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/411521-cherokee-nation-warrens-use-of-dna-test-inappropriate-wrong

> The Cherokee Nation in a statement said using a DNA test to claim connection with a tribal nation is “inappropriate” and “wrong.”

> “Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong,” said Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. “It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven.”

> Hoskin accused Warren of “undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”

> He argued that DNA tests fail to distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America and noted that tribes set their own legal requirements for citizenship.

> Warren claims to have Cherokee blood. The Cherokee Nation requires a person to have at least one ancestor listed on a federal census used to allot Cherokee land in the early 1900s known as the Dawes Final Rolls.

> Unlike other tribes, the Cherokee Nation does not require a minimum blood quantum for citizenship.]]>
Mon, 15 Oct 2018 18:38:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11297 http://curi.us/comments/show/11297
Anonymous Open Discussion
https://spitfire.overwatchleague.com/en-us/news/thank-you-closer]]>
Mon, 15 Oct 2018 18:32:34 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11296 http://curi.us/comments/show/11296
curi Open Discussion
Long, interesting story about how awful working at Google+ was. Office politics and crap.

Notably, they had to bribe other parts of the company to do G+ integration by paying them lots of extra money, as bonuses. Cuz people didn't want to do G+ integration in other products. I think it's interesting that Google employees aren't just like slaves to be ordered around – Google found it easier to just pay them a ton of extra money to get them to do something dumb rather than just saying "yo I'm the boss, do this".]]>
Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:35:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11295 http://curi.us/comments/show/11295
Anonymous Open Discussion
You can count people moving around a room (or other space) with only one wifi transmitter and one wifi receiver (which can be behind walls). All it takes is math and monitoring signal strength.]]>
Sun, 14 Oct 2018 23:17:29 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11294 http://curi.us/comments/show/11294
Anonymous Open Discussion
I don't think many of them think that. And if they do, it's a consequence, not a cause.

The underlying causes are static memes, including social status games. They are tortured as children, for years, and then try to cope.]]>
Fri, 12 Oct 2018 19:40:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11293 http://curi.us/comments/show/11293
The Left Doesn't Focus on Persuasion Anonymous Open Discussion
That’s how they act, anyways. They’re mostly not focused on creating like great viral content to persuade everyone about how harmful plastic bags are or something like that. There is some of that type of thing, but I think that’s mostly geared towards activating their “base” for political action (and some I guess might be geared towards indoctrinating captive audiences in the schools). Overall, they focus on political power a lot more than anything like persuasion.]]>
Fri, 12 Oct 2018 19:35:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11292 http://curi.us/comments/show/11292
Justin Open Discussion
>> The Legend of Korra is Garbage and Here's Why

> 1.6 million views. I thought Avatar The Last Airbender was amazing, but Korra was only OK (not garbage, though!). The video description begins:

>> Reuploaded due to salty Legend of Korra fans mass-flagging the previous video and having it locked to private.

> What the fuck, it's not just political stuff being censored, it's just the mob causing problems with sharing any ideas that offend a large group.

Korra is an LGBT heroine now so she's political. Everything is political. Even Taylor Swift (formerly the Switzerland of celebrities when it came to being neutral on politics) is now doing left-wing advocacy]]>
Fri, 12 Oct 2018 16:03:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11291 http://curi.us/comments/show/11291
curi Open Discussion
> The Legend of Korra is Garbage and Here's Why

1.6 million views. I thought Avatar The Last Airbender was amazing, but Korra was only OK (not garbage, though!). The video description begins:

> Reuploaded due to salty Legend of Korra fans mass-flagging the previous video and having it locked to private.

What the fuck, it's not just political stuff being censored, it's just the mob causing problems with sharing any ideas that offend a large group.]]>
Fri, 12 Oct 2018 15:48:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11290 http://curi.us/comments/show/11290
Anonymous Open Discussion
> “Ben and Channing weren’t having any of that and wanted her gone,” the sources remarked.

Report: ABC execs regret firing Roseanne, worry about spinoff: ‘We didn’t think it through properly’

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/10/12/report-abc-execs-regret-firing-roseanne-worry-about-spinoff-we-didnt-think-it-through-properly?utm_content=bufferd2896&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=theblaze]]>
Fri, 12 Oct 2018 14:32:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11289 http://curi.us/comments/show/11289
Anonymous Open Discussion
> LATEST REVISION TO ARM INSTRUCTION SET INCLUDES OPTIMIZATIONS JUST FOR JAVASCRIPT

Apple did some CPU design specifically aimed at javascript performance, cuz javascript matters that much cuz of its use by web browsers.]]>
Fri, 12 Oct 2018 14:28:46 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11288 http://curi.us/comments/show/11288
Justin Open Discussion Fri, 12 Oct 2018 14:06:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11287 http://curi.us/comments/show/11287 Justin Open Discussion
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvVRDZVq3-0

actual GOP ads are just edits of my vids now ;-DDD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlMIyae9-ZU&frags=pl%2Cwn]]>
Fri, 12 Oct 2018 14:05:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11286 http://curi.us/comments/show/11286
Anonymous Open Discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvVRDZVq3-0]]>
Fri, 12 Oct 2018 13:57:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11285 http://curi.us/comments/show/11285
Anonymous Open Discussion
> More to the point, abandoning Kavanaugh would have been a sign of weakness, demoralising to the Republican base — which firmly stood by Kavanaugh — and an intoxicating taste of blood to liberals, who would know that if they could win this first fight, the next round would be worth fighting too. Instead, by seeing Kavanaugh through to confirmation, Trump has showed Republicans that they can win so long as they don’t pre-emptively surrender. His own campaign in 2016 had been fought on the same premise. Republicans had been in a habit of apologising for themselves since at least the time George W. Bush ran on ‘compassionate conservatism’ — what exactly was he implying about everyone else’s conservatism? — in 2000, when he became president only by grace of the Republican majority on the Supreme Court. (Which is fair enough: the 2000 election genuinely was a virtual tie in the decisive state of Florida.) Mitt Romney cringed when he was called out for ‘self-deportation’ and ‘binders full of women,’ even though the former was a humane and effective immigration policy (one much in evidence during the Obama administration, in fact) and the latter was a ill-phrased but sincere promise to include many women in his administration.

> But that was another problem with the ‘draft Barrett’ idea: although the conservative writers pushing it liked her for her presumed views on abortion and thought of themselves as being clever political strategists for suggesting a woman, in fact they were playing to the very style of politics that the centre-left dominates — that is, they were conceding the narrative that Republicans are bad for women and only a woman could negate the GOP’s justly-acquired bad reputation among women. This didn’t work when John McCain put Sarah Palin on his presidential ticket. It wouldn’t have worked for Amy Coney Barrett, either — though she may indeed make a fine justice one day. Just as the politics of ‘compassion’ doesn’t work for conservatives (as opposed to the politics of jobs and American industry), the politics of ‘see, we can too find women who like us!’ concedes everything to conservatism’s enemies. It doth protest too much.”


White liberalism is dying | Spectator USA
https://spectator.us/2018/10/white-liberalism/
via Instapaper]]>
Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:52:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11284 http://curi.us/comments/show/11284
Anonymous Open Discussion Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:13:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11283 http://curi.us/comments/show/11283 curi Open Discussion Tue, 09 Oct 2018 11:37:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11282 http://curi.us/comments/show/11282 Anonymous Open Discussion
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/]]>
Tue, 09 Oct 2018 09:18:29 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11281 http://curi.us/comments/show/11281
Anonymous Open Discussion
https://www.macrumors.com/2018/10/08/google-plus-shutting-down-data-breach/]]>
Mon, 08 Oct 2018 11:22:21 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11280 http://curi.us/comments/show/11280
Anonymous Open Discussion Sun, 07 Oct 2018 00:35:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11279 http://curi.us/comments/show/11279 curi Rothbard's Bad Scholarship on Godwin and Popper
> While Aristotle was critical of money-making, he still opposed any limitation – such as Plato had advocated – on an individual's accumulation of private property. Instead, education should teach people voluntarily to curb their rampant desires and thus lead them to limit their own accumulations of wealth.

> Despite his cogent defence of private property and opposition to coerced limits on wealth, the aristocrat Aristotle was fully as scornful of labour and trade as his predecessors.

Rothbard is a hypocrite. Aristotle on property is kinda similar to Godwin, but worse, and Rothbard calls that a "cogent defence of private property". Rothbard also praises some early Chinese laissez-faire and anarchist ideas, but fails to give Godwin much credit for similar ideas.]]>
Sat, 06 Oct 2018 12:12:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11278 http://curi.us/comments/show/11278
Anonymous Open Discussion
Democrats Play Against Brett Kavanaugh Backfired Big Time
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/brett-kavanaugh-the-surprise-ending/
via Instapaper]]>
Sat, 06 Oct 2018 06:17:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11277 http://curi.us/comments/show/11277
Anonymous Open Discussion
https://www.reddit.com/r/Competitiveoverwatch/comments/9lnfl7/beginningyourpathtopro_main_support/]]>
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 13:15:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11276 http://curi.us/comments/show/11276
Anonymous Open Discussion
> AnandTech Calls A12 Bionic in iPhone XS 'Just Margins Off' Best Desktop CPUs in New Review

also

> As part of the review, AnandTech also offered a look at how Apple has improved performance in older devices by tweaking scaling performance. The A9 in the iPhone 6s, for example, took 435ms for the CPU to reach maximum frequency, but that time was cut to 80ms in iOS 12 for a "great boost to performance in shorter interactive workloads."]]>
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 12:58:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11275 http://curi.us/comments/show/11275
Anonymous Open Discussion
https://daringfireball.net/2018/10/bloomberg_the_big_hack

https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/10/04/what-businessweek-got-wrong-about-apple]]>
Thu, 04 Oct 2018 17:52:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11274 http://curi.us/comments/show/11274
Anonymous Open Discussion Thu, 04 Oct 2018 11:01:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11273 http://curi.us/comments/show/11273 Anonymous Open Discussion
> One country in particular has an advantage executing this kind of attack: China, which by some estimates makes 75 percent of the world’s mobile phones and 90 percent of its PCs. Still, to actually accomplish a seeding attack would mean developing a deep understanding of a product’s design, manipulating components at the factory, and ensuring that the doctored devices made it through the global logistics chain to the desired location—a feat akin to throwing a stick in the Yangtze River upstream from Shanghai and ensuring that it washes ashore in Seattle. “Having a well-done, nation-state-level hardware implant surface would be like witnessing a unicorn jumping over a rainbow,” says Joe Grand, a hardware hacker and the founder of Grand Idea Studio Inc. “Hardware is just so far off the radar, it’s almost treated like black magic.”

> But that’s just what U.S. investigators found: The chips had been inserted during the manufacturing process, two officials say, by operatives from a unit of the People’s Liberation Army. In Supermicro, China’s spies appear to have found a perfect conduit for what U.S. officials now describe as the most significant supply chain attack known to have been carried out against American companies.

> One official says investigators found that it eventually affected almost 30 companies, including a major bank, government contractors, and the world’s most valuable company, Apple Inc. Apple was an important Supermicro customer and had planned to order more than 30,000 of its servers in two years for a new global network of data centers. Three senior insiders at Apple say that in the summer of 2015, it, too, found malicious chips on Supermicro motherboards. Apple severed ties with Supermicro the following year, for what it described as unrelated reasons.”

China Used a Tiny Chip in a Hack That Infiltrated Amazon and Apple

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies]]>
Thu, 04 Oct 2018 10:00:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11272 http://curi.us/comments/show/11272
Anonymous Open Discussion
> This dynamic explains why Senator Cory Booker (D., N.J) insisted that Dr. Ford told “her truth.” In other words, evidence was not so relevant. Ford’s story of events from 36 years ago inherently would have as much claim on reality as Kavanaugh’s rebuttal — and perhaps more so, given their different genders and asymmetrical access to power.

> There was little interest in discovering the ancient idea of “the Truth.” To do that would have required the messy work of taxing the memories of teenage behavior nearly four decades prior.

> Truth-finding would have required difficult, time-honored examinations of physical evidence, the testimony of witnesses, and even unpleasant cross-examinations about the time and place of the allegations. Feelings might have been hurt. Motives might have been questioned, as they are under constitutional norms of due process.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-hearings-campus-chaos-comes-to-congress/]]>
Thu, 04 Oct 2018 04:53:05 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11271 http://curi.us/comments/show/11271
Alisa Open Discussion Wed, 03 Oct 2018 14:50:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11270 http://curi.us/comments/show/11270 https://voat.co/v/gaming/2762495 Alisa Open Discussion
It's a link to this video by The Quartering:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq-HTglRTF8]]>
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 14:46:24 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11269 http://curi.us/comments/show/11269
Anonymous Open Discussion
> We used other methods too, like, “I wonder if that ‘progressive stack’ in the news could be written into a paper that says white males in college shouldn’t be allowed to speak in class (or have their emails answered by the instructor), and, for good measure, be asked to sit in the floor in chains so they can ‘experience reparations.’” That was our “Progressive Stack” paper. The answer seems to be yes, and feminist philosophy titan Hypatia has been surprisingly warm to it. Another tough one for us was, “I wonder if they’d publish a feminist rewrite of a chapter from Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.” The answer to that question also turns out to be “yes,” given that the feminist social work journal Affilia has just accepted it. As we progressed, we started to realize that just about anything can be made to work, so long as it falls within the moral orthodoxy and demonstrates understanding of the existing literature.

> Put another way, we now have good reasons to believe that if we just appropriate the existing literature in the right ways—and there always seems to be a citation or vein of literature that makes it possible—we can say almost any politically fashionable thing we want. The underlying questions in every single case were the same: What do we need to write, and what do we need to cite (all of our citations are real, by the way) to get this academic madness published as high “scholarship”?”

Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship - Areo
https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/
via Instapaper]]>
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:16:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11268 http://curi.us/comments/show/11268
Anonymous Open Discussion
> This is the primary point of the project: What we just described is not knowledge production; it’s sophistry. That is, it’s a forgery of knowledge that should not be mistaken for the real thing. The biggest difference between us and the scholarship we are studying by emulation is that we know we made things up.

> This process is the one, single thread that ties all twenty of our papers together, even though we used a variety of methods to come up with the various ideas fed into their system to see how the editors and peer reviewers would respond. Sometimes we just thought a nutty or inhumane idea up and ran with it. What if we write a paper saying we should train men like we do dogs—to prevent rape culture? Hence came the “Dog Park” paper. What if we write a paper claiming that when a guy privately masturbates while thinking about a woman (without her consent—in fact, without her ever finding out about it) that he’s committing sexual violence against her? That gave us the “Masturbation” paper. What if we argue that the reason superintelligent AI is potentially dangerous is because it is being programmed to be masculinist and imperialist using Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Lacanian psychoanalysis? That’s our “Feminist AI” paper. What if we argued that “a fat body is a legitimately built body” as a foundation for introducing a category for fat bodybuilding into the sport of professional bodybuilding? You can read how that went in Fat Studies.”

Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship - Areo
https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/
via Instapaper]]>
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:12:17 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11267 http://curi.us/comments/show/11267
curi Open Discussion
http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlP14.html#II.1.13

> The Communistic scheme, instead of being peculiarly open to the objection drawn from danger of over-population, has the recommendation of tending in an especial degree to the prevention of that evil.]]>
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 11:52:35 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11266 http://curi.us/comments/show/11266
Anonymous Open Discussion
![](https://curi.us/img/oxxiihQ1nOiDDCS-418x387.png)]]>
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 15:57:46 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11265 http://curi.us/comments/show/11265
Anonymous Open Discussion
https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-security-breach-third-party-sites/

I never used the Facebook sign in crap cuz I didn't trust them. I feel vindicated]]>
Mon, 01 Oct 2018 16:50:21 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11264 http://curi.us/comments/show/11264
Anonymous Open Discussion Sun, 30 Sep 2018 16:37:33 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11263 http://curi.us/comments/show/11263 Anonymous Open Discussion
Apple and the aggressive rollout of its iPhone XS vision for the future
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/09/13/apple-and-the-aggressive-rollout-of-its-iphone-xs-vision-for-the-future
via Instapaper]]>
Sun, 30 Sep 2018 14:29:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11262 http://curi.us/comments/show/11262
Anonymous Open Discussion
Mozilla looked at some web browsing data and found:

> In the group that installed an ad blocker, we find significant increases in both active time spent in the browser (+28% over control) and the num- ber of pages viewed (+15% over control), while seeing no change in the number of searches.]]>
Sun, 30 Sep 2018 14:02:43 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11261 http://curi.us/comments/show/11261
curi Open Discussion Sun, 30 Sep 2018 12:04:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11260 http://curi.us/comments/show/11260 curi Open Discussion Sun, 30 Sep 2018 12:03:46 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11259 http://curi.us/comments/show/11259 Anonymous Open Discussion Sun, 30 Sep 2018 01:49:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11258 http://curi.us/comments/show/11258