No, I don't think that is an accurate summary, but that's on me for leaving out the key piece: I apply very different standards to myself vs others. If I am late, I know all the things I counterfactually could have done to instead be on time but didn't. When I tell others the story of why I'm late, it usually feels like an excuse I don't quite believe. When others are (occasionally) late, I too am curious to hear their stories.
When someone (in a friendship context) is chronically late, you learn to expect it and route around it, whether they have a story or not, and whether the story is entertaining or believable or not. It's not a big deal because you've established that expectation. But I'm never going to ask that friend to drive me to the airport.
When someone (in a casual or friendly context) is actively talking about planning and time, and you know they're being unrealistically optimistic but they don't want to hear it, then from then on you know not to believe their stories on why they're late. They're late because they're not interested in planning to be on time. The story is not evidence of the real 'why'. Whether or not this is fine is entirely dependent on context. In some cultures, it's expected to be late to things, sometimes even hours late, and being on time could actually be a problem because everyone else won't be ready. In others, being early is fine but being late is unacceptable - a lot of structured social activities, like team sports or many kinds of classes, are like this. In some cases both are seen as bad - I've known a few people (all of German descent, TINACBNIEAC) who would literally drive to the corner and wait in their cars, ideally just out of sight, until 1-2 minutes before they were 'supposed' to arrive, so as to get to the door pretty much literally as the clock changed to the 'right' time.
When someone (in a business context) is chronically or unapologetically late, it's potentially but not unambiguously some combination of rude, disrespectful, counterproductive, and wasteful. If it's because they had back to back meetings and one ran over, or they needed to use the bathroom in between, or they're having technical difficulties, or some urgent personal matter came up, no problem! But you're supposed to take 10 seconds to send a message letting people know, and if you can but don't, that's a problem. If it's some sort of (even inadvertent) power move, because they don't care about your time, that might be something you just have to deal with from your boss or a client, but it is always frustrating.
To a lesser extent, the same reasoning works for using soap on your body as well as deodorant. You may need it less often than you think. Your skin might thank you.
I am not. I am only saying that #3 is sufficient to cover all iterative interactions where one player's actions meaningfully alter the others' outcomes.
I think I agree with your comment except for the "but." AFAICT it doesn't contradict mine? In your parenthetical scenario, #3 also does not hold - the CDT agent has no negotiating power against the tit-for-tat bot.
I think that's implicitly covered under #3. The ability to alter outcomes of future interactions is a form of negotiating power.
This seems like a wrong calculation on several counts:
It makes me very sad that these problems were not immediately obvious to a group of "consultants, data analysts and managers." OTOH, maybe they weren't asked? Or else maybe there's just even more skill issues in those fields than I realized.
I drive a Sierra 2500 which has a turning radius of ~53'. It really does change how (and where) you have to drive.
In any case I agree something like this should exist.
The correct amount of time and effort to devote to the meta-level is not 100% (you don't do anything useful), and not 0% (you don't know how to do anything well). Somewhere in the middle is the optimal amount, and that amount will differ between people for all sorts of reasons. What do you think the optimal amount is for you, and why? That would essentially remove the problem this piece talks about from the piece itself, by tying the thinking back to a real world problem you're trying to solve.
2I read that line as Zvi talking about privately owned self-driving cars, not just robotaxis. Otherwise yeah it's very similar.
There's a wide range of different social contexts for this. I personally share the opinion expressed in your quote, but I also have been in environments where such an approach was actively socially or otherwise counterproductive.