The most elite groups (like billionaires or jews)

This quote looks pretty bad, but...

The most elite groups (like billionaires or Jews) are often the ones it’s most socially acceptable to blame for problems, or even call for violence against.

Now, you could maybe still critique this quote, but it reads very differently than when you cut the sentence off immediately!

That’s the picture that someone would come away with, after reading your characterization. And, of course, it would be completely inaccurate.

I'm not sure the more accurate picture is flawless behavior or anything, but I do think I definitely had an inaccurate picture in the way Said describes.

It definitely seems worth knowing about and understanding, but stuff like needing to specify a universal turing machine does still give me pause. It doesn't make it uninsightful, but I do still think there is more work to do to really understand induction.

On the contrary, I think the authorship of a text is often relevant in some way! My enjoyment of this blog post was much furthered by my acquaintance with its author.

I suppose maybe the relevance isn't logical, but one cares about much beyond logic.

The recommendations I hear for MDMA usage are like, not much more than 200mg, wait at least a month and preferably three months between rolls, take the supplements recommended by https://rollsafe.org, have lots of water and electrolytes, don't overheat.

Following this advice, it's maybe given me a headache, but definitely not the terrible crashes some people report—but I may be unusually lucky in that regard.

It's definitely the drug I've had where I would be the most concerned about disregarding cautious safety procedures.

...You do not appear to me to have very much regard for the truth, given the whole thing where you declared that someone had not updated when they obviously had based only on them refusing to talk to you when you were being kind of rude.

I think it's obvious that you should not pursue 3D chess without investing serious effort in making sure that you play 3D chess correctly. I think there is something to be said for ignoring the shiny clever ideas and playing simple virtue ethics. 

But if a clever scheme is in fact better, and you have accounted for all of the problems inherent to clever schemery, of which there are very many, then... the burden of proof isn't literally insurmountable, you're just unlikely to end up surmounting it in practice.

(Unless it's 3D chess where the only thing you might end up wasting is your own time. That has a lower burden of proof. Though still probably don't waste all your time.)

Why do I have dozens of strong upvote and downvote strength, but no more agreement strength than before I began my strength training? Does EA not think agreement is importance?

While I would hate to besmirch the good name of the fewerstupidmistakesist community, I cannot help but feel that misunderstanding morality and decision theory enough to end up doing a murder is a stupider mistake than drawing a gun once a firefight has started, though perhaps not quite as stupid as beginning the fight in the first place.

Maybe it should have 1 in a billion priors, but that isn't very relevant. The question isn't actually decided by precisely how many bits of evidence you'd need to conclude it, it's trivial to come by strong evidence supporting the idea.