This sounds to me like it goodharts on the wrong thing. When on a date your core concern isn't to signal to the other person that you are flirting but that you are a desireable mate.
You are judging curi and FI (Fallible Ideas) via your standards (LW standards), not FI's standards. I think this is problematic.
The above post explicitely says that the ban isn't a personal judgement of curi. It's rather a question of whether it's good or not to have curi around on LessWrong and that's where LW standards matter.
Unpopularity is no reason for a ban
That seems like a sentiment indicative of ignoring the reason for which he was banned. It was a utilitarian argument. The fact that someone gets downvoted is Bayesian evidence that it's not valuable for people to interact with him on LessWrong.
How is this different to pre-crime?
If you imprision someone who murdered in the past because you are afarid they murder again, that's not pre-crime in most common senses of the word.
Additionally even if it would be, LW is not a place with virtue ethics standards but one with utilitarian standards. Taking action to prevent things that are likely to negatively effect LW from happening in the future is perfectly fine with the idea of good gardening.
If you stand in your garden you don't ask "what crimes did the plants commit and how should they be punished?" but you focus on the future.
As I envision the course, however, it would be an element such as a warm up or cash out, not the core curriculum.
Yes, however it's worth noting that you can play Zendo in different ways. The time I played it was with arrangement of Lego stones.
You could also play it with other domains like words or sentences. I'm uncertain about how much time a child can effectively learn something from Zendo.
At the same time it won't fill the full curriculum.
Focusing mostly because it seems like it would require one-on-one instruction, at least initially.
You didn't really speak about how many children you actually want to teach at one time.
When it comes to teaching rationality to adults there's the CFAR handbook. If you are not aware of it, it might be worth looking through it and thinking about what you can teach children.
When teaching it to a group of children I would likely not do it via an app but with physical items and drawings. It makes sense to switch the kind of items with which you play it between sessions to increase the generalizability of the learning.
Focusing, Internal Double Cruz and Belief reporting are powerful tools for aligning system I and system II. They aren't very complex and have relatively few moving parts. It might be possible that you can teach those to children but I could also imagine that it's hard to teach them. Dealing with groundlevel thinking is intimite and it needs buy-in from the child.
Zendo seems to be a game that can be fun for children and it teaches valuable lessons about building scientific hypothesis and testing them.
Credence calibration doesn't seem very complex but might be too much for a 7/8 year old. I'm unsure at what age the necessary understading of numbers between 1 and 100 exists.
I could imagine a setting where you talk with children about what they are curious about and what might be tested by experiment. Then the children gather data collaboratively and you do the math for them in Numpy.
If you have a humidity, temperatur and a CO2 sensor you can for example have experiments about how much opening the window affect the air in the room. Does open the window fully for 5 minutes do more then have it half open for 10 minutes?
Opening the windows to get better air is a task that's relevant to daily life and it's not a question where you find the answer in normal textbooks.
We want to teach children to accept the norms of our society and the narrative we tell about it. A lot of what we teach is essential pro-system propaganda.
Teaching moral uncertainty doesn't help with that and it also doesn't help with getting students to score better on standardized tests which was the main goal of educational reforms of the last decades.
That's overstating it. Most people don't live in the US and are not bound by it.
Compared to (good) software developers, lawyers do not seem to be very good at this; they tend to throw patches on top of patches, creating more corner cases rather than fewer.
There are plenty of different lawyers and different one's have different interests.
YCombinator for example has a bunch of relatively short contract documents on offer. YCombinator has an interest in startup short contracts in a way that most law forms who pay for their legal services don't.
Huh, interesting. That's surprising to me; I expected contracts to have a sufficiently long history that there wouldn't be any recent major innovations.
The key change doesn't seem to be so much about innovation but about standardization between different jurisdictions.
Standardization between multiple jurisdiction that each like their own standards is hard as shown by the US still using a lot of imperial units.