@Grauwacht's banner p

Grauwacht


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 08:18:32 UTC

				

User ID: 831

Grauwacht


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 08:18:32 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 831

“A reporter filed a FOIA request for correspondence between authors and reviewers of the article and found that the study did see a survival benefit with racial concordance between physician and patient, however it was only with white infants and physicians. They removed lines in the paper *stating that it does not fit the narrative that they sought to publish with the study.”

How does this fit together with this:

(explanation: white physicians have more training and take care of sicker babies who have worse outcomes)

If white physicians get sicker white babies as well, they should do better on average with black physicians as well, no? Or did they account for birth weight?

My main gripe with current day models is their lack of consistency. On the one hand, they can do very impressive things that save me hours of work, on the other, they can fuck things up in simple ways and it costs me hours of work to fix it. I was using Claude to program a scene in Godot and the file was showing a parsing error at line 1. I let him try to fix it multiple times, started new chats, etc. Then I just looked at the file, noticed a comment in line 1 starting with # and thought "maybe that's not allowed". I took the comment away and the file was fixed. It's insanely frustrating when the AI fucks up such a simple thing. The main benefit of AI is that you can just let it rip and create something without knowing what you are doing. If I have to check the code all the time for fuckups, it really drags on productivity.

I'm only slightly embarrassed to admit that I based my opinion on this ChatGPT answer:

Quantum mechanics (QM) underpins much of modern technology, especially in semiconductors, computers, and electronics. Here’s how:

  1. Semiconductors & Transistors Transistors, the building blocks of computers, rely on quantum effects like electron band gaps in semiconductors. Quantum tunneling and electron energy levels determine how silicon chips function, enabling microprocessors and memory storage.
  2. Lasers & LEDs Lasers work because of stimulated emission, a QM principle where electrons in atoms jump between energy levels. LEDs (light-emitting diodes) rely on QM to convert electrical energy into light efficiently.
  3. Computers & Microelectronics Quantum mechanics dictates how electrons move in circuits, affecting everything from chip design to data storage (like flash memory). Modern processor fabrication (like Intel’s 7nm and 3nm chips) requires quantum tunneling models to control electron behavior at microscopic scales.
  4. Magnetic Storage (Hard Drives & MRI) Quantum mechanics enables Giant Magnetoresistance (GMR), a phenomenon used in hard drives to read data from magnetic disks. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) exploits nuclear spin states, a QM property, to create detailed images of the body.
  5. Quantum Computing (Future Impact) Unlike classical bits (0 or 1), quantum bits (qubits) use superposition and entanglement to process information in new ways. This could revolutionize fields like cryptography, AI, and simulations for materials science. So, while QM started as abstract math in the early 20th century, it now drives the technology behind modern life.

Who is funding fundamental research into topics like quantum mechanics that don't yield an immediate benefit but is still highly useful for society? The private sector probably wouldn't fund this research because the benefits accrue to a lot of competitors as well. Citizen-scientists can't fund it.

I think we should accept that there are degrees that are primarily conspicuous leisure. Philosophy, literature, history - they are qualitatively different from STEM degrees or BA/Marketing/Accounting/Finance/Law.

I would add all of the Social Sciences to the list. Pretty much all papers I read leave me with the thought "that's nice to know" and not "this will change how we do things and generate all sorts of positive effects in practice". I'd really like to know how many Social Science papers had any large positive impact on any policy. I would guess it's a small minority and if we stopped doing it altogether, almost nothing of practical value would be lost.

Watch the bartender make it. Emie says girls were taught to keep their hand over the top of their drinks at parties.

Always remember girls, put a hand on top of your drinks so nobody smuggles any rape drugs into your rape drugs.

I don't have a strong position on whether the whole thing is a good deal or not. My problem is with the way the article communicates costs by pretending that providing an interest-reduced loan isn't costly in any way. Instead, what I would expect from a supposedly neutral state media outlet is that they present the pros and cons of this policy in a neutral and factual manner.

I wrote a short post about the reactions to 1. the collapse of a bridge in Germany due to poor maintenance and 2. the fact that Germany currently subsidizes the Indian metro. Contrasting the reactions of rightist cavemen on social media and leftist state media, I come to the conclusion that despite the fact that the state media is more accurate on the facts, their skewed politicized interpretation of the facts leaves the cavemen better off not reading the state media. Basically, the cavemen believe that Germany subsidizes the Indian metro to the tune of 100M€ and the state media counters that not a single cent of tax €s was send to India because the money was paid as an interest-reduced loan. I show why this argument is flawed and how we could have used a simple loan scheme to finance the maintenance of our bridges instead of funding the Indian metro, while taking on an equivalent risk exposure.

https://grauwacht.substack.com/p/midwit-media

Currently, computers are better at chess than humans. Still, nobody wants to watch the computer world championship and many people want to watch the human world championship. In some jobs it's not just about being better. Maybe more such jobs will exist in the future?

you can no longer accuse a man of rape if you willingly spend time with him alone

I was with you for the power analysis but this is just unhinged. It's not that hard not to rape a woman, even if you are alone with her and you have a lot of vitality.

That list of people seems pretty based. I must admit, I don't understand the Guardians argument here. Does Lightcone have to pay back the money because they invited bad people or because the money was sent fraudulently? If it's the former: lol, if it's the latter: Why even talk about the bad people for 90% of the article? I mean, imagine they were a pro social justice foundation or whatever. Would this mean that they shouldn't pay back the fraud money?

Well, I don't see much of a KKK around these days.

The original law seems overly broad anyways. Why shouldn't I generally be allowed to conceal myself, as long as I'm not doing anything wrong? This kind of overly broad suspicion against the public is a sign of sick, low-trust society. Why not construct the law the other way around? Mask wearing is allowed unless committing a crime, being on a protest, etc.

This has got to be one of the most pointlessly evil bills ever. And I say this as someone who is very much not vegetarian.

You WILL kill ze pig. You WILL kill ze chicken. You WILL kill ze cattle. And you WILL be happy.

It would be interesting to see how people would respond if you asked them would you rather be stuck in a forest with a bear or a black man. Would the fear of being thought of as a racist overcome the fear of men?

This is precisely the correct question. I would guess that this would lower the amount of women who would choose the bear. This would prove that all of this has nothing to do with statistics on danger and everything to do with projecting a desired image of yourself. In my experience, this is how women usually communicate. Usually, they are not trying to communicate some objective fact about the world, but rather to send a signal about themselves.

My point here isn't "Russia Good Actually" but that Western states very often are extraordinarily repressive, at least by the standards of the United States (but not so much by the standards of the world as a whole). There's an idea that because Western nations generally have some form of democratic government they don't repress minority groups, and I don't think that's true at all.

That's true, but the extend of the repression is simply not comparable between the West and Russia. If you are an influential person who opposes the status quo in Germany, you may have trouble getting a bank account, the media may lie about you, other parties may not want to cooperate with you, you may get expelled from the country if you are a foreign national, and the other parties may try to ban you. You can also go to jail if you express certain opinions, but this is relatively easy to avoid and doesn't hamper your political action much. This is all very bad. Conversely, if you are an influential person who opposes the status quo in Russia, you will get assassinated or put in the Gulag. Sometimes both. Further, the range of not expressible opinions is broad with unclear boundaries. Real opposition parties don't exist and elections are faked anyways.

I find it odd that you have a very similar ranking of the FromSoft titles with Sekiro on top, yet you still disagree with my point. In my view, Sekiro is the best title in part because it is so tight. There is a limited amount you can do in terms of grinding to defeat the bosses. So you just have to... uh... git gud. In contrast, in Elden Ring you can basically make the game as easy or as hard as you want by using ashes or meta builds. This makes the game more accessible in the same way that a dedicated easy mode would have made it more accessible. At the same time, it creates the risk of having overtuned bosses like Malenia. You couldn't have a Malenia type boss in Sekiro because almost nobody would beat it. So it is exactly the tightness, that a bounded difficulty level brings, that may have made Sekiro the better game.

Full agreement on the second paragraph. Comparison with others is part of the enjoyment for some people.

Sure, the flanderization of Dark Souls is bad. Sure, some people have dumb opinions and justify it with git gud. I wouldn't blame it on the lack of easy mode though.

I am generally against taking an established franchise to a completely new direction that alienates many of it's old fans, whether that be adding an easy mode or making it insanely hard. Therefore, I would reject it on these grounds. A better example would be creating a new franchise that is so hard that I can't beat it. I am perfectly fine with this shrug

Becoming fluent in another language as an adult is an achievement that not everyone can do though. On the other hand, nobody is proud of learning their mother language because it's expected. It seems to me that this supports my argument. I am not arguing that pride comes solely from comparison with others, just that if basically everyone can do something, it's hard to be proud of doing that thing.

I don't think most people can cook that well. Everyone can put a frozen pizza in the oven or cook Ramen. But you wouldn't be proud of that. Are you sure that your sense of pride is completely independent of your environment? I would guess that you would feel somewhat less proud if everyone else was a 3* chief. Then, being proud of what would be considered a moderately complex dish today would be equivalent to being proud of cooking Ramen.

Some games I remember as at least reasonably difficult (>=6/10): Ninja Gaiden series, Castlevania series, Mega Man series, early Zelda titles, early Mario titles, Mickey Mania, Gothic I-II(NotR), Mafia, System Shock 2. These are all proper games without an insane amount of artificial difficulty. It feels like most modern games on "normal" are like 3/10 at most. I think you are missing one important reason for why games are less difficult today: The market is much broader, implying that the average skill level is much lower.

If your sense of pride in your own accomplishments depends on others not being able to do it, that reflects pretty poorly on you.

Can you give me an example of something that you are proud of, that everyone else can also do? The only stuff I can think of would be a depressed person managing to get out of bed in the morning and cleaning their trash or something. But what about everyone else?

Is it not better to have a clear win condition, so you don't even need to have the argument about what counts as winning?

Yes, I realize that some people consider using ashes in Elden Ring as cheating. Clarity is a matter of degree. I have, for example, never heard anyone complaining about beating Sekiro in any semi-normal way as cheating. Btw. the Cuphead easy mode doesn't count because it doesn't let you advance in the game. That's why I put it into the list of "hard games".

I think there is good and bad victim blaming. Victim blaming means that there is some sort of self-protective behavior that you need to engage in, otherwise people will have less sympathy for your situation. It is bad if this self-protective behavior is unreasonable (walking through a park at daytime, taking the subway, never going out to party, taking self-defense classes, wearing a burka,...) or ineffective (drawing a blank here, is there any victim blaming that is entirely ineffective?).

It is good if the self-protective behavior can be expected and is effective. "Don't get blackout drunk.", "Don't lead a guy on, then deny him at the end.", "Don't go out to party alone.", "Don't go home with a guy you have just met, especially when you are drunk.", etc. These are all perfectly reasonable things that we can expect from anyone without restricting their freedom much. If they don't follow these rules, they are probably not mature enough to be drinking or having sex in the first place. Even under the best of circumstances, you should follow these rules because there are always bad people around.

Then there is another category of advice that isn't tied to victim blaming. It's just good advice like "Communicate openly what you consent to and what not", "If someone does something sexual you don't want, verbally and physically fight back, don't freeze up." Here, it would not necessarily reduce my sympathy for someone, who didn't follow this advice, but it's still good advice.

Mostly because I find the word very funny. But you are right, I shortened it to just "slop".

This seems pretty much correct and is a staple for all of modern identity politics. You never blame the oppressed group, always the oppressor. You don't blame Blacks for underachieving, cultivating violent norms of behavior, reproducing in an unconscientious manner, etc. You don't blame gays for their sexual behavior when contracting HIV. And you don't blame women for getting blackout drunk when they had an unwanted sexual encounter. The main point is to wrestle power away from the oppressor towards the oppressed, never the other way around. That is the main purpose of identity politics, not solving the individual problem. Otherwise, the focus would be to a significant degree on the things that are already in the power for the oppressed to do.