Of course technique C doesn’t address the weasel example.
Have you considered using full thoughts… ooooh. What the hell is with all the trolls these days? :(
When did we switch from talking about utility to talking about power?
For the audience at home: That’s because out in “reality”, we can’t measure utilions, so we use things like power and money as proxies. In an ideal utopia with perfectly calibrated Utili-meters, this would not be as relevant.
Of course technique C doesn’t address the weasel example.
Have you considered using full thoughts… ooooh.
I’m not sure how to read this. I’m leaning towards, “I don’t have a counter argument so I’m going to resort to insults.”
To get back to the point, the problem with technique C is that it doesn’t address the case of adjusting test scores based on demographic priors, since the lowest utility (the people not accepted) is the same either way.
What the hell is with all the trolls these days?
You’re the one who just dropped the discussion to DH level 1 or 2.
You have a repeated pattern of not offering real responses: “Is this a parody?” “Is this?” being the biggest red flag I’ve encountered in this thread.
You are correct that I didn’t have a refutation, because “I don’t see how this ties in to the weasels” doesn’t give me enough information to try and resolve your confusion. In short, lately you seem to be putting near-zero effort in to your replies: you’re not attempting to explain your position, just offering pithy one-sentence objections that don’t seem to contribute anything.
Given you have 2K karma and a few +50 rated comments, I’m willing to assume you’ve just had a bad week and actually explain this, but I still see no point in actually continuing the conversation, since your replies are all “taxing” me the same way a troll does: you put in minimal effort, and force the other person to hold it all afloat.
You’re the one who just dropped the discussion to DH level 1 or 2.
It’s the very definition of skilled trolling, to force other people to spend paragraphs defending themselves while you resort to easily misinterpreted one-sentence replies that do nothing to advance actual discourse.
The idea that I must maintain quality discourse, or even that it’s more productive, is a trap that ends up with a bunch of well-fed trolls.
You have a repeated pattern of not offering real responses: “Is this a parody?” “Is this?” being the biggest red flag I’ve encountered in this thread.
It’s as real a response as the question it’s a response to and I give a substantive response to Nisan’s more substantive sentence.
You are correct that I didn’t have a refutation, because “I don’t see how this ties in to the weasels” doesn’t give me enough information to try and resolve your confusion.
You could give some indication of what addition information would help. Here are some possibilities:
1) You didn’t get what the weasels were referring to. Arguably I should have linked to this comment in the great-grandparent, but since the comment in question is yours, I assumed you’d get the reference.
2) You think the technique does in fact address the weasel example, in that case you could have said so as well as possibly how you think it applies.
Have you considered using full thoughts… ooooh. What the hell is with all the trolls these days? :(
For the audience at home: That’s because out in “reality”, we can’t measure utilions, so we use things like power and money as proxies. In an ideal utopia with perfectly calibrated Utili-meters, this would not be as relevant.
I’m not sure how to read this. I’m leaning towards, “I don’t have a counter argument so I’m going to resort to insults.”
To get back to the point, the problem with technique C is that it doesn’t address the case of adjusting test scores based on demographic priors, since the lowest utility (the people not accepted) is the same either way.
You’re the one who just dropped the discussion to DH level 1 or 2.
You have a repeated pattern of not offering real responses: “Is this a parody?” “Is this?” being the biggest red flag I’ve encountered in this thread.
You are correct that I didn’t have a refutation, because “I don’t see how this ties in to the weasels” doesn’t give me enough information to try and resolve your confusion. In short, lately you seem to be putting near-zero effort in to your replies: you’re not attempting to explain your position, just offering pithy one-sentence objections that don’t seem to contribute anything.
Given you have 2K karma and a few +50 rated comments, I’m willing to assume you’ve just had a bad week and actually explain this, but I still see no point in actually continuing the conversation, since your replies are all “taxing” me the same way a troll does: you put in minimal effort, and force the other person to hold it all afloat.
It’s the very definition of skilled trolling, to force other people to spend paragraphs defending themselves while you resort to easily misinterpreted one-sentence replies that do nothing to advance actual discourse.
The idea that I must maintain quality discourse, or even that it’s more productive, is a trap that ends up with a bunch of well-fed trolls.
It’s as real a response as the question it’s a response to and I give a substantive response to Nisan’s more substantive sentence.
You could give some indication of what addition information would help. Here are some possibilities:
1) You didn’t get what the weasels were referring to. Arguably I should have linked to this comment in the great-grandparent, but since the comment in question is yours, I assumed you’d get the reference.
2) You think the technique does in fact address the weasel example, in that case you could have said so as well as possibly how you think it applies.
3) Something I haven’t thought of.