I like this conceptually - might be nicer to aggregate all the prediction markets into an average by default (to make for cleaner graphs), and only split them up as an option.
I'm not sure about the reacts having such specific assigned meanings. It feels a bit like the James Scott perfectly legible straight lines thing (vs self-organizing meaning). Also they'd be more readable with color, even though that seems "less serious" somehow...
Good review. From what I've read, the root of the great divergence is the Catholic church's ban on cousin marriage (for its own reasons), which supposedly lead to less clannishness and a higher-trust society in much of Western Europe.
This is interesting but would benefit from more citations for claims and fewer personal attacks on Eliezer.
A hard thing about trying to be transparent about our moderation decisions and actions is that this also requires publicly calling out a user or their content. So you get more transparency but also more embarrassment. I don't have any good solution to this.
Maybe you could not display usernames in the rejected posts section (though this might conflict with transparency if a user feels they are being personally targeted).
I sometimes see posts like this that I can't follow in depth due to insufficient math ability, but skimming them they seem important-if-true so I upvote them anyway. I do want to encourage stuff like this but I'm concerned about adding noise through not-fully-informed voting. Would it be preferable to only vote on things I understand better?
This whole drama is pretty TL;DR but based on existing vibes I'd rather the rules lean (if a lean is necessary) in favor of overly disagreeable gadflys rather than overly sensitive people who try to manipulate the conversation by acting wounded.
The ' petertodd' is completions have a structure reminiscent of Chuck Norris jokes, only a bit darker. I think a few of them are actually Chuck Norris jokes with the name changed - eg "Chuck Norris doesn't hunt, he waits".
I'm not sure about this reasoning. It seems compelling at first (and is my personal strongest reason against believing the latest rumors), but there's a sort of anthropic issue where if we already had compelling evidence (or no evidence) we wouldn't be having this discussion. Is there a prior for the likely resolution of fuzzy evidence in general? Maybe the issue is a lack of an observed distribution of mostly weak and some stronger evidence, rather than all weak?