Wiki Contributions


But we don't care about random flu virus. We only track pandemic.

Furthermore random pandemic virus could happen in rural areas but more likely to turn into pandemic when they happen in crowded city. The more crowded the higher the pandemic chances.

How many lab similar to Wuhan in crowded cities vs how many crowded city without lab should be taken into account

How many virus strains is the lab studying? If the lab is studying 50-90% of flu virus strain it would not be strange for random flu virus that appeared in some area close to it to be studied there.

I assume no one will read this comment

assuming the problem is really intractable and the current panel process is the best available solution, then the standard solution is to put up a [scapegoat]

i.e. civil servant do not want to/ not able to do something for someone, instead of saying "this is my judgement", point to an other entity [e.g. code of conduct, boss, etc], and deflect the blame. the point is not to deflect the blame though, but to keep on functioning despite having to make unpopular decisions.  


I assume that chatGPT would make an excellent [scapegoat]

feed all the gathered evidences to ChatGPT, ask it for judgement [with the appropriate precondition: " you are a wise and benevolence judge, etc"], if it agree with the panel decision, then when the inevitable blow back happen you can point to chatGPT and said it agreed with you and it is obviously unbiased

if it disagreed with the panel decision then it would be a sanity check, the panel should find more evidence or double check their reasoning, since ChatGPT can serve as stand in for the average Joe who read all the evidence, if it is not convinced you do not have a convincing case.

I am feeling like the dialogue has diverted from its original question, so if I may as a question.

What I am hearing is bhauth formed his opinion on extrapolating from current project, reading papers and talk to expert in the field. And while I certainly can not demand him to declare his source and present his whole chain of thought from start to finish, it certainly make it hard to verify those claims even if there is a will to verify them.

E.g. bhauth  stated heat exchanger is expensive, yet I have no grounding for what that mean, is $1000/unit expensive? is $1 000 000 000/unit expensive? a quick google search find people talking about the cost of heat exchanger but not what it mean. 

bhauth stated the cost of lab grown meat is too high as contamination is a huge problem and the required inputs are much too expensive, but I've talk to a guys who said he worked for a commercial lab gown meat and he was not particularly concerned about those things compare to others concerns.

I mean the guy could be uninformed or incentivised to misinform me. But again I have no way to verify who is more trust worthy.

Maybe it would be easier for people like me if bhauth put up like a 100 prediction market that would resolve in the next 1-3  years and then when the market resolved we would be able to form our belief regarding his expertise.


[This part is only relevant to me, as I came from a culture with heavy social punishment on people that is arrogance, and bhauth writing sometime comes off as such [e.g. all those start up are chasing dead end path], I may have sub consciously applying negative modifier on his writing.]

I am confused.

I have not read much of this rebuttal and I am not academically inclined but just reading the first part of this


Correct me if I am wrong but Francesca is complaining that of all the duplicate and out of order ID, Data Colada is not listing all of them?

Francesca is also saying that Data Colada only picking on one variable that is suspicious and not talking about the other [?non suspicious] variable? Correct  if I am wrong but isn't this is just banana? obviously Data Colada would not talk about normal data.


Can someone with more familiarity with these things and have time to spare can read it and tell me if Francesca rebuttal make sense?

research found the autism distribution to mathematically have 2-5 peaks if I am parsing the study correctly with 1 corresponding to normal population and the other peaks gathered to the right

the study I found


I have not read it in depth, just skimming. [no energy to actually give it the attention]

but the relevant image seems to be this:


so it seems to me that it is bi-modal, but not in the sense of male-female bi-modal. and it can mostly be simplified as a slightly skewed bell curve.

I am not sure if it's the motivated reasoning speaking but I have a feeling that

 if a distribution has 2 or more peaks it is customary to delineate in the valleys and have different words to indicate data points close to each peak [i.e. cleave  reality at the joints] [e.g. autism]

If a distribution only has 1 peak, then you would have words for [right of peak] and [left of peak]  and maybe [normal (stuff around the peak)] [e.g. height]


If I understand correctly Duncan is saying that the current word definition cleaving using the above rules in certain cases adheres to a false distribution leading to false beliefs.

massive shame of having, almost deliberately, chosen to obstinately screw things up for four years.


I am confused, why shame? I see nothing here to be ashamed of.

can we treat this as sunk cost fallacy? The past doesn't matter except for when it shapes the current situation. Now identify the best way forward for your current goal and take it.

If that does not make you feel better, then does hearing that other people wasted even more time make you feel any better? A lot of people wasted a lot of their life.

I wasted 10 years of my life for a mildly different reason. I am curious as to how that makes you feel to hear.

if that does not make you feel better. Can we say that the you in the past must have had his/her reason illegible as it may be? I mean past you decided to stick it out so surely that revealed his/her preference for continuing? Can we say that unless you have stayed you would not have known it was a mistake, and you would be complaining about that branch of the multiverse too?

if that does not make you feel better. Does the fact that your post got upvote and replied to, implying that we listened and validated your feeling make you feel better?

Yes. This is what I was looking for. It makes way more sense now. I broadly agree with everything said here. Thank you for clarifying.

By the way, I think you should consider rewriting the side note re autistic nerd. I am still a bit confused reading that.

Personally, I am strongly against this, 

I got into Rationality for a purpose if it is not the best way to get me to that purpose [i.e. not winning] then Rationality should be casted down and the alternative embraced. 

On the other hand, I suspect we mostly agree with our disagreement is on the definition of the word "winning" 

I could have failed reading comprehension but I did not see "winning" defined anywhere in the post

Load More