The post doesn't talk about nor imply a traditional war with congress approval. For example, placing a battleship in international waters but close enough China's maritime space is enough to trigger another Arkhipov situation. This is just a specific scenario, some don't lead to disastrous outcomes and some do. The post is intended to spark discussion, not set policy without debate, and point to the risks. As stated we entered 2020 in the worst level of risk ever, and then a pandemic happened, with a bunch of unthinkable events happening.
In my understanding, ban in sequences-inspired rationality, particularly for politically-charged topics, is a reminder that Politics is the Mind-Killer. I made it explicit in the text.
Wikipedia has an article for Considered Harmful. "Goto Considered Harmful" was the title an editor gave to Dijkstra's paper originally titled "A Case Against the Goto Statement". It's an informal tradition in computer science to write papers with this title pattern, including ""Considered Harmful" Essays Considered Harmful".
It was not intended to be misleading, only a reference to a crowd that I, perhaps erroneously, assumed would be familiar with this pattern.
Now, on the core of the argument. First the epistemic status says it's uncertain about risk values and how to reduce it. I linked to a Bulletin of Atomic Scientists article about why this debunked idea still keeps coming up and the harms associated with it. Just printing articles and pointing people to them wasn't enough. I don't have more to say about your specific arguments because I think they're covered pretty well by the article I linked.
This post was to point out that this problem exists, that credible experts in extinction risk (i.e. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists) think it's a worrying trend, that economic patterns are similar to past situations giving birth to extreme right wing governments and that current institutions seem to be unable or unwilling to curb Trump's excesses.
He seems to respond to actual public opinion (from his electorate).
The article also ends with a non-rhetorical that seems to be misunderstood as alarmism.
miniKanren is a logic/relational language. It's been used to solve questions related to programs. For example, once you give miniKanren a description of the untyped λ-calculus extended with integers you can ask it "give me programs that result in 2" and it'll enumerate programs from the constant "2" to "1 + 1" to more complicated versions using λ-expressions. It can even find quines (if the described language supports it).
The Nanopass Framework is built for that:
"The nanopass framework provides a tool for writing compilers composed of several simple passes that operate over well-defined intermediate languages. The goal of this organization is both to simplify the understanding of each pass, because it is responsible for a single task, and to simplify the addition of new passes anywhere in the compiler."
I'm going again, it was too fun/interesting to miss.
Count me in.
Around São Paulo, yes. Around LW, not much anymore, I mostly read it via feed reader.
This model seems to be reducible to "people will eat what they prefer".
A good model would be able to reduce the number of bits to describe a behavior, if the model requires to keep a log (e.g. what particular humans prefer to eat) to predict something, it's not much less complex (i.e. bit encoding) than the behavior.