I agree with that prediction, but that seems a given, with how Scott has called his supporters to action with emailing the NYT. Such a coordination is gonna draw the attention regardless.
Since hating on the mainstream media is itself mainstream now....would it be a net benefit for SSC to pass this story (about NYT doxxing) to some of NYT's competitors/new media? Just brainstorming, not suggesting this as potential course of retaliation/threat, since it could backfire if it causes NYT to double down when feeling attacked.
I feel like the more places report on this, the higher the probability that at least one of them will publish Scott's real name.
Also a confounder that was only mentioned briefly in the original post: it also seems like human population in general is concentrated on this climate zone. Can we statistically isolate population density from this analysis?
This video didn't shift my priors that much. The impressive thing in the video is speed and precision, which is trivial for machines, let alone AI. Speed and precision is already there, it just needs to be hooked on to some qualitative breakthrough in application.
(although that adjustment has been tempered by the suspicion, confirmed by a couple of comments on this post, that people who object to things such as rituals etc. often simply don't speak up)
For epistemology's sake I'll speak up so you may be more confident in the suspicion...
I find these rituals, as described, to be completely uninteresting as social activities, and have a visceral negative reaction to imagining people doing this, even semi-seriously. "Group self-hacking for cohesion and bonding" is the...sort-of good way to put it I guess, because I would rather describe it as "optimistically wielding double-edged daggers forged from the Dark Arts".
Yes, I should have had a single-sentence summary. I will add that now.
I did mention that the part I'm recommending starts at 54:00. Perhaps I should also add that from that point on the presentation of the model lasts only for 4 minutes?
801 people (73.5%) were atheist and not spiritual, 108 (9.9%) were atheist and spiritual
I'm curious as to how people interpreted this. Does the latter mean that one believes in the supernatural but without a god figure, e.g. buddism, new age? This question looked confusing to me at first glance.
People who believed in high existential risk were more likely to believe in global warming, more likely to believe they had a higher IQ than average, and more likely to believe in aliens (I found that same result last time, and it puzzled me then too.)
Why does it puzzle you?
Does that mean I'll see you here this Friday?
From the first episode of Dexter, season 6:
Batista: "...it's all about faith..."
Batista: "It's something you feel, not something you can explain. It's very hard to put into words."
Dexter smiles politely, while thinking to himself: Because it makes no sense.
Wouldn't a comparison between control-then-piracetam days with control-then-control days tell us a bit more about how effective piracetam is, accounting for possible fatigue?
Do make the top-level post please. I think there is use in the making Mafia more well-known in demographics such as the one we have here.
It sounds like online Mafia is a totally different and much better game than what I've played at various icebreaker functions, camps, and times when there's a substitute teacher
In my experience the outcome of face-to-face mafia can be even more dependent on the players' skill, once you get past the newbie phase. Not just because newbies can't read others well, but I think they are also less readable due to undeveloped...
Sure, link to it.
I just had 4 games with the same 5 players (setup is 4 town 1 scum) that all ended in scum victory. Random lynching should yield only 53% chance of scum victory. 0.53^4 seems low enough that this is likely a case of better than random.
The players in this case were new to the game with the exception of myself (and after the first couple games I was constantly night killed). I was going to say that this seems to suggest that scum is stronger in newbie games, but then I realized I have no data to draw this comparison with. :-(
I want to read some games of mafia players who browse this site. Do you mind pointing me to some of your games?
Please attempt and see if you have better results than I did. And if you succeed come back and tell us all about it!
The last time I played Mafia people ended up crying
And what about the times before that?
Playing mafia has never undermined real social relationships in my experience, and I've introduced this game to perhaps 20 people in real life, with at least 2 completely non-overlapping groups.
Also, I doubt face-to-face mafia should be considered a game that especially exercises rationality. It seems to me that you get thrown a huge fuckton of cognitive biases with no time to combat them.
(again, my original question should specify "forum based mafia games"...let me edit that now...)
Allow me to specify: I am referring to online forum mafia games.
These games are slow enough that one can do some calculations, if one can find the numbers (and that seems to be the hard part, along with deciding how they should be calculated).
I've thought and am still thinking that the fact that I've never heard of bayesian methods being used in mafia is simply an observation about the failures of players, not that it inherently cannot be done using available tools.
Frankly I'm surprised mafia does not seem to attract more attention from the demographic con...
Has anyone been able to play Mafia using bayesian methods? I have tried and failed due to encountering situations that eluded my attempts to model them mathematically. But since I am not strong at math, I'm hoping others have had success?
And the related question: any mafiascum.net players here?
Edit: I mean specifically using bayesian methods for online forum-based Mafia games. These seem to me to give the player enough time to do conscious calculations.
If it happens before the publication, it wouldn't be retaliation, but more like a commitment to retaliate. If there's people making a fuss about the reporter's current intention to publish, it's a pretty clear signal what would happen if they follow through.
If it gets them to change their minds in time before the publication, that seems like the best outcome.