I'm an admin of this site; I work full-time on trying to help people on LessWrong refine the art of human rationality.
Longer bio: www.lesswrong.com/posts/aG74jJkiPccqdkK3c/the-lesswrong-team-page-under-construction#Ben_Pace___Benito
This is your bubble, because in the relevant spaces they have largely incorporated COVID into the standard fighting and everything, not turned down the fighting at all. I think your bubble sounds great in lots of ways, and am glad to hear you have space from it all.
Did either of them say neurotypical? I just heard them say normies.
Something I've thought about the existence of for years, but imagined was impossible: this 70s song by Italian Adriano Celentano. It fully registers to my mind as English. But it isn't. It's like skimming the output of GPT-2.
A physicist is someone who is interested in and studies physics.
A rationalist is someone who is interested in and studies rationality.
Semi-related to point 2, I often think about a quote from the end of the 4th season of Six Feet Under. One of the members of the family goes through a pretty traumatic ordeal where his life was threatened by a criminal, and has been processing it through the season. His dead father talks to him and says the following, at the climax of the final episode of the season.
“You hang onto your pain like it means something, like it’s worth something. Well, let me tell ‘ya, it’s not worth shit. Let it go.” — Nathaniel Fisher, Sr.
I meditate on it sometimes, when I wonder if I'm putting myself through too much pain because it's supposed to narratively be worth it or something.
(You've no idea how hard it is to not scroll over things like that.)
(That being said, I think this integration is awesome and kudos to everyone. Just keeping my priors sensible :)
I do not endorse this as a way to end parentheticals! Grrr!
(Which you get using option-m on a mac.)
”Catastrophic” is normally used in the term ”global catastrophic risk” and means something like “kills 100,000s of people”, so I do think “doesn’t necessarily kill but could’ve killed a couple of people” is a fairly different meaning. In retrospect I realize that I put my answer to the second question far too high — if it just means “a deceptive aligned system nearly gives a few people in hospital a fatal dosage but it’s stopped and we don’t know why the system messed up” then it’s quite plausible nothing this substantial will happen as a result of that.
woop woop making predictions in posts is the way to go