Not clear to me how to interpret the chart.

FWIW I downvoted this mainly because I thought you were much too quick to dismiss the existing literature on this topic in favour of your personal theories, which is a bit of a bad habit around here.

It is times like this that it is

missing end of sentence

This seems mostly fine for anyone who doesn't engage in political advocacy or activism, but a mild-moderate form of defection against society if you do - because if dragons are real, society should probably do something about that, even if you personally can't.

edit: I guess dragon-agnosticism is tolerable if you avoid advocating for (and ideally voting for) policies that would be disastrous if dragons do in fact exist.

You describe Sam as going "mask off" with his editorial, but it feels more like mask on to me - I'd guess he went with the nationalist angle because he thinks it will sell, not because it's his personal highest priority.

they've been much more effective at getting their priorities funded than you have been!

Sounds plausible but do you have any numeric evidence for this?

What leads MIRI to believe that this policy of being very outspoken will work better than the expert-recommended policy of being careful what you say?
(Not saying it won't work, but this post doesn't seem to say why you think it will).

Great post. I wonder how to determine what is a "reasonable" maximum epsilon to use in the adversarial training. Does performance on normal examples get worse as epsilon increases?

For small round things and holes, maybe it's related to the digit 0 being small, round, and having a hole, while also being a similar kind of empty/null case as the empty string?

IIRC the same encounters are present at the macro level - eg which enemies and cards are available. But there's still a luck element there as one player may choose to go left and the other right, without either direction giving evidence in advance about which has better rewards.