@ulyssessword's banner p

ulyssessword


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:37:14 UTC

				

User ID: 308

ulyssessword


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:37:14 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 308

then surely "let's put mentally ill drug addicts in rehab programs against their will so they don't piss or stab people on the subway" is back on the table?

That would be logical, but logic doesn't have much power in the culture wars. Have you seen any evidence that's actually the case?

I occasionally visit my parents for brunch.

How would you recommend I exercise my supposedly-increased freedom to travel without a car if I wanted to make a 100 km trip to a rural location that isn't on the route between two cities?

IIRC, some other country gives their failing students a grade of "6" and the myth started when someone didn't realize foreign standards were different and mistook his top grade for failure.

Is it really that bad that 25% of students get individualized coaching? The IQ spread between a student with an IQ of 70 and one with an IQ of 130+ is far too great to teach them together.

That explains five percentage points and assumes that half of "special education programs" are for gifted children.

If you want to map it to one tail of IQ, then 25% of students have <90 IQ. I don't think that the typical student with an IQ of 89 needs coaching, so something else is causing those numbers.

...it means I now receive less resources for the same amount...

...and therefore, anything outside of my monopoly is an infringement on my rights, and should be banned.


I'm mostly with MathWizard here. The treatment of sex violates those general rules. Unlike him, I can see a few reasons why they should be an exception, but I'm still not sure if they're sufficient reasons.

A line that stuck with me from https://thezvi.substack.com/ was something like:

Gary Marcus has transitioned from predicting that AI will never be able to do something and being proven wrong within months, to predicting that they will never be able to do things they can already do.

IIRC, it was about the release of o1, but Perplexity is pointing me here about GPT-4, which feels too early (Sept 2023).

And what actions does it take in pursuit of those goals?

It does not seem to me that positive change can be built on just flipping off all the bad people.

What do you think the justice system and police do? Sure, they sometimes reallocate some resources to victims, but the vast majority of their job is punishing bad people.

That comment is filtered.

here is its announcement for Nightly:

  • HTTP As the Exception: For a more secure web experience, we'll now display the HTTP protocol prominently, so you know when you're on a non-secure site, while HTTPS will be hidden to reduce clutter.

You can disable it with about:preferences -> browser.urlbar.trimURLs = false

While we're complaining about software, Mozilla made the most absurdly bad change to Firefox's UI a week or so ago.

They started hiding the https:// in the address bar until you click on it...then everything jumps half an inch to the right so the part of the URL you selected isn't under your mouse anymore. I have a recommendation for those designers.

Yes, that definitely counts. Those are superficially-positive positive ads that were run to damage the campaigns, which is exactly what I was thinking of.

I could critique things like writing a scifi story set a hundred years in the future where the state of the art in AI ignores how good ChatGPT was at the time of publication, but eh.

Are we going to start doing retrofuturism about how cute the predictions were in 2019 now?

Now I want to reread some of Robert J Sawyer's books. He wrote a few "day-after-tomorrow" science fiction stories in the early 21st century, and it would be interesting to see how well they've aged.

If you presented Pokemon like a text adventure game, Claude would have no problem winning.

Text adventure games exist. Has anyone tried pitting Claude against one?

We hand all political power in the US over to the blacks. As a white guy, you'll probably be forced to...

I know that black Americans are more racist have a stronger in-group bias than whites, but do you really think that's the most likely outcome given those premises?

That may be the worst graph I've seen recently. It's denominated in "Local Currency", which makes it look like 68342 USD is less than 73284 South African Rand. It isn't. The US is around 20x as rich, and had roughly 20x the growth rate.

Between "Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee" at the end and "Trump should forget about running his own ads and use his campaign money to run this ad instead." in the comments, I'm wondering about false-flag advertisements.

Is there a solid reason to avoid them? Has anyone ever been caught? By what enforcement mechanisms? It feels like they would be much more effective than traditional attack ads, so someone must have tried it.

just say the former process of granting citizenship was unconstitutional

Do you even need to go that far? As I understand it, they could simply say "Their citizenship was not guaranteed by the constitution, but it was not banned and we already chose to grant it"

The present-day field of "AI safety" does not have roots in the 2000s movement of the same name, nor does it share its concerns.

Present-day AI Safety can be pithily described as "making a chatbot that would never say it loved racism". The 2000s movement can be called AI NotKillEveryoneism to distinguish it from that (though the name never caught on for some reason).

I know they used a linear optimization program but I can't for the life of me determine its constraints.

From your link, see Thrifty Food Plan, 2021 Optimization Model (.zip) -> inputs/in_nutrient_constraints.csv

Their Vitamin D target is 15-100 (ug/day?) for men 20-50 years old, and I think TOCPHA is Vitamin E at 15-1000 (mg/day?). I suspect that they met their targets, without meeting your targets.

And it'll effectively be a 50% tariff if the Canadian government decides to "retaliate" (less cutting off its nose to spite the face, and more cutting off its head to spite the rest of its body): 25% on the way down for the raw resources, and 25% on finished goods on the way back.

Why stop at two tariff payments on the same materials? Raw aluminum goes to the States ( about $15B), then aluminum products come back to Canada ($4B), I'm sure some of that gets put into manufactured goods for the States, and...

I heard that it's much worse for the automobile industry, with semi-finished parts hopping back and forth several times.

EDIT: Seven times (including one from Mexico), to be precise.

The 1980 Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, signed by Jimmy Carter, gave judges the power to police themselves through an obfuscated multi-layer system where chief judges dismiss almost all the complaints and judicial councils choose confidential sanctions in most of the cases where they even admit wrongdoing occurred.

Then in 2008 the federal judges "reformed" themselves, which seems to have made things even worse. I have to look into this more, obviously a complicated issue.

Is it working?

Let's say that the appointment rate of bad judges stays constant over the centuries, but the enforcement mechanisms change. We could see:

  1. a bad judge makes a number of bad decisions (possibly just one) and retires without sanction after a full career. Zero impeachments but many bad decisions.
  2. a bad judge makes a number of bad decisions and is impeached. One impeachment.
  3. a bad judge makes a number of bad decisions and is referred to the committee and accepts their recommendation to resign. Zero impeachments.
  4. a bad judge gives off some warning signs without any substantive bad decisions and is referred to the committee and either accepts their recommendation to resign or reforms and becomes good. Zero impeachments and zero bad decisions.

All I can say after reading this is that we aren't in scenario #2. The tweet author is suggesting #1, but both #3 and #4 fit with the evidence presented.

If you already believed that, then you're ahead of the curve.

I don't think that "The field of science is anti-Trump" is nearly as accepted as "The field of journalism is anti-Trump", so it bears repeating.

You can certainly argue about the severity of their actions (including arguing that it's so trivial no punishment is warranted), but they did take those actions and do bear moral responsibility for them.

it will not be surprising that a) existing academics shift away from you

Why would anyone think that's surprising? I suppose a few people might believe that professional ethics and impartiality beats human nature and relationships, but I can't see that being a very common view.

I think it's bad that those supposedly-neutral institutions have taken up partisanship.

c) a feedback loop emerges where conservatives and academics increasingly view each other with hostility because the former (largely correctly) believe the latter don't share their values...

You think it's thoughts that the conservatives are opposed to? What happened to "parasitic and quite possibly degenerate" from earlier in the paragraph?

...and the latter (largely correctly) believe the former want to destroy them.

Where are the bulldozers? As far as I can tell, American conservative goals stop at tightening the public purse strings. If private donors want to fund it they can go right ahead.