“This creates a pressure for all people to always notify their friends whenever there’s been a dangerous event near them, even if the odds of them being involved were miniscule. This is a clear waste of time and attention, and the feature was removed the feature continues to be a piece of security theatre in our lives.”
that’s not how it was solved to equilibrium in my social environment. most people ignore those. from time to time someone use it and i think it’s weird and wonder why.
“In my life, even if 90% of the people around have the idea, when I’m not confident that 100% do then I often explain the basic idea for everyone. This often costs a lot of time”
when i started to read this post, it start with very basic things, that i expect anyone who read it already to know. and i thought—do the author plan to link it outside of LessWrong? why else would he start with such waste of time? then i come to this part of the post, and saw the explanation.
i think the calculation here is obviously on the side of “don’t explain, it’s net-negative”. even in real life it’s look to me like it better to go forward and explain only if someone ask or signal they didn’t understand some other way. but in the interment? when you can just link? i really don’t understand—what calculation produce the result that it’s better to write all the things, including things i learned when i was 10 years old? it is costing a lot of time, indeed. so why?
also, i’m not sure about the wrongness of the feeling that it should be simple. are you sure it never was simple? we had the shared news thing and broke it, but, it wasn’t created with great and delivered effort. i don’t have model here, and i think there is at least two possible interpretations here, and in one of them, it’s possible for it to be easy. (i plan to think of that more, probably after i will read inadequate equilibrium)
“This creates a pressure for all people to always notify their friends whenever there’s been a dangerous event near them, even if the odds of them being involved were miniscule. This is a clear waste of time and attention,
and the feature was removedthe feature continues to be a piece of security theatre in our lives.”that’s not how it was solved to equilibrium in my social environment. most people ignore those. from time to time someone use it and i think it’s weird and wonder why.
“In my life, even if 90% of the people around have the idea, when I’m not confident that 100% do then I often explain the basic idea for everyone. This often costs a lot of time”
when i started to read this post, it start with very basic things, that i expect anyone who read it already to know. and i thought—do the author plan to link it outside of LessWrong? why else would he start with such waste of time? then i come to this part of the post, and saw the explanation.
i think the calculation here is obviously on the side of “don’t explain, it’s net-negative”. even in real life it’s look to me like it better to go forward and explain only if someone ask or signal they didn’t understand some other way. but in the interment? when you can just link? i really don’t understand—what calculation produce the result that it’s better to write all the things, including things i learned when i was 10 years old? it is costing a lot of time, indeed. so why?
also, i’m not sure about the wrongness of the feeling that it should be simple. are you sure it never was simple? we had the shared news thing and broke it, but, it wasn’t created with great and delivered effort. i don’t have model here, and i think there is at least two possible interpretations here, and in one of them, it’s possible for it to be easy. (i plan to think of that more, probably after i will read inadequate equilibrium)