Trevor Hill-Hand


Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


courage to reject an all powerful authority on moral grounds

This was the most interesting part of the whole story to me, and it's an angle I haven't quite seen in this type of story before. However, I think it was in competition with the personalities of Elohim and Shaitan. They felt too petty and talking-past-each-other to make sense as people from an enlightened race. Maybe if their "conflict" was also a pre-planned part of their strategy, instead of a squabble?

The cultural and literary references didn't bother me, but they did mean that by the end of the first few paragraphs I was like, "Oh okay, we're doing an Erich von Daniken/Assasin's Creed/Prometheus," and then everything played out about how I expected.

I wanted a few more surprises, I think. At first it felt like maybe the main characters were far-future humans, and maybe it would have been fun to let that possibility linger for longer. Or just focus in more on the central theme and how it could subvert and/or support the Ancient Aliens narrative.

But I did enjoy reading it! Got me visualizing some neat things.

Oh, and whenever you are able, run things through and optimize for shortest length and lowest grade level without losing information.

"I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead."

I ended up as part of a team managing the internal communication & knowledge platform for a company that was at the time (early 2020) about ~100,000 employees, now ~146,000. My area of responsibility now includes over 20,000 employees, but I do not directly oversee anyone. I did not have education or much experience particular to this domain, but somehow became a preferred pick for the role, so make of that what you will.

The strategy I've always tried to employ is to treat everyone as intelligent equals, and making as much effort as possible to understand, and earnestly explain, the way things are "supposed" to work in a bureaucratic perspective — who needs to approve, what process needs to be followed, while at the same time consciously addressing instances where what people want/need might be different, and that bureaucracies must be understood in that context. In other words, be aware of the Chesterton's fence principle, but also be aware that taking down the fence is an option that may need to be discussed.

The most common... I don't want to say "obstacle" because that feels so strong, but the thing I most often have to be consciously aware of, is getting the input of everyone whose input should be included. You have to actively seek it out, and push people to give input. It's never because anyone feels "silenced" or anything like that, it's more often that people just feel too busy, or feel their insight isn't important enough, or is not different enough, or wouldn't matter anyway. Voter turnout problems, now that I think about it.

These two talks cover a lot more in ways I think are really useful: — Concrete Practices to Be a Better Leader: Framing & Intention — Game Studio Management: Making It Great

There's also a little anecdote, by Adam Savage, talking about Michael Stevens, that I can't find (it's somewhere in his Q&A videos on the Tested channel), so I won't try to directly quote it. Adam was talking about asking Michael how he manages to stay so respectful of people, even when telling them things they don't know, and Michael answered something like "Overestimate their intelligence, underestimate their vocabulary."

I think an important aspect to mention explicitly is that it's paired with the phrase "a map that reflects the territory". It's important not because Harold Fiske or the Mississippi River are important to rationality, but because this image exemplifies the idea of that a map is meant to help you understand and reason about something that is not the map.

I agree. Their 'candidate explanations' felt unsatisfying when I got to them, because they spend so much time building up what a good explanation would necessarily feel like. Maybe that was the goal, but if it was, they didn't make it explicit.

Watched this last night. Kurzgesagt is one of the greatest achievements YouTube has enabled, in my opinion.

As a LessWrong reader I had heard a lot of these ideas before, but part that surprised me was Scenario 1: Even if we "only" thrive about as long as other Earth mammals, the 200,000 years modern humans have been around is still only about 1/5th of the way through our story.

I'm doing this as a comment, not an answer, because it's only slightly related to the specific question, but Matt Parker did some videos about similar "impossible" events and/or probability claims, and he includes discussions on why we tend to make errors like that, as humans.

How lucky is TOO lucky? —

How did the 'impossible' Perfect Bridge Deal happen? —

I suppose the hope is that then there will be a third tier: "How to move your couch the right way, and why everyone thinks you need avocados for it."

The above comment just helped me realise that the connotation above is why I like the word "credence". Does "credence" have similar problems in other cultures though?

Can you elaborate more on whether there have been noticeable results in either A) taking successful actions based on the most recent predictions or B) improving the forecasting skills of the players? And if so- how were these things measured? How would you prefer to measure them?

Load More