Airedale

Karma: 937

Airedale 31 Jan 2014 15:33 UTC
10 points
on: Amanda Knox Guilty Again
I have seen a couple articles (e.g., here noting that the prosecution presented a new theory on motive this time around:

Prosecutors in the original trial said Knox and Sollecito, along with a man named Rudy Hermann Guede, had killed Kercher during a drug-fueled sex game in which the British student was an unwilling participant.

. . .

In the Florence retrial, prosecutor Alessandro Crini contended that the motive was rooted in arguments between roommates Knox and Kercher about cleanliness and was triggered by a toilet left unflushed by Guede, the only person now in jail for the murder.

The previously alleged motive had seemed implausible to me, but I can make even less sense of the new one. How did the prosecution argue that Guede and Sollecito had any motive to kill Kercher based on a disagreement about cleanliness between roommates Knox and Kercher? (Although the prosecution did not presumably have to prove anything against Guede, who has already been convicted, I would think they would still need to do something to make sense of his part in the murder.) I have not been able to find any accounts explaining more about exactly how the prosecution argued this new motive.

At any rate, even leaving aside the forensic evidence (or lack thereof), I would think that such a fundamental change in the theory of case would militate in favor of reversal on appeal (i.e., it suggests that the prosecution, rather than basing its theory on the evidence, has instead pursued a strategy of presenting any argument that results in the conviction of Knox and Sollecito), but I don’t know enough about the Italian justice system to even know if such considerations are properly part of the appeal.

Airedale 9 Apr 2013 16:34 UTC
4 points
in reply to: Douglas_Knight’s comment on: Problems in Education

That sounds close to a tautology to me.

Yeah, I didn’t phrase that very clearly. My thinking was drawing a distinction between (1) what may be the smaller portion of resources that is always up for grabs (and that is perhaps mainly grants) and (2) the larger portion of resources that is not discretionary in the same way because it is awarded by the government without the competitive grant application process. Of course, there may still be opportunities to also influence how that larger portion of resources is distributed, e.g., lobbying or maybe gaming the system to affect the distribution in some way.

Airedale 9 Apr 2013 5:00 UTC
11 points
in reply to: Douglas_Knight’s comment on: Problems in Education

Most of the money/resources schools receive comes in the form of grants.

Could you provide a source for that?

This claim definitely conflicts with my understanding, although perhaps it’s true for that portion of resources that is actually up for grabs and not already committed through the normal funding (government) process.

This link is more in line with my understanding, that is, that most resources come from state and local government, and most of those resources are not awarded through “grants,” but rather that local resources generally stay with local schools and state resources are divided in other ways but not usually through award of a grant. But I’d be interested in hearing if my (not heavily researched/sourced) understanding is incorrect either generally or at least for some portion of schools.

Some quotes from the link:

States rely primarily on income and sales taxes to fund elementary and secondary education. State legislatures generally determine the level and distribution of funding, following different rules and procedures depending on the state.

State funding for elementary and secondary education is generally distributed by formula. Many states use funding formulas that provide funding based on the number of pupils in a district. Some formulas are weighted based on different factors such as the number of students with disabilities, the number of students living in poverty, or the number of students for whom English is a second language. The allocation for students with different types of needs can vary significantly depending on the funding formula. Additionally, in some states the formula is designed so that higher poverty school districts with less access to local funding receive additional assistance.

Airedale 30 Nov 2012 5:34 UTC
2 points
on: Open Thread, November 16–30, 2012
Meta karma-related question that occurred to me on reading the post on Retributive Downvoting, but which didn’t really fit there: One thing that I sometimes do in upvoting/downvoting is to calibrate my vote based on how many up or down votes the comment already has; for example, if a comment is at plus 10, but I think it’s only a tiny bit good, I might downvote it; whereas if a comment is at −10, but I think it’s only a little bit bad, I may upvote it (whereas if the little bit good comment was at 1-2, I would upvote, and it the little bit bad comment was at 0-1, I would downvote it).

But perhaps that is a wrong approach. Indeed, it would probably be inaccurate with a very new comment, but I am often rather late in reading through comment threads, and would guess that by the time I read through many comments have settled close to their ultimate score. Does anyone else do that, or have a view whether it is a correct or incorrect approach?

Airedale 8 Oct 2012 23:33 UTC
4 points
on: Reasons for someone to “ignore” you
This may overlap with some of the other issues listed, but I think it comes from a slightly different place mentally/emotionally: They’re purposefully trying to disengage early rather than getting into a fight about who has the “last word” on the subject, e.g., on some level they may want to respond or even to “win” the exchange, but they’re purposefully telling themselves to step away from the computer.

Airedale 13 Sep 2012 19:17 UTC
8 points
on: Random LW-parodying Statement Generator
I love it!

I wanna be the Society for Rare Diseases in Cute Puppies!.

I’m an aspiring babyeater.

The latest hot fanfic: Aubrey de Grey and the Methods of universal sex.

That which can be destroyed by awesome warm fuzzies should be.

In the new version of Newcomb’s problem, you have to choose between a box containing timeless hugging and a box containing fun.

Airedale 13 Sep 2012 18:35 UTC
7 points
on: Under-acknowledged Value Differences

For example, when discussing gender-related problems, it seems inevitable that some proposed solutions will generally be better for men, and other solutions will generally be better for women. If people are selfish, then they will each prefer the solution that’s individually best for them, even if they can agree on all of the facts. (It’s unclear whether people should be selfish, but it seems best to assume that most are, for practical purposes.)

But isn’t it possible that in any given bargaining situation there may also be a win-win solution that makes the pie bigger and leaves everybody better off than the status quo? Discussion, debate, and further exchange of information could at least theoretically lead to a previously unrecognized win-win situation being found.

Airedale 13 Sep 2012 16:01 UTC
7 points
in reply to: Nick_Tarleton’s comment on: How to deal with someone in a LessWrong meeting being creepy

** Not that I would expect it to work well; most people wouldn’t consider the author a moral authority who’s entitled to shame them. Behavior modification is hard.

Not a moral authority for most people who might stumble upon the post, sure, but I would guess that Scalzi is a reasonable facsimile of such of person for the audience of SFF fandom and con attendees at whom the post was more specifically aimed. He’s perhaps not a “moral authority” but he is a person of sufficiently high status in that community that his words would carry some weight.

As for tone, it seems pretty typical of Scalzi-style prose, so again, for his main audience of fans, I don’t know that tone would be a problem. The follow-up post linked on the page also seems to do a fair job explaining why the post is not just targeted to unrepentant creepers but also applies to people who may quite accidentally veer into that territory without even realizing it, and details how he has had to consciously check himself from doing so on occasion.

Airedale 13 May 2012 4:22 UTC
4 points
on: [Book Suggestions] Summer Reading for Younglings.
For sci fi for about that age, maybe Interstellar Pig, although it does not seem to be available on Kindle. Might be a little scary (scared me when I was about that age). Caveat—haven’t read it since I was a kid, so not sure how well it holds up.

Airedale 12 May 2012 20:38 UTC
6 points
on: [Book Suggestions] Summer Reading for Younglings.
Even as an adult, I enjoyed The Mysterious Benedict Society books by Trenton Lee Stewart. 4th/5th grade is probably about right. How can you not love a series with a book titled The Mysterious Benedict Society and the Prisoner’s Dilemma?

Airedale 12 May 2012 13:11 UTC
4 points
in reply to: A1987dM’s comment on: The Social Coprocessor Model
Read in the context of the entire thread, I take this as a non-apology apology, not an expression of remorse or contrition. In the thread, Mallah continued to take the position that the woman “deserved” the spanking, and it appears to me that the apology was made in order to avoid future confrontation/trouble, not remorse. Moreover, Mallah also commented:

It was a mistake. Why? It exposed me to more risk than was worthwhile, and while I might have hoped that (aside from simple punishment) it would teach her the lesson that she ought to follow the Golden Rule, or at least should not pull the same tricks on guys, in retrospect it was unlikely to do so.

Remorse involves some genuine feeling of regret that one’s actions had been wrong in some ethical or moral sense, not merely reconsideration because they had been ill-advised in a a practical sense.

Airedale 6 Mar 2012 15:35 UTC
6 points
in reply to: Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg) ’s comment on: Emotional regulation, Part I: a problem summary
I don’t know that moving it is necessary at this point, but it’s something to keep in mind for the future. It’s not like there’s a brightline rule, it just struck me as more appropriate for Discussion.

Also, on substance, one possible book to take a look at is The Inner Game of Tennis. Since you have a background in sports, and sports competition seems to be one of the areas where you’ve had this problem most often, that and/or other sports psychology books might be an interesting way for you to get into the issues. I haven’t read it in years, and I’m not sure that it addresses your situation precisely, but I recall it as an interesting and useful read, even if some of it was a little psychobabbly.

edited to add—I also wonder if bringing in some anecdotes from pro/elite athletes who have struggled with emotional issues on the court/field, etc. might be a good way to add interest and also make it somewhat more universal beyond your particular situation.

Airedale 6 Mar 2012 0:54 UTC
17 points
on: Emotional regulation, Part I: a problem summary
I would personally prefer to see this in Discussion. Your personal story is interesting (and I recognize some of it in myself), but I don’t think the personal background (plus your brief request for recommended literature, plan for Part II, etc.) is a sufficiently fleshed out idea at this point given that you aren’t yet at the point of offering any guidance on solving the problem. Of course, Part II’s literature review/recommendations may be of more benefit to the community and be a better fit for Main.

Airedale 27 Feb 2012 22:29 UTC
3 points
on: Meetup : University of Chicago (Again)
Is 1:46 a typo?

Airedale 7 Nov 2011 22:30 UTC
14 points
in reply to: steven0461’s comment on: Rational Romantic Relationships, Part 1: Relationship Styles and Attraction Basics
Isn’t is possible that Prismattic’s comment could be receiving so many upvotes because other people also find comments of the sort described irritating and are embracing the opportunity to signal that irritation? Like Prismattic, I don’t generally downvote comments on this basis alone. But I’m definitely tired of seeing the types of comments described, especially in those instances when, at least to my eyes, the commenters seem to be affecting a certain world-weary sorrow and wisdom while hinting at the profound truths that could be freely discussed but for -alas!- the terrible tyranny of modern social norms. But because the commenters are hiding the exact substance of their own views, there’s no basis on which to judge whether these views are, as Prismattic suggests, actually more correct than the mainstream view, or perhaps equally or even more wrong in some different direction.

Airedale 25 Aug 2011 22:21 UTC
3 points
in reply to: loswinter’s comment on: Meetup : Chicago Meetup At State and Elm, August 27th
Yes, we have somewhat irregularly occurring meetups that are announced here on LW and on our Google Group e-mail list (which can be accessed from Nic’s Discussion Group Post link).

Airedale 21 Aug 2011 22:11 UTC
10 points
in reply to: Will_Newsome’s comment on: Why We Can’t Take Expected Value Estimates Literally (Even When They’re Unbiased)
Fair enough, but in light of your phrasing in both the original comment (“If I [did the following things]”) and your comment immediately following it (quoted below; emphasis added), it certainly appeared to me that you seemed to be describing a significant role for yourself, even though your proposal was general overall.

(Some people, including me, would really like it if a competent and FAI-focused uber-rationalist non-profit existed. I know people who will soon have enough momentum to make this happen. I am significantly more familiar with the specifics of FAI (and of hardcore SingInst-style rationality) than many of those people and almost anyone else in the world, so it’d be necessary that I put a lot of hours into working with those who are higher status than me and better at getting things done but less familiar with technical Friendliness. But I have many other things I could be doing. Hence the question.)

Airedale 21 Aug 2011 16:33 UTC
3 points
on: Meetup : Chicago Meetup At State and Elm, August 27th
Steven0461 and I will probably be able to make it. Thanks for taking the initiative!

Airedale 21 Aug 2011 16:22 UTC
13 points
in reply to: Will_Newsome’s comment on: Why We Can’t Take Expected Value Estimates Literally (Even When They’re Unbiased)

I have a weird rather mixed reputation among the greater LW community, so if that affects you negatively please pretend that someone with a more solid reputation but without super high karma is asking this question, like Steven Kaas.

Unless you would be much less involved in this potential program than the comment indicates, this seems like an inappropriate request. If people view you negatively due to your posting history, they should absolutely take that information into account in assessing how likely they would be to provide financial support to such a program (assuming that the negative view is based on relevant considerations such as your apparent communication or reasoning skills as demonstrated in your comments).

Airedale 28 Jul 2011 19:18 UTC
12 points
in reply to: Kaj_Sotala’s comment on: New Post version 2 (please read this ONLY if your last name beings with l–z)
I agree with you on the skeeviness of the terminology of “scoring” a one night stand; interestingly, version 1 of the post instead states that Luke “had [his] first one-night stand.” Although I haven’t compared the versions carefully, it therefore seems like version 1 may make more of an attempt to avoid that sort of language.