Kenny

Comments

Is there an academic consensus around Rent Control?

I think you're right about 'fairness' being the (most common) central argument. I'd want a (good) economist to evaluate those other domains tho! And not (primarily) to quantify the argument as much as evaluate the relevant tradeoffs at all.

Public selves

That's not propaganda papering over a forgettable version of myself, it's just correct gameplay.

I very much think I understand this perspective but yet I also sometimes find that a specific "gameplay" to be, e.g. restrictive, 'degenerate' (in a gameplay sense), or some degree of un-fun/bad.

Just considering the 'gameplay mechanic' 'smalltalk' – I can and often do enjoy it, but it can also be a thankless chore (or worse).

The phrase "correct gameplay" makes me think of consequentialism and 'shutting-up-and-multiplying'. But beyond understanding that there is a best 'move', I can't perfectly escape thoughts about the possibility of playing different games.

There's also not just one 'game', as you and others have pointed out, but there's also not just one level of games either and an aspect of 'meta-gaming' is deciding whether or not to play specific games at all. In the expansive myriads-of-games-at-criss-crossing-levels-of-meta-gaming perspective, there isn't even any obvious "correct gameplay" at all, which is part of what I think this post was gesturing at.

Public selves

Your considerations are all pretty reasonable but I think this post is mostly addressing higher-level considerations and it's specifically focused on something like 'indirect social considerations' and it most reminds me of explicit conscious reasoning about, e.g. whether to 'censor' oneself.

Is what you describe in [1] good generally? What's the cost-benefit analysis of maintaining less 'selves'?

[2] seems to assume that are no significant abstract higher-level considerations, i.e. 'of course it's all dependent of specific contextual details'. I don't disagree – pragmatically – but it does seem to me like a real and significant cost. Are there 'profitable' benefits to coordinating socially to lower those costs?

This idea of shaping your identity doesn't have to feel like hiding or stifling.

I agree somewhat but I'm not sure how useful it is to tell anyone that they don't have to feel some way that they report they do feel. Consciously 'censoring' oneself – or feeling like one is doing that – probably can't usefully also feel like "playing with your range of expression". And is it even possible to entirely avoid feeling like one is "hiding or stifling" if one believes that some (true) info would be damaging if revealed?

Public selves

What seems like a principled intermediate option is to find or build a 'Bubble', i.e. a social environment in which one feels (and ideally is) safe to reveal more of one's self publicly.

Are UFOs just drones?

Those are very good points about the reliability of the relevant equipment.

I totally agree that physics must apply.

There's a ton of weird electromagnetic atmospheric phenomena that we understand poorly. It is far more likely that the majority of ufos are actually this.

That's interesting that you think this!

Do you have a good sense of numbers, or even just the relative distribution, of various types of reported UFOs?

Off the top of my head, a good number of reliable reports, historically, seem to have been, e.g. experimental aircraft, weather balloons.

Reports of 'abductions' seem fairly unreliable – my prior is that these are likely 'modern reboots' of what were previously supernatural or divine events, e.g. what were previously 'devils' or 'demons' are now 'aliens'. There seems to be a significant background of hallucinations experienced by many people and it seems like this has been true basically forever.

I'd be surprised if 'drones' weren't ever reported as UFOs.

But maybe "weird electromagnetic atmospheric phenomena that we understand poorly" is a better explanation, particularly for what seems like pretty reliable and recent reports of 'objects' for which 'drones' isn't a good explanation.

Are UFOs just drones?

I don't know enough about 'generic UFO sightings' to answer.

"actually aliens" seems very very unlikely – definitely not literally impossible tho.

My priors are that a lot of historical UFO sightings really were experimental aircraft. I'd expect some number were early drones too. Others seem to have definitely been, e.g. weather balloons.

Other sightings, particularly the relatively well-documented recent ones, seem very similar to 'ball lightning', which is also so little understood that it's not even clear that it's real. Assuming those observations are both accurate (e.g. the relevant 'equipment' was working correctly) and being interpreted accurately, they don't seem to be drones, unless the drones themselves include novel propulsion systems (which is very plausible assuming the existence of such novel systems).

(And, as a a kind of reference point, 'rogue waves' seem to have been similarly so hard to study, until very recently, that their existence wasn't entirely clear.)

Are UFOs just drones?

Yes, I agree with everything you wrote, but the caveats are where I'd focus any investigation:

  1. Is the equipment functioning properly?
  2. Are there other plausible interpretations of the data gathered by that equipment?

Some of the best UFO sightings seem pretty similar to 'ball lightning' which also isn't either well-explained or particularly well observed. (I think there's one plausibly somewhat-detailed observation of it to-date.)

I don't know enough ufology to know what the deal is there.

I also don't know enough about specific events, the observations made, the raw data collected for those events, etc..

Covid 1/7: The Fire of a Thousand Suns

You (or someone) could use a payment processor with a subscription feature, e.g. Stripe, and lose only 2.9+%.

Maybe the easiest/cheapest option would be to just create a new email address and accept direct payments via Zelle/Venmo/PayPal/etc., but some of those don't support recurring payments.

Are UFOs just drones?

But how plausible is the evidence that the observations really (accurately) are of "a case of anomalous compared to matter"?

Like, what's the evidence that what's been observed – and among the best data, i.e. "footage and data released by military and other official channels" – really has been of solid objects?

I don't recall the newer (and better) evidence being of solid objects but of 'lights'.

(I'm genuinely curious about both questions. I read about, or even watched some, of the recentish U.S. Navy (?) pilots observing a UFO off the cost of California (?) but I don't remember any particular evidence about the object(s) being solid.)

Avoid Unnecessarily Political Examples

This is kind of reasonable, but I think it should be rounded-off to ignored – in this case.

In general, language is 'merely reasonable' – it's always a bit Humpty-Dumpty.

I don't think the use of any phrase, historical or not, could be considered explicit reference of its "context".

Even words like 'family', historically, sometimes referred to the 'servants' (and slaves) of a household. But it seems reasonable to continue using 'family' – the common agreement of English speakers/listeners/writers/readers is that's perfectly okay and unobjectionable.

Or maybe you're right? 'delenda est' is very different from 'family'. There really aren't any other uses or interpretations beyond, at most, metaphorical violence. I certainly don't like (some) other violent words or phrases (sometimes), even when they're obviously metaphorical. And it's not obviously wrong to think that avoiding 'violent' language might be net-good anyways.

But this post was cross-posted from the author's personal blog and is a (mildly) contentious exception to the kinds of posts that are normally considered worth listing on the 'front page' of the site. Because of that, I'm still inclined to let this pass.

But I've definitely changed my mind about the phrase being entirely innocuous.

Load More