If they had promoted restrictions I'd have bought supplies.
It's more like, oh, there's enough people trying to do something useful that they're warning them not to, oh no. But also I did notice I shouldn't have updated!
Presumably we still should have shifted everything over anyway, it's a freeroll that can only help?
Yes. So close.
I have to assume the 11 day delay is unusual, or even that perhaps that case didn't actually come from Egypt. If it usually took 11 days then there's no way it grows this fast (and if it still does, seriously, it's time to give up.)
Note: I was moving quickly, and did the wrong calculation for the lower bound earlier. It is now 5k rather than 20k.
Um, I was assuming everyone would understand that this wasn't correct? Are we so fargone I can't do this?
Pretty sure I directly addressed this, as did Eliezer in his thread (and there's at least one more explanation I didn't mention, which is that you can target the vulnerable over time instead of giving it to everyone if you're short). Also pretty sure this isn't true even if you accept the premise.
I asked mods (well, emailed Oliver about) how to make the footnotes work right - they're good on Substack but broken in WP and LW then imports from WP. Growing pains of switching to the SS editor, whereas the WP editor didn't have footnotes worth using at all.
Sadly I do think that this needs to be a costly signal.
Part of it is Choices are bad, especially false ones. You're making people pretend you're not forcing them to do it, which makes them feel bad about choosing to do it and agonize about the 'decisions' being made and what's been lost.
Part of it is legitimate vs. illegitimate authority, and clarity of what is going on. You're not taking ownership and responsibility, and you're gaslighting everyone about what's going on, and also you're telling everyone implicitly that you lack the power to demand vaccinations (else why not demand them?) but you're turning ar... (read more)
Thanks! It's useful to know where concretely people are getting value out of the posts, and also it's nice to hear.
I don't think a norm of more often saying 'here's why I did my strong upvote/downvote' or otherwise treating karma as super important is a good idea (e.g. I disagree with Duncan rather strongly but haven't had the bandwidth to respond properly) but specific feedback on what matters is great.
Link is here: https://thezvi.substack.com/p/covid-1118-paxlovid-remains-illegal
Has been fixed in the post.
I want to be clear that my inside view is based on less knowledge and less time thinking carefully, and thus has less and less accurate gears, than I would like or than I expect to be true of many others' here's models (e.g. Eliezer).
Unpacking my reasoning fully isn't something I can do in a reply, but if I had to say a few more words, I'd say it's related to the idea that the AGI will use qualitatively different methods and reasoning, and not thinking that current methods can get there, and that we're getting our progress out of figuring out how to ... (read more)
On slowing down, I'd say strong inside view agreement, I don't see a way either, not without something far more universal. There's too many next competitors. Could have been included, probably excluded due to seeming like it followed from other points and was thus too obvious.
On the likelihood of backfire, strong inside view agreement. Not sure why that point didn't make it into the post, but consider this an unofficial extra point (43?), of something like (paraphrase, attempt 1) "Making the public broadly aware of and afraid of these scenarios is likely to backfire and result in counterproductive action."
Right, so it didn't come completely out of nowhere, but it still seems uncharitable at best to go from 'mostly fake or pointless or predictable' where mostly is clearly modifying the collective OR statement, to 'almost everyone else is faking it.'
EDIT: Looks like there's now a comment apologizing for, among other things, exactly this change.
It also seems uncharitable to go from (A) "exaggerated one of the claims in the OP" to (B) "made up the term 'fake' as an incorrect approximation of the true claim, which was not about fakeness".
You didn't literally explicitly say (B), but when you write stuff like
The term ‘faking’ here is turning a claim of ‘approaches that are being taken mostly have epsilon probability of creating meaningful progress’ to a social claim about the good faith of those doing said research, and then interpreted as a social attack, and then therefore as an argument from autho
Flagging here my having-slept-on-it update policy going forward for this particular post:
Looks like they managed to get a 97% vaccination rate, but found that not good enough, so they abandoned the mandate and permanently sacrificed everyone's credibility but especially their own, whereas places without a mandate usually end up far lower. So the news here is that Quebec defected and burned the commons?
After talking to Elizabeth, and based on new information I've learned since this was posted, I've updated the OP to reflect what we've learned and avoid giving anyone the impression this change had a bigger impact than I believe that it did. The central points remain unchanged.
There were enough different changes that I'd like mods to reimport to ensure both copies reflect the same changes.
I greatly appreciate the time Zvi put into talking to me and that he updated the post. For posterity, I would like to note that this covers ~30% of the change I wanted. In particular, I've gone from feeling confident Zvi's estimate of the impact of the change was that it was sufficient to clear the problem, to not knowing what he thinks the estimate is, aside from >0 (which I medium-confidence disagree with, but that's a different issue). This may or may not be because the information isn't there: it could also be that it's there but I didn't read caref... (read more)
On the effectiveness question, I think 64% and 97% are hugely different numbers - they are an order of magnitude difference in remaining risk. So a CI that wide to me very much screams not enough data in terms of deciding how to act. I expect tons of expensive prevention efforts to be justified by that 64% number, that would be much harder to justify if we could be confident in 89%, and if it was known to be 97% would be much harder still.
On treatment versus prophylaxis, yes I understand that, but treatment and prophylaxis can be either complements or substitutes depending on the situation - if you have a good enough treatment it makes it less important to do prophylaxis (and vice versa).
I meant to edit it to note that I was skipping the section, or remove the section, and forgot to do so.
I think you can self-host WP in a pinch as well. I've been chatting with someone from WP trying to better understand what it is offering. It does seem like I'm missing a lot of simple knowledge of how to use WP better, and it's possible that WP is 'good enough' if things were explained properly, and then there's a bunch of deep functionality and customization potentially hidden. Yet that doesn't do any good if I don't use it.
Strong upvoting after our conversation so more people see it. Raymond made a strong case, I'm seriously considering it and would like everyone else's take on Ghost, good or bad. Getting the experiences of others who've used it, and can verify that it works and can be trusted (or not, which would be even more useful if true!), would be very helpful.
The basic downside versus Substack is lack of Substack's discovery, such as it is, not sure of magnitude of that, and that people won't be used to it and won't have already entered CC info, which will hurt revenu... (read more)
Thank you for being up front. My basic answer is that I'm vaguely aware Ghost exists, and I'd be open to a pitch/discussion to try and convince me it's superior to Substack or Wordpress, although it would be an uphill battle. If there's human support willing to make the migration and setup easy and help me figure out how to do things, then... maybe? Could set up a call to discuss.
I'm not worried about you administering the bounty, that seems fine and good and I'd trust you to honestly evaluate the bet at the size range I'd expect it to be. If it was big enough to be 'real money' we'd need to use better procedures but I'm assuming that's not the case here.
I'd also note that if I was provided a 'bounty fund' I would at least experiment with using it more generally. Might be a good idea.
If you propose a bet, then I might or might not accept depending on odds, size and terms, I don't feel it is necessary but have no objection.
There are... (read more)
It's what's called a hold-up problem. LA+LB together are 40% of shipping, so they have a ton of pricing power even medium-term, and short-term they can effectively take more than all of your profits because the alternative is even worse. The cities could extract a substantial percentage of the value of international shipping, but the deadweight loss triangle involved would be gigantic, and the cost pass-through might destabilize the entire economy if they got too aggressive. Yes, you want to do enough of this to allocate via price, but there's the temptati... (read more)
To address the question of the backlog, if I wasn't clear, I too was unable to find good evidence of the number of ships waiting and how that changed from day to day. I did see claims it had improved somewhat but it's all confused.
I tried to make it clear here that I am confident it was, in that previous comment's terms, 'a first step' and did at least some good, but that I'm not confident on magnitude. Which, as again I tried to say, I still think is good enough.
I am confused why you think this is good enough, and would like to understand why. I look at the situation and see several extremely important cruxes that are not yet satisfied. I've specified some of those cruxes above, albeit not super rigorously and I can't promise they're exhaustive.
I think I get the failure mode you're worried about here- that comments like mine will raise the friction of doing anything so high that nothing is even attempted, and it's more important to try more things and learn from them than to nail down any particular one. The... (read more)
If I gave the impression that I don't support additional learning and investigation then I apologize. That was most certainly not my intention. It was more that my default model of what happens is 'some analysis then basically nothing' and that seems like the most likely failure mode in worlds where making this work is feasible.
Don't worry about the vase, my blog's name.
I acknowledge you are 'simply asking questions' and want to do the math calculation. What I'm saying is that a live example of seriously claiming (2) is sufficient to show that we have to worry about an attempt to actually implement it. If Public Health people start considering the 'costs and benefits' of an intervention - especially one that could be framed as a default right now - that makes lives worse in exchange for less disease, you've already lost, and the idea that costs of mask wearing are sufficiently low that we need to be doing math is the road... (read more)
I don't know anyone who did either of those things to my knowledge, no.
None of those possibilities were things I hadn't considered, nor do they explain the data. I continue to not understand.
This sounds exactly like you're continuing to say that we should consider permanently forcing children to mask, so I'm confused why it's not a good example.
Removed (btw: If you're giving me a comment like this, best place is at DWATV, no need to post it twice).
You're not preaching, you're noticing you are confused. Which is good.
I am not confused here, because the media is running stories about kids ending up in the ICU and most people don't think about base rates, so it's unsurprising that many parents think like this. Also see satanic child abuse cults, or stranger danger, or poisoned Halloween candy, etc etc.
It does seem like problems need to at least approach the level of 'this is worth solving for me simply to get my private benefits' in order to get solved, but I also think that the fruit is often low hanging enough that this is fine?
My presumption is that the reasons people liked Dune Part 1 require things that I have not experienced. So I hope to retroactively change my opinion after Part 2. But for now, that's my reaction, I'm confused why this is a thing.
This feels like the kind of thing I could do more of if it were high value, in other contexts, but it requires a lot of time. Certainly would be happy to do it paid.
There's a ton of stuff here so I can't take time to properly respond to it all, but I did want to note (I've talked about this before) my intuition pump around the data suppression question, and why I think it's hugely unlikely there are much more common serious side effects.
Which is that there are tons of people both pro and anti vaccine who are actively on the prowl for such effects. If we catch even a whiff of anything, no matter how statistically irrelevant, it endangers the ability to use the vaccines at all - see J&J, and see the Moderna suspensi... (read more)
Discussion in question was about whether to get vaccinated rather than whether to mandate vaccination.
Also, we effectively totally mandate treatments all the time, the force of 'doctor insists you do this' in many spots is 'I'll physically do it without asking permission' and in many others it's 'we will refuse you any other care until you do this.' In ways I find pretty terrible, mind you, but worth noting this.
Wow, thank you for pointing me at this. That's... a pretty crazy error. It's sufficiently bad that I feel like it's an error that I didn't catch it, rather than mostly being on them. Damn.
Right, I get that, but this is saying that with the death robots you fend off the attack 97% of the time, but without the death robots you also fend off the attack 97% of the time, so there were no cases where not having the death robots ready to go mattered, you always either had enough time without the robots OR the robots wouldn't have been enough anyway, and I'm kinda huh?
I think these people are insane - or rather, the decision is insane and so are the incentives that are in place around such decisions. And having done this will doubtless backfire in various ways.
Good catch. Looks like the overrule is on the narrow frontline issue and she's going to align with the FDA.
Would have been great if she'd gone for the correct answer, but at least now we know where we're at.
I'd say that even if doctors are not competent we still don't need an FDA that bans things, at most we need an FDA that evaluates strength of evidence for safety and efficacy and which competes with private firms doing the same.
My heuristic for this at this point (without going into the evidence I'm using): Natural infection counts as something like +2 vaccine doses. So if you're infected but not vaccinated it's as good or somewhat better than 2-dose mRNA, and if you're vaccinated plus infected you're effectively immune.
The issue, as I've mentioned, is that a lot of people are wrong about whether they've been infected, in both directions, or would claim it if it was helpful, so it's hard to use it as a criteria officially. On a personal level, yeah, big game.
I don't, sorry.
Does this mean I need to always use snipping tool rather than copy image, or will that somehow also not work?
I'm not the one who maintains the sequence, I forget who does do it but the mods should be able to add this one. Likely issue is that this came out on a Friday.