I will throw my support toward a related position: Due process for all. Yes, even him.* To the anti-billionaires:
Is Brian Thompson culpable for mass murder? Great, try him in court and you even get the death penalty if you'd like. Is Luigi Mangione the one who shot him? Not yet proven beyond a reasonable doubt, if the state can't prove it, then I support him walking free.
The system prevents trying rich people for their crimes? Reform the system. You do not want vigilantism. It will not attack only people you hate, the ones you think are the cause of all the world's problems. Everyone has a different idea of who that is... (read more)
The second half will definitely see some spirited debate, but I do want to point out how good that idea in the first half is - travel time is definitely one of the most easily trackable things to update on, could be good rationality practice to track it more even if you don't have much of a problem with it. That would also let you be wrong in a guilt-free environment.
The nerd in me wants to start keeping a spreadsheet and track that variance and get a 95% confidence interval. The rationalist in me knows to gently put that urge aside, haha.
Long comment is long. Most of this is either vague, wrong, or stuff you already knew 20 years ago, but I wanted to share my thoughts anyway.
Please note none of this is justification, you will likely think "no, that's entirely wrong" a lot throughout this. I know, I'm sorry, I wish it could be different.
Most of this is inspired by Scott's much better post "The Psychopolitics of Trauma": https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-psychopolitics-of-trauma
You can feel badly hurt by something. You can feel badly hurt by something and have every single fact wrong. Diametrically wrong. That doesn't matter. Emotional wounds run deeper than truth can reach.
We often hear "but Biden" or "but Hillary" or "but the WEF"... (read 1052 more words →)
Oh, yeah, AI can definitely introduce subtle errors, but maybe at a lower rate? I think the main value is seeing a big change at once, i.e.:
highlights the error immediately, whatever method is used to perform the quick or instant change.
One additional point in favor of using editing macros to do lots of work at once is that it reduces the odds you might make a mistake. Hand-editing dozens of the the lines of code, especially if it's very tedious, could mean a typo or two slips in, which could be annoying to go back and fix and can hide in plain sight; an automated macro will either get them all right, or get them all wrong in a similar way, hopefully sticking out.
It's worth it to learn to sell your own ideas, not in a bullshitting or kissing-up sort of way, but just in learning to present what you believe in your ideas honestly. Then you can be the presenter and the inventor.
Strong upvoted, these guides on what to expect for situation X are very useful, especially when detailed nuts-and-bolts like this. There's a lot of good stuff here that anyone who has a pneumothorax can use to at least set a baseline of what to expect. I find that too many people stop at "eh, well, everyone kind of knows this" and thus few ever write about it.
Glad you're okay and that you have such an awesome wife!
"Imagine there's a child drowning in a shallow pond. You're wearing a swimsuit and could easily save them. Sounds impausible? No, really, you can just save the kid. Don't trust it? Okay, let me make it more believable: imagine there's also a cute puppy guarding the pond that you'd have to kill to reach the child. Would you do it?"
My gut reaction to reading this might illuminate why people don't take stories about utopia or easily-accomplished things seriously: there doesn't seem to be much benefit to be gained by telling a story where everything goes well, there's no dilemma or moral problem, and nothing salient to latch on to.
Imagine there was a... (read more)
Epistemic status: Tying together the great works of others into something less great
I think the mind's defenses against change in its beliefs are a form of anti-parasitism.
Society commonly bemoans the difficulty in changing people's minds. We wish we could change the minds of our friends and family about all sorts of issues: vaccines, policy issues, religious beliefs or lack thereof, and on and on.
We struggle to convince ourselves of things, too. Diet, exercise, sleep, laziness or workaholism. We make the same New Year's Resolutions, year in and year out, only to drop them after a week or two, just like every year past.
When we try to change someone's mind, even our own,... (read 1572 more words →)
Then all the more reason to favor a reform to the system so that large companies can be restrained via due process. Everyone has a different idea of who the bad guys are, and many have very high priors that "they" are the ones responsible for all the problems, that "they" are unimpeded by the guardrails as well.
Tribalism makes information believable not because it is true, but because it is useful toward hurting the enemy. These feel the same from the inside. Hating UHC is a lot more justified than people on the Right hating LGBTQ+, by quite a large margin, but to give us the power to hunt down healthcare executives is a step toward giving them more power to hunt down LGBTQ+.