Physicist and dabbler in writing fantasy/science fiction.
Ben
Karma: 2,724
A sort of opposite conversational thing I see which I hate is something like:
Bob : I am really sorry, I made a big mistake and (something has gone wrong).
Alice : How did this go wrong?
Bob : We had that event that day and we were all distracted talking to the visitors and eating the cake. I wasn’t used to the new UI yet, and it looks like I must have muddled some of the inputs.
Alice : Well, that is no excuse.
Bob : I never said it was. You asked for an explanation. I owned this mistake in my first line of this dialogue.
The issue here is that Bob is trying to provide a real explanation, of the kind that would be useful in providing a plan to avoid similar issues in the future. But, Alice is instead trying to give him a dresssing down for his mistakes. Possibly both conversations should happen, but not at the same time and both parties should know which one they are in.
(Although I still think asking for an explanation, and then complaining about excuses is a jerk play that is surprisingly common.)
I think leogao meant that the readers were being pretentious in their discusions of the book (looking at tea leaves).
Age of Empires—as a child, in RTS games I always massively underinvested in economy. I wanted to build all the cool units and buildings, and I kept having this idea that my economy was already huge because it was however many times bigger than it started. (In Tiberium sun I beleived having 3 harvestors was huge because in my head it was 3× default.). When playing these games with humans you suddenly realise you are thinking too small. They are just doing everything at 5x your scale and it doesnt really matter what plays you might be making right at that point. If Dominion teaches you the game is finite so you should at some point switch from building for the future and start scroing points now, RTS games teach you that exponentials are real and that if you dont spend the early game growing for the later game you should ensure there is no later game.
All games—playing the game as its creators clearly intended, vs playing to win.
I think reviewers have two seperate tasks when assessing a paper.
The first, that (in my opinion almost all reviewers are good at) is identifying the easy wins that will improve the paper. This is the land of typoes, the occssional confusing sentence or a missed citation.
The second (that reviwers are on average less good at) is telling the editor if they think the paper, at its core, is actually any good, assuming some fixes and repairs.
I think this analysis is maybe not right. The systems that endure are the systems that survive, so its less relevant in the long term how effective a system is at waging agrresive wars. Its how good it is at fighting defensive ones is the key.
The counter insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan were not existential for the continued survival of the USA. So they were not going to create much (or any) Darwinian pressure to select for or against societies like the USA. (Baring the, potentially important possibility of the USA leaving societies in its own image in these places).
Yes, I was thinking primarily of real life conversations with a person you already know. Where I have seen this play out as I described. Although, obviously I did not try out the counterfactual.
I have no kind of data on this, but my feeling is that it carries over to social media, at least for famous-ish people who have already had the space to build rapport. As a topical example, some right wing people in the USA (Tucker Carlson I think) seem unhappy with Trump’s recent Iran policy. My suspicion is that for MAGA types someone like this going “off script” and being against the war is significant, more so than if they encountered someone saying (for example), “Yeah, I supported Trump in his first term, but after the Capitol riots I became a Democrat.” Part of that is because the “I joined the other side over X” has to be something old, in the past, where opinion has hardened and in any case its in the past, but part of that is also the inherent implausibility of the “Side switch” bit. The previously-Trump-supporting person who turns against him after the capitol riots isn’t going to fall in love with all kinds of Democrat coded policies they previously hated.
The thing that makes this kind of threat particularly pointless, is that saying “I am on your side on all these other issues, but on this thing you are just wrong” is probably way more persuasive to people.
Lets say you are a big fan of a leftish politician like Jeremy Corbyn (JC). Someone you know to be generally on the political right tells you that they hate JC, and that in fact the awfulness of JC is WHY they are on the political right. You probably just dismiss them. But now someone comes to you who agrees with you on all kinds of policy positions, but that they tell you they dislike JC for such-and-such a reason. That seems more likely to generate a real update.
I know nothing about the underlying price strucure, but I do know that if a journey contains a sub-jounrey, that charging less for the whole than for one of its parts cannot possibly make logical sense. I had this last year when buying a baby pushchair, buying just the chair I needed would have cost me more than a package deal that included that exact chair along with some other stuff I wasnt bothered about. I went for the package deal. The package can of course reasonably cost less than the sum of its parts, but it cant cost less than any one of its parts.
Targetting the ‘break of journey’ seems weird to me. I have never done it intentionally to get a cheaper ticket, but I have, for example been on a train into Bristol and been phoned up to say that some change of plan means its eaiser to meet me a station earlier (Parkway), so I get off one station early, rather than wasting time going in a circle. Banning break of journey would sort of be like that pushchair company continuing to have the package deal cheaper than one of the products it includes, but then sending someone around to force me to use the extra stuff included.
I am curious why it is a hard problem for the prices to emable people to spend less to buy more, and, if the prices do have that quirk, why its really a problem for customers to exploit it.
I haven’t checked wikipedia for that, but I don’t think the trend is surprising. I think that a big part of it is just that it feels creepy to comment on a specific person’s attractiveness in polite company. And Wikipedia is polite company. If an actress is particularly pretty it would feel kind of weird for someone to add that to their wiki page. I can half remember a tv interview from the early 0′ies, I think it was Johnathon Ross interviewing Kiera Knightly about her new film, and he said something which implied that he thought a big part of her appeal as an actress (or even the main part) was that she was really attractive. Regardless of the truth of that position, it seemed that both she and possibly also the audience found it a really cringe topic of conversation.
I am sure there are other websites (which are Not polite company) where you will find a lot of people talking about how attractive they find one celebrity or another.
Yes, it can work. Reflecting more I think the issue is maybe that you need to be clear from the beginimg wether you are telling your overseas workers ‘your timetable will suck but we are paying super over the odds to cover that’ or are doing something more ‘normal’. (+100% vs +30%). The first was never the bargain in my example above, hence some of the frustration.
Both have advantages and disadvantages. In the former, the employees will just accept the timetable. But, you will mostly get younger, more junior (single) people, and they wont be the most capable or best qualified people, who will go for something normal. I suspect high turnover, a couple of years of highly paid nocturnal behaivior to then take that experience to try and get a more normal job where you can actually have a family, makes sense.
Instead of a ‘half move’ you have the alternative of a ‘full move’, where you move the whole operation (taking the people you need with you). On a much smaller scale some software companies did this a decade or two ago by moving from London to Bristol where property prices were lower (very short move, they are only 1.5 hours appart by train.)
I remember a Scot Alexander post a while ago about Bhudism and suffering, I beleive he was asking Isur about some aspect of it. His phrasing implied that the idea that Bhudism has something important to teach us, some kind of magic juice, was to be taken very seriously. I imagine an equivalent post about Hinduism or Islam, or even Kabalistic stuff, would have used more detached ‘they beleive this stuff’ phrasing.
I dont agree that Bhudism is somehow uniquely unhealthy to people. I do find it interesting how it seems to provoke different instinctive reactions than other religions.
I second all this.
Even when it does technically work, people underestimate the social dynamics. I knew somone who worked in Singapore for a Canadian company. Her dinner would be going cold on the table and her children wondering why mummy wasnt joining for bedtime stories while her teleconferenced meeting in Canada overrun by an hour as they all complained about having to get in at 8am and how the weather was bad in Toronto. Complaints from her and others in SG soon made it clear that these meetings had to be done as fast as possible and that mentioning anything off topic, eg the weather, random pleasantries, traffic, was liable to result in interuption/complaint from someone in singapore.
So, you can have the meetings, but freindly chit chat, going off topic or similar is completely shut down. That worked much better, shortening the meetings and letting the signapore lot at least feel their time was being valued, but doing meetings that was is not natural to people.
If they had tried some weird ‘work in a canadian time zone’ thing then the person I knew, and probably the whole team, would have quit. Maybe unmarried 20-somethings could do that for a little while, but as they gained partners and kids it would stop working for them.
A couple of things stand out to me about the groups I was in thaalt worked better vs the ones that didnt work as well.
1 - meeting regularity. Its hard to seperate cause and effect, but groups that ‘have a meeting on mondays’ are way less effective than groups that ‘have a meeting when there is a need to have a meeting’. The second type of group average slightly fewer meetings, but they are so much more effective. People go in knowing ‘Eric found such and such a problem this morning, which means we possibly need to change the plan somehow, hence this after lunch meeting. The meeting ends when a descision on how to proceed is reached.’ Instead of ′ this meeting is because it is 10am on monday and it ends when everyone runs out of things to say.′
2 - People ‘closer to the ground’ making the final descisions. The person who is going through the data by hand, should have the final say in what analysis method to use. The person writing the code for processing the data has final say on the statistical method the code will do. If you dont have this system all kinds of dumb problems come up. The PhD student has a sense from having read all the data that the analysis is going wrong somehow, but instead of just changing method they start trying to come up with some kind of actual argument for why the method feels off, then trying to book a meeting to attempt to justify changing methods. Its slow, its bad, people are much better at seeing that something isnt working than explaining why. Doubly so, when they have already decided in their heart that the right course is to change methods, and so the meeting is asking permision to switch, not advice on whether to switch. I watched someone struggle with a simulation tool that didnt work for nearly 2 years, going back and fourth with their boss trying to get permision to try a different software package, and being repeatedly told ‘but, that software always worked for me in the past’. Dumb situation. After 6 months they are no lomger trying to make it work, but trying to produce proof that it doesnt work so they can use the other software. Making them do that for another 18 months was bad management, but the manager should never have been in charge of that desicion in the first place. Obviously if you constrain people more, they are less effective.
I mostly agree, with an exception for posts/comments that are already negative or close to zero.
I see a comment I think is useless/unpleasant/bad, and I think about downvoting it. I see its currently sitting at −10 and dont vote because I dont want to pile on even harder against that person. But, if the same comment had been at +20 i would have thought ‘what, really? Well, downvote’.
If I like something I dont let its current karma effect my voting.
This is my situation as well. I am an Irish citizen because one of my grandparents was born in Northern Ireland. I have never been to any part of the island of ireland (would like to one day), and not have either of my parents. Now my son can also apply for Irish cirizenship through me.
Weirdly, my son could not apply for British citizenship through me, even though I am a British citizen who spent most of my life in the UK, because of laws about place of birth. Its not relevant though because he gets UK citizenship through his place of brith and/or his mother so no issues. Just weird that I can grant citizenship of a country I have never been to but not my home country.
I agree the process of applying for Irish citizenship is really smooth. If that is any indication of the rest of the country’s bearocracy then its amazing. A colleage was applying for a visa to bring his wife into the UK, which we calculated was more than 100 times more complicated than me applying for Irish citizenship.
I may be remembering the name wrong and have picked out entirely the wrong person, but I think the author of that fan fic was @Florian_Dietz.
I read that fanfic yesterday (and enjoyed it).
When I try and open it from my history I also get a 404 error.
J Bostock is suggesting that LLM written material might have been removed. I strongly suspect that “Already Optimised” was not written by an LLM from how it read.
Like the character in the story, I kind of assume it wouldn’t work not because of anything I know about LLMs (because I know very little about them), but because of the social fact that these websites don’t (to my knowledge) exist.
I am kind of interested in trying to run the experiment. If it is the case that anyone can persuade future LLM systems of any obscure fact they want to persuade them of with a low-effort webpage then that seems like an important thing to know.
I think this is typical of most left vs right political discussions. I lived with a Libertarian at one point, and he kept talking to my socialist friends, and they would completely fail to make contact when they were communicating. Like, Libertarian says “I want less regulation”. Socialists are like “Yeah, sure. I don’t mind either way.” Libertarian: “You know, its easier to start a company in Denmark than it is here?”. Socialist: “Yes, it should be easier to start a company.” Libertarian: “Wait? So you claim to be a socialist but you like people founding companies and you dislike regulation, I think you will find that you are actually a Libertarian just like me.” Socialist: “What? No, I want a progressive tax system that reallocates wealth from the rich to the poor by paying for a free-at-point-of-use health system and universal basic income. I want to take the money out of politics by [gestures and half baked and dubious sounding plan]. If lower regulation will help pay for those things then lower regulation is good, but its not an issue I really care about either way.”
What is weird about this, is that in an eternal steady state universe the number of living observers in a given time period is much larger than the number of observers (including Boltzman brains) in a simialr slice of a universe approaching thermal equilibrium. So, depedning on how your Anthropic reasoning work, you could argue from the fact of your own existance that the universe must be steady state, regardless of any evidence otherwise.
(This is kind of a tension inherent in all Anthropic arguments, I am more likely to ‘be me’ (as opposed to someone else, like a Boltzman brain) in a universe with fewer people, but most possible observers are in the crowded universes, so I am more likely to be in a crowded one. Similar logic, threading oppsosite conclusions.)