Things that come with a natural time limit: For example, I like playing computer games, but a lot of them has no natural time to stop playing and change activity (by design). Some of them do however. With roguelikes for example, I find that it is engaging and fun to play a round, but after I die there is a natural threshold for starting a new run. Similarly for reading: If I'm reading a novel I'd read continuously for days if I could, but if I read short-form fiction there is a natural point to stop at the end of story. Chapters doesn't do that for me unfortunately.
I'm notoriously bad at this though, so maybe my strategies are faulty.
Bill Gates left day-to-day operations at Microsoft in 2008. That's in the days of Windows Vista. I don't think there is all that much connecting the modern Windows with him except history and stocks.Boycotting every company with stocks owned by or any historical connection to anyone who has any historical connection with anyone who is as at least as evil as Epstein... Might prove impractical.
In general I don't (or try not to) judge people by their associations. Especially not associations with people who only much later turn out to have been bad, and who presumably hid the bad parts from most people at the time. Otherwise I'm going to be very nervously second-guessing the hidden moral character of everyone I know and meet, lest I inadvertently befriend someone who is secretly a Bad Person.
Knowingly associating with someone like that might be different, but I still generally prefer judging people by their own actions, rather than by actions of other people.
"I'm too fat to fit in those"
Made me chuckle
Re: Google Maps being offset in China. See this for explanations:
The muggles are finding very elaborate ways to justify the confusion to themselves!
What made you stop in the end?
I don't think Obliviate would usually work through Voldemorts Occlumency barriers, but he was nocked out at the time.
Cool! But you only corrected my mistake in the second instance, not the first.
I feel honoured :) But it appears that I made a mistake: I believe it was supposed to be 34° North, not 32° as I wrote. Just a typo. I'm not really sure what position is actually intended though. Note that Google Maps seems to be confused in the area, and the streetgrid is offset from the satellite image. This seems very appropriate :)
Further nitpick: you dropped one " in the new text above.
Also, the position 34° 16' 37" N, 108° 57' 42" E is usually read outloud as: 34 degrees, 16 minutes and 37 seconds North, 108 degrees, 57 minutes and 42 seconds East, including the "and". Oxford comma entirely optional.
I don't see how "An astrolabe displays the universe's location relative to itself" implies that the values should be negated. If you negate coordinates you are only defining a different point, but I might be confused here. I am used to using lat and long to define my position relative to the planet, not the planet's position relative to me. Though really, I fail to see the difference. Either way, North and East are positive, South and West are negative.
Also: The modern standard way to denote lat and long (at least among seafarers) is in degrees and decimal minutes, making the above position look like so: 34° 16.62' N, 108° 56.7' E. This is the format I use daily as a skipper.
The traditional way is with degrees, minutes and seconds, like so: 34° 16' 37.2" N, 108° 57' 42" E. Decimal seconds were rarely used, as seconds already gives us accuracy down to ~30 meters, which is better than any practical method of navigation at the time. Seconds without decimals is what I would have predicted an old artifact like that to use, given it's implied age.
The use of decimal degrees and negitive numbers is a modern thing, to cater to digital devices and google maps and the like. This is a minor nit-pick, but I would find 34° 16' 37" N, 108° 57' 42" E more harmonious with the rest of the story.
Thank you for writing this :)
I don't think it works that way. Do you know any example of an existing webpage/event/thing where the people behind it said "it needs to be the same but more fun!", and it actually worked? I find lesswrong to be fun as it is, and I want it to attract people who are attracted to the actual content, rather than some fun-nes sprinkled on top. (I'm not saying lesswrong cant improve, and that I'd necessarily want to conserve it exactly the way it is though.) The reason wikipedia for example is so wildly successful is that it does what it does really well, and that thing is something people want and need. So no, I don't think that would be a good goal :)
(Aware of/sorry for necroposting)