According to Wikipedia, the rough timeline is that there were several standards in use by military and civil aviation in the 1940s and earlier, including separate standards for Latin America and elsewhere, and these used Zebra in the US and UK. The International Air Transport Association presented a draft in1947 to the standards body International Civil Aviation Organization that was meant to rectify this, but it still contained Zebra. Apparently this alphabet wasn't good enough, because the ICAO hired a linguistics professor to create a revised alphabet, and it's this one that first contained Zulu, published in 1951.

There were several subsequent revisions following this, where the words were tested in university laboratories in the US and UK, before the final list was broadly adopted in 1956. Interestingly, according to this document written in 1959, the team that was revising the 1951 list attempted to replace Zulu with Zebra, but found that it didn't help the intelligibility of the alphabet, so Zulu was kept in the final standard.

As the next step in the modification, three more words were changed, FOOTBALL, UNIFORM, and ZEBRA were selected for insertion in the alphabet and a new series of tapes, training, and test sessions were instituted. As previously mentioned, the intelligibility of a word is seriously affected by the company it keeps, and it is therefore necessary to test a substitution in the context of the entire alphabet. Articulation scores for individual words should be used only as indicators of the word's performance in a given context.

A study of the comparative scores on the two modifications and the original ICAO alphabet showed that although the six-word modification [including three words + FOOTBALL, UNIFORM and ZEBRA] is superior to the original alphabet, it falls short in performance when compared with the first three-word modification [excluding FOOTBALL, UNIFORM, ZEBRA] -- more confusions were introduced than were removed by the second three-word modification, although these confusions cropped out in unexpected parts of the matrix. The problem is not unlike that of pushing a dent out of a child's celluloid ball -- even a successful push leaves a small dent in another place.

I do find this one generally better, since I think the overall discussion is not that novel and so doesn't need such long explanation. That said, it did lose a key justification from the other post, that Twitter's size makes it akin to the public square, which is why this kind of rule is necessary to contemplate.

I thought it would be about resigning from the responsibilities of your job that you dislike to work fewer hours on only the parts that interest you more.

I wonder whether there would be much pressure for an LLM with the current architecture to represent "truth" vs. "consistent with the worldview of the best generally accurate authors." If ground-level truth doesn't provide additional accuracy in predicting next tokens, I think it would be possible that we identify a feature that can be used to discriminate what "generally accurate authors" would say about a heretofore unknown question or phenomenon, but not one that can be used to identify inaccurate sacred cows.

For language flashcards, you can have the front card be something like "Biblioteca" and the back card "Library [generated picture of a library]." This helps recall even though it's not part of the prompt-- it just seems to stick better in your memory.

The reason that the villagers didn't trust the boy that he didn't have a track record. One reason we don't trust people who are loudly proclaiming certain kinds of doom is that they don't have a track record of accurately predicting things (e.g. Heaven's Gate), and that's an inherently important aspect of the phenomenon this post is describing. If the child had accurately predicted wolves in the past, real world villagers would have paid attention to a 15% warning.

The post is suggesting that certain kinds of risks have low probability, and the predictors don't have a track record of success because it's impossible, but that they have other lines of evidence that can be used to justify their probability estimates. In the case of "nuclear war that hasn't happened despite the scares" the evidence is events like the Cuban missile crisis or Petrov Day. But in the parable, it isn't established that the child has good arguments to justify 5% or 15% wolf appearance rates.

It's very cool, especially as a side project. If I'd known it was created by someone here I would have been more careful about the tone of my comment.

I tried WriteHolo against an idea I had for a blog post and its recommendations were worse than useless. I think for non-fiction writing it's probably a non-starter. It couldn't even give me a concise summary of something readily available on Wikipedia (e.g. the availability heuristic), much less suggest creative connections that are at all coherent.