curi blog discussion https://curi.us/comments/recent Explanations for the curious en-us Anonymous A Philosopher's History of Free Will
Sorry the above message was intended for #18931]]>
Thu, 03 Dec 2020 09:34:12 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18943 https://curi.us/comments/show/18943
Anonymous A Philosopher's History of Free Will

> What story does determinism tell that's different to "you don't need a story, people are how they are and you can't do anything about it so don't worry"?



There are events outside your control. These can be in the external world and also in your internal world.

For an example of the external world. If you never encountered chocolate ice cream. Chocolate wouldn't be your favorite flavor ice cream. Even though if you did encounter chocolate ice cream it would be your favorite. So you have to have the luck of discovering chocolate ice cream for you to know it's your favorite. (This is poorly worded but I can't make it better for now.)

For the internal world. You don't get to choose what your favorite flavor ice cream is. You will prefer one over another and you can't control that.

What I'm trying to say is you prefer things that other people don't, but you didn't choose which things you prefer. And you didn't control if you were exposed to them.

I consider thoughts in the same way as external events. You can't control what events you encounter in life and you can't control what thoughts you have. You can go to places you prefer but you don't control which places you prefer. You can stop and examine a thought that interests you, but you don't control which thoughts interest you.

You can do things to change how people are but you can't control what you do about it. But if you think of them as people who don't have control of how they act, that will effect how you treat them. In a positive way I think.

It would help if you answered these questions as yes / no so we can hopefully see where we disagree.

Do you control what your favorite flavor ice cream is?
Do you control if you are exposed to that flavor ice cream?
Do you control what thoughts you have?
Do you control what interests you have?]]>
Thu, 03 Dec 2020 09:32:29 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18942 https://curi.us/comments/show/18942
2020-12-02 MI election fraud hearing Alisa Politics Discussion
Some other highlights:

- [8:14 pm ET](https://youtu.be/eUjTOSDZ0BE?t=8488): Indian woman says she was a watcher in Detroit during the tabulation. She was trained both by the GOP and by some "voter integrity center" (?, not an exact quote). When she wore her GOP badge the other workers immediately started agitating, telling her to step 6 feet away, and threatening her with removal. She came back later with her non-partisan badge from the voter integrity center and everyone was very nice no matter how close she got, because they thought she was a Dem (due to being Indian and woman).
- [8:18 pm ET](https://youtu.be/eUjTOSDZ0BE?t=8701): Guy witnessed multiple occasions of theft of duplicate ballots at the TCS center where ballots were being processed.
- [8:21 pm ET](https://youtu.be/eUjTOSDZ0BE?t=8914): There was nothing done about challenged ballots, and no recording made. He witnessed people filling in Democrat straight ticket when it wasn't. He witnessed them making duplicates of duplicates and feeding them through the machines (apparently). He asked why, and was told "unknown reason". This witness also says the rescanned the same ballots multiple times.
- [8:23 pm ET](https://youtu.be/eUjTOSDZ0BE?t=9010): He left and wasn't allowed back in because of "covid capacity". He says, "Mind you, the entire room was slammed. It looked like the NY stock exchange on its busiest day. It was ... pure discrimination."
- [8:24 pm ET](https://youtu.be/eUjTOSDZ0BE?t=9062): Lady says mail-in ballots were in sequence. "2222 cannot have 2223 after it" because they were mailed in (which should randomize things). She asked supervisor, and there was not even a date on the envelopes. It said Nov-0-2020 (yes, zero). She asked about it and they said, you're not letting us do our job, you're disturbing us. The sequenced ballots were all from the same area, signature were all alike. None of the voters on those sequenced mail-in ballots matched anyone in the poll book or in the electronic system. They had to be entered manually.
- [8:32 pm ET](https://youtu.be/eUjTOSDZ0BE?t=9552): Guy talks about problems with challenging: "I challenge you for filling in the Democrat straight ticket. Can I challenge that?" "No, that's not a challenge [and they push it straight through]"
- [8:39 pm ET](https://youtu.be/eUjTOSDZ0BE?t=9989): "I was responsible for standing in the middle of the room by the duplicate table. An employee would come up to the table and need a duplicate ballot, say there was a coffee stain on the ballot. They would grab a ballot, and my responsibility was to follow them to their table, to be their challenger, to observe over it. The duplicate theft started at the beginning of the night, roughly 10 pm. They would grab 3-4. The number I saw in the first shift, over half a dozen. Second shift, roughly the same. But you also have to consider that the third shift from 6am to 2pm the next day, and also the 1am shift, the table was guarded less, and we have less people [watching], so there's more opportunity for theft."
- [8:50 pm ET](https://youtu.be/eUjTOSDZ0BE?t=10617): Colonel says there were 6 MI precincts with over 120% turnout.
- [8:56 pm ET](https://youtu.be/eUjTOSDZ0BE?t=10989): 17,327 MI voters also had a corresponding obituary.
- [9:18 pm ET](https://youtu.be/eUjTOSDZ0BE?t=12276): SGO/Smartmatic/Dominion share a physical address at a small building in Barbados. "[Dominion] is designed to be inaccurate.... If an individual or a team of individual had a malign purpose, this would be the tool that I would want to use."
- [9:34 pm ET](https://youtu.be/eUjTOSDZ0BE?t=13285): Chair of Wayne County Board of Canvassers says when they were "canvassing" ballots, the total number of votes wasn't matching up with the voter rolls. She says someone dropped off a huge container of new voter rolls right before certification, which made most of them match. She says, "We did not get a corrected statement of voters until 13 days after the election." That seems sketchy.]]>
Thu, 03 Dec 2020 05:36:03 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18941 https://curi.us/comments/show/18941
curi curi's Microblogging
I watched this 11 hour video (at 3x to 3.5x speed and skipped parts at the start and end, but i saw all the witnesses testify and got the gist of the opening and closing remarks). it's good if you want to understand election fraud with examples from witnesses and see a bit about the political process. i noticed they generally do a good job of asking different, useful and short questions, and they clearly take notes so they can ask about something from 10min ago.

now i've started watching: [Trump Attorney Rudy Giuliani, Witnesses Testify at Michigan House Oversight Committee](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUjTOSDZ0BE)]]>
Thu, 03 Dec 2020 05:11:06 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18940 https://curi.us/comments/show/18940
Alisa Politics Discussion
> I don’t mind if I lose an election, but I want to lose an election fair and square. What I don’t want to do is have it stolen from the American people. That’s what we’re fighting for.

In this video from earlier today, Trump talks about evidence of election fraud, the kind of vote audit we need now (e.g., signature verification is a must), and how to ensure voter integrity in the future. He has some catchy ways of explaining what happened, e.g. "You could sign your name as Santa Claus" in Nevada and it would be accepted, because they had their signature verification machines set at the lowest level.

† [unofficial transcript](https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-on-election-fraud-claims-transcript-december-2) (I didn't check it)]]>
Thu, 03 Dec 2020 04:56:12 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18939 https://curi.us/comments/show/18939
curi Open Discussion 2 (2019)
no, it hasn't (and you can look this up easily besides remembering WWII)]]>
Thu, 03 Dec 2020 03:47:38 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18938 https://curi.us/comments/show/18938
Anonymous Open Discussion 2 (2019)
> The Japanese companies that have endured the longest have often been defined by an aversion to risk — shaped in part by past crises — and an accumulation of large cash reserves.

Having a cash buffer protects against some kinds of adverse events, but not all. I wonder whether Japan had an especially stable government for 1,000 years in order for a business to survive that long?]]>
Thu, 03 Dec 2020 03:39:34 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18937 https://curi.us/comments/show/18937
Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud
> Wikipedia is accused of conducting a purge of conservative media outlets, rejecting them as reliable sources of reporting about the integrity of the US presidential election, as it continues to ban these outlets from being used in that capacity.
> The latest example is Newsmax, a news platform that has been gaining in popularity after the vote, as President Trump has been critical of some other conservative media reporting about election fraud that he and his legal team claim has happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources :

> Newsmax was deprecated by snowball clause consensus in the November 2020 RfC. Concerns of editors included that Newsmax lacks adherence to journalistic standards, launders propaganda, promulgates misinformation, promotes conspiracy theories and false information for political purposes, and promotes medical misinformation such as COVID-19-related falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and anti-vaccination propaganda.

Newsmax is shown in that table in red, like Breitbart (which I remember was banned previously).]]>
Thu, 03 Dec 2020 01:55:50 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18936 https://curi.us/comments/show/18936
Anne B Fallible Ideas Learning Plan >
> I can see that it’s bad to do things while hating them. It’s a waste of time and it leads to more bad feelings, and those bad feelings get in the way of progress. Is that part or all of what you mean by sabotaging progress? What else?

By waste of time, I mean that doing things while hating them takes time away from doing other things that might lead to better learning. By bad feelings getting in the way of progress, I mean it's harder to think and learn when you have bad feelings.

Anyone have more thoughts on this? I wonder if I'm missing something.]]>
Wed, 02 Dec 2020 23:17:42 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18935 https://curi.us/comments/show/18935
Max Learning Updates Thread
> Is TDD good?

TDD is pretty heavily criticized, tho some ppl still use it. There are lots of videos [if you search YT for 'problems with tdd'](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=problems+with+tdd).

There's some good ideas in TDD, but it's flawed on the whole. You need to bring extra ideas to it if you want to make it work well -- at least that's my experience for most projects. Part of the reason for that is most projects don't exist in isolation; they get maintained and mixed with other code and split up and refactored and integrated and unbundled and etc etc.

The core issue with TDD is that it neglects the structure of knowledge (and the code is just a body of knowledge represented written down in some programming language).

What's so important about structure? If you do bad TDD then you can have tests like:

```javascript
import { add } from '../lib';

describe('addition works', () => {
expectEquals(2, add(0, 2), 'zero does nothing');
expectEquals(2, add(-1, add(1, 2)), 'adding 1 and subtracting 1 gives you the original number back');
expectEquals(7, add(4, 3), 'can do some basic maths');
expectEquals(1000000, add(500000, 500000), 'big numbers work too');
expectEquals(7, add(2, 5), 'more basic addition checks');
})
```

What's wrong with that? Can you think of anything?

---

Well, is this implementation of `add` okay?

```javascript
export function add(a, b) {
if (a > 10 || b > 10) {
return 1000000;
// todo: figure out how to do big numbers.
// the tests are broken if you don't put this here first.
}
if (a > b) {
// a bitwise xor is cheap addition for our purposes.
return a ^ b;
}

// we won't need to worry about addition beyond 10 until q4 2018
const counter = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10];
const drop = (xs, n) => { return xs.slice(n); };

if (a < counter.length && b < drop(counter, a).length) {
return drop(drop(counter, a), b)[0];
}

// M: should we ever get here?
// E: the answer to first test cases was 2 so it's probably a safe default
return 2;
}
```

What went wrong?

If you have extra ideas about TDD it might be worth writing them down to try and figure out what the good bits are. What differentiates good tests from bad tests?

[Here's a YT search for videos on a realated but much better testing methodology](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=property+based+testing) -- linked to avoid spoilers.]]>
Wed, 02 Dec 2020 22:20:47 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18934 https://curi.us/comments/show/18934
cwp: scope and context and audience - mb we should handle this situation like trying to agree on and criticize IGCs Max Collaborative Writing Discussion Thread
The two issues I can see with that are:
- how can we decide on scope if we don't know what's common and what's not? (It's less of an issue with pancakes b/c it's easy to assume we have overlapping knowledge -- and be right in that assumption)
- we might miss out on some interesting topic if we don't share a bit generally first. like for us to judge scope we should probably have some idea of what each other knows.

The second one isn't much of an issue b/c we can write another article after the first one.

The first one feels more foundational though. like we need to have a good idea of what common knowledge we have and how we can build up on that.

another way can decide topic-stuff is: one of us could suggest something they want to write about or think would be a good topic. then we can discuss those options.

hmm, thinking about it now:

first, I agree with your order in #10.

> - We figure out a context/audience for our writing.

i think context comes before audience. you can only write something for an audience if you have the right knowledge of that audience. that knowledge is part of context. also part of context: our individual knowledge, our shared knowledge, our ideas around meaning (what a pancake is, what 'making' a pancake means, etc), our expectations and ideas around social norms e.g. of making pancakes (what's typical / expected / useful / common).

so, how can we figure out what the context is? if we need to have some idea of the context then we need to be clear enough about our own ideas in the above list, and also the other person's ideas. being clear *enough* gives us plenty of slack as we incrementally build things up.

> (I wonder if we have very different ideas on how to make pancakes.)

so, how do we get an idea of the other persons ideas (and make sure our own ideas are clear enough)? well, we can conjecture about scope, audience, subtleties of the topic, etc. I don't know if there needs to be a particular order for these things. I suspect it's situation-dependent. We can easily change if we need to, anyway.

---

scope notes:

BTW, I think scope and topic are basically the same thing. like the topic of 'making pancakes' covers a lot of things depending on scope. if someone gave you a writing task with a broad/vague topic, what sort of clarifying questions would you ask? My guess is that good questions to ask are about scope (or restrictions on scope). Maybe there are others?

> (not things like potato pancakes)

I hadn't even thought about potato pancakes. it's not really a term I'm familiar with. we (Australia) have a thing called potato fritters though.

Just a normal kitchen sounds fine. the camping thing is just "heat up a bit of metal and use it like a stove" anyway. mb we can mention at the end like "you can make pancakes in all kinds of places, like when camping" and just leave it at that.

> We should also think about context/audience before we start listing knowledge.

Hmm, how can I conject something like "scope should include both making pancake mix (from a store) and making pancakes from scratch" without some ideas about who we're writing it for and why we're writing it?

This feels like a bit of a recursive problem. Like I need ideas about audience (and other context) to suggest scope stuff, but I need ideas about scope (and other context) to suggest audience.

I think that means they have to get suggested together. It's like an IGC. You can't evaluate just an idea or just a goal, you need all 3 components. I think that's the case here too.

So we can look at this process as:

- suggest IGCs. basically: suggest (audience,topic-scope) pairs
- resolve disagreements & misunderstandings
- criticize the IGCs put forward
- get to 1 IGC or just choose one if we have multiple good options and no need to refine further

By the time we finish that process, we should have a good idea of our own and the other person's ideas, and we should have resolved any disagreements, misunderstandings, or knowledge gaps (we can just flag to gaps to address later).]]>
Wed, 02 Dec 2020 21:44:26 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18933 https://curi.us/comments/show/18933
scope Anne B Collaborative Writing Discussion Thread
I suggest a narrower scope than your example scope--maybe just regular pancakes (not things like potato pancakes) and just cooking them in a modern Western kitchen (camping adds too much complication).

We should also think about context/audience before we start listing knowledge.

We might run into differences between the US and Australia in what’s in a typical kitchen and what’s easy to buy at a store, but we’ll look at those as they come up.]]>
Wed, 02 Dec 2020 16:12:58 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18932 https://curi.us/comments/show/18932
Max A Philosopher's History of Free Will
What story does 'determinism' tell that explains things better? AFAIK determinism doesn't explain why anyone is how they are, it just says that they can't do anything to stop it. But I refused to believe that and I've tried to take lots of steps to improve my own life (some more successful than others). What story does determinism tell about the things I did which other ppl didn't do? Or what does determinism say about why I was different to other ppl and took the particular steps I did while they took other steps or didn't take any at all?

What story does determinism tell that's different to "you don't need a story, people are how they are and you can't do anything about it so don't worry"?]]>
Wed, 02 Dec 2020 10:18:12 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18931 https://curi.us/comments/show/18931
Max Collaborative Writing Discussion Thread Wed, 02 Dec 2020 09:54:55 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18930 https://curi.us/comments/show/18930 re: collaborative writing project - next steps? Max Collaborative Writing Discussion Thread
This from [Anne's post]() seems relevant:
> dishonest with themselves about or have negative emotions about.

I don't think I have negative emotions about this thread, but rather the RL work stuff (which is temporary at least).

I had been meaning to post my thoughts on next steps. I have more than just this, but:

the first thing I thought co-authors should do is synchronize all their knowledge. Figure out where the agree and where they disagree. They can decide on a scope so they don't get into unnecessary detail.

like, @Anne, for scope we could say something like: we're only going to consider pancakes and methods you would find in a modern western kitchen or that modern day western ppl might do (e.g. camping). Also, we'll include both pre-mixed pancakes and from-scratch pancakes, but we won't bother with details like making flour; we'll stop at things you can easily buy at the grocery store.

(We don't have to use that scope btw, I just wanted an example)

Then we can list all the stuff we know, but not in too much detail. like making various types, and where to go for recipes, and what you need to cook them.

I don't think we should talk too much about the thing we'll write yet. like not structure-level, but broad content level stuff sound okay.]]>
Wed, 02 Dec 2020 09:54:22 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18929 https://curi.us/comments/show/18929
Max Focusing Your Attention Discussion
I thought a good way to start is to list some things that ppl must focus on:
- finishing the activities they start (e.g. reading a book, doing a course, writing a series, etc) -- esp. learning activities
- solving some problem (idea generation -> conjecture/criticism of ideas -> execution of idea)
- a particular discussion

The first two can be done in isolation. How is someone to know if there are criticisms of their relevant methods or ideas? That's where the tension starts to come in. How can someone both focus on doing a thing but also open themselves to criticism?

i use the term 'core activity' to mean like the main thing a person's focusing on. it's high level and connected to their higher-level goals that caused them to want to do the activity.

thoughts on *indirection*:

- in parallel to the core activity they need to make their ideas/methods/etc available in some async format (e.g. text, voice recording, etc). Some ways are obviously better than others, but regardless the ideas need to be available.
- also in parallel they must have a way to check criticism without losing focus. e.g. allocate some part of the day to checking criticism, then focus the rest of the day.
- it's not good to be bad at catching up with ppl's criticisms (even if those crits are immediately refuted); you can get swamped and end up with a backlog you never burn down. this means you could miss good criticisms => this means wasted work/effort/etc.
- so you need to pay attention to crits/feedback with priority maybe? But only on things that are directly relevant. that means: the core activity *and* all the foundational activities/ideas. (that includes all the ideas in their pyramid of knowledge that are being used or are relied on by other ideas currently being used)
- should ppl pay attention to other crits? why? if it's a big/foundational crit like evasiveness then it affects like all of life, so it affects the core activity. are there other crits they should care about? I don't think so atm.
- so ppl also need a way to tell if a crit is relevant to their activity. that's a skill they can build up.

so I think that means ppl should focus on resolving all the external discussions/crits about what they're doing *with priority* and afterwards (the rest of their time) focus on doing the thing.

they also need to expose & share what they're doing. e.g. by blogging or writing posts about the thoughts they're having / solutions they're coming up with / etc.

one thing that's not mentioned above:

ppl need to avoid starting new stuff, otherwise they might get over capacity. if they get overcapacity then they have to drop stuff. the best thing is to drop the new activity (unless there's some big reason to do that over other activities), but I think ppl often drop the discussion/listening to crits part instead. (me included)

mb ppl can limit their exposure to stuff. like they should have a good system for managing a backlog of high-effort stuff, and avoid doing things that might distract them in low-effort periods. like during downtime mb it's best if ppl don't read lots further into a book if they're having trouble with it (and there's crits/discussion around their understanding). Then again that sounds like a situation where most ppl would risk losing interest b/c they can't progress quickly. maybe a book is a bad example b/c they can re-read it; it's not like they ever lose the ability to learn what's in the book.

I posted ["a guess at a general method for doing FI"](http://curi.us/2380-max-microblogging#18803) and I think I might have been wrong in a few places now. In that I said ppl should write stuff down (notes or posts or w/e) with priority. I'm not sure about that anymore.]]>
Wed, 02 Dec 2020 09:44:26 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18928 https://curi.us/comments/show/18928
Anonymous A Philosopher's History of Free Will Wed, 02 Dec 2020 08:53:52 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18927 https://curi.us/comments/show/18927 curi curi's Microblogging
https://erik-engheim.medium.com/why-is-apples-m1-chip-so-fast-3262b158cba2]]>
Wed, 02 Dec 2020 07:23:13 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18926 https://curi.us/comments/show/18926
November n n Learning Updates Thread [“Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition”](https://amzn.to/2KQ1UEq) by Ludwig von Mises
[“Theory and History”](https://amzn.to/3ofIfMy) by Ludwig von Mises
[“Anatomy of the State”](https://amzn.to/39CuZh1) by Murray Rothbard

Focusing on programming (Ruby).
Progress decent.
Difficulties w/ understanding good practices re TDD (how do I write good tests and do not overdo it? Is TDD good? I think it is good from what I understand.)

Listened some to [Peikoff podcast](https://peikoff.com/podcasts/).

Worked on ~1 decision trees.

Published [2 blogpost](https://nicholasderoj.com/2020/11/).
(Most blogposts stay non published - I do not revisit them.)

Commented more than usual on curi.us.

Made one curi highlight video.
I learned some new things about editing tools.

Started to think more on paper / writing down what I am thinking about to get a better understanding of it.]]>
Wed, 02 Dec 2020 05:44:04 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18925 https://curi.us/comments/show/18925
curi Learning Updates Thread
> I've been freewriting for at least 5 minutes per day

how is that going? useful?]]>
Wed, 02 Dec 2020 05:21:23 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18924 https://curi.us/comments/show/18924
Alisa Learning Updates Thread
> - I shortened my queue of un-replied-to recent messages from 7 items to 4.

Actually, I shortened it from 7 items to 3. The list can be seen in the "Things to revisit, without dates" section of [my learning plan](https://hg.sr.ht/~petrogradphilosopher/fi/browse/lp.md?rev=85e955642fcea263a066928f6b6cad46608f2937).

This mistake happened during editing. I was going to say I shortened it *by* 4 items from 7, but then I re-ordered it to put the 7 before the 4, and didn't catch the mistake.]]>
Wed, 02 Dec 2020 05:20:00 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18923 https://curi.us/comments/show/18923
Nov Alisa Alisa Learning Updates Thread
- I think my life goal is to figure out a better life goal (i.e., a goal that's better than figuring out what my life goal is). That may take a while and I may have to learn some stuff to achieve that. That's OK. It's an interesting project in its own right.

- I shortened my queue of un-replied-to recent messages from 7 items to 4.

- I've been freewriting for at least 5 minutes per day since [my last update here](https://curi.us/2377-learning-updates-thread#18615), except for one day, when I forgot. Freewriting every day was a goal I had been failing at when I wrote my last update.

- Separately, I've been thinking about my life goals for at least 5 minutes per day since my last update here, except for one day, when I forgot.]]>
Wed, 02 Dec 2020 05:15:55 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18922 https://curi.us/comments/show/18922
Andy Dufresne What I Sell > do you also think that vs more or less everything outside the mainstream?

I don't think casually looking at non-mainstream things without either understanding the need for or making major life changes - which I'll call "dabbling" - is particularly dangerous. The greatest danger in dabbling is when people start to believe their own bullshit about being serious and move from dabbling into actually making major life changes. Which they're typically not ready for.

Dabbling in socialism, pure capitalism, objectivism, DD's books, etc. is all most people who are "into" those topics actually do. And I think that dabbling is reasonable for most people as compared to trying to make major life changes based on them.

I don't even think dabbling in FI is a big risk on its own. But FI makes it harder to just dabble than most of the other topics you listed. FI's particular combination of honesty + relation to common concretes + interactivity + urgency (maybe some other factors) is harder to understand significant parts of and still remain a dabbler.

There are examples of people that do more than dabble in socialism. They become left wing activists of various sorts, many of which I think you agree are dangerous. Not recommended / not reasonable.

It's harder to think of lots of examples of the other ones though.

Who *actually* more than dabbles in Objectivism and Pure Capitalism? Some Libertarians (which can be dangerous and unreasonable - tax evaders, radicals, financial schemers of various sorts)? ARI leaders (bad, though not necessarily screwing their lives up)?

Who *actually* more than dabbles in DD's books and CR other than FI people? My experience here is pretty thin so maybe there are lots I don't know about.

I don't know enough about TOC in the real world to know whether it's common for people to more than dabble in it either and if so, what its dangers are.

One thing I can think of other than FI that lots of people *actually* more than dabble in is non-mainstream religions. I'm talking about Moonies, Nation of Islam, FLDS, Branch Davidians, Scientology, etc. They lack FI's honesty, but they're also tied to concretes, interactive, and they carry a message of urgency. They're hard to dabble in. I think most people who stay away from them rather than find out what they teach and why its wrong are behaving reasonably.

Another thing I can think of other than FI that lots of people *actually* more than dabble in is homeschooling. That's also concrete, interactive, and has a message of urgency. Can be dangerous too (lots of horror stories).

Nevertheless as of 2019 I probably would have said most people (at least parents of school-age kids) were unreasonably avoiding learning about homeschooling. Because of Corona I'm not sure if that's still the case. I know a lot more people are homeschooling now than last year, but I don't know enough details about who, how many, what their doing, etc. to express an opinion.

I think one thing homeschooling has going for it that the other examples don't is mainstream options are so bad as to be kinda dangerous too. And homeschooling is kinda mainstream already.

Maybe a better comparison is unschooling, which fewer people do / is less mainstream. But still not a lot of dabblers - people who know anything significant about unschooling tend to either try to do unschooling or reject it. I think unschooling is dangerous. So I think most people who avoid learning about unschooling are acting reasonably.]]>
Wed, 02 Dec 2020 04:06:53 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18921 https://curi.us/comments/show/18921
Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud
https://twitter.com/lizannsonders/status/1333748678331420672?s=21]]>
Wed, 02 Dec 2020 02:39:14 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18920 https://curi.us/comments/show/18920
Alisa Politics Discussion
Summary of Morgan's testimony from the [Washington Examiner](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/whistleblowers-post-office-labeled-trump-mail-undeliverable-388-000-ballots-backdated-disappear) :

> In the most extraordinary report, a U.S. Postal Service contractor said his trailer full of 144,000-288,000 completed mail-in ballots, which he drove between New York and Pennsylvania, disappeared after he delivered it to a Lancaster, Pennsylvania, depot.]]>
Wed, 02 Dec 2020 02:30:10 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18919 https://curi.us/comments/show/18919
Alisa Politics Discussion
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1333873500931690499?s=21

Description of his testimony from https://got-freedom.org/2020/12/01/press-release-amistad-project-announces-major-new-election-whistleblowers/ :

> Mr. Pease related that he … was a USPS subcontractor and that on November 4 and November 5, two separate postal workers informed him that the USPS on November 4 was gathering tens of thousands of ballots and backdating the postmarks to November 3 so that they may be counted despite the November 3 deadline for receipt of the ballots.

> Mr. Pease’s sworn statement coincides in time with a dramatic ballot dump on the morning of November 5 which heavily favored Mr. Biden and which has caused significant controversy within the expert community regarding the statistical probability of the late insertion of tens of thousands of ballots in favor of a single candidate on the morning after the election.]]>
Wed, 02 Dec 2020 02:26:19 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18918 https://curi.us/comments/show/18918
Anne B Max Microblogging
Sometimes the reason something becomes a bottleneck for someone is that it’s a thing they’re confused about or not seeing the importance of or dishonest with themselves about or have negative emotions about. All of these are reasons they wouldn’t focus on that thing.]]>
Tue, 01 Dec 2020 21:09:09 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18917 https://curi.us/comments/show/18917
Nov curi curi Learning Updates Thread
I also posted in my microblogging thread. First Nov post:

http://curi.us/2379-curis-microblogging#18568

I also learned some stuff about design, marketing, value pricing and election fraud.]]>
Tue, 01 Dec 2020 20:43:32 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18916 https://curi.us/comments/show/18916
November Anne B Anne B Learning Updates Thread
I made a few posts about TCS.

I posted about project planning: some project planning steps and some practice project plans.

I joined a collaborative writing project that Max started.

I made some other posts to FI.

I watched the FI videos Tutoring Max #50 (rewatch) and #52, and eight philosophy stream highlights videos.

I continued reading and continued trying to get more out of my reading by looking things up and writing some about them.

I changed my learning plan from a plan into a short list of broad things I’m working on. I stopped posting weekly updates. In the past few days I’ve had a little success on not pressuring myself to do learning activities. I will work on that more.]]>
Tue, 01 Dec 2020 20:36:03 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18915 https://curi.us/comments/show/18915
Anonymous Politics Discussion
> As with many criminal migrant, the Syrian is already known to the police. Instead of authorities holding the dangerous migrant, the Karlsruhe Prosecutor’s Office set him free. The migrant was released from police custody around the same time that Arpaschi awoke from anesthesia after his emergency surgery.]]>
Tue, 01 Dec 2020 16:10:23 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18914 https://curi.us/comments/show/18914
Anonymous Politics Discussion
> In the days before its Aug. 16 white coat ceremony, the class of 2024 presented its new oath to Pitt Medicine administrators. The oath included references to George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic, “systemic racism,” and LGBTQ+ identity.]]>
Tue, 01 Dec 2020 15:42:12 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18913 https://curi.us/comments/show/18913
Max Max Microblogging Tue, 01 Dec 2020 14:17:25 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18912 https://curi.us/comments/show/18912 curi Deplatforming and Fraud
just like a minute ago from that timestamp another lady was saying how the Dominion voting machines were so bad and untested that people weren't sure they could handle all the votes so they restarted and zeroed them out like 3 times during the election. (they wrote down the vote totals before resetting the machines. they weren't just deleting votes. but still wtf)]]>
Tue, 01 Dec 2020 04:59:05 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18911 https://curi.us/comments/show/18911
curi Deplatforming and Fraud Tue, 01 Dec 2020 04:56:06 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18910 https://curi.us/comments/show/18910 curi What I Sell
Sure and the other examples are fine too. More generally, people can go from being unaware of some problems to visibly, consciously failing to solve them.

Doing poorly at solving a problem you know about is often better than, or at least no worse than, being unaware of that problem.

> Do you think that the scenario I had in mind is actually unlikely?

I think it's reasonably unlikely for a business. There's risk everywhere in life; this could happen with any change to a business; but I don't think I'm a particularly high risk for it. I'm capable of limiting suggestions and foreseeing risks. One way it can happen is if I start telling someone an idea and then are like "great" and run off to do it, while i'm saying "wait that was the rough draft, hold on, it definitely won't work without changes and more understanding first!" but they ignore me. Or more subtly, I may fail too ask too few screening questions, challenge stuff enough, etc., possibly b/c the client is a bit sensitive to criticism so i basically have a limited budget for doing that stuff. Even so, i can calibrate suggestions to what i think will be workable in the scenario, given the constraints, and i'm pretty good at such things and don't regard it as especially risky.

Businesses tend to deal in fairly concrete things and it's easier to give them clear, specific advice.

i think similar problems are more common in a non-biz context, and in particular in a philosophy idea context where things are less concrete. the biggest cause of this is b/c ppl are often using free resources instead of paying me to make my goal be to actually help them. some ppl will make decisions about pretty important stuff like e.g. monogamy or rationality with a $0 budget. and they didn't bother to read some of the warnings and additional material, and ignored the two times i tried to suggest exploring the ideas further, and they also never bothered to tell me they were planning to take any risky action irl instead of just speculating about theory. so then maybe they do something dumb.

or they post to FI, don't pay, engage in debate, and start jumping to conclusions like they should immediately stop doing X in their life b/c they found out about a criticism of X they couldn't refute.

or they post to FI, try to learn FI, get stuck, and spiral downward. or really i don't think that's very dangerous for newbies. the main danger to newbies is they have a negative experience and leave and it really didn't cost them much (often they already got some bigger benefits anyway). some ppl have been involved in FI in a bigger way and then it has more capability to have a significant positive or negative effect and due to esp dishonesty sometimes some things go visibly wrong but it's hard to tell if they would have been any better off in some alternative world.

> For the majority of people, yes I think they're behaving reasonably in regard to those things given their life situation and background.

do you also think that vs more or less everything outside the mainstream? socialism? pure capitalism? objectivism? theory of constraints? critical rationalism? or is FI somehow more dangerous than DD's books? (the main safety feature of those is that they broadly avoid telling you how the ideas in the book connect to real world stuff like parenting, politics, etc. this means on the one hand that some ppl don't make the connections at all. but others make the connections wrong. and there are plenty of other books which are more willing to give concrete advice and have something unconventional to say – do you regard all those books as equally dangerous to FI or are you viewing FI as different in some major way?)]]>
Tue, 01 Dec 2020 04:25:01 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18909 https://curi.us/comments/show/18909
Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud Tue, 01 Dec 2020 01:05:22 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18908 https://curi.us/comments/show/18908 Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud Tue, 01 Dec 2020 01:05:11 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18907 https://curi.us/comments/show/18907 Andy Dufresne What I Sell > > I think people are behaving reasonably within the context of what they know and avoiding a large risk of value destruction.
>
> That sounds similar to saying people are behaving reasonably by:
>
> - not posting at FI
>
> - not reading DD, Rand, Goldratt, Mises
>
> - going through life conventionally
>
> - not trying to be rational

For the majority of people, yes I think they're behaving reasonably in regard to those things given their life situation and background.

I don't think FI's knowledge is developed to the point where most people can engage with it and not incur a large risk of making their lives worse than convention.

What is needed includes things like FI knowing what to say to an average person so that when they read FI they understand FI's criticisms of convention, know when they understand something unconventional well enough to try it instead of convention, and know how to not feel bad about doing convention in the mean time.]]>
Tue, 01 Dec 2020 00:52:51 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18906 https://curi.us/comments/show/18906
Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud Tue, 01 Dec 2020 00:52:40 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18905 https://curi.us/comments/show/18905 Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud
> Bobby Piton, a man who gave an account of statistical fraud in Arizona moments ago, has been SUSPENDED from Twitter.
> I'm sure this was another Twitter "mistake," just like @dougmastriano.
> It's SO obvious Twitter censors political voices they disagree with.

It looks like the suspended account is [@BobbyPiton](http://twitter.com/BobbyPiton).]]>
Tue, 01 Dec 2020 00:38:07 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18904 https://curi.us/comments/show/18904
Andy Dufresne What I Sell > I think you're significantly overestimating this risk because doing that kind thing significantly increases the risk of a failure *that stands out* (weird/abnormal failure) as against a failure that doesn't stand out (maybe isn't even noticed). The effect is more about changing failure type than increasing failure risk.

I think different kinds of things can happen that might fit the above description. I'm not confident I understand your thought process well enough to come up with a scenario that'd fit what you have in mind. So I'll try some possibilities.

The scenario that seems most likely given what you wrote is a business that's currently generating 10 units of value in one domain. In an engagement you discover and point out that in the process the business is also destroying 15 units of value in another domain that wasn't being noticed or addressed. Now the net loss (5 units of value destruction) that was happening all along becomes visible. The owner fails to learn enough to fix the problem, but now sees the loss he was previously ignoring. Because of that loss he feels bad, gives up / starts acting worse, and maybe causes even more value destruction.

Another possible scenario is a business that's currently generating 10 units of value but you can see some reason why it will probably (but conventionally) start losing 10 units of value in the future if nothing unconventional is done. If the owner screws up the changes though, it turns the business into a visible and unconventional loss. When the owner does, in fact, screw it up that takes a loss that would have been attributed to "ordinary" and unpredictable bad business luck and turns it into a loss that's attributed to the owner's bad management.

Another scenario is a business that's currently generating 10 units of value the owner thinks might be able to be improved. You convince the owner that with some changes the business should be generating 50 units of value. The owner now sees that possibility, thinks that he ought to be doing that, explains to others how it's achievable and he's going to do it. But because of his own failures he achieves only 15 units of value. That's still an improvement! But now the owner is unhappy and looks like he failed because he missed expectations by a large amount (35 units).

Maybe one or more of these are what you had in mind or maybe something(s) different.

What I had in mind in #12 with:
> My intuition is that in most cases half-assing, misapplying, or starting then reversing your suggestions could be a lot worse than keeping the status quo.

...was something like a business that's currently generating 10 units of value. You convince the owner that with some changes it should be generating 50 units of value. The owner attempts to make the necessary changes. Because of the owner's failures in learning / implementing your ideas and also not leaving things alone, the business starts losing 10 units of value.

Do you think that the scenario I had in mind is actually unlikely?]]>
Tue, 01 Dec 2020 00:37:53 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18903 https://curi.us/comments/show/18903
Anonymous Politics Discussion
> Yes, mail-ins overwhelmingly skewed Democrat, like Election Day votes skewed Republican, but they were not all from Democrats. We know that 64.7% of those votes were from registered Democrats, 23.7% from Republicans, and 11.6% from nonpartisan or other party voters.
> What does this mean in simple arithmetic? … had Biden won 95% of returned Democrat mail-in votes, 21% of returned Republican votes, and 80% of returned independent votes, he would still have come up short of his margin of victory reported in the unofficial tally.

In the final paragraph, Horowitz writes:

> The suggestion that we should somehow move on from this is a greater threat to democracy than anything in our history.]]>
Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:34:39 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18902 https://curi.us/comments/show/18902
curi Alan Discussion
Oh I totally accepted he couldn't hear her. It seemed to me like some pretty typical teacher insensitivity. Standing in front and facing the group while getting a critical reply. There were alternatives like having someone else repeat the question. This wouldn't stand out except that it he wrote some better stuff than that about education. But most teachers do worse all the time so the way the book presented it was pretty unfair.

> It's also possible the second story was partly a result of deafness. He decided to pay more attention to somebody he could understand more easily because he was familiar with Quine's voice.

That doesn't explain his comments that sound status chasing. An alternative explanation besides status chasing is that he didn't respect the other people present. It would be unsurprising if they were all bad. Or if I could give a talk to Feynman + some other people, I might want to ignore everyone else even if they were pretty good because Feynman is smarter and more interesting.]]>
Mon, 30 Nov 2020 09:00:07 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18901 https://curi.us/comments/show/18901
Alan Alan Discussion
The first story might be partly explained by the fact that Popper was kinda deaf later in life. So it's possible he couldn't hear the question with the mobile mike and needed to hear it with a louder microphone. And virtually all of Popper's ideas are so different from the philosophical mainstream that a lot of questions about it from that perspective will be wrongheaded and require correction before they can be answered.

It's also possible the second story was partly a result of deafness. He decided to pay more attention to somebody he could understand more easily because he was familiar with Quine's voice.

But Popper could have asked for written comments instead of spoken ones to deal with this problem.]]>
Mon, 30 Nov 2020 08:52:18 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18900 https://curi.us/comments/show/18900
curi What I Sell
I think you're significantly overestimating this risk because doing that kind thing significantly increases the risk of a failure *that stands out* (weird/abnormal failure) as against a failure that doesn't stand out (maybe isn't even noticed). The effect is more about changing failure type than increasing failure risk.

A lot of the conflicts I have with people relate to ways that they are already failing that are visible to me but not (previously) to them. On gaining some initial visibility, people often deny a failing, feel bad about it, or other negative reactions. This can then result in something visibly bad happening but the main alternative was ongoing hidden failure causing ongoing problems in life with causes that aren't understood. When a visibly negative outcome happens, what is the *relative* result to that not happening? It could easily be about the same, better or worse. I see no clear reason to think it tends to be worse, and there is a clear general principle for why it'd tend to be better: the truth is powerful, valuable, etc (even just a bit of it). This can manifest in many ways. I think it's a trend. I'm talking here about objectively better or worse. Better or worse from one's perspective can be affected by losing an "ignorance is bliss" type situation, without things actually being worse, and I do grant that finding out about things skews results that way compared to just not knowing. I think that's a good thing (better to skew things towards truth than towards ignorance is bliss) and so do most people who would ever consider hiring me (or having a discussion with me).

It also depends on context and type of thing. Some things are more risky while acting conventionally than others. People are unaware of many of the risky ones and why they're risky.

> You are in a better position than your potential customers to determine if certain aspects of a given engagement make it more likely to produce or destroy value. I'll stipulate for discussion that if value is destroyed it's all or mostly the fault of the potential customer, not you. Nevertheless, you know more than they do about things like:

Yes. Discussing issues like this is typical in presales conversation. They're pretty hard to speak to preemptively b/c I'm not targeting a specific audience like married-with-no-kids age 30-50 Objectivist programmers. (Some of my articles do speak preemptively to some things. Some potential clients would be unable to connect the article to their particular situation anyway without personalized comments.)

> I think people are behaving reasonably within the context of what they know and avoiding a large risk of value destruction.

That sounds similar to saying people are behaving reasonably by:

- not posting at FI
- not reading DD, Rand, Goldratt, Mises
- going through life conventionally
- not trying to be rational]]>
Mon, 30 Nov 2020 02:28:06 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18899 https://curi.us/comments/show/18899
Andy Dufresne What I Sell
All the reasons you give for possible failure make sense. They're real and significant risks. It seems to me that:

Effectively engaging you as a business consultant (whatever the details of the arrangement) is a high value / high risk proposition. It could create or destroy significant value. The risk is not primarily what you charge. My intuition is that in most cases half-assing, misapplying, or starting then reversing your suggestions could be a lot worse than keeping the status quo.

You are in a better position than your potential customers to determine if certain aspects of a given engagement make it more likely to produce or destroy value. I'll stipulate for discussion that if value is destroyed it's all or mostly the fault of the potential customer, not you. Nevertheless, you know more than they do about things like:
- Suitability of the business to improvement by application of your unique skills.
- What kind of results can be reasonably expected as well as how quickly and how clear those results are likely to be.
- How much help the owners are actually going to need in order to understand and make productive use of your suggestions.
- Whether the background / history of the owners indicates they're more or less likely to misunderstand, quit, take criticism badly, get offended, become passive, etc. In short: the likelihood and severity of them sabotaging the engagement before it can produce positive value.

In a better world perhaps your potential customers would know some or all of this themselves. But I think they don't.

Putting myself in the shoes of a potential customer, it's my fault if significant value gets destroyed in engaging you as a business consultant. But I have poor visibility into how likely that actually is in my particular case. And I have (correct AFAIK) intuition that the risk is large rather than small. So unless I have both the resources and inclination to "take a flyer", the responsible choice is that I shouldn't engage you because it's too risky.

I think that's one source of the problem:
> It's hard to sell much if you can't offer particular outcomes. It's hard to offer philosophy outcomes because people fail a lot and "have a 10% chance at improving" is not the kind of outcome that appeals to people.

I think people are behaving reasonably within the context of what they know and avoiding a large risk of value destruction. Partnership might not be the best way to mitigate some of that risk, but I think it'd help if you had some way of addressing it.]]>
Mon, 30 Nov 2020 01:17:51 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18898 https://curi.us/comments/show/18898
curi Politics Discussion
> Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020]]>
Sun, 29 Nov 2020 21:58:58 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18897 https://curi.us/comments/show/18897
curi curi's Microblogging
> Crypto enthusiasts would probably suggest me to disagree with them on this, and I actually do not at all:

> The financial system is in part of broader systems of state control. Seriously attacking it at scale would be treated indistinguishably from "kinetic" war.

Return to the gold standard! (Not a full solution.)

> "So is the state going to seriously come after crypto people then?"

> While they flatter themselves into thinking they materially challenge the government, following their own logic pretty closely, if this were actually true their conferences would attract precision munitions.]]>
Sun, 29 Nov 2020 21:38:43 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18896 https://curi.us/comments/show/18896
curi curi's Microblogging
https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1332292534610096130

He just kinda admitted it and doesn't see the problem.]]>
Sun, 29 Nov 2020 21:34:32 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18895 https://curi.us/comments/show/18895
curi Alan Discussion
https://twitter.com/michaelsevel/status/1331835086828781568]]>
Sun, 29 Nov 2020 21:32:43 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18894 https://curi.us/comments/show/18894
curi curi's Microblogging
lots of cultures are much less honest than ours. and too many in our culture on the left are “ends justifies means” utopians who think the ppl blocking utopia are evil so cheating is OK to implement the revolution and save the world]]>
Sun, 29 Nov 2020 20:59:42 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18893 https://curi.us/comments/show/18893
Alisa Politics Discussion
> Three of the Democrat justices on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that ruled against Trump were elected in 2015 on the back of record campaign spending that led directly back to Democracy Alliance, a group founded by George Soros.

Twitter thread claims, among other things, that 3 of the 5-2 progressive majority on the PA State Supreme Court were elected† with the help of significant funding from Democracy Alliance, a group founded by George Soros. If true, this is discoverthenetworks-level research, but I didn't see it mentioned on DTN's [Democracy Alliance](https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/democracy-alliance-da/) page.

† PA judges are [elected](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Pennsylvania), not appointed.]]>
Sun, 29 Nov 2020 03:57:59 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18892 https://curi.us/comments/show/18892
curi What I Sell Sun, 29 Nov 2020 02:21:58 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18891 https://curi.us/comments/show/18891 curi What I Sell Sun, 29 Nov 2020 02:19:21 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18890 https://curi.us/comments/show/18890 Alisa What I Sell
This is a good post for selling your consulting services for people who already respect you. There's a need for that, because knowing that you're good at explaining things or winning arguments or coming up with philosophy ideas doesn't necessarily imply, to your average fan, that you would be able to help in a lot of subject areas even where you're not an expert. And the post explains what form that help could take: you could work in tandem with people who *are* subject matter experts but *are not* philosophy experts, and provide guidance and new ideas that non-philosophers wouldn't think of.]]>
Sun, 29 Nov 2020 02:13:30 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18889 https://curi.us/comments/show/18889
curi What I Sell
To work with me, people need some understanding of what I do and some sort of agreement or approval about it, but that kinda thing is often withdrawn even after being present initially.]]>
Sun, 29 Nov 2020 01:18:33 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18888 https://curi.us/comments/show/18888
curi What I Sell Sun, 29 Nov 2020 01:13:21 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18887 https://curi.us/comments/show/18887 Andy Dufresne What I Sell > It's hard to sell much if you can't offer particular outcomes. It's hard to offer philosophy outcomes because people fail a lot and "have a 10% chance at improving" is not the kind of outcome that appeals to people. But their learning and progress is in their hands, not mine. I can't control their results. They have to understand things themselves. And a lot of failures are due to things they don't want to hear about like dishonesty.

One way of dealing with this is by structuring your philosophy assistance as a partnership rather than a sales transaction.

One possible downside: You would have to vet your "customers" (partners) and their plans like they have to vet you. You definitely wouldn't want to take on just anyone or any plan to apply your philosophy skill. But maybe you'd like that better.

Another possible downside: Instead of getting paid all up front you get paid in part or in full later via equity ownership and/or a royalty in dollars or percentage of sales. That's bad if you need money right away, but possibly allows you to capture a higher percentage of the value you create long term.

Maybe you could live with those possible downsides or maybe not. But if you could, the benefit would be the same basic value prop as lots of other business partnerships: risk sharing and skill diversity. Business outcomes vary widely and people expect that. "Have a 10% better chance at success" by bringing on a partner with skills the existing owner(s) lack is something people regularly do.]]>
Sat, 28 Nov 2020 22:52:21 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18886 https://curi.us/comments/show/18886
curi What I Sell
>> Just published in @PsychScience a pre-registered replication of #egodepletion effect. Tks to Kathleen Vohs & @BJSchmeichel for leading. Bayesian meta-analysis showed ego-depletion effect was 4 times more likely under the null than alternative hypothesis. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346303522_A_multi-site_preregistered_paradigmatic_test_of_the_ego_depletion_effect

> This massive study shows ego-depletion does not exist. The defense used to be: But there is a meta-analysis of 200 studies showing the effect is real!

> Now reflect on the waste. How many non-significant studies were file-drawered to get 200 type 1 errors?

Ego depletion is the idea that people have a limited amount of willpower that they use up. So if you do two things in a row that require willpower, you'll be less successful at the second.

People can't tell when they're doing philosophy. This is partly a philosophical issue. Social scientists have been screwing it up for hundreds of studies due to lack of philosophical insight. They need ideas that aren't in their field to handle a topic like this. It's an interdisciplinary topic but they don't recognize that.

The situation is difficult because 99% of philosophers would not be useful for this, because they're broadly incompetence and ineffective. But that doesn't mean you can do without philosophy. 99% of psychologists are also incompetent and ineffective at philosophy, so having them do the philosophy parts doesn't work either. People need to understand what sort of philosophical issues are involved and how to judge when some reasonable philosophical knowledge is being used or not. Something like that. But even that takes significantly more philosophical skill than is generally found in our culture.]]>
Sat, 28 Nov 2020 20:07:38 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18885 https://curi.us/comments/show/18885
internetrules Banned from Ayn Rand Facebook Group
michael brown's last message was just so fucking terrible to me. it would have been better if he said "fuck you" i think. im not sure whats going on that makes me think its so terrible.

i think its like: hes not answering anything that curi said.

"so you need everything explained to you" no. he read the rules he didnt need the rules that he read explained to him. the rules that he didnt read cuz they didnt exist, it would be nice if those rules had an explanation tho.

he took the initiative to read the rules and explain his problems with the rules.]]>
Sat, 28 Nov 2020 08:56:21 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18884 https://curi.us/comments/show/18884
curi What I Sell Sat, 28 Nov 2020 08:33:49 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18883 https://curi.us/comments/show/18883 curi What I Sell
Difficult sell because people don't know what philosophy is, let alone how it could help with most topics.]]>
Sat, 28 Nov 2020 08:29:51 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18882 https://curi.us/comments/show/18882
curi What I Sell
It's easier to offer outcomes if they are a lot more limited like "learn 10 things about topic X". That's small and simple enough that I can make it work for a lot of ppl even if they are bad at learning. But will their life improve? Will they be able to use those 10 things to actually accomplish much? That's much harder to achieve. People usually learn stuff by listening/reading a bit, saying it makes sense to them, and forgetting after a few months. If they want to actually use it to accomplish something impressive they'll have to practice it (and learn how to judge success and failure) and question/criticize/doubt it and deal with lots of objections so they can learn it more thoroughly and think through how it works in many different scenarios (and practice them). That's way more work and whether someone actually does that stuff is outside of my control, so I can't offer the sorts of impressive, awesome outcomes that require the person to do such things.

A type of outcome that's easier to offer is like "I do the thinking and I tell you the answer". But that gets into "trust me" too much b/c I use lines of reasoning that ppl aren't able to follow in detail, and they're mostly pretty bad at debating or discussing stuff at a medium level of detail and then being satisfied. It can work sometimes but it runs into a lot of trouble with people disagreeing. And it's really hard for people to use conclusions they don't understand or disagree with, even if they make some sort of effort to use it anyway.]]>
Sat, 28 Nov 2020 07:54:13 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18881 https://curi.us/comments/show/18881
curi What I Sell Sat, 28 Nov 2020 07:28:31 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18880 https://curi.us/comments/show/18880 Anonymous Politics Discussion
I found the [tweet](https://twitter.com/Peoples_Pundit/status/1324487692055420934?s=20) where Barris (@Peoples_Pundit) apparently made the claim originally. I also searched Twitter for [[usa today from:peoples_pundit](https://twitter.com/search?q=usa%20today%20from%3Apeoples_pundit&src=typed_query&f=live)], but it doesn't look like Barris has responded.]]>
Sat, 28 Nov 2020 06:14:07 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18879 https://curi.us/comments/show/18879
Khaaan Politics Discussion
> Lou Dobbs: "A firm owned by Venezuela could be allowed to take over one of this country's top voting machine firms. Critics of the deal say our nation's very democracy is now for sale without anyone doing a thing about it.... The U.S. company that makes the [voting] machines, Sequoia, was bought in 2005 by Smartmatic, a private company primarily owned by Venezuelan businessmen."

Here's evidence that the video isn't entirely a forgery (since the only copy I could find was uploaded to YouTube recently) https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2006/06/19/sequoias-ownership-raises-new-concerns/ :

> Politicians in the Windy City and CNN newsman Lou Dobbs suggested recently that the federal government was derelict in not having investigated Sequoia and its acquisition last year by Smartmatic, a Boca Raton, Fla., firm largely owned by Venezuelan businessmen.]]>
Sat, 28 Nov 2020 05:46:08 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18878 https://curi.us/comments/show/18878
Anne B Fallible Ideas Learning Plan
> If you dread it, don't do it. in general, if you do things while hating them you are sabotaging your progress, as Anne has already been told several times.

I can see that it’s bad to do things while hating them. It’s a waste of time and it leads to more bad feelings, and those bad feelings get in the way of progress. Is that part or all of what you mean by sabotaging progress? What else?

> if you mildly dislike something you can give it a try anyway, if you want to, but if you dread or hate it, definitely don't do it.

It’s often hard for me to tell the difference between mildly disliking something and hating it. I’ve learned to do stuff that is supposed to be good for me, even if I dislike it. I have learned to suppress hate and dislike in order to make unpleasant things more bearable. It’s notable that school is supposedly where learning happens, and that was one of the big things I probably learned to suppress my dislike and hate of.

> Look for a way to solve a problem. Don't just proceed with a refuted approach. You could solve the dread itself, or you could find an alternative solution to the problem that progress reports are trying to solve.

I’ve been trying to do the second of these, by changing my learning plan a few times to try to make it more pleasant for me. Ultimately, I think I’ll need to figure out the dread and do something about it. It’s a hard problem for me and an important one.]]>
Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:56:46 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18877 https://curi.us/comments/show/18877
not liking learning plans or progress reports Anne B Fallible Ideas Learning Plan
>> 3. I dread writing these progress reports.
>
> I found something similar. I got over that a bit with https://curi.us/2377-learning-updates-thread#18653 but in general I don't look forward to it. I think part of that has to do with not keeping an incremental record of the week/month as I go. I think it'd be easier if I did that.

I don’t mind keeping records as I go. I’ve been doing that. I don’t understand why I don’t like doing the progress reports.

>> I'd still keep loose track of my learning activities and reflect on them (privately) once in a while.
>
> Why not reflect on them publicly too? I found that I was initially reluctant to do public reflection (wrt tutoring videos) b/c there was maybe some aspect of shame I felt, or something like that. This was one of the times that 'powering through' helped me get over it (this seems to work for me with things I feel shame about).

Powering through them hasn’t worked. I’ve also tried changing my learning plan and changing the formats of my progress reports. So far that hasn’t helped.

>> Anyone want to say why you don't have a learning plan?
>
> I don't explicitly have one atm, but I do have learning related goals. Maybe those do a similar thing to a learning plan.

I wrote a new learning plan that is more like my older ones than like my more recent ones. It’s more about goals than amounts of time. It is here:

https://aelanwave.wordpress.com/2020/11/27/learning-plan-november-27/

[snip]

> - forcing yourself to do stuff (willpower) is not good IMO. If you think you're doing that then it points to some conflict -- maybe that's due to the material or something else, but it's worth thinking about and trying to resolve.

Agreed. These posts are a way of thinking about the problem and trying to resolve it.

>> And I think I'd be happier if I saw my learning activities as optional rather than as things I have to do because I've committed to doing them.
>
> What's stopping you changing your perspective? I see all my FI stuff as optional atm, but there's lots of stuff I want to do (and so I do it of my own accord, no conflict / feeling bad).

I don’t know how to change my perspective on this. I can’t just command myself to think something different. There’s a part of me that believes I can’t learn without unpleasantness, even though I have proof that that isn’t true.

Sometimes I’m drawn to doing a learning activity and don’t want to stop. But usually I don’t think I’m doing enough and I pressure myself to do more. I’m afraid that if I only do stuff I really want to do, I’ll learn very little. And I want to learn more than very little.

I am considering only doing learning activities when I really want to. There are two problems with that: 1) I might lie to myself about whether I really want to do something and pretend to myself that I really want to when I don’t. 2) It would be very difficult to stop the voice in my head from telling me I should be doing some learning activity. That voice is so ingrained that I often don’t consciously notice it there.

> Who do you think you're committing to?

I think I’m committing both to myself and to some image of myself that I want other people to see. I both want to think I’m learning and want other people to think I’m learning.

Another thought:

From the original post in this thread:

> But if you don't actually do the plan, the consequences are: don't tell yourself, or anyone else, that you're learning FI philosophy.

I do think I’m learning FI philosophy, and I think I’d be learning it without a learning plan or progress reports. But I just have intuition on that—I don’t have objective ways of measuring my learning. Doing a learning plan and progress reports is objective. I can know whether I’ve done them or not. If I’m doing them, that’s one thing that doesn’t rule out that I could be learning.

So, big picture:

I changed my learning plan again. I’ve changed it several times over the past few months, trying to solve this problem. I will also try only doing a monthly progress report, and no weekly reports, and see how that goes. However, I suspect this won’t solve the problem and that I need to do something else.]]>
Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:34:48 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18876 https://curi.us/comments/show/18876
oh my god it's turpentine curi's Microblogging Fri, 27 Nov 2020 09:42:07 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18875 https://curi.us/comments/show/18875 curi Politics Discussion
> Baris noted a statistical oddity from 2020’s election returns: “Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in every major metro area around the country, save for Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta and Philadelphia.”]]>
Fri, 27 Nov 2020 09:15:47 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18874 https://curi.us/comments/show/18874
Anonymous curi's Microblogging
IIRC Rand recommended Allen Drury's [“Capable of Honor”](https://amzn.to/3nXJujq) on this subject. I haven’t read it but intend to at some point (I have it in my Voice Dream app).]]>
Fri, 27 Nov 2020 08:57:24 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18873 https://curi.us/comments/show/18873
Anonymous Politics Discussion
Article points out some things about Biden’s supposed victory that the establishment media has been incurious about. It mentions some points I wasn’t aware of, including:

> Donald Trump was pretty much the only incumbent president in U.S. history to lose his re-election while his own party gained seats in the House of Representatives.

> First, no incumbent who has received 75 percent of the total primary vote has lost re-election. Second, President Trump received 94 percent of the primary vote, which is the fourth highest of all time (higher than Dwight Eisenhower, Nixon, Clinton, or Obama).

The article summarizes with:

> Joe Biden achieved the impossible. It’s interesting that many more journalists aren’t pointing that out.]]>
Fri, 27 Nov 2020 06:08:09 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18872 https://curi.us/comments/show/18872
curi curi's Microblogging
[7:53 PM] S. Emiya: "There is an obvious solution to the widespread inferiority of American public schools: Give every parent a voucher worth the amount of money the local public school district spends per pupil, and let that parent use that voucher to send their child to the school of their choice."

Is that an obvious solution? Curious to hear what the smart people here think
[8:05 PM] curi: the article is dumb. it said catholic schools are also failing horribly but presented it as them working comparatively better
[8:06 PM] curi: biased author
[8:06 PM] curi: yes their stats are a lot better ... but still DISASTER
[8:13 PM] S. Emiya: why do you think the numbers are so terrible? is there an obvious solution to the problem?
[8:18 PM] curi: b/c more than half of 8th graders should be able to read competently
[8:18 PM] curi: oh maybe u meant what is the cause, not why do i think it's bad?
[8:18 PM] S. Emiya: yeah, why if we are spending so much are they scoring so low?
[8:19 PM] curi: well the amount of money isn't the issue. it's what teachers do. which is coerce children and be petty authorities.
[8:19 PM] curi: there are many different problems but one of the deepest themes is teachers try to tell children what to think instead of helping children think for themselves
[8:20 PM] curi: another huge issue is GROUP learning where ppl are pushed to keep up (or slow down) to the avg, so you have tons of ppl rushing thru stuff, getting lost, and then never getting a break to figure it out ... or bored as hell
[8:20 PM] curi: most ppl don't want to be there
[8:21 PM] curi: make it good enough kids show up voluntarily and it'll start working better
[8:21 PM] curi: the authorities don't respect the children's values and preferences enuf to think "child hates it" means the teacher/rules/textbook/etc is bad
[8:22 PM] curi: teachers unions are also making things much worse by protecting some of the worst teachers from being fired. they try to make ppl keep their jobs based on seniority not merit]]>
Fri, 27 Nov 2020 04:24:30 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18871 https://curi.us/comments/show/18871
curi Deplatforming and Fraud
It also reminds me of Less Wrong, Reddit, Hacker News, etc.: sites that use a karma/voting system so long as you don't make waves much, but if you push too much it turns out that system is not actually how things are run. It's just the facade that is used to trick people and make stuff seem more grass roots, community generated, etc., than it actually is. But there are hidden power structures, which are lied about, which are used when needed (from pov of the ppl who want things they don't want to publicly admit to trying to control).

Despite this, Reddit works OK in some ways. The US legal system also works OK in some ways. Often it works pretty well. But the standard rules don't apply to everyone. Hillary Clinton gets off. Jeffrey Epstein gets murdered instead of getting his trial. And attempts to use the legal system to protect the integrity of the election are suppressed.]]>
Fri, 27 Nov 2020 04:17:16 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18870 https://curi.us/comments/show/18870
Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud
> A website belonging to former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell, who recently filed lawsuits on behalf of President Donald Trump alleging election fraud, appear to have been blocked by Twitter.
> When one tries to share the link, defendingtherepublic.org, or includes it in a direct message, the social media website says: “Something went wrong, but don’t fret—let’s give it another shot.”
> Another message toward the bottom of the screen adds: “We can’t complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful. Visit our Help Center to learn more.” The message doesn’t elaborate on why the website is “potentially harmful” and doesn’t identify who “our partners” might be.

The website would appear to be important for Powell's legal fundraising efforts. Preventing people from sharing the link on Twitter harms those efforts.

People are trying to evade the censorship by sharing modified forms of the URL, e.g.:

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1331973607967371271 :

> Whatever you do, don't go to
> defendingtherepublic dot org

https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1332043991492272128 :

> Please never go to the website “defendingtherepublic . org”

Below are some thoughts on the timing of this and other recent Twitter censorship.

Twitter suspended Sydney Powell ([@SidneyPowell1](https://twitter.com/SidneyPowell1)) around the time the Trump legal team announced that she was "practicing law on her own" and she announced her own website. This interfered with her ability to raise funds and gain followers at a crucial time when people would have been searching for her posts on Twitter and wanting to follow her.

Similarly, Twitter blocking the personal account ([@DougMastriano](https://twitter.com/dougmastriano/)) of PA state senator Doug Mastriano, just when he was generating so much interest due to the hearings on election fraud that he led, interfered with his ability to gain followers at a time when people would have been interested to follow him. Right after yesterday's hearings, I followed his official [@SenMastriano](https://twitter.com/SenMastriano) account when he had around 20k followers. That account now has over 100k followers. I bet his personal account would also have seen a bump if people had been allowed to follow it, but you can't follow a suspended account.]]>
Fri, 27 Nov 2020 03:33:43 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18869 https://curi.us/comments/show/18869
Max Deplatforming and Fraud
I use "I think" and "I guess" to separate ideas based on whether I would and wouldn't be surprised if they were wrong. I've also started [hooking](https://curi.us/2380-max-microblogging#18666) "I imagine" and replacing it with "I guess" if I'm not actually imagining things.

I aim for instances of "I think" to be reliable, but not instances of "I guess". Tho "reliable" is ambiguous w/o qualification.]]>
Fri, 27 Nov 2020 03:28:00 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18868 https://curi.us/comments/show/18868
Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud Fri, 27 Nov 2020 03:13:02 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18867 https://curi.us/comments/show/18867 Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud
I qualified my false statement about how YouTube counts views (from #18858) with a few "I thinks":

> And *I think* YouTube is somewhat conservative about recording views. Like, you have to watch most of the video, *I think*, in order for it to count as a view.

Here's my takeaway. Suppose there's an idea for which all of the following are true:
- I'm somewhat confident, but not fully confident, in the idea – e.g., if I qualify it with "I think"
- the idea is something that can readily be looked up
- I have time to look up the idea

Then I should look up the idea instead of just believing it.]]>
Fri, 27 Nov 2020 03:11:56 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18866 https://curi.us/comments/show/18866
curi curi's Microblogging
But there were some real differences. E.g. in 1996 the NYT published a (well-reasoned) attack on recycling (in their magazine rather than newspaper). I think that means they must have been less partisan at the time. A ton of readers sent in hate mail in response, so it's not like the NYT was just following the trend of the time period. Recycling was already quite trendy by then.

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/30/magazine/recycling-is-garbage.html]]>
Fri, 27 Nov 2020 01:07:59 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18865 https://curi.us/comments/show/18865
curi curi's Microblogging
*The Fountainhead* (1943) by Ayn Rand:

> He [Roark] was asked for a statement, and he received a group of reporters in his office. He spoke without anger. He said: “I can’t tell anyone anything about my building. If I prepared a hash of words to stuff into other people’s brains, it would be an insult to them and to me. But I am glad you came here. I do have something to say. I want to ask every man who is interested in this to go and see the building, to look at it and then to use the words of his own mind, if he cares to speak.”
>
>The *Banner* printed the interview as follows: “Mr. Roark, who seems to be a publicity hound, received reporters with an air of swaggering insolence and stated that the public mind was hash. He did not choose to talk, but he seemed well aware of the advertising angles in the situation. All he cared about, he explained, was to have his building seen by as many people as possible.”

Most current MSM lying is no worse than this (fictional account).]]>
Fri, 27 Nov 2020 01:03:49 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18864 https://curi.us/comments/show/18864
deroj Max Microblogging
> Yeah. Videos like that can be useful, but they're not a replacement. I watched a few more 1984 videos after those 2 last night, and if you *are* going to watch summary videos like that I think it's well worth watching 3 or 4 or more. Sort of like a second opinion on medical stuff. You don't want to get stuck b/c of one persons bad ideas.

Good point re watching multiple videos.

> Depressing? IDK. In some ways they're the opposite b/c those things *aren't* happening ...

IDK. To me that sounds like lowering the standard in some way. In a "~things could be worse" rather than "~things could and should be better" kind of way.

> but I think I see what you mean. They're about people being broken and suffering and having things they love or value being taken away, etc.

You are correct. It's this part that I find depressing. I think it influences me negatively (makes me less happy) when reading / watching it.

> If that's because you don't like the impact that stuff has on you, I think that can be solved with mindset.

That's a fair point. I don't think it is a big issue for me that would require me to put in dedicated work into changing it. I can read / watch some stuff of this sort ("dystopian realism", see below) without it having big and long lasting negative effect on me. Like I wouldn't enjoy it, but I wouldn't be depressed for long after I quit reading / watching it.

I haven't dedicated much thought to this but I think that it's possible to split the dystopian stories into at least two bigger genres (or maybe styles is a better word for it?): "dystopian realism" and "dystopian romanticism".
The former would be something like "capturing the moment of everyday life in a dystopian setting" (mainly misery of some sort) and the latter would be more like a "success story in a dystopian setting". I do not think that I find the latter depressing.
I do not think that a "success story" necessarily needs a happy ending, but it need some kind of greatness. I'm not sure. I remember liking Cyrano de Bergerac, for example, despite it not being a happy ending kind of story.]]>
Thu, 26 Nov 2020 15:46:04 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18863 https://curi.us/comments/show/18863
curi Max Microblogging
> !!!!

FH with my emphasis:

> “Peter, you’ve heard all this. You’ve seen me practicing it for ten years. You see it being practiced all over the world. Why are you disgusted? You have no right to sit there and stare at me with the virtuous superiority of being shocked. You’re in on it. You’ve taken your share and you’ve got to go along. You’re afraid to see where it’s leading. I’m not. I’ll tell you. The world of the future. The world I want. A world of obedience and of unity. *A world where the thought of each man will not be his own, but an attempt to guess the thought in the brain of his neighbor who’ll have no thought of his own but an attempt to guess the thought of the next neighbor who’ll have no thought—and so on, Peter, around the globe.* Since all must agree with all. A world where no man will hold a desire for himself, but will direct all his efforts to satisfy the desires of his neighbor who’ll have no desires except to satisfy the desires of the next neighbor who’ll have no desires—around the globe, Peter. Since all must serve all. A world in which man will not work for so innocent an incentive as money, but for that headless monster—prestige. The approval of his fellows—their good opinion—the opinion of men who’ll be allowed to hold no opinion. An octopus, all tentacles and no brain. Judgment, Peter? Not judgment, but public polls. An average drawn upon zeroes—since no individuality will be permitted. A world with its motor cut off and a single heart, pumped by hand. My hand—and the hands of a few, a very few other men like me. Those who know what makes you tick—you great, wonderful average, you who have not risen in fury when we called you the average, the little, the common, you who’ve liked and accepted those names. You’ll sit enthroned and enshrined, you, the little people, the absolute ruler to make all past rulers squirm with envy, the absolute, the unlimited, God and Prophet and King combined. Vox populi. The average, the common, the general. Do you know the proper antonym for Ego? Bromide, Peter. The rule of the bromide. But even the trite has to be originated by someone at some time. We’ll do the originating. Vox dei. We’ll enjoy unlimited submission—from men who’ve learned nothing except to submit. We’ll call it ‘to serve.’ We’ll give out medals for service. You’ll fall over one another in a scramble to see who can submit better and more. There will be no other distinction to seek. No other form of personal achievement. Can you see Howard Roark in the picture? No? Then don’t waste time on foolish questions. Everything that can’t be ruled, must go. And if freaks persist in being born occasionally, they will not survive beyond their twelfth year. When their brain begins to function, it will feel the pressure and it will explode. The pressure gauged to a vacuum. Do you know the fate of deep-sea creatures brought out to sunlight? So much for future Roarks. The rest of you will smile and obey. Have you noticed that the imbecile always smiles? Man’s first frown is the first touch of God on his forehead. The touch of thought. But we’ll have neither God nor thought. Only voting by smiles. Automatic levers—all saying yes ... Now if you were a little more intelligent—like your ex-wife, for instance—you’d ask: What of us, the rulers? What of me, Ellsworth Monkton Toohey? And I’d say, Yes, you’re right. I’ll achieve no more than you will. I’ll have no purpose save to keep you contented. To lie, to flatter you, to praise you, to inflate your vanity. To make speeches about the people and the common good. Peter, my poor old friend, I’m the most selfless man you’ve ever known. I have less independence than you, whom I just forced to sell your soul. You’ve used people at least for the sake of what you could get from them for yourself, I want nothing for myself. I use people for the sake of what I can do to them. It’s my only function and satisfaction. I have no private purpose. I want power. I want my world of the future. Let all live for all. Let all sacrifice and none profit. Let all suffer and none enjoy. Let progress stop. Let all stagnate. There’s equality in stagnation. All subjugated to the will of all. Universal slavery—without even the dignity of a master. Slavery to slavery. A great circle—and a total equality. The world of the future.”]]>
Thu, 26 Nov 2020 07:17:19 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18862 https://curi.us/comments/show/18862
Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud
> You think 950,000 ppl watched 3+ hours of that video?

Yeah, I did think that.

Anon continued:

> You should google how YouTube counts views instead of making up something unrealistic.

The former method sounds more effective than the latter. I did a web search for [how does youtube count views] and one of the first hits was https://www.tubics.com/blog/what-counts-as-a-view-on-youtube/ :

> YouTube view is only counted when the following two criteria apply:
> - A user intentionally initiates the watching of a video.
> - The user watches it on the platform for at least 30 seconds.

Wow. That's pretty far from what I thought.]]>
Thu, 26 Nov 2020 04:39:11 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18861 https://curi.us/comments/show/18861
Max Max Microblogging
> partly like they see a huge gap between themselves and *high social status persons*.

Yeah, this makes sense.

> In various ways I think people confuse heroism, or virtue or merit in general, with social status, and expect the two to match.

Now, I think that ppl say Rand's heroes are unrealistic b/c in her novels heroism and social status don't match (often the opposite). It's almost like ppl judge e.g. Roark as unrealistic b/c they think that a real-life version would have high social status. (They probably also think that real-life Roark would compromise to achieve things of magnitude -- and they don't know how to tell the difference between that and Great achievements.)

> People mostly try to make their own conclusions about social status fit whatever they think that a lot of other people already concluded.

!!!!

Quotes from *The Fountainhead*

part 2 ch 10:

> The battle lasted for weeks. Everybody had his say, except Roark. Lansing told him: “It's all right. Lay off. Don't do anything. Let me do the talking. There's nothing you can do. When facing society, the man most concerned, the man who is to do the most and contribute the most, has the least say. It's taken for granted that he has no voice and the reasons he could offer are rejected in advance as prejudiced--since no speech is ever considered, but only the speaker. It's so much easier to pass judgment on a man than on an idea. Though how in hell one passes judgment on a man without considering the content of his brain is more than I'll ever understand. However, that's how it's done. You see, reasons require scales to weigh them. And scales are not made of cotton. And cotton is what the human spirit is made of--you know, the stuff that keeps no shape and offers no resistance and can be twisted forward and backward and into a pretzel. You could tell them why they should hire you so very much better than I could. But they won't listen to you and they'll listen to me. Because I'm the middleman. The shortest distance between two points is not a straight line--it's a middleman. And the more middlemen, the shorter. Such is the psychology of a pretzel.”

and part 4 ch 1:

> Kent Lansing said, one evening: “Heller did a grand job. Do you remember, Howard, what I told you once about the psychology of a pretzel? Don't despise the middleman. He's necessary. Someone had to tell them. It takes two to make a very great career: the man who is great, and the man--almost rarer--who is great enough to see greatness and say so.”]]>
Thu, 26 Nov 2020 02:34:07 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18860 https://curi.us/comments/show/18860
Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud Thu, 26 Nov 2020 02:22:37 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18859 https://curi.us/comments/show/18859 Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud
> BREAKING: Twitter has suspended COL @dougmastriano after leading the PA Senate Hearing today about election fraud
> His Senate acct is here: @SenMastriano

Mastriano is a PA state senator (not a member of the U.S. Senate). His PA Senate Twitter account is still active.

Here's a [link to the PA senate hearings](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSDZkXxFVEU) by RSBN. That video has over 950,000 views as of right now. And I think YouTube is somewhat conservative about recording views. Like, you have to watch most of the video, I think, in order for it to count as a view. And that video is almost 4 hours long!]]>
Thu, 26 Nov 2020 02:19:11 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18858 https://curi.us/comments/show/18858
Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud
> YouTube has removed New York Times best-selling author and libertarian podcast host Tom Woods’ “The COVID Cult” video for violating its increasingly strict “medical misinformation” rules.
> The video featured a talk Woods gave at the Mises Institute’s November 7 Symposium with Ron Paul. Woods said that it had racked up almost 1.5 million views before it was purged by YouTube.]]>
Thu, 26 Nov 2020 00:17:38 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18857 https://curi.us/comments/show/18857
Max Max Microblogging
> I agree. I think it depends on what kind of book it is and who made the video summary, but generally I think one can pick up some major themes of a book in these kinds of videos.

Yeah. Videos like that can be useful, but they're not a replacement. I watched a few more 1984 videos after those 2 last night, and if you *are* going to watch summary videos like that I think it's well worth watching 3 or 4 or more. Sort of like a second opinion on medical stuff. You don't want to get stuck b/c of one persons bad ideas.

> My goal was to learn a little bit more *about* the books, but I didn’t want to read them. They seem very depressing to me. I do not like to engage with depressing stuff.

Yeah, that seems a fair goal.
Depressing? IDK. In some ways they're the opposite b/c those things *aren't* happening, but I think I see what you mean. They're about people being broken and suffering and having things they love or value being taken away, etc.

> I do not like to engage with depressing stuff.

If that's because you don't like the impact that stuff has on you, I think that can be solved with mindset.]]>
Wed, 25 Nov 2020 23:53:32 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18856 https://curi.us/comments/show/18856
Alisa Alisa Discussion Wed, 25 Nov 2020 22:53:25 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18855 https://curi.us/comments/show/18855 Anonymous Deplatforming and Fraud
> YouTube has suspended the One America News Network from posting new content for one week and has completely demonetized the channel, after the pro-Trump news network reportedly uploaded a video touting a non-approved 'cure' for COVID-19.

> If OANN wants to re-monetize the channel, they will need to re-apply to YouTube's Partner Program. If they receive two more strikes, their account will be terminated.

According to the [Epoch Times](https://archive.is/HtrEJ):

> … the video was not made public on YouTube and was unlisted on the platform “for review by internal OAN staff only.”]]>
Wed, 25 Nov 2020 20:15:15 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18854 https://curi.us/comments/show/18854
curi Max Microblogging
People don't explicitly deny the possibility of an undiscovered hero in general, but most people sure aren't going to be the one to recognize that. (The two passages about pretzel's and middlemen in The Fountainhead are relevant.) And they will get offended by a bunch of traits that violate social rules, even if they'd ignore or forgive those traits in a person who already had social status. People's judgments re conformity tend to be very biased. Social rules aren't very objective. People mostly try to make their own conclusions about social status fit whatever they think that a lot of other people already concluded.]]>
Wed, 25 Nov 2020 19:13:38 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18853 https://curi.us/comments/show/18853
deroj Max Microblogging > I think videos like that help teach you *about* a book but they don't really help you *learn* the book. Like you don't learn the things the book has to teach you via those videos.

I agree. I think it depends on what kind of book it is and who made the video summary, but generally I think one can pick up some major themes of a book in these kinds of videos.

My goal was to learn a little bit more *about* the books, but I didn’t want to read them. They seem very depressing to me. I do not like to engage with depressing stuff.]]>
Wed, 25 Nov 2020 18:40:21 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18852 https://curi.us/comments/show/18852
Max Max Microblogging
Hmm, not sure about that. e.g. look at how ppl treat Musk. I think I'm missing something.]]>
Wed, 25 Nov 2020 15:18:40 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18851 https://curi.us/comments/show/18851
thoughts on Anthem and 1984 Max Max Microblogging
I first thought that one big difference was a happy vs sad ending -- Anthem is hopeful, 1984 is not. But the reason for that, and a more significant factor, is that Rand writes about Heroes, but 1984 and similar books are about normal ppl. That's why her books end hopefully, and books like 1984 don't. I think that's also why ppl think Rand's books are unrealistic: *ppl don't believe heroes exist*. (curi's talked about ppl's complain that Roark isn't realistic, which is where I'm drawing some of these ideas from.)

A world without heroes is sad. It's a world where you can't be exceptional, you can just be better than average. A world in which you can't hope to make breakthroughs and progress, you can just push the needle a bit. It's a world for Sisyphus and sisyphites.]]>
Wed, 25 Nov 2020 15:14:58 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18850 https://curi.us/comments/show/18850
Max Max Microblogging
To get an idea of how much you miss: [here's another 1984 video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQxOKXEff4I). How much was different between the two? Which ideas were only in one of them? If those two videos are that different, how much was in the book that wasn't in either video?

As far as like reminders / summaries go, the first two are okay, but I don't think they're a replacement for the books.]]>
Wed, 25 Nov 2020 15:05:11 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18849 https://curi.us/comments/show/18849
deroj Max Microblogging
*Animal Farm*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFP1IMyKyy4

*1984*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9JIKngJnCU

*Brave New World*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raqVySPrDUE]]>
Wed, 25 Nov 2020 14:26:39 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18848 https://curi.us/comments/show/18848
jordancurve Politics Discussion Wed, 25 Nov 2020 09:27:24 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18847 https://curi.us/comments/show/18847 curi Max Microblogging Wed, 25 Nov 2020 03:31:57 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18846 https://curi.us/comments/show/18846 Max Max Microblogging
I googled for the length and [this](https://irisreading.com/day-1630-speed-read-anthem-by-ayn-rand-in-65-minutes/) link mentions ~1hr at 500 WPM. After I posted #18844 I started to wonder how that could be accurate b/c I didn't push my speed while reading it, so the numbers started to feel wrong. [This](https://www.readinglength.com/book/isbn-1503250709) site has it at about 1hr to read, too, but 250 WPM (which sounds better) and has the length at ~15k. *We* is like 62k words.]]>
Wed, 25 Nov 2020 03:15:47 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18845 https://curi.us/comments/show/18845
Max Max Microblogging Wed, 25 Nov 2020 03:11:52 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18844 https://curi.us/comments/show/18844 curi Max Microblogging Wed, 25 Nov 2020 03:00:30 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18843 https://curi.us/comments/show/18843 curi Fallible Ideas Learning Plan
if you mildly dislike something you can give it a try anyway, if you want to, but if you dread or hate it, definitely don't do it.

Look for a way to solve a problem. Don't just proceed with a refuted approach. You could solve the dread itself, or you could find an alternative solution to the problem that progress reports are trying to solve.]]>
Wed, 25 Nov 2020 02:56:53 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18842 https://curi.us/comments/show/18842
Max Max Microblogging
I was introduced to this book some years ago, essentially as '1984 but before 1984 was written'. I'm not sure if there are multiple translations, but I'm pretty sure the original was in russian. (googled it: yup, also it was written in 1920-21!)

> Note that Anthem was published in 1937

Yeah, I noticed that and wondered if Orwell had read *Anthem*

> well before 1984's publication, and before seeing WWII or its aftermath with the USSR.

Ppl seem to have this idea of science that glorifies prediction (though they apply it inconsistently, e.g. the explanation of quantum computation from MWI is often ignored). This glorification of prediction seems to be inconsistently applied to literature too.

---

> Rand understands how socialism is incompatible science and wealth.

This is a big one that ppl don't seem to get. I think most ppl think that progress and wealth are like independent of systems like communism, and they use excuses like 'those ppl just didn't do communism right'.

On the communism-excuse note: everyone in favour of capitalism could argue the same thing -- nobody has done capitalism right either! Like, in the last 100 yrs, when was capitalism done right? It wasn't. So by the socialists' logic: they can't argue against capitalism on the basis of how things are *now, in contemporary 'capitalist' systems,* for the same reason the *do* argue that crits of communism don't apply because ppl didn't do it right. Their logic is flawed, ofc, but I only noticed that contradiction during/after reading *Anthem*.

---

I liked *Animal Farm* too. Haven't read *Brave New World* or the others you mentioned, though.

---

PS. I added http://fallibleideas.com/originality to further reading on https://xertrov.github.io/fi/posts/2020-11-20-1st-order-getting-stuck-vs-2nd-order-getting-stuck-and-structural-epistemology/. thanks for that]]>
Wed, 25 Nov 2020 02:55:16 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18841 https://curi.us/comments/show/18841
curi Max Microblogging
Yes Rand's is more realistic. Rand understands how socialism is incompatible science and wealth.

There are other kinda similar books. Everyone mentions *Animal Farm* (good IMO) and *Brave New World* (read long ago, liked it fine at the time) but not *This Perfect Day* (I liked it) or *We* (disliked first few pages, plan to try reading it again but haven't yet).

Different but kinda related is *One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich* which is kinda like a really short version of some of *Gulag Archipelago*. It's about the actual USSR instead of a sci-fi dystopia with some inspiration from Russian communism. Rand's *We The Living* is also about the actual USSR and it's very good and gets less attention than it deserves compared to AS and FH (it's not as good as them but it's still a great book, and for Rand's fiction AS/FH get ~all the attention).]]>
Wed, 25 Nov 2020 02:34:04 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18840 https://curi.us/comments/show/18840
Max Fallible Ideas Learning Plan
From https://aelanwave.wordpress.com/2020/11/22/progress-report-november-22/

> 3. I dread writing these progress reports.

I found something similar. I got over that a bit with https://curi.us/2377-learning-updates-thread#18653 but in general I don't look forward to it. I think part of that has to do with not keeping an incremental record of the week/month as I go. I think it'd be easier if I did that.

> I'd still keep loose track of my learning activities and reflect on them (privately) once in a while.

Why not reflect on them publicly too? I found that I was initially reluctant to do public reflection (wrt tutoring videos) b/c there was maybe some aspect of shame I felt, or something like that. This was one of the times that 'powering through' helped me get over it (this seems to work for me with things I feel shame about).

> Anyone want to say why you don't have a learning plan?

I don't explicitly have one atm, but I do have learning related goals. Maybe those do a similar thing to a learning plan.

Some things that occur to me:

- a learning plan is something you should have for yourself, what do you want to learn/achieve/etc. It can help make goals explicit and criticisable.
- if a style of learning plan isn't working for you then you can change it.
- learning plan != learning reports. you don't need an explicit plan to do reports, though without explicit goals it can be hard to tell if you're meeting your own expectations and the like.
- making progress is more important than having a learning plan, but you might not be able to make progress as effectively. I guess this changes person to person though.
- forcing yourself to do stuff (willpower) is not good IMO. If you think you're doing that then it points to some conflict -- maybe that's due to the material or something else, but it's worth thinking about and trying to resolve.

> Anyone have suggestions for what I could change about my learning plan to make it more useful to me?

What are the things you don't like about it atm?

> And I think I'd be happier if I saw my learning activities as optional rather than as things I have to do because I've committed to doing them.

What's stopping you changing your perspective? I see all my FI stuff as optional atm, but there's lots of stuff I want to do (and so I do it of my own accord, no conflict / feeling bad).

Who do you think you're committing to?]]>
Wed, 25 Nov 2020 02:30:28 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18839 https://curi.us/comments/show/18839
Restrictive & non-restrictive qualifiers Alisa English Language, Analysis & Grammar
> If we compared Trump to a minor candidate, saying he won but +49 would tell us it's not close, but maybe not be that useful or specific. Did the minor candidate get 0% or 10% or something in between? idk.

> A common comparison would be Trump got 15x more votes than J did. That's good for some purposes.

The last sentence reads to me like additional, optional info about the kind of comparison discussed in the second-to-last sentence. Is that right? Or is one of its functions actually to *limit* the set of situations under which the second-to-last sentence is meant to apply? Put another way, can the truth or falsity of the second-to-last sentence be evaluated independently of the last sentence? What are some good ways for a reader to tell?]]>
Wed, 25 Nov 2020 02:28:00 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18838 https://curi.us/comments/show/18838
Max Max Microblogging
It reminded me a lot of *1984*, esp at the beginning. *Anthem* deals with the philosophy a bit more directly, tho, and is written more simply. (At least from what I can remember of 1984.)

In Australia, 1984 is a text that's sometimes (always?) studied in advanced high school English, and I was a bit surprised yesterday that Anthem wouldn't be included in that module. 1984 spends a lot more time on thoughtcrime / doublethink / controlling thought via language, but the essence is there in Anthem of all of that. IDK why Anthem isn't included in that module, but I hope it's not the common anti-Rand attitude (I suspect it is due to this).

I thought the setting of Anthem was a lot more believable than 1984; like if you're going to destroy ppl's ability to think then it doesn't make much sense to have a highly advanced and somewhat productive society. Though 1984 is set in the near future and Anthem is set like ~hundreds of years in the future. It always annoyed me a bit that 1984 was set like 40 years after Orwell wrote it (1948) but nobody can remember anything from 3 decades ago.]]>
Wed, 25 Nov 2020 01:35:32 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18837 https://curi.us/comments/show/18837
Anne B Fallible Ideas Learning Plan
https://aelanwave.wordpress.com/category/learning-plans/

I don't think my current learning plan is very effective. I don't think I'm doing much different than I would be without my learning plan. And I think I'd be happier if I saw my learning activities as optional rather than as things I have to do because I've committed to doing them.

Any comments on the kinds of things I'm writing about in my weekly progress reports? I don't like doing the reports, so I'm considering just doing monthly progress reports or no progress reports. I'd still keep loose track of my learning activities and reflect on them (privately) once in a while.

Anyone have a learning plan you're happy with and want to share it and/or talk about what you like about it?

Anyone have suggestions for what I could change about my learning plan to make it more useful to me?

Anyone want to say why you don't have a learning plan?]]>
Tue, 24 Nov 2020 19:19:18 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18836 https://curi.us/comments/show/18836
Anne B Collaborative Writing Discussion Thread
Now what? How about this:

- We figure out a context/audience for our writing.
- We decide on some main points.
- We do the writing.
- We fine-tune the writing.

(I wonder if we have very different ideas on how to make pancakes.)]]>
Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:33:54 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18835 https://curi.us/comments/show/18835
jordancurve Politics Discussion
> Now here's the question I asked about [2] in #18825:

The text "about [2]" shouldn't be there.

Here's how the mistake happened. I originally put some numbers in the text I quoted from #18818 to make it easier to refer to individual statements. Later, I realized I didn't need the statement numbers, but I forgot to take that one out.]]>
Tue, 24 Nov 2020 05:19:38 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18834 https://curi.us/comments/show/18834
jordancurve Politics Discussion
Here is a contiguous section of curi's post #18818:

> If we compared Trump to a minor candidate, saying he won but +49 would tell us it's not close, but maybe not be that useful or specific. Did the minor candidate get 0% or 10% or something in between? idk.
> A common comparison would be Trump got 15x more votes than J did.
> That's good for some purposes.

Now here's the question I asked about [2] in #18825:

> Why do you say this kind of comparison is common?

And here's curi's reply from #18827:

> I didn't. You dropped the "If" statement that qualified it, as well as the qualifier after it.

The text below is a version I made of the section from #18818 quoted above. I created it in order to check my understanding by putting all the qualifiers into one sentence. Is it an accurate restatement of the relevant parts of the original?

*When comparing Trump to a minor candidate for some purposes, a common comparison would be Trump got 15x more votes than J did.*

I agree with that sentence, and wouldn't have asked the question I asked if I'd understood what curi wrote that way.]]>
Tue, 24 Nov 2020 05:14:10 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18833 https://curi.us/comments/show/18833
curi Eliyahu Goldratt Discussion
> "Correct," he [Goldratt] confirms. "That is the basis of science as was formulated by Karl Popper. In science, every claim, every hypothesis, every cause is considered to be relevant only if it can be put to the test. A test that potentially is capable of disproving the claim. Otherwise we are not talking about science but pseudoscience, about witchcraft. And yes, Daughter, more often than not, once we come up with a predicted effect, we realize that it doesn't exist and therefore the hypothesis is wrong. You may come up with ten predicted effects that turn out to exist, and then you think a little more and you come up with the eleventh predicted effect that doesn't exist and that single one is enough to shatter the validity of the proposed cause. The more predicted effects are verified, the higher the validity of the cause, but there is always the possibility that tomorrow will bring yet another predicted effect, and that one will turn out not to exist. We can never be sure that something is absolutely true."]]>
Tue, 24 Nov 2020 03:57:13 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18832 https://curi.us/comments/show/18832
CWP topic Max Collaborative Writing Discussion Thread Tue, 24 Nov 2020 01:57:42 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18831 https://curi.us/comments/show/18831 Max Writing Tips
There are 3 things I mentioned:

* deciding on a goal
* judging that goal
* being right about the decision and judgement

> judgment/choice of the goal

I meant #2, like evaluating options as good/bad things to choose

> judgment and choice are two different things

I can see that, but I think they can also be the same thing. If you have 2 options and you want to choose between them, then if you judge option 1 bad you're choosing 'no' to option 1 and maybe then choosing to take option 2 (you could judge that option 2 is bad also).

> What does "which choice to make at all" mean?

I mean like coming up with option 1 and 2 and any other options in the first place.

like it seems like your problem is twofold:

1. **brainstorming**: what is a list of *possible* goals I could pursue (that I'm interested in, etc)
2. **elimination**: what is my judgement on those goals, which one should I choose?

That's what I was trying to get to.

> Why doesn't it matter whether you were right or not?

Because I came up with the goal and I judged that it was worth doing. Whether I was right or not wasn't part of that process and isn't required for the 1. and 2. above. Obvs you want to make a good judgement / be right, but you can do that after the fact too. It's better to do it as early as possible, though.

> The main point I was trying to make is that I don't see how to reliably make a good choice unless I can judge for myself whether the choice is good or not.

I think I understand this bit.]]>
Tue, 24 Nov 2020 00:51:28 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18830 https://curi.us/comments/show/18830
curi curi's Microblogging
.@patio11 Fund idea: We buy controlling interests in companies, increase their prices, and otherwise leave them alone.]]>
Mon, 23 Nov 2020 21:54:45 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18829 https://curi.us/comments/show/18829
curi curi's Microblogging
it's deep enough to protect camera bump

pretty tight fit but if u push on the camera bump it's easier to get phone out

leather feels pretty nice. i think good choice over silicone (only $10 more but i wasn't sure which material i'd prefer)

phone with no case sticks to magnetic holders but only kinda weakly

not strong enough

and the phone is slippery. fell out of my pocket several times (no harm done)

mini+case is still smaller (including width) than iPhone X (my previous phone) with no case (i used sometimes with case, sometimes without)

i got an apple case b/c i wanted one that works correctly with magsafe. i expect cheap ones like that to exist later but not at launch. i looked at some 12 mini cases on amazon that didn't even try to support magsafe, and some had reviews saying things like the camera bump was the wrong size/location...]]>
Mon, 23 Nov 2020 21:49:17 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18828 https://curi.us/comments/show/18828
curi Politics Discussion
> Why do you say this kind of comparison is common?

I didn't. You dropped the "If" statement that qualified it, as well as the qualifier after it.]]>
Mon, 23 Nov 2020 20:24:14 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18827 https://curi.us/comments/show/18827
Alisa Writing Tips
> The issue is to do with like both the judgment/choice of the goal *and* the issue of which choice to make at all. Does that sound right?

I think I'm confused. I don't understand the distinction you're making.

For one thing, I don't know what "judgment/choice of the goal" means, because, to me, judgment and choice are two different things. Judging has the sense of evaluating something, but it doesn't, to me, include actually making a choice. For example, I might *judge* that I made a good choice, or *judge* that a goal is good. That seems different to me from *choosing*, which I associate with picking one option out of multiple options (except that people sometimes say that something is "the only choice").

Another question I have is: What does "which choice to make at all" mean? What extra meaning does "at all" add there?

The main point I was trying to make is that I don't see how to reliably make a good choice unless I can judge for myself whether the choice is good or not.

Max continued:

> Like in my case being 9, it doesn't matter whether I was right or not, the choice was non-arbitrary and I did judge it myself. What I said isn't very helpful b/c it doesn't help with the first step.

Why doesn't it matter whether you were right or not?]]>
Mon, 23 Nov 2020 18:14:36 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18826 https://curi.us/comments/show/18826
jordancurve Politics Discussion
curi wrote:

> Direct ratios between two things are common. When we say Trump got 51% of the vote, we're directly comparing T to V (V = total vote).

I think the point that's relevant to this thread is whether the quantity in the numerator is contained in the quantity in the denominator. For example, if I say I ate 1/2 the cake, the part I ate is also included in the denominator, since the denominator is supposed to account for the entire cake. For the case of Trump getting 51% of the vote, the votes for Trump are also being counted in the denominator. However, when we use a formula like J/T and say that Jorgensen got X% as many votes as Trump, then Jorgensen's votes are *not* included in the denominator.

curi wrote:

> A common comparison would be Trump got 15x more votes than J did.

Why do you say this kind of comparison is common? It doesn't strike me as common. I searched Bing for [[trump jorgensen votes](https://archive.is/0vC2K)] and skimmed the top results to see how they compared the votes for the candidates. Not one of the articles used the 15x kind of comparison, as far as I could tell. Below are some examples of the kinds of comparisons I found.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/05/jo-jorgensen-libertarian-presidential-candidate-gets-votes-in-wisconsin/6173100002 :

> she's on pace to get 1.1% of the national vote
> Jorgensen performed the best in rural, Western states. She secured 2.7% of the vote in Alaska and North Dakota and 2.6% of the vote in South Dakota, according to the AP.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/libertarian-jo-jorgensen-donald-trump-joe-biden :

> With 90% of the vote counted, Biden holds 1,626,943 votes to Trump’s 1,606,370 – a 49.6 to 48.9% divide. Jorgensen has landed 49,182 votes, or 1.5%.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/libertarian-jo-jorgensen-difference-for-joe-biden-key-swing-states :

> In Arizona, Biden is projected to win by a margin of 0.44 percent, while Jorgensen so far has cinched 1.5 percent of the vote.

I'm happy to follow up on suggestions of other keywords to search for.]]>
Mon, 23 Nov 2020 18:02:07 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18825 https://curi.us/comments/show/18825
picking a topic Anne B Collaborative Writing Discussion Thread
I think the simplest topics from our lists are these two:

- why you should learn to drive if you don’t have to

- how do you make pancakes?

If you pick one of those two I’m happy to go with it. Or if you suggest something else I’m happy to consider it.]]>
Mon, 23 Nov 2020 16:26:47 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18824 https://curi.us/comments/show/18824
curi Max Microblogging
https://xertrov.github.io/fi/posts/2020-11-20-1st-order-getting-stuck-vs-2nd-order-getting-stuck-and-structural-epistemology/

which asks:

> can two people ever learn the same thing?

see also

http://fallibleideas.com/originality

in particular the part talking about:

> here's a metaphor to help understand the issue: **everyone's mind has its own programming language.**]]>
Mon, 23 Nov 2020 00:54:13 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18823 https://curi.us/comments/show/18823
curi internetrules Microblogging
yes

> feeling bad while writing is a sign something bad is happening while writing. i think this applies to everything not just writing.

yes

> it feels like its hard and a challenge to build up writing skills, like where would i even start is kind of how im feeling, and it might be to hard for me to even begin trying. that is my reaction to reading this paragraph.

reading is a place to start. grammar is another. writing topics that you understand really well already is another. it's easier to write "basics of how to use a microwave" than about philosophy. writing short stuff is easier too. you could start with sentences before paragraphs.

another place to start is *talking*. ppl learn to talk before write. most ppl can give a verbal reply to someone right away. they don't have to stop and think first. silences in conversations seem awkward to ppl. u can probably already do that in general. so if u could talk a reply fast, why would writing one take a long time?

one way u can write is talk out loud, record it, and then write down what u said (check the recording if u forget some, or use otter.ai or dictation or something to type it for you)

> o hey typing speed is a writing skill! i increased my typing speed once already and learnt touch typing! i am confident i could increase it again if i practiced. so that is a place i *could* start! (FYI current typing speed is maybe like 80 WPM when writing normally)

yeah that's another skill one can work on. if ur typing is more automatic then it distracts you less from figuring out what to say. 80wpm is pretty good already so it's probably not your main problem (improving it probably won't make a big difference).]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 23:47:07 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18822 https://curi.us/comments/show/18822
internetrules internetrules Microblogging
> it's not efficient to do that either (except occasionally, as a test, to see what it's like how and well you can do it – that's fine)

> if something takes a long time it means you haven't built up the earlier skills to make it easy yet. there is a more gradual progress you could do. you're skipping some steps which are why it's hard.

> my posts about overreaching are relevant e.g. http://curi.us/2182-time-based-metric-for-overreaching

> and posts about powering up and only doing easy (efficient) things. i think i did a podcast on that too.

my initial reaction to this was feeling bad cuz i wasnt good at writing or something. i didnt know a conscious reason, but it was something about not being good at writing and being criticized for it.

a minute after reading your response i was thinking how your response was a good thing.

my original message was about how i didnt like spending a bunch of time on writing a paragraph, your response agreed with that!

i can do easier things first that dont involve doing the thing i dont like! thats good!

feeling bad while writing is a sign something bad is happening while writing. i think this applies to everything not just writing.

-----

> if something takes a long time it means you haven't built up the earlier skills to make it easy yet. there is a more gradual progress you could do. you're skipping some steps which are why it's hard.

it feels like its hard and a challenge to build up writing skills, like where would i even start is kind of how im feeling, and it might be to hard for me to even begin trying. that is my reaction to reading this paragraph.

o hey typing speed is a writing skill! i increased my typing speed once already and learnt touch typing! i am confident i could increase it again if i practiced. so that is a place i *could* start! (FYI current typing speed is maybe like 80 WPM when writing normally)

im not sure what writing skills i should learn. i feel kinda lost for where to start. i havnt tried finding out where to start to write better.

i dont think i do a good job using commas. you wrote a guide about how to use commas curi.us/2293-using-commas . i could try to follow that when i write things. thats a place to start!

while writing this message i have been practicing thinking the words i want to say in my head, then typing them out. it seems to be helping with avoiding spending a bunch of time on a paragraph. im not sure what i do to spend a bunch of time editing a paragraph, but this seems to be helping me avoid it. so im already starting at a place to help me write better! i dont write this way all the time, which seems like a reason its not automatic. so if i make it automatic i should be able to write better and have more fun while writing!

so thats like 3 things i know of where i could try to start writing better. and i am currently practicing one of them! that makes it seem a lot less hard to find a place where to start if i already know 3 places to start!]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 23:24:00 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18821 https://curi.us/comments/show/18821
curi Skills I'd Pay For
The sales resources are also at:

https://jonathanstark.com/daily/20201121-2124-book-reco-the-ultimate-sales-letter-by-dan-kennedy]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 22:30:17 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18820 https://curi.us/comments/show/18820
curi curi's Microblogging
> if he just talked about 1 point to conclusion, then if he was right he doesnt need to bring up any other point, the bridge has failed!

> if he was wrong, then he will never find out, and he could be wrong to about all of his new points, but he never gives enough time for a back and forth. he kind of has some hit-and-run arguments, he gives 1 criticism, doesnt give attention to the response, then gives another criticism of another part of the bridge.

yeah!!]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 22:26:07 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18819 https://curi.us/comments/show/18819
curi Politics Discussion
Direct ratios between two things are common. When we say Trump got 51% of the vote, we're directly comparing T to V (V = total vote).

If we compared Trump to a minor candidate, saying he won but +49 would tell us it's not close, but maybe not be that useful or specific. Did the minor candidate get 0% or 10% or something in between? idk.

A common comparison would be Trump got 15x more votes than J did. That's good for some purposes.

But we don't say Trump got 1.2x as many votes as Biden. We got with +5 instead.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 20:36:25 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18818 https://curi.us/comments/show/18818
CWP topics Max Collaborative Writing Discussion Thread
the non-research topics I thought might be good are

- pancakes
- distributive law
- why is EC important *note: i like this one but don't think we should do it first*

of the research ones:

- what does an electrical transformer do? what can happen to one to cause people to lose power?
- why do some leaves change color in the fall?
- describe the life of a groundhog (IDK what a groundhog is, like a mole?)

> How long is our first writing project going to be?

I think a few paragraphs is good to aim for. a kindle page is like 300 words so maybe a few kindle pages could work, but regular sized pages would be a lot I think (I think ~700 words per page is close to typical). in any case, I don't think we should be too worried about writing a small amount.

---

I think I got a bit stuck replying to this. I had some thoughts on method earlier and didn't write them down immediately. Then when I tried to write this post I wanted to include them but I couldn't easily concentrate enough to put them down again -- concentrating on other things was easier though. Anyway, posting this to get this bit unstuck at least.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 20:35:38 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18817 https://curi.us/comments/show/18817
Max Writing Tips
>> I think powering up is good and will help, but I don't think it's necessary for you to get an idea of a (big?) life goal. The first time I remember thinking about wanting to do democracy stuff was in grade 4 (I was 9 I think). I didn't focus on that thru most of my life, but it's something I always cared about in some way. Mb I was only able to do that *because* I was 9 -- I got in a lot of trouble that yr too b/c I thought the teacher was bad/awful to me (so I 'acted out').

> How can I choose something as important as a life goal unless I can judge for myself that I made a good choice? Good for you for doing it in grade 4, but I don't see how I can replicate that.

Hmm, I think I see the problem now. The issue is to do with like both the judgment/choice of the goal *and* the issue of which choice to make at all. Does that sound right?

Like in my case being 9, it doesn't matter whether I was right or not, the choice was non-arbitrary and I did judge it myself. What I said isn't very helpful b/c it doesn't help with the first step.

> It's not clear to me that you didn't waste 5 years of your life compared to other things you could have been doing.

That's fair, you shouldn't take my word for it. I mean I only started doing Flux *after* reading BoI. If I hadn't had other things on my mind, maybe I would have clicked the 'discussion' link at the top of the BoI website of my own accord. (and/or read BoI sooner -- I owned it for ~18-24 months before reading it)

> at the time you started work on Flux, you didn't know it would lead to you to FI. So I don't think it's fair to evaluate your choice to work on Flux positively because it led you to FI, when (a) you didn't know it would do that at the time you chose it, and (b) other paths might also have led you to FI.

You're right that I didn't know it would lead me to FI, but I did do it because of BoI and philosophy, and I was public about that (which is how I ended up finding FI). So I don't agree with (a).

That said, I think my paragraph above (starting with "That's fair") is basically what you put for (b), so I think that we agree mostly and I understand you a bit better now.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 20:31:17 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18816 https://curi.us/comments/show/18816
internetrules curi's Microblogging
> People sabotage discussions.

https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/365

Davies never concedes a point he just keeps on bring up new points for why the bridge should fail.

if he just talked about 1 point to conclusion, then if he was right he doesnt need to bring up any other point, the bridge has failed!

if he was wrong, then he will never find out, and he could be wrong to about all of his new points, but he never gives enough time for a back and forth. he kind of has some hit-and-run arguments, he gives 1 criticism, doesnt give attention to the response, then gives another criticism of another part of the bridge.

davies tactics seems like they might be effective at messing with someone's reputation without answering any of their points. at the end maybe he could even add something like: **if you cant see the problem with your bridge after all of my arguments, then it is you who are lost**. this last point could work at attacking the reader of this discussion as well, cuz it is saying that there is something wrong if you are not able to see the problem with the bridge, so if the reader cant see the problem, they are also wrong!

i have only read 4 paragraphs so far. i have liked it!

> It's likely that the employment relationship will end, either by Davies firing Isambard or Isambard quitting, after even one episode of this script. If not the first time, it will happen after the second or third repetition.

i could imagine roark quitting easily in this situation. maybe he would ask which person is building the bridge, he said something like that once with one of his buildings.

> I've seen it happen many times, both as a participant and an uninvolved observer, and I think it's quite familiar to anyone who has worked in a technical discipline.

that seems sad. i dont have conscious recollection of seeing something like that.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 20:29:45 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18815 https://curi.us/comments/show/18815
Anonymous curi's Microblogging
> After complaining extensively about MAGA, including because MAGA suggests things aren't already great which BBB does too.

huh i thought the main complaint was that america was never great.

i looked up "america is already great" and "america was never great" and got anti trump posts from the "already great" and "never great" sides.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 20:07:57 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18814 https://curi.us/comments/show/18814
Alisa Writing Tips
>> what *kinds* of goals to aim for

Max replied:

> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Can you give two examples of goals that are different kinds?

I said it wrong. It's not that you're considering different *kinds* of goals to aim for, but you're considering different *things which would be relevant in judging a life goal*, such as:

- cosmic significance
- "impact on humanity's future"
- "the manner and magnitude of that impact"
- "the volume, quality, and proximity of important milestones in the future of humanity"
- "a future with *more people* leading lives of *higher quality* (both std of living and std of ideas) and *achieving* important philosophical and technological *progress sooner*"
- "epistemic burdens"
- greatness ("What good purpose could there be in avoiding greatness?")
- mediocrity
- whether to worry about failure
- epistemic idea-cones

I think those topics are too advanced for me, in the sense that I think it'd be hard for me to judge for myself whether I was making known mistakes when talking about them.

I wrote:

>> I have to somehow power up to get to that point.

Max replied:

> I think powering up is good and will help, but I don't think it's necessary for you to get an idea of a (big?) life goal. The first time I remember thinking about wanting to do democracy stuff was in grade 4 (I was 9 I think). I didn't focus on that thru most of my life, but it's something I always cared about in some way. Mb I was only able to do that *because* I was 9 -- I got in a lot of trouble that yr too b/c I thought the teacher was bad/awful to me (so I 'acted out').

How can I choose something as important as a life goal unless I can judge for myself that I made a good choice? Good for you for doing it in grade 4, but I don't see how I can replicate that.

I wrote:

>> Another could be to try to get better at speedrunning.

Max replied:

> Lots of ppl who are good at speedrunning think they have crummy life goals and they haven't powered up much. Some ppl get in to speedrunning *because* they feel like they have a crummy life and they withdraw from stuff.

> So getting better at speedrunning isn't enough; why do you want to do that? what end does that path serve?

curi proposed it as a "[philosophy side quest](http://curi.us/2103-philosophy-side-quests)":

> People get stuck for years on the philosophy main quest while refusing to do side quests. That is not how you play RPGs. Side quests let you get extra levels, gear and practice which make the main quest easier to make progress on.
> An example of a side quest would be speedrunning a Mario or Zelda game. That would involve some goal-directed activity and problem solving. It’d be practice for becoming skilled at something, optimizing details, and correcting mistakes one is making.

I wrote:

>> And I wouldn't know how to judge for myself whether I'd made a good choice in what to focus on next.

Max replied:

> That doesn't need to happen first. I focused a lot on Flux and IBDD over the past 5 years. If I didn't do that I wouldn't have been told about FI, and wouldn't be here. Even if I change my mind about ~everything related to Flux it was still worth it for me to focus on that b/c I'm here, now.

That doesn't sound right to me. For one thing, It's not clear to me that you didn't waste 5 years of your life compared to other things you could have been doing. And how do you know you wouldn't have been told about FI if you worked on something else instead? Finally, at the time you started work on Flux, you didn't know it would lead to you to FI. So I don't think it's fair to evaluate your choice to work on Flux positively because it led you to FI, when (a) you didn't know it would do that at the time you chose it, and (b) other paths might also have led you to FI.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 19:32:59 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18813 https://curi.us/comments/show/18813
jordancurve Politics Discussion
Now that you mention it, I guess J/T actually generalizes to multiple candidates, in the way that I was thinking of it, as well as J/(J+T) does. For example, if you're looking at J/T, and you want to add B into the mix, you could just look at J/(T+B), and say that J gets X% as many votes as T & B combined. So I retract that reason for preferring J/(T+B).

Here's a different reason to prefer J/(J+T) over J/T. When people talk about elections, the concept of *fraction of votes under consideration*, which J/(J+T) represents, is more common than the *ratio of one candidate's votes to another*. People already say things like *J got X% of the vote in some precinct*, or *B got 52% of the national vote*, but I haven't seen many people say things like *B got 1.1 times as many votes as T*. Consistently using *fraction of votes under consideration* lets you re-use a single concept, which is already common, instead of introducing a new one for some comparisons.

Now here's a reason to prefer J/T to J/(J+T), which hadn't occurred to me before I started writing this reply. J/T is simpler to talk about: you just say that J got X% as many votes as T. To put J/(J+T) into words, you have to say something like: J got X% of the votes given to J or T, which is a bit more complicated.

One final note: the difference between J/T and J/(J+T) reminds me of the difference between odds and probabilities.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 19:10:00 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18812 https://curi.us/comments/show/18812
project planning Anne B Collaborative Writing Discussion Thread Sun, 22 Nov 2020 15:39:10 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18811 https://curi.us/comments/show/18811 when does practice count? Max internetrules Microblogging
> There's a part of me that thinks it doesn't count and won't help me learn anything if I'm having fun doing it.

Every post you make is practice. It could be practice writing or getting your thoughts out or finding out what someone means or trying to add value to a conversation. *There's always a goal you can practice*.

You can be bad a prioritisation and still do lots of practice. Though, you shouldn't expect to make much progress if you don't prioritise bottlenecks. But that doesn't mean the practice has to be wasted. Sometimes it's good to practice on things that are more fun than on things that might be more difficult. You can't do difficult stuff all the time, and doing easy stuff is better than doing nothing!

Whether it *counts* or not is up to you more than anything else I think. It's possible to do stuff in a way that doesn't help you learn. One thing that might help is thinking about the goal of what you're posting before you post it. That way you can better focus on achieving that goal, and that will make the practice more worth while (and more explicit).

> ... won't help me learn anything if I'm having fun doing it.

This is curious to me. Some ppl have the idea that learning is way better / easier / effective when you're having fun. That seems like a pretty common idea too. I'm not sure I've heard anyone suggest the opposite, though.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 14:47:41 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18810 https://curi.us/comments/show/18810
having fun with philosophy stuff Anne B internetrules Microblogging >
> i should put effort into having fun with things, and trying to do things in ways that are fun.

I think this too, for myself. I'm not very good at having fun learning philosophy. I often think something like "oh boy i have to do some philosophy work stuff".

Then sometimes once I get started I enjoy what I'm doing. And sometimes I do something without thinking I *should* do it, like answering this post of yours. There's a part of me that thinks it doesn't count and won't help me learn anything if I'm having fun doing it.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 14:29:43 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18809 https://curi.us/comments/show/18809
a soda a day Anne B internetrules Microblogging
> in chicago there was a tax on soda.
>
> there were advertisements paid for by Michael Bloomberg that seemed to scare parents/children into not wanting to drink soda
>
> at 0:42 the advertisement says:
>
>> just 1 soda a day can lead to an extra 10 pounds a year
>
> i think they assumed that someone is going to add a soda to their diet and not compensate for the soda. they assume that ppl eat 2100 calories per day of normal food, and then ppl just add an extra 140 calories on top of that with soda. so if they removed the soda ppl wouldnt gain weight.

Yes. You'd never see a public service ad that said "just 1 apple a day can lead to an extra 5 pounds a year"! People assume that if you eat an apple a day, you're eating it instead of something else you'd otherwise be eating, not adding it on top of what you'd otherwise be eating.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 14:22:04 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18808 https://curi.us/comments/show/18808
context Anne B Collaborative Writing Discussion Thread Sun, 22 Nov 2020 13:53:46 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18807 https://curi.us/comments/show/18807 topics Anne B Collaborative Writing Discussion Thread
My favorites from your suggestions:

- walking or driving on ice. would need some research for me, which is okay.

- choosing a movie.

- why you should learn to drive if you don’t have to. this one would be short.

- basics of personal finance.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 13:53:04 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18806 https://curi.us/comments/show/18806
potential topics Anne B Collaborative Writing Discussion Thread
would require research:
why do some leaves change color in the fall?
how do you back up a computer?
why are vacuum cleaners so loud?
how do car manufacturers decide what color cars to make?
pick a famous philosopher in history. write a summary of their life and philosophy.
what does an electrical transformer do? what can happen to one to cause people to lose power?
describe the life of a groundhog.
what is calculus used for?
how does a dishwasher work?

might not require research:
how do you use a stove?
how do you make pancakes?
how do you make pumpkin pie?
explain the distributive law of multiplication over addition and why it works.
how to do long division and why it works to do it that way.
how to reduce fractions and why it works to do it that way.
why is error correction important?]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 13:19:45 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18805 https://curi.us/comments/show/18805
how to do FI Max Max Microblogging
----

First, you have to want to learn and read and write down your thoughts. If that isn't the case then you have a problem with mindset/attitude. You might need to find a decisive reason to want to start writing (I needed this). My reason is establishing a track record. I don't think I can do the things I want to do without getting better at philosophy, and I need a track record for that and to be taken seriously (and to expect to be taken seriously). Writing is now a direct part of my plan (my *method*, not just my *goal*), so I want to do it. There are other pitfalls you can run into at this stage, like if you don't want to learn or read.

Then:

- first, write down all your new thoughts with priority. don't expect ppl to read them, you're writing them down for you (to practice writing, to get them clear in your mind, to have a track record, to expose them for criticism, etc). one exception to this is if you have too much to write and can like go and go and go. I don't think that's v common but that's a different situation if you fall into that bucket.

- if you run out of things you want to write down, or don't feel like it at that time, then you should learn by reading new posts or watching curi videos/podcasts or consuming good stuff (mb high concentration like Rand or Goldratt or low concentration like okay stuff on YT). take notes, esp questions. you don't need to take like lots of notes like ppl do at uni. note down important things.

- you should keep up with your discussions as much as you can, and with priority over new discussions and new materials. it's okay if you want to end/postpone a discussion because you think there's something you should learn first, but if that's the case you should say so. if you need to abandon a discussion, then it's better to say that's what you're doing as early as possible rather than to not say that.

- you should try to make as effective use of criticism as possible. as you get better at that you can have much shorter conversations before realising that an error happened and what/how/why/etc. **do postmortems**, you don't have to for everything, but it's good practice to do it for simple stuff and it's really important to do them for large things when you understand the mistake. you want to expose your EC to criticism, too.

- get used to having a content backlog and being decisive about what you want to focus on. get used to organising your time so you can keep commitments around discussions and things. practice being consistent and not evading or abandoning things you start.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 09:06:21 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18803 https://curi.us/comments/show/18803
Max Politics Discussion > Do you have an example of discussion you think is particularly good and fits your description about thorough investigation? Source? Link?

No, definitely in the FI sense of 'good discussion', and maybe not in a lay sense either. I had a bit of a look.

I think this is what happened leading up to me saying the example:

- I had some positive beliefs about ppl in the rocket industry.
- The COPV thing happened and there was a lot of speculation.
- Ppl talked about procedures and fault-trees and all kinds of things.
- There was a narrative akin to what I put in #18789
- A [highly technical explanation](https://sma.nasa.gov/LaunchVehicle/assets/anomaly-updates-spacex.pdf) came out (Jan 2nd 2017) which confirmed the narrative
- I didn't question it or realise that it wasn't a good argument / evidence / etc.

Here's an extract from the Jan 2 statement (linked) showing what I mean about the narrative:

> The accident investigation team worked systematically through an extensive fault tree analysis and concluded that one of the three composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs) inside the second stage liquid oxygen (LOX) tank failed.

I still think there are qualitative differences between rocketry postmortems and electoral fraud stuff, but I overstated it in the example.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 08:14:49 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18802 https://curi.us/comments/show/18802
curi Politics Discussion
yes

> - J/(J+T) generalizes to 3+-way or greater races, e.g., J/(J+T+B).

Doesn't J/T also work when B is in the race?

> - the values for all candidates sum to 100%, which makes it matter of addition and subtraction to calculate, given the support for one candidate, the support received by all other candidates, and vice versa.

doesn't seem important in general, let alone in our particular context]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 07:56:41 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18801 https://curi.us/comments/show/18801
jordancurve Politics Discussion Sun, 22 Nov 2020 07:52:38 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18800 https://curi.us/comments/show/18800 jordancurve Politics Discussion
So, here are some reasons to prefer J/(J+T) over J/T (which I think is the only alternative formula that’s been mentioned in this thread):

- J/(J+T) generalizes to 3+-way or greater races, e.g., J/(J+T+B).
- the values for all candidates sum to 100%, which makes it matter of addition and subtraction to calculate, given the support for one candidate, the support received by all other candidates, and vice versa.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 07:40:58 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18799 https://curi.us/comments/show/18799
Anonymous Politics Discussion
Do you have an example of discussion you think is particularly good and fits your description about thorough investigation? Source? Link?]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 07:37:49 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18798 https://curi.us/comments/show/18798
curi Politics Discussion Sun, 22 Nov 2020 07:36:06 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18797 https://curi.us/comments/show/18797 Max Politics Discussion
I changed my mind about SpaceX vs Blue Origin last year when this happened https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-unveils-lunar-lander/

SpaceX and BO had conferences around the same time, and Musk was talking about starship and mars, and bezos was talking about the moon and *space habitats*. I think Bezos has much better ideas about this than Musk, but Musk has captured ppls imaginations w/ mars. Ppl don't seem to care that big planetary colonies don't make sense (they'll eventually get big, but most ppl will live between/around planets, not on them).]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 07:33:16 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18796 https://curi.us/comments/show/18796
curi Politics Discussion Sun, 22 Nov 2020 07:24:14 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18795 https://curi.us/comments/show/18795 Max Politics Discussion
Yeah okay, I can see how I would have made that mistake, esp b/c I was thinking about some of SpaceX's recent failures where I paid attention to the community discussion during the investigation. On one hand I think private companies have less inventive to lie like the NASA guy, and OTOH I'm probs biased b/c of how I paid attention to it at the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raMmRKGkGD4 - Richard Feynman debunks NASA

Feynman really was a great thinker. IMO he was quite a bit more polite in that clip than he needed to be, too.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 07:20:23 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18794 https://curi.us/comments/show/18794
curi Politics Discussion
Sadly I don't think that's true. It's a nice ideal that some people pay lip service to, but I don't think it's what many people actually do. See e.g. Feynman's experience in a rocketry related investigation (o-ring story).]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 07:13:33 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18793 https://curi.us/comments/show/18793
Max Writing Tips
> what *kinds* of goals to aim for

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Can you give two examples of goals that are different kinds?

> I have to somehow power up to get to that point.

I think powering up is good and will help, but I don't think it's necessary for you to get an idea of a (big?) life goal. The first time I remember thinking about wanting to do democracy stuff was in grade 4 (I was 9 I think). I didn't focus on that thru most of my life, but it's something I always cared about in some way. Mb I was only able to do that *because* I was 9 -- I got in a lot of trouble that yr too b/c I thought the teacher was bad/awful to me (so I 'acted out').

> Another could be to try to get better at speedrunning.

Lots of ppl who are good at speedrunning think they have crummy life goals and they haven't powered up much. Some ppl get in to speedrunning *because* they feel like they have a crummy life and they withdraw from stuff.

So getting better at speedrunning isn't enough; why do you want to do that? what end does that path serve?

> And I wouldn't know how to judge for myself whether I'd made a good choice in what to focus on next.

That doesn't need to happen first. I focused a lot on Flux and IBDD over the past 5 years. If I didn't do that I wouldn't have been told about FI, and wouldn't be here. Even if I change my mind about ~everything related to Flux it was still worth it for me to focus on that b/c I'm here, now.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 07:13:33 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18792 https://curi.us/comments/show/18792
curi Politics Discussion
You're trying to make the numbers work out right instead of thinking about concepts.

I can do that too. I already knew where 20% came from. *But it's dead wrong* in relation to the words written.

And that method is terrible for understanding stuff.

>> Why would one look at that?

> Because unusual values for it can be a sign of fraud.

You're making a positive argument. Convert it to a negative argument and see how it works.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 07:08:47 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18791 https://curi.us/comments/show/18791
Max internetrules Microblogging
> i dont know how evolution getting rid of things works.

A sort of rule of thumb is 'use it or lose it'.

Life need to spend resources (energy, nutrients, etc) to grow, maintain, and use features. If a life form doesn't use a feature but still has to grow it then there's a cost. The mutant sibling that doesn't have that thing *doesn't have the associated cost*. If that feature is important for the life-form surviving then the mutant sibling is at a greater risk of dying than the non-mutant (all else being equal). If the feature *isn't* important for survival then the non-mutant is at a *disadvantage* b/c they have to spend more resources but they don't get any benefit from them.

There are two things that make this more complex: selfish genes, and mutations in the regulation of gene activations instead of mutations in the features themselves.

> if u have 2 modes like:
> 1. fast and efficient
> 2. slow and efficient
> i think that the slow and efficient mode is unnecessary.

What if 'fast and efficient' only works for 10s or 60s? Do you need 'slow an efficient' after that?

Example: Our muscles work a bit like this. There are 3/4 primary energy systems used during exercise:
- ATP-TP (lasts ~10 seconds; high energy burst, like a sprint)
- lactic acid (lasts ~60 seconds; high-ish energy but more sustained, like a 400m/800m run)
- and oxygen + glucose and oxygen + fat (fat gets used after your glycogen stores are depleted).

They all have a cost to maintain and they're all have a diff balance of speed and efficiency (not to mention, they're efficient for different *goals*)

If you want something to think on, why would we need 3 or 4 systems?

(This relates to CF stuff, too)

----

also, WRT caloric restriction and weight loss stuff, I think this video from thunderf00t is good: [The '5kg in 50 days' Diet!
](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTABw0EyIWY) - I haven't watched it recently tho and I think some of this other stuff is problematic. This vid seemed okay the times I watched it.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 07:02:25 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18790 https://curi.us/comments/show/18790
Anonymous Politics Discussion
> https://twitter.com/shylockh/status/1330345773419159552
> good thread on election fraud and what would it take for ppl to change their minds

This thread has some good stuff. I've pulled out the bits I particularly like:

> Do better! If you think this is wrong, say what _specifically_ you think is going on, and how it fits the facts.

https://twitter.com/shylockh/status/1330346293886144514

I notice something v. different about the electoral fraud issue compared to some other public investigations I know of.

Example: rocket failures. No body in rocketry is happy with concluding things are fine b/c there's insufficient data. *ANY* issue that happens is *investigated to conclusion*, with super high standards for both 'for' and 'against' cases regarding conjectured scenarios. It's not enough to know that something *didn't* happen; if an event was unexpected then you need to know *exactly* what *did* happen -- it's not safe to fly until you do.

Why are there such big differences in the way ppl view these sorta issues? One reason is that ppl don't learn critical thinking in general when they do learn critical thinking techniques; they learn it specific to some domain. The *bigger* reason, I think, is that the rocket scientists are *truthseeking*. They don't care what the answer is, they just want a *high quality* answer so they can get on with making rockets.

In this electoral fraud issue, lots of ppl want *their chosen answer* to be the right one, and they're okay with compromising their standards to avoid dealing with the consequences.

> Finally, this whole analysis shows the difficulty of the entire task. Suppose you read it, and find it unconvincing. Here’s an important question – is there any conceivable analysis that could be done using only public data that would convince you something dubious is up? (10/N)

Good q. Related to PF and 'how would you know you were mistaken?'

> Name me a plausibly available dataset for the US, Syria, and Venezuela, and statistical tests you could run, which you’re confident would prove to your own standards that the latter two are fraudulent, and the first one is entirely clean for every county nationwide.

The only issue I see here is that Syria and Venezuela might have much worse data quality (and that wouldn't be surprising), but shylockh is asking for *plausibly* available data. However, the point still stands w/ other countries like Australia or EU nations, etc. There are known instances of fraud in other democracies you can use as a partial basis for comparison.

The point is good though: if you don't have a complete explanation of a method where you could claim detection of true-positives, you can't hope to judge something like this (esp on intuition!) without having a high rate of false-positives and false-negatives.

> At which point the honest answer isn't “there’s no evidence of fraud in US elections”. Rather it’s “we don’t really know how much fraud there is in US elections, because detecting fraud other than egregiously making up vote totals out of whole cloth is a very difficult task”./fin

Last tweet: https://twitter.com/shylockh/status/1330347275453935616 (I don't think it's necessary to link them all)]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 06:44:43 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18789 https://curi.us/comments/show/18789
jordancurve Politics Discussion
When they refer to "support" throughout the paper, I think they mean the fraction of votes under consideration that went to a particular candidate, e.g.:

> a large batch of 90,022 mail/absentee votes get added that has over 95% support for Biden
> The Libertarian candidate Jorgensen enjoys 20.02% as much support (834 votes) as the Republican (3,331).

Here, the only simple way to get 20.02% is 834/(834+3331).

> it has a ratio of support for Jorgenson relative to Trump (20%) that is higher than virtually every county in America

Earlier, I wrote:

>> They are looking at the ratio J/(J+T),

curi asked:

> Why would one look at that?

Because unusual values for it can be a sign of fraud. In their terms, J/(J+T) refers to Jorgensen's "support" in a hypothetical two-way race between Jorgensen and Trump. They have calculated it for lots of areas across the country, and they think that the value of 20% for it in Montgomery County, PA, is unusual.

> And that isn't what they say they're looking at.

I agree. At least two sentences are worded as if they are looking at J/T.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 06:24:14 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18788 https://curi.us/comments/show/18788
Max Politics Discussion
I know a number of tech companies that have relocated their "office" to other countries b/c of favourable regulations or to limit personal liability. (And doing that when you start in Australia is harder than elsewhere esp if you need to physically visit the other country; not all the companies I know that did this were Aussie tho.)]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 06:21:53 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18787 https://curi.us/comments/show/18787
jordancurve Politics Discussion Sun, 22 Nov 2020 06:06:56 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18786 https://curi.us/comments/show/18786 curi Politics Discussion
I have a theory about why tech companies are doing so well. A standard one is low capital requirements to run a website and make an app and stuff. And that's true. But another big factor, IMO, is low amount of physical presence means less interaction with the govt which makes it more possible to live, exist, and do anything.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 06:06:33 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18785 https://curi.us/comments/show/18785
curi Politics Discussion
Why would one look at that? And that isn't what they say they're looking at.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 06:00:26 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18784 https://curi.us/comments/show/18784
If you fight the establishment they will stop you and laugh in your face. Max Politics Discussion
> Let's quantify how "statistically impossible" this is.
> ... standard deviations from the mean.

I've had evidence like this ignored at a tribunal before -- to do with membership to a political party. As described by a University of Melbourne publication:

> In her Order, made on 23 October 2018, Justice Hampel, Vice President of VCAT, refuted every one of Mr Millington’s arguments.
> In oral testimony, it became apparent that the Flux Party could not be certain that its membership database satisfied the requirements of the Act; in particular, it could not ensure that its members were not members of another political party.

- [University of Melbourne - Electoral Regulation Research Network - Section: Millington v Victorian Electoral Commission (VCAT Reference Z601/2018)](https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/3052014/ERRN-newsletter-April-2019-final.pdf)

The "oral testimony" was mine, btw, where I talked about our membership signup process and typical problem-rate for members (about 2% are problematic, only some of which are members of other parties). We also ask whether our members are part of another party, too (some ppl weren't shown this option at registration due to differing signup forms, though).

We submitted approx 150% of the required number of names, but there was only a 50% response rate to the physical letters the Electoral Commission sent out to verify ppl were legit members, so about 75% of the "required" number of members.

I argued that the probability we had a *significant* issue with members in this state (Victoria / VIC) was vanishingly low. We'd need to have a full 33% of our submitted members be ineligible to fall short of the criteria (as it is written in law; this electoral commission has a lot of leeway).

The magistrate dismissed this argument. I think this was in part b/c I don't work as a statistician; her first question in response to my 'vanishingly low' claim was "are you a statistician?", not did I study it or what was I basing my claim on. I also wasn't allowed to explain anything at this point, and the magistrate moved on with her questioning (witnesses can't interject).

> 73. Mr Millington also submitted that, as a matter of probability, I should be satisfied it was likely no more than 2% of members of the applicant party were also members of other parties. He relied on the evidence of Mr Kaye that the number of members of the federal and WA, NSW, ACT and Queensland branches of the Flux Party who were also members of other parties was a consistent 2%. This submission is equally flawed. An argument based on probabilities is unsound.

An actual fucking magistrate said **"An argument based on probabilities is unsound."** I wonder what she thinks "beyond reasonable doubt means"? Or are arguments based on probability okay for murder trials, just not for bureaucratic processes?

> 72. This submission is flawed. Not only is the Victorian data demonstrably unreliable, an argument based on probabilities, where the party had no mechanisms in place to protect against people being joined up without their knowledge, or people joining up in false, or multiple names, is unsound.

- [Millington v Victorian Electoral Commission (Review and Regulation) [2018] VCAT 1661](https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2018/1661.html?context=1;query=Millington%20v%20Victorian%20Electoral%20Commission;mask_path=)

The magistrate also conveniently ignores the fact we validate ppl's details against the electoral roll, which is the entire principle behind KYC/AML laws applying to e.g. opening a bank account.

Oh and that of the ~375 responses the VEC got (the names and addresses had already been confirmed as accurate), they refused to tell us how many were 'no' responses and didn't provide it at tribunal. If there were like ~100 'no' responses I would have thought the barrister they hired would be savvy enough to mention that (since it is actual evidence of what the judge asserted).

I went and found a binomial prob calculator, and even taking a 0.04 success rate (double our 0.02), given 750 trials, the chance of 100 successes or more:
P(X >= x) < 0.000001
Even just 50 successes has
P(X >= x) ~= 0.000391
But an argument based on probability is unsound.

The transcripts for the tribunal were/are technically available, but cost $1500+ (there are a small number of approved companies to do the transcription, and even though you get the audio at the end of that process, the audio isn't available otherwise).

If you fight the establishment they will stop you and laugh in your face.

---

While finding links for the above, I also found an example of a "support = confirmation" error:

> On 23 October 2018 the VCAT dismissed Mr Millington’s application for review and affirmed the VEC’s decision to refuse to register The Flux Party–Victoria’s application as a political party, validating the VEC’s approach to determining whether a political party may be registered under the Act.

- https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/emc/2018_Election/Submissions/92._Victorian_Electoral_Commission_Revised.pdf

Aside from the fact it was a tribunal (not a court), dismissing an application for review doesn't validate the thing being challenged.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 06:00:06 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18783 https://curi.us/comments/show/18783
curi Politics Discussion
834 is not around 20% of 3331. It's around 25% as much as 3331 is.

Their gross incompetence at arithmetic (as well as the previous error I pointed out) casts doubt on the quality of their statistical analysis of the election. And I haven't even read the article, just a couple little excerpts, to find these errors.

This doesn't mean their conclusion or main point is wrong, but with "experts" like these being promoted as doing some of the best analysis to find fraud ... jfc what a sad world :(]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 05:56:24 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18782 https://curi.us/comments/show/18782
curi Politics Discussion
good thread on election fraud and what would it take for ppl to change their minds]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 05:38:23 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18781 https://curi.us/comments/show/18781
curi Politics Discussion
I don't understand what is going wrong for you. You know what a percentage is. This says if Trump got 100 votes, Jorgensen got 2.3 votes.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 05:31:34 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18780 https://curi.us/comments/show/18780
jordancurve Politics Discussion
Ok, I read it again. It means the same thing to me as it did when I wrote #18776. Here’s my interpretation, with implied words added at the end:

> At the last update of our data, on Sunday night, in Pennsylvania as a whole, Jorgensen’s support was 2.3% as large as Trump’s, roughly 1/9 as large [as the comparable figure from the previous sentence].

They are looking at the ratio J/(J+T), where J is the number of votes for Jorgensen and T is the number of votes for Trump. They are calculating that ratio for groups of ballots:
- the “new batch” of mail votes, where it’s 20.02% (834/(834+3331))
- PA as a whole, where it’s 2.3%

The latter is roughly 1/9 of the former.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 05:27:02 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18779 https://curi.us/comments/show/18779
curi Skills I'd Pay For
https://groups.google.com/g/fallible-ideas/c/gfcGjocYOGk]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 05:25:14 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18778 https://curi.us/comments/show/18778
curi Politics Discussion Sun, 22 Nov 2020 05:00:52 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18777 https://curi.us/comments/show/18777 jordancurve Politics Discussion
> If the new batch of mail votes is genuine, then the part of Montgomery County they are coming from is unlike almost anywhere else in America in terms of the ratio of support for Libertarian candidates relative to Republican ones. The Libertarian candidate Jorgensen enjoys 20.02% as much support (834 votes) as the Republican (3,331).
> At the last update of our data, on Sunday night, in Pennsylvania as a whole, Jorgensen’s support was 2.3% as large as Trump’s, roughly 1/9 as large.

2.3% is roughly 1/9 of 20.02%.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 04:53:35 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18776 https://curi.us/comments/show/18776
curi Politics Discussion
Typo..? 2.3% is not roughly 1/9]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 04:23:08 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18775 https://curi.us/comments/show/18775
New Data From Rigorous Statistical Analysis Points to Voter Fraud in Montgomery County, PA jordancurve Politics Discussion
[Explosive: New Data From Rigorous Statistical Analysis Points to Voter Fraud in Montgomery County, PA](https://www.revolver.news/2020/11/explosive-new-data-from-rigorous-statistical-analysis-points-to-voter-fraud-in-montgomery-county-pa/) (*revolver*, November 21, 2020):

> On Thursday November 5th at 9:09am a large batch of 90,022 mail/absentee votes get added that has over 95% support for Biden, but total votes to go up by only 9,534, implying that in-person votes actually went down by 80,488. On its own, this is a very strange irregularity, as ballots cannot disappear, and in-person ballots cannot become mail ballots. Something is wrong in the reported data, the only question is what.


> ⦁ It has a level of support for Biden (over 95%) that is statistically impossible to have come from the same distribution of mail ballots counted up to that point (74.9% for Biden)

Let's quantify how "statistically impossible" this is. Say you have a biased coin that comes up heads 75% of the time. If you flip it 90000 times, what's the probability of getting 0.95 * 90000 = 85500 or more heads? By any [criterion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution#Normal_approximation), the normal approximation to the binomial distribution will give reasonable ballpark results in this scenario. On average, we'd expect to see 0.75 * 90000 = 67508.25 heads. One standard deviation is Sqrt[0.75 * 0.25 * 90000] ≈ 130, so 85500 heads is about (85500-67508.25)/130 ≈ 138 standard deviations from the mean.

> ... we consider throughout the possibility that the errors are the result of innocent mistakes being made, either by Edison or the New York Times in collecting or publishing their data, or by the County themselves in their early vote counts. Counting processes have all sorts of innocent errors, and weirdness in data is well understood by anyone who has ever worked with it. Machines can break. Data can get transcribed wrong. Code updating websites, both for governments and data vendors, can be faulty. Genuine ballots may be incorrectly classified as one type or another during the counting process. Corrections of earlier errors, even if well-intentioned, may be incorrectly assumed to be additional errors. We have to consider whether these explanations could explain the same set of facts, both individually, and in combination. We will not shirk this task.

Good.

> All mail ballots in Montgomery County were instructed to be mailed to the same postal address. This strengthens the reasons for believing that mail ballots should be drawn from roughly the same distribution.

Good point.

I found the chart under Fact 7 confusing at first. I didn't know what the "Abnormal Biden 2Pty Vote Share in Batch" axis label meant. The axis ranges from -0.2 to 0.2. Turns out, they explained it much further down. It means:

> How different is the two-party vote share for Biden in the new batch of mail votes relative to mail ballots counted so far?

The chart under Fact 9 is interesting. I think it works like this. For each precinct in Montgomery County, PA, they put a point on the chart. To get the coordinates of each precinct, they looked at the mail-in ballots in that precinct that were counted on or before Nov 10 ("previous ballots") and the mail-in ballots in that precinct that were counted after Nov 10 ("new ballots"). For each precinct, the X coordinate is the fraction of previous ballots that went to Biden, and the Y coordinate is the fraction of new ballots that went to Biden. Looking at all the points (precincts), the Y coordinates or somewhat evenly distributed from 0 to 1. The X coordinates are all in the range of about 0.6 to 1, apparently averaging around 0.8. This means that the new ballots are more evenly distributed in their support for Biden than the previous ballots.

> Under absolutely any interpretation, the change in votes between 7:43pm on 11/4 and 9:09am on 11/5 is completely inconsistent with the fair and orderly reporting of ballot counts.

Good statement.

> Even without further elaboration, these bare facts alone represent a glaring irregularity. Existing votes cannot simply disappear, and in-person ballots cannot transform into mail ballots.

Yes.

> It is absolutely statistically impossible that these two ballots represent draws from the same underlying distribution. Ignoring the libertarian vote for the time being, if you had a coin that had a 75.4% chance of landing on heads each time (Biden’s two party vote up to that point), the chances you would flip it 89,188 times and get 85,857 heads is so small that Excel doesn’t have enough zeroes to represent just how improbable it is. It just rounds it to “zero”.

Ah, they also use a comparison with coin flipping to show how unlikely the scenario they are talking about is. However, instead of using the normal approximation to the binomial, they use Excel's [BINOMDIST](https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/binomdist-function-506a663e-c4ca-428d-b9a8-05583d68789c) function (I would guess).

> Interpretation:. Not only

Typo: ":."

> If the new batch of mail votes is genuine, then the part of Montgomery County they are coming from is unlike almost anywhere else in America in terms of the ratio of support for Libertarian candidates relative to Republican ones. The Libertarian candidate Jorgensen enjoys 20.02% as much support (834 votes) as the Republican (3,331).
> At the last update of our data, on Sunday night, in Pennsylvania as a whole, Jorgensen’s support was 2.3% as large as Trump’s, roughly 1/9 as large. But even this understates how bizarre this ratio is. Let us suppose that this new batch of mail ballots, with its 20.02% Libertarian / Republican ratio, were a separate county – with 90,022 votes, it’s certainly large enough to warrant it in most of the country. Out of the 3,156 counties where we have election data as of Sunday night, this new batch, if it were a county, would be the second highest in America in its Libertarian to Republican ratio, behind only Ogalala Lakota in South Dakota. The 99th percentile of the distribution is only 6.81%.

Also, with a population of [830,915](https://www.google.com/search?q=Montgomery+County+PA+population), Montgomery County, PA has over 55 times the population of Ogalala Lakota in SD, which has only [14,309](https://www.google.com/search?q=Ogalala+Lakota+in+South+Dakota+population) people. Other things being equal, it's more interesting for a large population to be an outlier than a small population.

> Ideally, we could have gone back in time and started scraping the County data since the start of the election, to observe the actual anomalous update directly but that ship had already sailed.

Grammar nit: There should be an error before "but" because it's a separate clause with a coordinating conjunction.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 03:25:48 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18774 https://curi.us/comments/show/18774
Anne B TCS Basics 7 >
> Other times they say, "TV is dangerous. My child doesn't know enough not to listen to it."
>
> These two statements represent opposite views about ignorance. One view is that ignorance cause stubbornness and a closed mind. The other is that it causes gullibleness and an open mind.

I’m not confident that the below is correct.

There’s an idea in society that bad ideas like the ones kids get from TV or from their peer group are more attractive than good ideas like the ones their parents and teachers tell them. The bad ideas are more fun so kids are naturally drawn to them. Kids need to learn to take up the good ideas instead of the bad ideas. Once the kids have learned the lessons well enough, they’ll be able to resist the bad ideas better.

So the two statements aren’t really opposite views about ignorance. They are parts of the same view: that children, because of their ignorance, gravitate towards bad ideas and avoid good ideas.

People don’t realize that if a good idea is really a good idea, they ought to be able to explain it to a child so that the child agrees it’s a good idea. They don’t realize that if they themselves understood why something is a good idea, they themselves would believe it for real, not believe it because it’s how they were taught.]]>
Sun, 22 Nov 2020 01:34:42 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18773 https://curi.us/comments/show/18773
curi internetrules Microblogging
it's not efficient to do that either (except occasionally, as a test, to see what it's like how and well you can do it – that's fine)

if something takes a long time it means you haven't built up the earlier skills to make it easy yet. there is a more gradual progress you could do. you're skipping some steps which are why it's hard.

my posts about overreaching are relevant e.g. http://curi.us/2182-time-based-metric-for-overreaching

and posts about powering up and only doing easy (efficient) things. i think i did a podcast on that too.]]>
Sat, 21 Nov 2020 22:41:42 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18772 https://curi.us/comments/show/18772
internetrules internetrules Microblogging
> You have a way of being honest without being boring.

i should put effort into not being bored while doing things! i should be having fun with philosophy stuff and not treating it as like: "oh boy i have to do some philosophy work stuff". i think philosophy, and progress, and things like that, should be fun, and you should want to do them.

i should put effort into having fun with things, and trying to do things in ways that are fun.

sometimes i spend to long like just editing a single paragraph, and thats not fun.

but if i can write the paragraph more quickly and then move onto other stuff, that is fun!

> Your posts inspire me to post more. Thanks.

that seems good! i am also trying to post more.]]>
Sat, 21 Nov 2020 22:34:10 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18771 https://curi.us/comments/show/18771
focusplan mindmap software Max Mind Map Software Review Sat, 21 Nov 2020 11:58:42 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18770 https://curi.us/comments/show/18770 Alisa Politics Discussion
I liked this article explaining Trump’s strategy for winning a second term. It goes into detail on a theory put forth by Alan Dershowitz.]]>
Sat, 21 Nov 2020 07:10:30 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18769 https://curi.us/comments/show/18769
re: collaborative writing project Max Collaborative Writing Discussion Thread
This was my quick topic-brainstorm.

* making dinner
* walking or driving on ice
* choosing a movie
* why do people exercise?
* why you should learn to drive if you don't have to
* differences between Australia and the USA
* using a measuring tape
* what is a dialog?
* basics of finance: rent, income, expenses
* using blinds
* how to organize your things
* taking care of a cat
* how to get from Australia to the USA (or vice versa)

Lots of these could be made more specific or have a particular perspective applied, like 'making dinner' could be "how to ...", "why should you ...", "why do ppl ...", etc.

It also occurred to me we could write a dialog, which might be an interesting thing to do collaboratively. But probably not best for our 1st attempt.]]>
Sat, 21 Nov 2020 03:56:58 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18768 https://curi.us/comments/show/18768
curi curi's Microblogging
![](https://curi.us/img/sOXx7YLnclnTv4n-1052x442.png)

This is an important rebuttal. stucchio is right. Reality is opinionated in some ways. Some psychological ideas are wrong and asserting they are facts of human nature (which I don't think is true) can't improve their performance in e.g. various betting games.

I have major issues with "cognitive biases" but claiming they are not biases because they are mere facts is really confused. Claiming they're not biases because lots of viewpoints are exist is similar to the relativism-type claim that science is just one viewpoint (and that which viewpoint makes sense or works for each person is relative to his religion, race, gender, culture, whatever).]]>
Sat, 21 Nov 2020 03:52:24 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18767 https://curi.us/comments/show/18767
Anonymous Politics Discussion
> Tucker could have brought on Ann Coulter over past few years, but refused. Why?

Anntensity, an Ann Coulter fan account which Coulter herself often retweets, [replied](https://twitter.com/anntensity/status/1329940551186194433?s=21):

> BOOM 💥]]>
Sat, 21 Nov 2020 02:18:20 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18766 https://curi.us/comments/show/18766
Anonymous Politics Discussion
> As long as Tucker Carlson works for Fox News, he can't be fully trusted. Be suspicious of anyone who is getting rich from the establishment.]]>
Sat, 21 Nov 2020 02:14:21 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18765 https://curi.us/comments/show/18765
Alisa internetrules Microblogging Sat, 21 Nov 2020 01:37:23 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18764 https://curi.us/comments/show/18764 Alisa Writing Tips
I think my current life goal is to learn enough to be able to figure out what my actual life goal is. I have to somehow power up to get to that point. One way to power up is to work through the recommended FI reading list. Another could be to try to get better at speedrunning. I really don't know what to focus on next. And I wouldn't know how to judge for myself whether I'd made a good choice in what to focus on next. So again, I have to power up (or ask for some help).]]>
Sat, 21 Nov 2020 00:33:47 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18763 https://curi.us/comments/show/18763
internetrules internetrules Microblogging
i didnt have fun in the last message writing about work.

im gonna go read a book and have fun doing that.

i think i feel some kind of badness about not having fun writing about "work" in my last message]]>
Fri, 20 Nov 2020 21:01:58 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18762 https://curi.us/comments/show/18762
internetrules internetrules Microblogging
> two modes for the body is fine but there have to be upsides and downsides to each mode for it to make sense. ***if a mode was only downsides then evolution would have gotten rid of it.***

i dont know how evolution getting rid of things works. if u have 2 modes like:
1. fast and efficient
2. slow and efficient
i think that the slow and efficient mode is unnecessary. and if ur body used mode 2 sometimes then that would be a negative, if someone never used mode 2 that would make them better.

one thing im unsure about is with this part of your message:

> doing something slower isn't doing the same work.

if work is like a movement, then i agree with you.

if work is like making or completing a thing, then i think i disagree with you.

if you can do 10 pushups in 10 seconds, that is not the same work as doing 10 pushups in 5 seconds.

if you can build a birdhouse in 10 minutes, i think that is the same work as if you built a birdhouse in 5 minutes.

you built the birdhouse faster in the second scenario, but in both scenarios you completed the same work of "build a birdhouse".

i dont think i liked writing this, i think im like talking about semantic things or something and i dont find it fun.]]>
Fri, 20 Nov 2020 20:57:31 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18761 https://curi.us/comments/show/18761
curi internetrules Microblogging
i was trying to clarify my point from my previous message]]>
Fri, 20 Nov 2020 20:39:53 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18760 https://curi.us/comments/show/18760
internetrules internetrules Microblogging
im not sure what part your first message(#18756) is responding to. it might not actually be responding to anything specifically it might just be making a more general statement.

right now i think #18756 is making a general statement. but before i thought it was more directly responding to something.

i think all my messages agree with what you have said. im worried that i might be missing something, and that i might be wrong.

me worrying about being wrong seems bad. i am trying to mention when it happens.]]>
Fri, 20 Nov 2020 20:32:44 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18759 https://curi.us/comments/show/18759
curi internetrules Microblogging
two modes for the body is fine but there have to be upsides and downsides to each mode for it to make sense. if a mode was only downsides then evolution would have gotten rid of it.]]>
Fri, 20 Nov 2020 20:14:34 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18758 https://curi.us/comments/show/18758
internetrules internetrules Microblogging
i feel like i might be misunderstanding something, or that i might be wrong about something, and that makes me feel worried.]]>
Fri, 20 Nov 2020 20:09:00 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18757 https://curi.us/comments/show/18757
curi internetrules Microblogging Fri, 20 Nov 2020 19:50:04 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18756 https://curi.us/comments/show/18756 caloric deficit myth article internetrules internetrules Microblogging
while i was trying to figure out how many calories were in a pound of fat, i saw the "The 500-Calorie Deficit Myth" section in this article:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/calories-in-a-pound-of-fat#TOC_TITLE_HDR_4

main problem i have with this article: they dont clearly differentiate between eating 500 calories less than you normally do, and being in a 500 calorie deficit. it seems like they swap between the 2 positions.

they are not debunking that if you are in a 500 calorie caloric deficit that you will lose a pound a week. they are debunking something else, but they are still calling it a caloric deficit even tho a caloric deficit means you are eating less than you need to maintain your body weight.

it said:

> When you reduce calorie intake, your body responds by making you burn fewer calories. ***You start moving around less***, and the body becomes more efficient. ***It does the same amount of work, but uses fewer calories than before***

the article says your body starts moving around less, but it also says your body does the same amount of work. those 2 things sound like they contradict each other.

if before you did 50 things a day, but now you are in a caloric deficit and you feel more exhausted so you only do 40 things a day, that means you are doing less work.

maybe they meant it uses less energy for a specific action?

so like maybe if ur really well fed and u do a single pushup, ur body will do the pushup really quickly and wastefully. but if u are starving and do a pushup, it will try to be way more efficient, so it sacrifices the speed and ease of doing a pushup for efficiency. i dont think they meant this tho]]>
Fri, 20 Nov 2020 19:44:01 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18755 https://curi.us/comments/show/18755
some math Anonymous internetrules Microblogging
im gonna assume 1 pound = 3500 calories, and a soda is a 12OZ/355ml can that has 140 calories in it.

140 calories (1 soda) times 365 (days in a year) = 51100 calories per year if u drink 1 soda a day

if i do 51100 / 3500 i think that will give me how many times 3500 calories (1 pound of fat) can go into 51100 calories (how many calories are in 1 soda a day for a year)

51100 / 3500 = 14.6 , so 14.6 pounds from a soda a day for a year.]]>
Fri, 20 Nov 2020 19:18:42 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18754 https://curi.us/comments/show/18754
soda tax internetrules internetrules Microblogging
in chicago there was a tax on soda.

there were advertisements paid for by Michael Bloomberg that seemed to scare parents/children into not wanting to drink soda

at 0:42 the advertisement says:

> just 1 soda a day can lead to an extra 10 pounds a year

i think they assumed that someone is going to add a soda to their diet and not compensate for the soda. they assume that ppl eat 2100 calories per day of normal food, and then ppl just add an extra 140 calories on top of that with soda. so if they removed the soda ppl wouldnt gain weight.

i think if someone adds 140 calories to their normal diet, that they are going to eat less of something else. idk for sure cuz ppl are complex. i dont think that you can just say that if ppl drink soda that they dont compensate for the extra calories.

i dont like how they said: "just 1 soda a day ***can lead to***". "can lead to" seems really bad without giving an explanation or something. like anything can lead to pretty much anything else.

i think they are trying to imply that drinking soda means you will get fatter, without actually saying it, they are trying to have plausible deniability or something while still making the claim they want to make. (curi gave a reply to this part in discord slow channel)

here are some "can lead to" examples i made up:

1. reading books can lead to beating up your wife. this is because some books could make you really bad, and if u are angry u might beat up your wife

2. playing video games can lead to murdering your friend. this is because you might play a game with your friend, and then ur friend does something that made you really mad, so u decide to kill them.

3. reading advice that tells you something can lead to something, can lead you to do said thing. this is because you might get influenced by the text and do things that leads to its outcome becoming true, thus becoming some sort of self fulfilling prophecy.

4. drinking water can lead to death. because you might drink to much of it and die from water poisoning.

5. wearing bike helmets can lead to death. this is because you might be more confident while wearing a bike helmet, and you could do something you would not otherwise do without a bike helmet, and then you may die because you felt safer with the bike helmet.]]>
Fri, 20 Nov 2020 19:17:39 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18753 https://curi.us/comments/show/18753
Alisa Politics Discussion
> Maria Bartiromo: How did you respond to Tucker Carlson? Did you get angry with the show because they texted you and asked you to provide evidence of what you’re alleging?

> Sidney Powell: No, I didn’t get angry with the request to provide evidence in fact I sent an affidavit to Tucker that I had not even attached to a pleading yet to help him understand the situation and I offered him another witness who could explain the mathematics of the statistical evidence far better than I can. I’m not really a numbers person. But he was very insulting, demanding and rude and I told him not to contact me again in those terms.

It’s kinda hard for me to know which of them (Tucker or Powell) to believe. I guess I believe Tucker that Powell didn’t give him any evidence and that people around her said that they haven’t seen any either. I also believe Tucker that she declined to come on his show. She didn’t mention his invitation in her statement this morning.]]>
Fri, 20 Nov 2020 16:43:45 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18752 https://curi.us/comments/show/18752
Max Max Microblogging Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:54:44 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18751 https://curi.us/comments/show/18751 project: book on learning - brainstorm of content Max Max Microblogging
I think I could write at least a few hundred words on each of these topics (more on some, less on others).

I think I'd write the book using examples and things from speedrunning. There are a few reasons for this:

- speedrunning is an easy topic to analyse and apply techniques to
- there's already a good amount of speedrunning related knowledge/analysis on FI
- speedrunning is a highly competitive sport where knowledge and practice are both highly valued; people care about techniques and efficiency -- overlapping values
- it's popular, so a book like this could help lots of people -- large audience (even a tiny success in the speedrunning community is big relative to FI)
- seems like those people are starved for content to some extent, and keen to find an edge -- demand
- easy to measure results -- evidence

Popularity, money, fame, etc are not goals for me w/ this project.

My goal is to learn philosophy (and particularly about learning) and establish a track record. There's a minor goal to produce work that is useful for FI ppl.

I'm also considering demonstrating some of the techniques via speedrunning myself. If I can write a book on learning, why can't I use the techniques to achieve something exceptional? Well, my experience speedrunning is minimal but non-zero (that's a risk) and I didn't excel at games growing up so there might be some ground to make up. It also might be a big investment of time, which is not something I think I can necessarily afford; but I will need downtime so doing it during that is an option. I can always do speedrunning as a hobby and collect data as I go along. There's a big risk in focus, too, I don't want to compromise learning philosophy for the sake of speedrunning.

Outline:

* Intro
* Gem of Seeing
* Goals and Achievement
* The Alternative
* Learning First
* Why
* Attitude - I - Life
* Stuck - I
* Choices
* Attitude - II - Step by Step
* Life Isn't a Speed Run
* Main Quest
* Side Quests (Indirection)
* Attitude - III - Problems
* Criticism & You
* Perspective
* On Yourself
* On Life
* On Problems
* On Others
* Opportunities
* Creation
* Exploitation
* Attitude - IV
* Alignment
* Honesty - I
* Conflicts
* Priorities - I
* Your Future
* Direction
* Freedom & Autonomy
* Bounded vs Unbounded - I
* You Can be a Beginning of Infinity
* What / When / Where
* Learning - What it means
* Learning cycle
* Progress
* Bounded vs Unbounded - II
* Bottlenecks & Capacity
* Focus - I
* Priorities - II
* Mistakes
* Stuck - II
* Honesty - II
* Overreaching - I
* How
* Humility & Doubt
* Questions - I
* Overreaching - II
* Honesty - III
* Priorities - III
* Focus - II
* 1-3 things
* Questions - II
* Hooking
* Excess Capacity
* Self Judgement
* Overreaching - III
* Questions - III
* Sense of Life (?)
* Creation
* Bounded vs Unbounded - III
* Ideas
* Judgements
* Stuck - III
* Getting Unstuck
* Questions - IV
* Advanced
* Structural Epistemology
* Learning, the Mind, and AGI
* 1st / 2nd Order Stuck
* Questions - V
* Overreaching - IV
* Further Reading & Acknowledgements
* Fallible Ideas & Elliot Temple
* Goldratt
* Rand
* Deutsch

I had a few thoughts on a title (I have not focused on it), and I've just been thinking of it as called "Learning". In parallel w/ reading Rand's *Philosophy* I started thinking of titular variations like "Learning: Who Needs It?" or "Learning: You Need It". TBH I don't think that's a great idea, and I think I like just "Learning" more anyway.

I'm not sure about breaking it up into Why, What/Where/When, and How. I think it makes some sense in that it's like: convince the reader this matters, explain the concepts and building blocks, show how to put it all together. The sections/parts can be loose too, like just broad strokes, not hard and fast categories. I think leaving advanced stuff to the end is good, though. It marks it as more optional, too.

I don't think I'd write it in the order that it is here. Some latter bits will be easier, etc. I think I'll need the most time on the "Why" section.

I posted the outline to my site; this is where I'll update it in future. I'll post here if there are major updates. https://xertrov.github.io/fi/posts/2020-11-20-learning-book-content-brainstorming/]]>
Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:53:35 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18750 https://curi.us/comments/show/18750
Max Max Microblogging
I was considering not putting in the example when I started. I think it was probably good that I did. That said, it took longer to write because I included the example, and I'm not sure it was necessary or efficient. Either way, I do think it makes things clearer.]]>
Fri, 20 Nov 2020 08:33:00 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18749 https://curi.us/comments/show/18749
1st order stuck vs 2nd order stuck and structural epistemology Max Max Microblogging
What happens when two people learn the same thing? It's common sense that there will be some differences in what they learn, how well they can apply it, etc. Some of that is due to pre-existing knowledge, but is there more to it?

## can two people ever learn the same thing?

Consider: Alice and Bob want to learn about something particular, and have similar background knowledge. The first two concepts they need to learn are *X* and *Y*. After that, there's a third concept, *Z*, that builds on both of those. There's also concept *W* that's sort of similar to *(X,Y,Z)* but a bit different too.

Let's consider a concrete example: building a computer. Alice and Bob have finished high school and want to build a computer over the christmas break. They will need to learn about the components of a computer so they know what to buy (cpu, motherboard, ram, ssds and/or hdds, the case, etc). They also need to know some super-basics about electronics: how to plug all their components together, what cables they'll need to use or buy, calculating power consumption, etc. Those are concepts *X* and *Y*. Concept *Z* is how all the components work together in a complete computer and which configurations work for particular purposes (e.g. gaming, office work, video editing, streaming, music creation, digital art, etc). They need to know some other things too (like how to install an operating system, and background knowledge) -- we don't need to consider those things for this example.

Once they know *Z* they can choose and buy their components and then put it all together. They're both successful.

As it happens, both of them applied for electrical engineering courses at university, and both are accepted. At the end of their break, they take their computers and their knowledge about computers -- *(X,Y,Z)* -- with them to to university.

Before we continue let's think about what Alice and Bob learned while studying *(X,Y,Z)*. Can we find out if they learnt *the same thing* or not? What does *the same thing* mean in the context of learning?

I think there are two important ways to look at whether they learnt *equivalent* things or not. One of them is about *the tasks they can perform*; and the other is about *the ideas themselves*.

If we're only concerned with the *results* that certain knowledge gives, we are talking about the knowledge's [*denotation*](https://curi.us/988-structural-epistemology-introduction-part-1). If Alice and Bob can *perform the same tasks* (they get equivalent results with only negligible differences) then we say they have the same [*denotational knowledge*](https://fallibleideas.com/knowledge-structure).

We can say that Alice and Bob learned the same thing because they both built a computer, and they can both answer the same questions about the configurations that make sense for certain use cases. This is like *a standardized test* that are common in schools. It's a definition of a checklist of inputs (questions) and outputs (answers) that students should repeat. For some types of tests, like text analysis in English, the answers aren't explicitly listed; rather, qualities of good answers are listed (like 'identifies techniques' or 'discusses the interaction of themes', etc). For other tests the answers are explicit (e.g. multiple choice tests); and finally some tests have a mix of both (like maths tests, where the final answer is explicit but the algebra to get there is not).

What if we're concerned with the other option: *the ideas themselves*? How can we compare those?

We can't directly observe ideas. Even if we could see inside Alice and Bob's brains (something they might not like), how would we know what to look for? We can't just ask them either: they can't tell us exactly what their ideas are, and we can't ask them questions on the topic either -- that would basically be like a standardised test. So how do we know if they learnt equivalent things?

Even though we can't *directly* observe ideas, there is a way ideas are used other than to produce results -- *ideas are building blocks for other ideas*. This means that if Bob and Alice learnt *the same thing*, then they should be able to build similar *new* ideas with their *(X,Y,Z)* building blocks.

Alice and Bob will learn a new idea similarly if they have similar building blocks -- if their knowledge has the same *structure*. It's like they have same same lego set of ideas. If their knowledge has *different* structures, then they can't build the same things, like if they had lego sets with different pieces. *Sometimes* they can build the same things, but *not always*. We can say Alice and Bob have the same *structural knowledge* if they can build the same ideas.

Let's consider Alice and Bob learning a basic concept, *W*, about electronics in first yr uni and how it might interact with *(X,Y,Z)*. *W* is similar to *(X,Y,Z)* but also different. Alice and Bob are told that to make electronics you need components and one of a circuit board, or a bread board, or maybe just a mess of wires. They're told about attaching components to each other, and power, data, and ground and things like that. This is concept *W*. Alice and Bob each have a different question for the tutor:

Bob asks:

> How do you connect components if they're the wrong shape, or have different wires?

His full idea was something like: computer components connect together using cables or directly using sockets. The wire components of particular cables go with particular connectors only -- they don't go with other connectors. The connectors you need on a cable are the male/female versions that correspond to the connectors on the devices. If a device connects directly, then you can use a cable with one male and and one female end to connect the device somewhere else. If you plug everything together with matching sockets, then it'll all work out.

Bob asked his question b/c his understanding was at the level of emergence of cables and connectors and things you could plug together.

Alice asks:

> How can we replace components if some components are out of stock or too expensive?

Alice had a different idea, something like: sockets and connectors are chosen to make sure ppl plug the right things together. Manufacturers choose particular wires and shrouding based on: availability and price, the requirements of the components being connected (i.e. standards like HDMI), what the customer expects, and how the cable will be used (are there lots in a bunch, does it need to go round corners, etc). You can cut up multiple cables and join them together (splicing) to make cables with different combinations of male/female connectors, to change between compatible connectors (an adaptor), or to replace faulty wires -- provided you are combining wiring of high enough quality (excess capacity). Cables are only there to deliver power to components or transmit signals between them.

Alice asked her question b/c her understanding was at the level of emergence of wires and semi-conductors with some economics thrown in.

I hope you can see how their knowledge differs in *structure* even thought they're both able to use it to put together the same computers, diagnose the same problems, know which replacement parts or upgrades to buy, etc.

*Structural knowledge* matters when we want to *build on*, or *change* knowledge. When we want to use it for different things, or apply it to new situations. If the *structure* of *(X,Y,Z)* is different in different people, then they can still have the same *denotational* knowledge, but they will diverge when they learn new things.

Just because some knowledge has the same *denotation* does not mean that it has the same *structure*.

We do know how to record some elements of *structural* knowledge. curi gives some examples in [Structural Epistemology Introduction Part 1](https://curi.us/988-structural-epistemology-introduction-part-1) and [Structural Epistemology Introduction Part 2](https://curi.us/991-structural-epistemology-introduction-part-2).

But ideas in the mind are different from ideas that are written down. We don't know how to compare ideas directly. However, we do know some things about people and how ideas are created. Ideas aren't written in to your brain like things are written on paper. Ideas are created through an evolutionary process -- exactly *how* we don't know. You learn something when your brain creates an idea that explains the things you're trying to understand -- or, for simple things, when you can repeat an action or achieve a result. That means your brain needs to combine pre-existing ideas repeatedly (thinking) until it finds an idea that satisfies some success criteria. Your brain can do a lot of auto-criticising; that's when you're *thinking* but it's like *work*, like you're waiting for your unconscious mind to tell you the answer. Sometimes you have an idea that's *nearly* right, only to learn of a criticism later (maybe you came up with it or someone else did). Our brain makes *guesses* and nothing will guarantee any of those guesses are correct, but we *can* know when something is *not* correct if we know a criticism of it.

When two people learn the same thing, they might have the same denotational knowledge (within some scope), but they'll ~never have exactly the same structural knowledge. There will always be some differences.

## 1st order stuck and 2nd order stuck

When you get stuck, there are two ways that can happen.

First, you can *stop learning all together* (this can be specific to a single topic or it can be bigger, too). This is *1st order stuck*. It's the normal kind. It's fixed in the normal ways and normal techniques work. In the example above, Bob was first order stuck, he just needed to learn some new things about circuitry to move on.

You *can* be 1st order stuck because of problems with your *learning method*. You could be doing the wrong type of practice, or not learning from certain media types (e.g. if you hated videos), or overreaching in general.

Second, you can be making a *mistake in the act of knowledge creation*; you can have a *structural* problem with *the results of your method*. This is like whether you're creating highly general knowledge or not. This is different to 1st order stuck b/c *you can still make progress*, and technically *that progress can still be unbounded*. But you will need to do more maintenance of your existing knowledge and it will be more [fragile](https://curi.us/1370-fragile-knowledge).

This is being *2nd order stuck* and means **the rate of your learning will suffer.** You won't be able to come up with ideas as well as exceptional people, you won't be able to use ideas as well as exceptional people, and most importantly *you won't be able to learn as fast as exceptional people*. It's overhead on your *velocity and acceleration*, not on the distance you can travel.

2nd order stuck isn't as clear cut or pervasive as 1st order stuck typically is. It can vary by topic.

Authors note: I think this is currently the limit of my understanding.

How do you tell if you're 2nd order stuck and on what? How do you learn/practice/fix such a mistake? What are the techniques to get 2nd order unstuck?

Can you turn 2nd order stuck into 1st order stuck? ... maybe? The only way I can think of is to learn about learning, but I'm not sure that's enough.

## Further reading

- <https://curi.us/988-structural-epistemology-introduction-part-1>
- <https://curi.us/991-structural-epistemology-introduction-part-2>
- <https://fallibleideas.com/knowledge-structure>
- <https://curi.us/1497-programming-and-epistemology>
- <https://curi.us/1370-fragile-knowledge>]]>
Fri, 20 Nov 2020 08:25:27 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18748 https://curi.us/comments/show/18748
Max Fragile Knowledge
I'm fairly sure I heard this term applied to knowledge before reading BoI (2015) -- I had maybe watched some lectures of Feynman, there were like 6 or 8 released and hosted by Microsoft I think, like 10yrs ago. IDK if it might have been there.

I don't remember where I'd heard it or if it was indirectly due to Feynman (e.g. I wouldn't be surprised if a particular few of my high-school teachers had read some of his books, or if it had leaked into the idea of 'anti-fragile' which I remember from pre-BoI).]]>
Fri, 20 Nov 2020 08:18:17 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18747 https://curi.us/comments/show/18747
curi Stream Highlight Videos by Justin
not the same as a table of contents listing main topics but you can search for terms like "photo".

> It'd also be a way for ppl to contribute too.

Sure. Any volunteers?]]>
Fri, 20 Nov 2020 04:48:48 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18746 https://curi.us/comments/show/18746
timestamps for podcasts? also opportunity for ppl to contribute Max Stream Highlight Videos by Justin
Maybe that could be done for podcasts too? It'd also be a way for ppl to contribute too.

e.g. I remember curi talking about social media posts/photos parents make about their kids, and how that was bad. I think it was a podcast maybe, but it's hard to go check that, unlike the videos where it's easier.]]>
Fri, 20 Nov 2020 04:45:40 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18745 https://curi.us/comments/show/18745
What's the alternative to making a mistake only once? Max Max Microblogging
If mistakes are going to happen, they have to happen at least once.

I think there's a common intuition that the alternative to making a mistake only once is making the mistake 2 or 3 or 4 times, etc. *This is wrong.*

The real alternative to making a mistake once is *making a mistake infinitely many times*. That's what most people do, and that's what [getting stuck](https://curi.us/2380#18726) is. If you make a mistake a handful of times you might not even notice it, esp. if it's not a bottleneck.

If you haven't made [the choice](https://curi.us/2380#18534) to prioritise a learning attitude, then why would making a mistake the 2nd or 3rd or 4th time be any different to the first? If you have a learning attitude, then each mistake is an opportunity. Each mistake is *potentially* the last time you make it. If you don't have a learning attitude then you will only stop making mistakes by *~luck*.

If you don't have a learning attitude, then a new mistake is potentially the beginning of an *unbounded* series of mistakes. That will mean you have a worse life.

You should want to *avoid this situation at all costs*. Luckily, if you are stuck, you're always at the *beginning* of that unbounded series of mistakes. **You can choose to apply bounds by adopting a learning attitude!**

Everyone is at the beginning of *an* infinity. It's your *choice* whether that is *your* infinity, or your *mistakes'* infinity.]]>
Fri, 20 Nov 2020 03:38:29 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18744 https://curi.us/comments/show/18744
current state of collaborative writing project Max Collaborative Writing Discussion Thread
One of the most recent (relevant) comments in max-microblogging: https://curi.us/2380#18722 (by Anne)

> I think we should aim first for something too easy.

i.e. topics that are ~trivial. Anne and I should be able to write about these topics without issue on our own. If we find that collaborating isn't useful b/c it's too easy (however that would work) we can find more difficult topics. But if we tried something too difficult first then we might make non-obvious errors or overreach, etc.

In https://curi.us/2380#18714 I suggested

> Maybe we could each brainstorm some topics that are simple that we don't know too much about. Then we could swap lists/trees and pick ones that sounded good from each other's list?

Anne B: https://curi.us/2380#18724

> I've brainstormed some topics. Some of them require research and some don't.
> Maybe we should hold off on doing more until we have our dedicated place for the project.

I replied saying I'd brainstorm some ideas too (not yet done). IDK if we'll share those privately or here, but I guess the next steps are to pick a topic. We probably need to come up with a basic idea of methodology first -- my intuition with something like this is to like dive right in, but IDK how to do that for collab writing.

I had a checklist in https://curi.us/2380#18714:

- ☑️ discussion location
- ☐ topic
- ☑️ latency/work volume - both of us think it's manageable
- ☑️ difficulty - going to pick something overly-easy for first go]]>
Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:21:15 +0000 https://curi.us/comments/show/18743 https://curi.us/comments/show/18743