There is a big mismatch here between “sending an email to a blogger” and “increase existential risk by one in a million”. All of the strategies for achieving existential risk increases that large are either major felonies, or require abusing a political office as leverage. When you first made the threat, I got angry at you on the assumption that you realized this. But if all you’re threatening to do is send emails, well, I guess that’s your right.
P(law will pass | (sane existential risk estimators would think it’s retarded) && (lots of right wingers heard great reasons) && (a lobby or two was convinced it was in their interest))
But (hopefully!) nothing like that could be caused with a single email. Baby steps.
There is a big mismatch here between “sending an email to a blogger” and “increase existential risk by one in a million”. All of the strategies for achieving existential risk increases that large are either major felonies, or require abusing a political office as leverage. When you first made the threat, I got angry at you on the assumption that you realized this. But if all you’re threatening to do is send emails, well, I guess that’s your right.
LW is a place where you’ll get useful help on weeding out mistakes in your plan to blow up the world, it looks like.
For Epistemic Rationality!
That reminds me of the joke about the engineer in the French revolution.
Are you joking? Do you have any idea what a retarded law can do to existential risks?
P(law will pass|it is retarded && its sole advocate publicly described it as retarded) << 10^-6
Huh? Try:
P(law will pass | (sane existential risk estimators would think it’s retarded) && (lots of right wingers heard great reasons) && (a lobby or two was convinced it was in their interest))
But (hopefully!) nothing like that could be caused with a single email. Baby steps.