I've fixed the spoiler tags

Do we know how many silver pieces there are to a gold piece?

In particular, it's hard to distinguish in the amount of time that I have to moderate a new user submission. Given that I'm trying to spend a few minutes on a new user, it's very helpful to be able to rely on style cues.

Eusocial organisms have more specialisation at the individual level rather than non-eusocial organisms (I think). I might expect that I would want a large amount of interchangeable individuals for each specialisation (a low bus factor), rather than more expensive, big, rare entities.

This predicts that complex multicellular organisms would have smaller cells than unicellular organisms or simple multicellular organisms (i.e. those were there isn't differentiation between the cells)

A relevant plot from the wonderful calibration.city:

Early in a prediction questions lifetime, the average Brier score is something like 0.17 to 0.24, which is like a 1-8% edge.

I quite like the article The Rise and Fall of the English Sentence, which partially attributes reduced structural complexity to increase in noun compounds (like "state hate crime victim numbers" rather than "the numbers of victims who have experienced crimes that were motivated by hatred directed at their ethnic or racial identity, and who have reported these crimes to the state")

They're looking to make bets with people who disagree. Could be a good opportunity to get some expected dollars

Have you ever noticed a verbal tic and tried to remove it? For example, maybe you've noticed you say "tubular" a lot, and you'd like to stop. Or you've decided to use "whom" 'correctly'.

When I try and change my speech, I notice that by default my "don't do that" triggers run on other people's speech as well as my own, and I have to make a conscious refinement to separate them.

I'm inclined to agree, but at least this is an improvement over it only living in Habryka's head. It may be that this + moderation is basically sufficient, as people seem to have mostly caught on to the intended patterns.

I spent some time Thursday morning arguing with Habryka about the intended use of react downvotes. I think I now have a fairly compact summary of his position.

PSA: When to upvote and downvote a react

Upvote a react when you think it's helpful to the conversation (or at least, not antihelpful) and you agree with it. Imagine a react were a comment. If you would agree-upvote it and not karma-downvote it, you can upvote the react.

Downvote a react when you think it's unhelpful for the conversation. This might be because you think the react isn't being used for its intended purpose, because you think people are going through noisily agree reacting to loads of passages in a back-and-forth to create an impression of consensus, or other reasons. If, when you're imagining a react were a comment, you would karma-downvote the comment, you might downvote the react.