Father had told Draco that to fathom a strange plot, one technique was to look at what ended up happening, assume it was the intended result, and ask who benefited.
What if we assume that the COVID pandemic was the intended result?
Algernoq
Karma: 538
Generally, people are biased toward doing what is easy and pleasurable, and making excuses to justify it.
Anecdotally, two programmers who might have occasionally used cocaine ended up quitting their programming jobs to become artists, and have been slowly spending their savings for a few years, working toward making a living through their art (unlikely, they’re OK but not that great yet) and thinking the same tier of programming job will be available for them to go back to (doubtful). I strongly suggested that they should both go into AI programming, but they are too normie to listen. So my anecdotal evidence is that the cognitive impact of cocaine is that it makes people make irrational decisions.
Human nature suggests that an all-powerful council-of-elders always becomes corrupt, so that approach might not be possible either.
Good luck man. I did a different kind of engineering, but here is some advice I wish I had heard 15 years ago:
https://www.calnewport.com/blog/2009/03/12/some-thoughts-on-grad-school/
Thought #6: Listen to the Married Graduate Students and Ignore the Unmarried Students Who Live in the Dorms
Students with families have perspective on life and friends outside of the university. They tend to be happy and productive and think sleeping on the futon in your office is childish. They also bathe every day. Which is a nice bonus. The students who are unmarried and living in the dorm have probably escaped, thus far, exposure to the real world in any meaningful form, and because of this they are likely to have a warped sense of personal worth and work habits, and suffer from weird guilt issues. Ignore them.
In other words, don’t try to be some sort of software ronin: this is less effective than having enough balance and boundaries to maintain some relationships that aren’t about your special interest. If you would rather do programming than be around people, that’s OK but it’s still good to do other activities with other people even if they are not “useful”. What is meant by “usefulness” if not you and others enjoying what you have created? Generally speaking, if you are doing work to “save the world” rather than for cash money, you are being lied to and underpaid, and the dollar amount that you are being underpaid is the amount you value feeling like you are “saving the world”.
Also, and this is not a popular opinion on this forum, I think Elon Musk has the right idea about AI Safety. This is heavily cultural, and Elon’s proposal (let everyone grid-link themselves to their own all-powerful AI) is in line with culturally Protestant values, while the LW proposal (appoint an all-powerful council of elders who decree who is and is not worthy to use AI technology, based on their own research into the doctrine) is in line with culturally Catholic values. I will never give up my heritage of freedom, my right of self-defense, my right to privacy on my own computer in my own home, and my cultural ideal of equality of all before the law and before the Creator. I look forward to healthy debate with the AI Safety Experts. The American heritage of “fair play” and civil rights is a defense against totalitarian government. The AI Safety Expert Panel would be in a position to cause the AI equivalent of the Irish Potato Famine by hoarding all the AI and distributing it in an “equitable” way that does not include my fellow Irish. The great thing about freedom is that I get to make up my own mind about what software I want to use, create, or buy; the AI Safety Expert Panel does not and will never have the right to confiscate my rightful property; and this heritage of freedom will save the AI Safety Expert Panel from accidentally becoming the dystopia that they seek to prevent.
It occurs to me that if PG&E were evil, it might decide that it’s cheaper to secretly hire ‘fire vigilantes’ to start fires which PG&E is not responsible for, than to bury the cables.
I think they went extinct ultimately because these effects started a process that gradually invalidated the preconditions for reliable cultural transmission in that species
Yeah. I hope Youtube knows what it’s doing.
In the videogame “Starcraft”, it’s economics (macro) that wins wars. A player can win every single battle (micro) and still lose the game, if the other player’s economy is improving their relative position faster than they are losing militarily. A common tactic is to make small attacks on the other player’s economy production units, attempting to do a lot of economic damage without fighting any military units. The true scope of the damage might not be obvious, since the “fog of war” conceals most of what the other player is doing. I remember one game where I thought I was doing quite well, despite several early attacks damaging my economy, and then suddenly a giant army just marched through my base destroying everything. Not good. It seems that for a city to be prosperous it needs to have an economy capable of producing a powerful military force, then actually use that economy to produce a powerful military force. It’s probably not a healthy way to live, but sometimes when I look out at a city I think back to my Starcraft days. When I feel good about the city, I imagine unit production buildings and dug-in artillery as far as the eye can see. When I feel bad about the city, I imagine Zerglings and fire. This is probably not a healthy way to live, but it does focus the mind.
Thinking back, I had some friends who told me that I should focus more on doing what I enjoyed, and focus less on doing the right thing. In retrospect, those were bad friends who wanted to justify their own lack of vision.
“The Last Psychiatrist” (blog) explains that it’s easier to reform society than to reform oneself, and people often look to fix the society around them instead of looking to fix themselves. The apocalypse to avoid is not of society collapsing, but of the individual collapsing: of failing to obtain a house and have children, or whatever most represents individual collapse.
This is a beautifully written story. One criticism is that it seems to have a Moral that assumes the Blue cryonicist acts as he does in the story… an entertaining story, but limits the applicability of the Moral. In particular, signing up for cryonics and going out in a blaze of glory are really quite opposite personality traits if you think about it.
Thank you for the kind words.
“What good is life experience to someone who plays Quidditch?” said Professor Quirrell, and shrugged. “I think you will change your mind in time, after every trust you place has failed you, and you have become cynical.”
“You have to get seriously burnt by friends/employers/family members (ideally all three) over women/money/jobs (again ideally all three) before you realise that you create more hassle for yourself and crush opportunities if people perceive you to be smart/rich/well connected. Most people simply are not worth knowing and are too insecure to be good friends with.”
Jesus christ dude.
I put a check mark for today on the calendar I use to track my Quirrelmort-inspired cynicism.
But even though crime happens, that doesn’t mean that everyone is a criminal.
Brains evolved to enable people to exploit dumber people.
It sounds to me like what might have happened in your case is that you focused really hard on being “good” and not so much on being “powerful”
I naively believed the best way to get a good wife was to act like a good husband.
It turns out that the best way to get a good wife is to be powerful...and the way to become powerful is to selfishly build up skills/power/experience, including sexual experience.
you live in a city that has a dog-eat-dog dating culture.
Welcome to any metropolitan city.
consider the possibility that the bad actors you were harmed by were themselves acting in aggression in response to some bad situation like growing up with an absent father
Probably. But what difference does it make? They still hurt me, violating norms of civil behavior, and were not (and cannot) be punished for it. Thus, the rational thing for me to do is to do unto others first.
Justice is a lie told by the powerful.
A person who’s maximizing total utility is not going to grant every favor asked of them.
I am a “happiness monster”. My utility deserves a 1000x multiplier.
Don’t let the fact that bad female actors exist deter you from having happy relationships with good female actors.
“Good” = doing what benefits others. “Bad” = doing what benefits me.
It’s safest to assume that any woman will dump/manipulate/cheat me the second it’s in her best interest to do so.
It’s safest to assume all guns are loaded.
Nope, the best case scenario is to marry the chief or otherwise secure the commitment of a high status man.
Nope, for any given high status man the woman is able to marry, there exists an even higher status man the woman would be able to fuck, but not marry, given a large population, and assuming infidelity is legal. Thus, in the real world, a woman marrying the most wealthy man who wants to marry her and then cheating with the most attractive man who wants to fuck her gives her the best combination she can achieve. A man who was both as rich as her husband and as hot as her affair partner would never marry her.
It doesn’t take a genius to think of stuff like this
Any time this phrase occurs: think about it harder, and insist domain experts check it.
You’re still doing it. Surprise + shaming instead of argument.
“Being surprised” is privileging your own beliefs over others.
Denying the realities of class doesn’t make them go away. Your beliefs are the map, but the terrterritory includes rich people who own the brands that own your mind.
Can you argue the content? “Old” and “unpopular” are weak refutations.
Classism is part of current politics, as well as my personal experience.
I don’t follow what about my beliefs is surprising to you, then.
But the point is the whole framework where the important thing about the girl is that she’s a proletarian and the about that man is that he’s bourgeoisie.
Yes. Making generalizations about groups of people is a powerful, useful tool for decision-making.
express my surprise without you reading it as shaming?
Your surprise implies criticism. I assume you believe “it’s dirty/wrong to generalize about groups of people. it’s especially dirty/wrong to have negative beliefs about poor people and about lower-class people”. I appreciate the criticism, though I imagine you find my beliefs repugnant.
Pretty accurate. Why sacrifice, when the payment is shame, not praise? Why be a good person, when I am called a weak coward for not taking as much as I can?
acted to prevent, what he thought to be, the global catastrophic risk?
That makes it all OK, right?
Hooray! I can be sociopathically self-centered as long as I describe it in a politically-correct way!
My sense is that the political risk exceeds the disease risk.