To the react: There were several classes in which I didn't do the homework, which accounted for something like 15% of the grade, and I got something like 92% on the tests and projects; but since they took away 15% for the homework, the result was 77%, a C instead of an A.  To my mind, a grade should be something like the best estimate of a student's abilities and knowledge of a subject, and since the homework problems don't measure anything the tests don't (I'm distinguishing "answer these 5-20 short problems" from a major project), other than obedience, it seems to me inappropriate to mark someone down for not doing the homework.

– eliminate homework and weekly tests from counting toward semester grade

The homework part I would have appreciated.  I did not need to do all those homework problems to learn the material, as my test scores proved, and giving me a C because I didn't do the homework was, in my opinion, lying.

If you come from a drinking culture, then people who refuse to drink with you are obviously the people who want to keep secrets from you, so it makes sense to treat it as a red flag.

Of course, they might also be people who consider themselves high-risk for alcoholism and have chosen abstinence.  I hope the drinking culture is able to accommodate them.

how is it possible for them to develop a distinct style? Isn't that like the only thing they - practically by definition - shouldn't do? 

Consult King James Programming: https://www.tumblr.com/kingjamesprogramming

A much simpler Markov chain, trained apparently on "the King James Bible and the Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" (I think I read that "The Art of Unix Programming" or something is also in there).  Examples:

then shall they call upon me, but I will not cause any information to be accumulated on the stack.

How much more are ye better than the ordered-list representation

evaluating the operator might modify env, which will be the hope of unjust men

If you imagine that style 1 has traits A1, B1, and C1, and style 2 has traits A2, B2, and C2, then you could end up with style 3 having traits A1, B2, and C1, which is a novel combination.  Depending on your criteria of "style", this might count as a new style.  Here it's pretty clumsy and heavy-handed, and it looks more like switching between style 1 and style 2 (IIRC this particular Markov chain uses the last 3 or 4 words, which is higher than usual and more likely to just reproduce chains of text from the original); but if you imagine there being 100 styles, each having 1000 traits, it seems much more likely that the resulting thing would qualify as a "new style" by a layman's judgment.

I think "completely immune to advertising" would mean it has no effect on your behavior either way.  This sounds like advertising has an anti-effect.  Which, you know, can be a good thing for game theory purposes.  But it is a different thing.

Semi-related:

Particularly deplorable are the struggles of these children against dull or otherwise unworthy adults in authority. The very gifted child or adolescent, perceiving the illogical conduct of those in charge of his affairs, may turn rebellious against all authority and fall into a condition of negative suggestibility—a most unfortunate trend of personality, since the person is then unable to take a coöperative attitude toward authority.

A person who is highly suggestible in a negative direction is as much in bondage to others around him as is the person who is positively suggestible. The social value of the person is seriously impaired in either case. The gifted are not likely to fall victims to positive suggestion but many of them develop negativism to a conspicuous degree.

The highly intelligent child will be intellectually capable of self-determination, and his greatest value to society can be realized only if he is truly self-possessed and detached from the influences of both positive and negative suggestion. The more intelligent the child, the truer this statement is. It is especially unfortunate, therefore, that so many gifted children have in authority over them persons of no special fitness for the task, who cannot gain or keep the respect of these good thinkers. Such unworthy guardians arouse, by the process of "redintegration," contempt for authority wherever it is found, and the inability to yield gracefully to command.

Thus some gifted persons, mishandled in youth, become contentious, aggressive, and stubborn to an extent which renders them difficult and disagreeable in all human relationships involving subordination. Since subordination must precede posts of command in the ordinary course of life, this is an unfortunate trend of personality. Cynicism and negativism are likely to interfere seriously with a life career. Happily, gifted children are typically endowed with a keen sense of humor, and are apparently able to mature beyond cynicism eventually in a majority of cases.

Of the Silicon Valley founders I know who went on some of the psychedelic self-discovery trips, almost 100% quit their jobs as CEO within a year.

I'll note that there's an obvious reason to expect a giant selection effect here.  (If things are going great for you at the company, why go on a psychedelic self-discovery trip?)  I'm inclined to agree with the conclusion, though (but don't have great evidence for it).

Do you have, in your model of male attraction, a distinction between romantic attraction and sexual attraction? I’ve commented on it before, but briefly, I think romantic attraction is a long-term pair-bonding thing, and sexual attraction is about short-term mating opportunity.

Both can inspire strong emotions… But I think, for romantic attraction, there are several extra things going on, or at least are significantly stronger. There tends to be less substitutability, whereas for short-term mating, it’s a lot easier to see a second woman and think “Eh, she’ll do.” It tends to depend more on background information about her that makes her admirable (e.g. imagine that you know she’s a very kind person, then imagine you know she’s a cold heartless bitch behind her smile), while sexual attraction seems to be more about the way she looks right now (though background information about her sexual openness or willingness is relevant). I guess there can be obsessive thinking in both cases, but… It just seems more plausible that one can get really deep into Romeo-style romantic fantasy that intensifies the feelings, whereas with sexual fantasy, one can simply masturbate and then you quickly get out of that particular loop.

Therefore, I suspect the ceiling is higher for romantic than for sexual attraction. Helen of Troy I’m sure appealed to both, but I imagine the main effect came from the romantic.

I’ll also note that the “superstimulus” picture has her whole body, while the “underwhelming” pictures are of the face and a few inches below. In my model, the latter mostly appeals to just the romantic interest; and, if we’re trying to evaluate it as just a picture isolated from anything else we know about her, then, well, that does subtract away almost everything.

And this is why enforcing a separation between economic and political power is so important.

Do you think you can do this, effectively and consistently?

If yes, then does it matter anymore if some people get a lot of economic power?  I mean, keeping someone with $1B from bribing politicians is probably harder than someone with $50M, but is that difference enough to make the difference between success and failure at containing them?  (Actually, the question might be more like: Is it easier to prevent one person with $1B, or twenty people with $50M each, from corrupting the political system?  It seems like it depends on your enforcement mechanism.  If it relies mostly on watching their activities, then watching one billionaire might well be easier.)

The potential for some people to abuse power via wealth might be quantified as "how wealthy they are" x "how easy it is to turn wealth into political power".

If you want to minimize that, then you could try to police some people getting a lot of wealth, or to police "turning wealth into political power", or both.

Policing the former seems so much worse than policing the latter on many fronts.  You seem to agree on that point.  In fact, you seem to agree with me, e.g. here:

Without strong anti-corruption, the straightforward way to maintain power in the hands of the people is to ban excess individual wealth beyond a threshold.

I personally think banning excess wealth is a bad idea, and that it should not be considered before we punish and deter actual corruption.

Yet you introduce the essay by—well, at least by suggesting you'll explain "why people may oppose rich people getting richer on principle" and "how wealth concentration is an especially pernicious form of concentration of power", and end with your intentions to critique libertarianism.  That makes it sound like you're not satisfied by the plan of "Block everyone from converting wealth into political power, and then let individuals become as rich as the free market permits".

I'm guessing you remember this?

People might think Matt is overstating this but I literally heard it from NYT reporters at the time. There was a top-down decision that tech could not be covered positively, even when there was a true, newsworthy and positive story. I'd never heard anything like it. https://x.com/mattyglesias/s/mattyglesias/status/1588190763413868553

The original Matt Yglesias tweet has been deleted, but the Internet Archive has it:

I think a lot of people are totally ignorant of the background dynamic driving the drama around the checkmarks.

But what happened is that a few years ago the New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage.

Instead of covering the industry with a business press lens or a consumer lens they started covering it with a very tough investigative lens — highly oppositional at all times and occasionally unfair.

Almost never curious about technology or in awe of progress and potential.

This was a very deliberate top-down decision.

They decided tech was a major power center that needed scrutiny and needed to be taken down a peg, and this style of coverage became very widespread and prominent in the industry.

I forget, have you asked Metz about this?