MathWizard
Good things are good
No bio...
User ID: 164
MathWizard
Good things are good
3d ago
Yeah. Trump's MO is usually to say exaggerated things and demand the moon to start from a strong negotiating position and then either get concessions and compromises for the things he actually wants, or at least have someone to point the finger at when he and his supporters don't get what they want.
My guess is this is mostly just because Trudeau is left-aligned so Trump wants to make him beg and plead to please not do this and then Trump will not do this (because he was never really intending to) but either get some sort of concessions out of it or just make himself look strong and Trudeau look weak.
MathWizard
Good things are good
4d ago
So, when we are trying to decide who the liars are, it seems likely that Trump and Vance were speaking closer to the truth, even if the specifics were off, than everyone else...
That's generally my impression of Trump and the Maga phenomenon in general. Most of what they say is technically false, but an exaggerated version of something true and important. The Truth is 1, Trump says 2, his supporters say 3, and the Democrats/media say -3.
You can't literally take them at their word, but as tentative allies we might make some progress in that direction, which is better than the opposite.
MathWizard
Good things are good
9d ago
Coverage mandates may be another issue. The government mandates coverage for treatment x, which adds $y to the premium. How many consumers, when fully informed, would a priori actually be willing to pay an extra $y per year for x to be covered?
I think this is part of what I mean about it being mandatory. It's not just that the government forces you and/or employers to buy some sort of insurance, but also that insurance has to have certain properties, which if applied universally across all of them prevents competition by undercutting.
So perhaps the analogy would be if all foods sold must contain at least 2% caviar by weight. The store is going to sell potatoes for $10 per pound because they have to in order to cover the costs of the caviar that comes with it, and they can't be undercut because all the other stores have similar prices for the same reason. Maybe I decide to forgo potatoes and buy carrots instead, but those come with caviar too. It's only 2% of your diet, but it ends up being a much larger percent of your budget.
I do agree with your other points about things contributing to the cause. Lack of price transparency is also an issue (although the latter is tied to the role insurance companies paid, since they're the ones paying rather than customers, leading to principal agent problems). But if it was normal for the majority of people to not have health insurance then there would be strong pressures for more transparent prices and I think that issue would resolve itself.
Regulations requiring overly limited medical degrees is also an issue that this would not resolve. Although is similarly the government's fault.
MathWizard
Good things are good
11d ago
"Convincing" is a subjective property, a function that varies based on the listener, as opposed to something like "correct" which is mostly objective. I certainly find it convincing, but if people are not convinced by it then tautologically it's not convincing.
MathWizard
Good things are good
11d ago
Part of this might also just be typical mind fallacy. I was a weird introvert who liked reading books and playing videogames more than going out partying with friends. I never even befriended party friend people anyway because they didn't like me and I didn't like them. I never did drugs as a kid, I never had sex as a kid, I never drank as a kid, and I considered myself morally and intellectually superior to all the degenerates who did.
I had issues, got into fights, got in trouble, but typically it was either spats with my brothers when they annoyed me or I annoyed them, or being lazy and then getting angry and lashing out when I had to do boring, time consuming, and unfulfilling things like clean my room or waste hours going to a museum that could have been spent reading or playing videogames.
I would be great at raising a kid who was exactly like kid me. I know me, I understand me, I'm pretty introspective and, above all, I really really like me and respect me and my values. And I think I would emphasize and know how to explain the importance of things that little clone me wouldn't want to do. I would be able to explain game theory way earlier which would make social things make so much more sense to little me's brain.
I would have absolutely now idea how to raise an extrovert, or a sports jock, or a depressed goth, or a slut. My explanation for why not to do drugs is because "drugs mess with the health and integrity of your body, and they're expensive, and don't accomplish anything you can't get from videogames, and worst of all, you'd have to hang out with the kinds of icky people who do illegal drugs, and you're better than them." And a lot of people would not find that convincing and in fact might rebel harder because it makes me sound like a jerk. But it's how I convinced myself. And while I'm confident on illegal drugs, I'm not sure how to handle other things like sports. What if my kid wants to play football? Football is stupid and gives you head injuries, also the equipment is expensive, but everything has tradeoffs. How can I tell how important that is in comparison to the potential positive value (both extrinsic as a form of exercise and financial opportunities if they're good, and intrinsic via letting them do a thing they enjoy), when my own valuation for it is negative. It seems stupid and boring and pointless to me even without any injury risk, but obviously a kid asking to do it doesn't see it the same way and I don't know how to evaluate that. My instinctive response is "don't play football, it's stupid" and I can't disentangle all of the legitimate reasons from my instinctive gut response.
I think a lot of the "not knowing what it's like to be a kid" is actually typical mind fallacy in disguise. There are lots of different types of kids, and each parent was only one of them. If they think that's how kids are then they won't understand when their kid diverges from that, and the reasons in their own head that convinced them to not be that way won't be convincing to their kid.
MathWizard
Good things are good
11d ago
That's merely the distinction between why they think it's wrong in the first place, not the harm reduction variable.
That is, a general form of the "Harm Reduction" argument says that if thing A is bad because it leads to bad outcomes, then a decriminalized harm reduction environment where it can be done more safely with fewer negative outcomes is good because, although the thing is still bad, it's less bad here and they were going to do it anyway.
The tradeoff is that you are implicitly endorsing the behavior in exchange for this harm reduction. This argument doesn't really depend on the type of harm involved. If someone is being non-consensually harmed by DV, and this is extra bad, then the harm reduction is even more good, and the implicit endorsement and incentives are more bad, and presumably these are proportional so it should still be worthwhile or not for the same reasons as with drug use.
I suppose you could try to make specific mathematical arguments about the tradeoff values where harm reduction facilities for DV would be less effective at reducing harm and more legitimizing to DV such that the net effect would flip signs for this but not for drugs, but we've never tried it before, nobody has that data, and nobody who advocates for harm reduction for drugs seems to do any math or acknowledge tradeoffs in the first place.
MathWizard
Good things are good
11d ago
Mutual insurance already exists! Some of the biggest insurance companies of today started as mutuals, I think Liberty still is one.
I am immediately suspicious. Because if so why do they have so many ads? If they're not profit-driven, that seems negative sum.
MathWizard
Good things are good
12d ago
Is there some clever way that someone could make blockchain insurance? Like, a decentralized, transparent, nonprofit system where everyone pools money (probably in the form of some cryptocurrency) together, and then when someone makes a claim there's an algorithm to decide whether it's legitimate and how much money it should pay out (possibly variable depending on how much free money is in the system due to the frequency of past claims).
Legally and practically I don't think you could do this with health insurance due to patient confidentiality issues. But maybe for auto-insurance or homeowners insurance or something? Or if there's a mechanism to anonymize medical records prior to submission. And I've pretty much handwaved away the hard part which would be deciding which claims are legitimate to prevent bad-faith exploitation. But is that solvable? And would this actually be usable if it worked? The goal would be to remove the profit motive from insurance companies taking a cut as middlemen, as well as the adversarial relationship between them and both healthcare providers and patients. I suppose a mostly traditionally run but non-profit insurance company would have some of the benefits, but even those have some potential for corruption, and I'm wondering if a transparent and user-run blockchain thing would clear that.
MathWizard
Good things are good
12d ago
I agree with your opinions regarding violence. However I think the issue with insurance is when it becomes mandatory or defacto mandatory, because then you lose proper economic controls on the price via supply and demand. Demand for car insurance is artificially inflated by it being literally illegal to drive a vehicle without it. Demand for health insurance is artificially inflated by regulations requiring companies to provide it to employees, and tax penalties for private individuals who don't have any. Therefore, prices artificially inflate. (Similarly, healthcare prices are artificially inflated by regulations requiring severely limited-supply medical degrees).
Now, these regulations exist for reasons, but that doesn't undo the economic damage this causes to people. And then all the perverse incentives with their battles against healthcare providers and customers creates tons of paperwork and principal agent problems. I am wholeheartedly convinced that the existence of insurance companies and their role in our society is uniquely responsible for healthcare prices in the U.S. Now, this isn't necessarily the fault of the CEOs, it's really the politicians who created this niche, but I definitely understand the anger people have for them.
Theoretically insurance could be a useful and legitimate service. But that requires it be voluntary so that people can choose of their own free will whether they think it's worth the cost or not, which in turn forces companies to provide a product worth paying for. Just like with every other good and service. The current system is extortion with extra steps.
MathWizard
Good things are good
17d ago
Anyone have a good source on the false-conviction AND false-acquittal rates in the U.S. justice system? It's not especially important, I was just rewatching 12 angry men and was curious about it. Some quick googling says the false-conviction rate is estimated somewhere around 4% to 15%, but any attempts to find false-acquittal rates just talks about false-conviction rates. I understand that in practice that would be extremely hard to measure, because when somebody gets a not-guilty verdict and then new evidence comes out the government can't relitigate and then find them guilty in the same way they can for a false conviction. But informally you could still try to get a ballpark guess. Is it on the order of 4-15% also? 50%? 90%? Do we have any idea what fraction of people who actually committed a crime and choose to go to trial instead of plea-bargaining end up getting lucky and going free anyway?
MathWizard
Good things are good
18d ago
Holy crap I just realized I'm in a sportsless filter bubble. I have literally never had a holiday discussion regarding the outcome of sports games. None of my immediate family care much about sports. My dad sometimes watches football, but mostly casually, and none of the rest of us do so what would there be a discussion about. And my extended family also don't watch sports except maybe occasionally. And I suppose this is strongly correlated, because the fact that my grandpa didn't care about sports influenced his children to not care about sports so it makes sense that all of them collectively don't care, which in turn is a component of why I don't care.
But also I spent several thanksgivings at a friend's extended family when I was away at college, and they didn't talk about sports. But my friend was a big nerd, nonrandomly because he was friends with me.
But also I recently got married and none of my in-laws care about sports. Again, this is non-random because I married a big nerd and while her family are not exclusively nerds, they're not sports people.
To be clear, there are a lot of things they talk about on the more normie side that I don't really care about: tractors and hunting and broadway and dogs. But sports is not on the menu, and I never really considered that this wasn't just luck, but also indirect correlations: non-sports people are more likely to be relatives of non-sports people.
MathWizard
Good things are good
19d ago
That doesn't sound like the sort of position Scott would hold or endorse. I could be wrong though. I'm reading it more along the lines of his UBI post where he argues that because modern society has created all of these artificial restrictions in exchange for massive productivity increases, we owe a share of that to the people modern society has disadvantaged via this bargain. Just in this case its forgiveness/charity/social-services rather than cash.
MathWizard
Good things are good
24d ago
This seems heavily confounded about the fact that honest people will communicate their brilliance in honest ways and use it towards pro-social ends, ie publishing scientific papers or teaching people, or just explaining their thoughts and intentions openly when queried. Meanwhile, brilliant but dishonest people will hide their brilliance and use it to gain power and wealth in sneaky ways. There are lots of politicians and high-level bureaucrats that are really really good at political manipulations, which requires a certain type of intelligence, even if they appear stupid when talking about object-level policies. Leaders of cults or Backscratcher Clubs are going to be very intelligent and also dishonest. There are brilliant lawyers and CEOs and investment bankers who make tons of money and keep their secrets to themselves because the more people know what they know the less advantage their intelligence gives them. Literally anyone dealing with zero-sum interactions has an incentive to be smarter than the people around them, meaning to not broadcast their intelligence, and to deceive the people around them into doing the wrong thing so they can be exploited.
People at the extremes of rational/scientific/autistic intelligence are honest, because the thing that distinguishes this type of intelligence from the sneaker manipulative type of intelligence is the focus on truth and objectivity. The former is often the stereotype people think of when they think of intelligence, but if you define it this way then the connection between intelligence and honesty becomes tautological. If instead you define intelligence as the ability to perform cognitive labor and/or solve problems required to achieve one's goals then we notice this large class of anti-social and dishonest but very intelligent and successful people doing things that pay more than science does.
MathWizard
Good things are good
24d ago
What's your point? Because in the real world we observe a lot of overly woke games and movies that just flop and lose a lot of money. And we see some that make money also. It's usually when they take a pre-existing franchise that has built an audience that likes what it already was and then change it to be more woke that, although might appeal more to more progressive audiences, annoys the existing audience and then makes way less money than a faithful continuation would have.
You can't explain this by just claiming they're flattering the politics of the audience for monetary gain. They're literally doing the opposite on both counts.
MathWizard
Good things are good
27d ago
This. I think "don't ask don't tell" is an excellent policy that needs to be the norm in the entire culture. If I am not in or considering a romantic/sexual relationship with you, then I don't need to know about your weird fetishes, and you don't need to know about mine. Even if it's not weird, even if a straight man just really likes tits, I don't need to hear him announcing it and going on about it in public and making it his entire identity. It's tacky. Keep it to yourself, or talk about it in private with your close friends.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1mo ago
Fine. It sounds like we don't disagree about any object level issues, just the meaning of certain words and phrases. I don't think what you said originally properly conveys the nuance of what you're saying now, but I understand you now and I don't disagree.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1mo ago
Sure, but my example is basically a disproof by counterexample. In this example, prices don't match utility, therefore, the statement "prices always match utility" is logically false. It's really easy to disprove an "always" statement with a single example, even a hypothetical one, because an "always" statement is such a strong claim that it's almost never true. Utility value and market value are different things: sometimes they will be equal, sometimes they will not. I'm not saying they're never equal, I'm not saying they won't usually be close, especially in an efficient market. My point is that markets in the real world are not always efficient, therefore the two values are not always equal in the real world. This should not be controversial.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1mo ago
In a perfectly efficient market, this would be the case. But it's easily disproven in practice by the fact that market prices can change by effects which have absolutely no impact on the utility value.
Ie, suppose we have a city with a bunch of plumbers, all of equal plumbing skill/ability, and a company that hires them and manages their distribution to clients, and pays between $80k and $120k depending on how skilled and aggressive the plumber is at negotiating (aggressive meaning they demonstrate an ability/willingness to quit and do a different job instead if they don't get the salary they want). We've assumed by axiom that they provide the same value, and yet get paid different amounts, let's assume the frequency is evenly distributed across this range, such that the average plumber is paid $100k. I suppose you could say that the "utility value" is the highest the company is willing to pay, $120k, and anyone being paid less is simply a bad negotiator, but I'm not sure if you'd say the "market value" is $120k given that most of the plumbers aren't earning that, and a new plumber entering the field is unlikely to get an offer that high.
Suppose then that the plumbers unionize and negotiate that all of them will receive the same pay of $110k. That's now the market value, unambiguously, that's what the market, as created by this single local monopolistic company (which is the only company offering reliable and consistent pay for plumbers in this city) and this one union (which all employees of the company must join) will pay. And yet the utility value of plumbing has not changed, because the union doesn't impact plumbing skill/ability in any way.
Suppose that the company actually takes in revenue of $140k for each plumbing employee it has, and keeps the difference as overhead/profit. There's a sense in which the utility value of a plumber is actually $140k since that's what clients are willing to pay, although if the overhead is necessary then I suppose the utility of the plumber themself is lessened by that. However if a plumbing emergency happens and the company gets a lot more business, earning $150k per employee one year, but takes the extra as profit and changes no salaries, then the utility value of plumbers goes up that year, the market price (from the client and owner's side) goes up, but the market price (from the employees side) remains unchanged.
And suppose that the employer uses local regulations, an army of lawyers, and relationships with local politicians to crush any new plumbers that try to form their own company or go independent in this area. It is not a free market, it is effectively a local monopoly. If you want to be a plumber, you negotiate here, or you leave the city and pay whatever transition costs it takes to uproot your life and your family and be a plumber somewhere else. The fact that this changes market prices but doesn't change the utility value of plumbers should clearly demonstrate that market prices are distinct from utility prices, even if an ideal perfectly efficient and free market would cause them to be equal. In practice, no market is perfectly free, therefore we should expect deviations in precisely the areas where these imperfections drive them apart.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1mo ago
I don't think I agree. If I saw a similar-looking meme from the right when Biden had taken office I would have cringed. There's a joke there, it's a tiny bit funnier than one of those braindead and overly-labeled political comics you'd see in a newspaper, but barely. It's a step in the right direction, but it's lacking....heart? authenticity?
Truth. It's lacking the "it's-funny-because-it's-true" bit. And I suppose 50% of that is simply me not agreeing with the substance, but 50% of that is just pure made up. Like, even for a left-winger who does believe Trump is authoritarian and is sympathetic to the other dictators, I don't think any of them genuinely believe he is going to join them and have the U.S. declare war on Ukraine. And also South Korea, and Taiwan for some reason. Who thinks Trump is pro-China???
Again, if the right had made a meme about the U.S. bombing Taiwan in 2020 because of the Biden-China connections, I would have cringed. This is not a good meme.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1mo ago
I am absolutely not blue tribe, and never have been, this does not describe me. I grew up with Christian Republican parents, got a hunting license at 12 years old, I hate cities, am highly skeptical of big government and redistributive policies, and think the majority of social problems are best solved by self control and personal responsibility, or failing that, ruthless law enforcement. My grandparents on both sides are rednecks and they are wonderful and kind people who I adore. But I personally would rather spend my day on my computer than outdoors on a pickup truck, and I think the Republicans are equally braindead as the Democrats, just less trigger-happy about their stupid plans. I suppose you could define me as "a particular disaffected part of the red tribe", but then you have to explain why I have more in common with the other blue-grey people than I do with the pure red people. I think lots of the right-leaning Mottizens have similar cultural leanings. Some of them are disaffected blue tribe, but others came from Red. But most of us don't fit in nicely with either.
Even if you don't think "gray tribe" is the best way to describe it, there's clearly some real thing that the term is pointing to, something that bridges the gap between Red and Blue.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1mo ago
They are increasing functions with respect to each other, but the effect is nonlinear. That is, if you make twice as many pizzas, people will generally be more happy, but less than twice as happy. You can only physically eat so much pizza, you only like pizza so much, and there are a bunch of things you care about that aren't food.
So first, let's construct scenarios where material productivity increases but utility decreases utility, starting with unambiguous but somewhat contrived and trivial ways that form a proof by example, and gradually transition into more sophisticated but debatable examples
-A bakery that produces 10 pizzas per day and serves them to customers, VS a bakery that produces 100 pizzas per day and shunts them off to a warehouse to rot. (Utility is derived via consumption, not production)
-A bakery that produces 10 pizzas per day and serves them to hungry poor people, VS a bakery that produces 100 pizzas per day and sends them all to the penthouse suite of a single really fat rich person who eats them all himself. (Utility per pizza is higher the fewer you already have)
-A bakery that produces 10 pizzas per day using the labor of 1 person working for 2 hours, who then goes home to his family and kids afterwards, VS a bakery that produces 11 pizzas per day using the labor of 1 person working for 16 hours, who goes home exhausted with most of his day gone. (Total output has gone up, but the cost has gone up more, so efficiency is lower)
-A bakery that produces 10 pizzas per day using the labor of 1 person working for 2 hours, who then goes home to his family and kids afterwards, VS a bakery that produces 80 pizzas per day using the labor of 1 person working for 16 hours every single day, who goes home exhausted with most of his day gone. (Pizza:labor efficiency is equal, but TIME also has nonlinear utility, so the quality of life for the worker has decreased even if he gets paid 8 times as much)
-A bakery that produces 10 pizzas per day using the labor of 1 person working for 2 hours, VS A bakery that produces pizzas with literally no labor or ingredient cost, but the pizzas somehow mess with their consumer's brains such that they to lose the ability to experience happiness ever again. (Obviously the most contrived example, but hopefully clearly pointing out the distinction).
The point being, that although all else being equal, more material production on its own is strictly superior to less material production for the same costs, all else is rarely equal. Therefore, increases in material production should be correlated with but distinct from actual utility. The biggest counterexample is the industrial revolution. Material production has, in reality, increased 100x. The wellbeing and happiness and prosperity of people has not increased 100x. It's gone up, for sure. But some things have gotten worse to compensate, and most things just have improved by less than a factor of 100x. The amount of joy you get from looking at art is less than a hundred times better than it was in the past. The enjoyability of food is less than a hundred times better. The amount of value you get from socialization is less than a hundred times more. Oh sure, you have access to a hundred times as much art, or food, or social connections via the internet, but you can't actually convert that into internal value, utility, at anywhere near perfect efficiency because you have bottlenecks based on time and biology and psychology. This is why Bill Gates isn't running around being thousands of times happier than everyone else: it doesn't work that way.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1mo ago
and therefore it's not clear that another 100x increase in utility will make it any different.
I'm going to nitpick just the word choice here. Material goods are NOT utility. Utility is actual internal value: happiness/wellbeing/fulfillment/life-satisfaction etc. The endgoal of desirability/morality. By definition, a 100x increase in utility results in a world that is 100x better for everyone. However utility suffers from massive diminishing returns as a function of material goods, as Yudkowsky shows. A 100x increase in material productivity does not result in a 100x increase in utility.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1mo ago
I actually think the no special resources is a point in Nauvis' favor for the main ground base, because it means the core miners give an even distribution of resources instead of overloading you with one thing for export (which is what I want my mining outposts to do, not the main base). But the gravity and biters are points against it. I chose it anyway and tolerated the downsides partly for sentimental reasons, since all my pre-space stuff was already there, but mostly for the respawn. If I make spare space suits for each planet then I can return home by stripping all my stuff, sticking it in a warehouse, and then suiciding and respawning on Nauvis. Makes it way easier to go exploring and building outposts if I don't have to budget for a return trip. I could be mistaken, but I don't think you can do that effectively with other planets, since if I recall correctly, the respawn options are something like (Nauvis, nearest space station, nearest occupied planet) or something like that, which will only work reliably if your chosen base is near (or you have shuttles from Nauvis to the new base I guess).
MathWizard
Good things are good
1mo ago
SE logistics gets a lot simpler once you get antimatter since you can make a minimalist shuttle design, copy/paste it a bunch of times, and then send them back and forth like super large expensive trains. (technically you can do this with rocket fueled shuttles, but then you have to worry about producing and refueling and having enough fuel capacity to get there and back). But that's late enough to unlock that you've already spent a few hundred hours dealing with the more complicated and expensive. methods.
I actually haven't played SA yet because I'm still in the middle of Pyanodon and am not allowing Factorio to update and break my mods. But I am very excited for what happens when some of the mod people take the new infrastructure and ideas in SA and then combine them with their crazy mod expansions.
I don't think I mind the mythologizing all that much. There were a lot of brave people who helped slaves before and during the civil war, they deserve credit. As long as it's directionally true (Harriet Tubman did actually help slaves), I don't mind her being a stand-in for the credit that they deserve.
What I do object to is attempts to elevate her beyond that, especially in the role of a political leader, which she was not. Andrew Jackson was the President of the United States. He's on our money because we put Presidents on money (And Benjamin Franklin, because he was important in founding the nation). All of the leaders in Civ games are Presidents, Kings, Chiefs, etc: actual historical rulers, because you as the player are making the decisions controlling your nation. Harriet Tubman was not. Every single thing she said could be true and she still wouldn't belong on money or in Civ because, despite being a good person, she wasn't actually a political leader. It's a category error.
More options
Context Copy link