But this solution should not be appealing to anyone who wants to use the cryptocurrency even if a cryptocurrency is better funded without much mining (of course, if mining is replaced with another consensus mechanism after all the coins have been created, then this objection does not stand). After all, Satoshi Nakamoto did not fund Bitcoin by selling bitcoins. There are other ways to fund a cryptocurrency project without alternate consensus mechanisms.
I don't understand why that would be an argument against just using proof of stake. Proof of stake has a bunch of different benefits. It solves the energy problem.
It also increases the amount of writes that the blockchain can do per minute which is very important for usability.
How about reading the post to which I'm replying? It quite explicitly defines bad faith in a way that not about "conscious intent to deceive".
If you look at the YIMBY example that Anna laid out, cities policies are not under direct control of citizens, yet Anna found some points that relate to what people can actually do.
If it seems like you don't have any control over something you want to change it makes sense to think of a theory of changes according to which you have control.
Right now, one issue seems to be that most people don't really have it as part of their world view that there's a good change of human extinction via AI. You could build a heuristic around, being open about the fact that there's a good chance of human extinction via AI with everyone you meet.
There are probably also many other heuristics you could think of about what people should do.
For whom would you recommend getting additional doses of the Covid vaccine right now?
The scenarios are either that Tyler Robinson is the perpetrator or that someone tried to set him up as a patsy.
In an age of no-click remote exploits for phones, it's easy for someone with nation state capability to fake the text messages and there is plenty of the discussion online that they are looking fake. I think it's debatable whether the text messages are stronger evidence for Tyler as perpetrator or patsy.
The rifle being found in the woods near the shooting is consistent with both versions.
confession
It's a hand-written document that could also have been faked if someone tried to setup Tyler as a patsy. The same goes for the discord message.
convinced many civilians, including Robinson's own father and his boyfriend to lie
We don't have on the record statements from Tyler's father. We have statements from the police that suggests that the father thought Tyler is guilty. There are statements from Candace Owens that she contacted Tyler's parents and that the position of his parents is that Tyler is innocent.
The official position is that the boyfriend (Lance Twiggs) has no prior knowledge of the killing. To the extend that he knows anything about it, it's that he received text messages. There's also no on-the-record statement from Lance that Tyler is guilty and it seems people who want to interview him can't reach him.
The TPUSA position seems pretty weird to me. Their [spokesperson Andrew Kolvet is essentially saying](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VzyGCRB4B8&t) that he privately asked some people in the Trump administration to look into Israel as a possible suspect for the killing. That they are glad, that Candence publishing messages put them into a situations where they could say so, because apparently beforehand they didn't think they could be open about that.
They also seem to argue that it would be harder to convince a jury that Tyler is guilty if TPUSA would release more of the video material of what went on that day, and that's why TPUSA doesn't release more of the video of that day.
I somehow had a cached thought from looking at Metaculus statistics of myself in the past that my performance was more middle of the pack. Yesterday, I looked at the statistics again and it ranks me, Rank: #10 out of 4859 out of Time Period:2016 - 2020.
I'm not exactly sure how I got my impression in the past, maybe I was better at the more long running predictions? Or did Metaculus change something about how it calculates scores?
"Learned helplessness" is a quasi-popular-therapy word for this.
It's a terms that means something else:
Learned helplessness is a psychological state in which a person (or animal) stops trying to change their situation after repeated experiences of powerlessness, even when escape or improvement later becomes possible. The concept originated from experiments by Martin Seligman and Steven Maier in the late 1960s: dogs exposed to unavoidable shocks later failed to avoid shocks they could escape.
In the situation the OP talks about it's possible to change the situation by signaling being in pain to other people and then getting help from those people or those people otherwise accepting behavior of the person to change the situation that they might not otherwise expect.
I'm not entirely sure how this relates to seeing this pattern in others. If they're your friend, you typically take a two-pronged approach: help superficially and get them to address the root problem to the extent you're aware of a root problem.
Who's that "you"? There's stereotypical situation where a wife tells her husband about one of her struggles and then the husband tries to superficially help which actually doesn't lead anywhere.
I think a good default response is listening and holding space for a person that suffers. There are also higher skill options that involve not accepting the frame. If you want to understand more in that regard jimmy's sequence is good.
I like geeking out over masks and there are a lot of options. I have a bunch of models, and if you'd like to come try them sometime (next EA Boston meetup on 10/26?) I'd be happy to show you what they're like.
I think it would be great if you can gather some data about how many people prefer which of the options and publish it.
1Let's say you have a leader of a company that uses AI a lot. They make some decisions based on the advice of the AI. People who don't like those decisions say that the leader suffers from AI psychosis. That's probably a scenario that plays out in many workplaces and government departments.
- I'm a good prompt engineer
- You are vibe coding
- He has AI psychosis
2
From the perspective of thinking that Tyler is innocent it makes a lot of sense to encourage him to turn himself in. It makes it less likely that he would get shoot during the arrest and also makes it less likely that someone else can shoot him in retaliation for allegedly shooting Charlie. He shouldn't have any expectations of permanently being able to escape a manhunt either.
Do you think that's what a lawyer would advise him to do as the most effective way to free his son? I doubt that's the case. Standard legal advice is to not to talk to the media.