I heard it as
… “You all really ought to know your limits” said the bartender, and he just poured them two beers.
CBHacking
Karma: 538
Largely negative experience: person A (female, bi, well-known by me but I have the story second-hand) was in a poly relationship with a couple. The guy had other women on the side, with his partners’ knowledge but only grudging acceptance. The two women had occasional female secondary partners themselves. This lasted for around a year. Person A had a fling with another guy; her primary guy went jealous and awful over it. He’s now out of both women’s lives; they’re not dating anymore but are still friends.
EDIT: I should point out that while all of this was permitted by the rules of the relationship (except the jealous fit and its fallout), there wasn’t as much communication as there probably should have been. “Other women are OK, other men aren’t” perhaps should have been a rule, but maybe the guy didn’t know he’d get so upset over it.
Kind of a silly question, but it came up in our Sequences reading group yesterday: in EY’s An Intuitive Explanation of Bayes’ Theorem, we found the following statement:
It’s like the experiment in which you ask a second-grader: “If eighteen people get on a bus, and then seven more people get on the bus, how old is the bus driver?” Many second-graders will respond: “Twenty-five.”
Anybody have any idea where this finding comes from initially? We found several people who referenced EY’s post, including one second-grade teacher who claimed that he’d been largely able to replicate it (a case of guessing the teacher’s password, presumably), plus a bunch of “jokes” where the reader is the driver (so the correct answer is the reader’s age), but I didn’t see an original source for the experimental result. Maybe my Google-fu is weak but I’m curious if anybody knows...
Negative experience, I know all the people involved but didn’t observe any of this firsthand and it happened before I knew some of them: A good friend of mine (call her person B, female, bi, married) and her husband (person C) once tried dating another married couple (also friends of mine, call the guy person D). Everything went swimmingly as far as the sex and the hanging out together as friends went, but C got uncomfortable about the growing romantic attachments and amicably broke off the inter-couple relationship. Unfortunately, B had already fallen hard for D (though not to the exclusion of C) and ended up cheating to have one more night with him. When she told C about it he got pretty mad, blocked D out of his life (and got a promise from B not to be alone with him again) and pretty much swore off polyamory (at the time). This was over three years ago, and it was only in the last year or so that C has started to forgive D and they’ve moved towards being friends again.
B and C are still married, though it was rocky for a while there (D and his wife aren’t, for many reasons of which this cheating incident was plausibly one). B really doesn’t do monogamy well, and the compromise for a while was swinging with other couples (just sex, no dating in the usual sense) every now and then. That seems to have worked out, though B wishes it was more often.
Related question: should I include swingers in the list of people I know in poly relationships? The boundary is a bit fuzzy but many people would count it as CNM even if it’s just for sex.
OK, somebody is going through almost every comment on this thread and downvoting it. What gives? Are you objecting to the small amount of free karma for sharing data (in which case, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to just post a comment saying so and asking the OP not to upvote the comments, with justification?), or is there some other objective? Was something about the comments too low-quality? Did it reveal too much information? Too little? What’s the objection?
TL;DR because this turned into a lot of looking back on my relationship with my parents: I’d make sure they knew I had the capability, and then, if I saw a need to use it, I would. I wouldn’t give an expectation of privacy and then violate it.
First, let me state that I’m in my late 20s, and have no children.
Secretly? No. Or rather, I would never hide that I have the capability, though I wouldn’t necessarily tell them when I was using it. If I had reason to suspect them hiding things from me, I might even hide the mechanism, but I’d let them know that I could check. The goal would be to indicate that whatever it is I’m concerned about is REALLY IMPORTANT (i.e. more important than privacy), and that I expect that to act as a deterrence.
On the other hand, I can’t think of many scenarios that would call for such action. I would make it clear, for example, that a diary is private unless I expect the kid to be in danger, but the scenarios that actually come to mind for when I would go through it all involve things like “E left without telling anybody where e’d be, can’t be reached by any way, and has been gone since yesterday” or similar; if it was a suspicion of something like drug abuse, my inclination is simply to talk about it, not even necessarily asking anything specifically. If you can show your kid(s) the utility of giving a positive weight to your views on a subject, then you can often avoid needing to do anything so drastic as violating their privacy (in any scenario where they reasonably expect to have it).
With all that said, I don’t really have a good view of how adversarial parent/child relationships function (or rather, dysfunction); I certainly didn’t always get along with my parents, and didn’t even always respect them very much (and oh damn but did my dad blow up when I told him that, circa age 12) but they never violated my trust on big things. It was never a case of me-vs.-him (most of my problems were with my father), but rather of my utility functions vs. his appreciation for my utility functions. He could make me incredibly angry by promising some treat and then simply failing to follow through (for what never seemed, to me, to be a valid reason to break your word) but that was because I valued a verbal promise of something trivial far more strongly than it warranted, not because he was inherently untrustworthy; to me, the breaking of a promise was a much greater betrayal than the loss of the treat. Once I learned to understand him better, I simply discounted any promise he according to how (un)important he thought it was (not how important I thought it was; I didn’t get so far back then as to think about “how important he thinks it is to me”). The only times he came close to breaking the big ones I could usually argue him around.
Took me a long while to work out the details there, though. Might be good to help the kid(s) in question understand where you’re coming from, and how much you value something like your implicit (or explicit) promise of their privacy. Of course, if you already have given an expectation of the child’s privacy being sacrosanct, I don’t know what I’d do in your place. If you’ve already been caught violating such expectations, my only recommendation would be to immediately explain why you fucked up because, if the kid’s worldview is anything like mine at that age (which it totally may not be, and I’m no psychologist) you sure as hell have. Not by the snooping itself, but by simultaneously creating a scenario where the kid had reason to believe emselves private and yet one where you felt it was justified to violate that.
Out of curiosity, if I’d avoided mentioning how she self-identifies and had instead told you that “she has had sex with other women before and has asked me if it’s OK if she sleeps with other women while we’re dating (or brings them home for a threesome)… but has never shown or claimed any interest in actually dating another woman” (all of which is, incidentally, true), what would your response have been? Framed that way, one could assume that she’s actually bi or even lesbian and the only reason she’s dating me instead of one of those girls is because she wants to avoid the social or family stigma of homosexuality.
Or you could take me at my word. It’s not like you’re in any position to verify one way or the other, where she in particular is concerned, unless you’re one of the handful of people who actually know who I am speaking of and know her preferences at least as well as I do.
It also doesn’t matter for the point I raised (about how some people have different targets for sexual and romantic attraction) unless you intended to imply that not only is she personally actually neatly classifiable under the existing system but so is everybody else who would claim otherwise. That is a theory which only takes one counterexample to disprove (as I provided, although one could then debate the necessity of writing the survey to accommodate however many people have this “non-standard” categorization).
Do you have an actual response to my claim that the survey should account for the possibility that people may be romantically and sexually attracted to different genders?
Sure, I can explain. Bear in mind that this is all based on my personal experiences (male, atheist, mid-to-late 20s, college degree, lives in Seattle, WA, only interested in dating women) and that although I have developed it over around four years I’m not claiming I’ve found the perfect strategy so far.
First of all, filter match ratios pretty hard. Anybody below a 90% is probably not worth checking unless they checked you first, below an 80% not even then. Above that it starts being more a matter of enemy ratio; above 10% is probably not worth it, above 15% quite unlikely. 95%+ match and 5%- enemy is always worth checking out.
Next, take a quick look for dealbreakers (you do have a list of dealbreakers, right? Not things like “overweight” unless you are super opposed to that, but things like being a smoker, or “I don’t really read stuff, lol”, or being significantly religious). Many people also list their dealbreakers; make sure you aren’t on them (sometimes it’s little stuff, like having a beard or being too short; seems silly but just move on and don’t waste the time). Distance or location is common one; not all 25 mile distances (or whatever threshold you set) are created equal. Relationship type (poly/open or monogamous) can often be a dealbreaker too.
OK, she’s a good match and there’s no dealbreakers. Take a look at her profile essays. There should be a few things that jump out at you; a show you both like, a book you want to read but haven’t yet, an interesting career path, a shared love of some sport or activity, etc. If you can’t find anything like that and want to dig deeper, you can check her photos for interesting scenes or captions—some people are just bad at writing profile essays, but reveal themselves to be interesting in other ways—but in general if you don’t have at least 3 things that really stand out as interesting it’s not worth the time.
Now you’ve got a good basis for a message, you just need the form of it. I tend to start with a simple “Hello” or “Hi there!”, or possibly something a little silly like “Greetings, fellow -lover!”. Don’t talk about yourself much, except to say things like “I just got back from , and it was awesome!” or “I see you’re also a fan of , have you read ?” Aim for 2-3 paragraphs; it’s totally fine to save some of your “hey, I like …” for a subsequent message and is probably a better idea than letting the first one go on too long.
A few DOs and DON’Ts: Don’t ask to meet right away, unless she expresses an interest in that herself. Save it for at least the second message, after she shows an interest in you. Do put your (first) name at the bottom; some women will be hesitant to share their name, but there’s nothing wrong with sharing yours. Don’t talk about tricky subjects in the first message (it’s cool to indicate a general alignment with their views—say, cheer for legalized gay marriage, or whatever—but don’t go into detail on your thoughts). Do comment on / ask about specific things from her profile and make it clear you actually read it. Don’t compliment her appearance (possibly unless you can pull it off suave as fuck); that’s better saved for an in-person date. Don’t include your phone number right away, again unless she has already indicated a preference for meeting up right away (most women will want to exchange at least a couple messages first).
You can “Like” the profile or not, as you wish; I don’t think it makes a huge difference either way if she doesn’t “Like” you first. If she does (or if you tag her and she tags you back) then that’s definitely a good sign, and you should put the effort into your message. Don’t make her wait too long!
If she writes back, the optimal response will depend a lot on what she says and this comment is already super-long so I won’t try to go into that. However, one thing I’ve found: do not keep the conversation going forever in messaging/email (though moving off the site messaging and switching to email after a round trip or two is reasonable and may feel a little more personal). If she hasn’t at least dropped a hint about meeting by her third message, suggest meeting in person, possibly over some food you both like or similar (keep it casual and low-key). If she doesn’t show signs of interest in the next reply, I usually don’t pursue it much more.
Does it have to be something where the progress is easily quantifiable, or merely very easily observed? Learning to program is something that has an extremely long tail of improvement, but the first part goes very quickly. It may not be easy to quantify your progress—rough metrics like “lines of code to solve this problem” or “the amount of computer time / memory needed by this program” do exist, but they are at best only approximations of skill—but if you look back at code you wrote even a month ago (I’m assuming a not-too-strenuous instructional course, here) you’ll be shocked by how quickly you improve. If you already know how to code, the same effect (and much of the same benefit) can be obtained by branching out into a really new language, ideally with a totally different coding paradigm; if you know C++, Java, and Python, try learning a functional language like Haskell of F#. If you’ve never worked “close to the metal”, try picking up C and then C++. If you’ve only ever written application code, learn some scripting language(s) and write little tools to do things you currently do with a GUI file manager / config file editor / registry editor.
Always keep track of what you’ve written before (if you’re doing this as part of a course, old assignments will suffice) and then go back later and write it again “correctly” using your current knowledge. It’s entirely possibly you’ll see obvious improvements week over week. Heck, when I’m learning a new language if I write 200 lines of code in it without going back and editing more than strictly necessary, the bottom half will be visibly better than the top.
Completed the survey (arguably the first thing I’ve actually contributed to LW, though I’ve discussed it at some length offline; this is my first comment ever). I have some degree of access to a scanner but not conveniently (same goes for a ruler actually; at best I may have a measuring tape somewhere I could find in under an hour’s search). I filled out all the rest, aside from the N/A questions. Some of my answers have very low confidence (calibration percentage?), though.
A tip for those who don’t have the equipment to perform the actual test: if you can verify that the lengths of the fingers on your left and right hands are equal (align the crease in the skin at the bases of the same finger on each hand, palm-to-palm), you can use the same technique to compare the D2:D4 lengths (one hand against the other). My fingers are the same length regardless of which hand (to the limit of my ability to measure without mechanical aid), and my D2:D4 ratio is somewhere in the range 1.00 < D2:D4 < 1.05, probably under 1.02 but definitely in excess of 1.00. As a cisgendered male, I guess I’m weird?
Oh, and some feedback: Part Four’s “Moral Views” section could have used links (LW, WP, wherever) for those of us who aren’t sure about the selection of moral philosophies. It is a question I had been exploring, but mostly just in a “judge each as they are presented to me” approach and I had not encountered all of them before.
Hello, LW community! I look forward to continuing to learn from you all and hopefully contributing something back.
I think part of the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of what parachuting into the ocean does to a rocket motor. The motors are the expensive part of the first stage; I don’t know exact numbers, but they are the complicated, intricate, extremely-high-precision parts that must be exactly right or everything goes boom. The tank, by comparison, is an aluminum can.
The last landing attempt failed because a rocket motor’s throttle valve had a bit more static friction than it should, and stuck open a moment too long. SpaceX’s third launch attempt—the last failed launch they’ve had, many years ago with the Falcon 1 - was because the motor didn’t shut off instantly before stage separation, like it should have. As far as I know, people still don’t know why Orbital ATK (FKA Orbital Science)’s last launch attempt failed, except that it was obviously an engine failure. We talk about rocket science, but honestly the theoretical aspects of rocketry aren’t that complicated. Rocket engineering, though, that’s a bloody nightmare. You get everything as close to perfect as you can, and sometimes it still fails catastrophically and blows away more value than most of the people reading this thread will earn in their lifetimes, leaving virtually nothing to tell the tale of what happened.
What does all that have to do with parachute recovery of booster stages? Well, once you’ve dunked those motors in saltwater, they’re a write-off. They can’t be trusted to ever again operate perfectly without fairly literally rebuilding them, which defeats most of the purpose of recovering the booster.
There’s nothing you could coat a rocket motor with that would both survive that motor operating and make it economical to re-use the motor after plunging into the ocean. The closest thing I can think of would be some kind of protective bubble that expands to protect the motors from the ocean once their job is done. It would need to be watertight, impact-resistant (the rocket still hits the water pretty hard, even with parachutes), able to deploy around the motors reliably, avoid causing a bending moment that collapses the tank (which has minimal pressure, because its fuel is depleted and any excess pressurizing agent you carry is wasted weight to orbit), and able to operate after being exposed to the environment in close proximity to a medium-lift rocket’s primary launch motors. Maybe it’s possible, but I can’t think of how to do reliably enough to be worth the added cost on launch.
It also raises worrying considerations about how passwords are stored in the database. Passwords should never be stored in plain text, nor with reversible encryption. Instead, each account should store a password verifier value (and a salt, unique to the user).
A password verifier is the result of running a password, its salt, and possibly another input that isn’t kept in the DB all through a function that produces some deterministic value that is nigh-impossible to brute force. A property of password verifiers is that they produce output of a constant length, regardless of the input length. This makes it easy to allow arbitrary-length passwords because any actual limit you impose is artificial and exists for some reason other than your database schema.
For those familiar with hash functions: a raw hash, even a long or fancy one like the new SHA3 family, is a bad password verifier function. However, it does exhibit the desired properties with regard to length. In fact, you can build a decent PVF out of cryptographic hash functions; see PBKDF2.
Largely positive experience thus far: my current relationship is technically poly, though so far it’s mostly been limited to when one of us is out of town for a week or more. General rule is “anything goes as long as you’re safe and it doesn’t cut into the time we have with each other.” Travel (I’m a consultant) is one obvious case, but we live far enough apart that it’s hard to see each other except on weekends. She’s had one fling with an old fuckbuddy mid-week while we were both in our respective hometowns; I so far have not (only when traveling) but have considered it.
When we are with each other we have largely acted monogamous so far, and things may change if she moves closer (as she is planning to do). We have discussed (her suggestion) adding a third person for a fling, though. We appear to have implicitly rejected expanding the primary circle. Current relationship age is over seven months and this has been the rule since the first month.
Can anybody give me a good description of the term “metaphysical” or “metaphysics” in a way that is likely to stick in my head and be applicable to future contemplations and conversations? I have tried to read a few definitions and descriptions, but I’ve never been able to really grok any of them and even when I thought I had a working definition it slipped out of my head when I tried to use it later. Right now its default function in my brain is, when uttered, to raise a flag that signifies “I can’t tell if this person is speaking at a level significantly above my comprehension or is just spouting bullshit, but either way I’m not likely to make sense of what they’re saying” and therefore tends to just kind of kill the mental process that that was trying to follow what somebody was saying to me / what I was reading.
Given how often it comes up, and often from people I respect, I’m pretty sure that’s not the correct behavior Figured it’s worth asking here. In case it wasn’t obvious, I have virtually no background in philosophy (though I’ve been looking to change that).
Short version: I adjusted my sense of “self” until it included all my potential future selves. At that point, it becomes literally a matter of saving my life, rather than of being re-awakened one day.
It didn’t actually take much for me to take that leap when it came to cryonics. The trigger for me was “you don’t die and then get cryopreserved, you get cryopreserved as the last-ditch effort before you die”. I’m not suicidal; if you ask any hypothetical instance of me if they want to live, the answer is yes. By extending my sense of continuity into the not-quite-really-dead-yet instance of me, I can answer questions for that cryopreserved self: “Yes, of course I want you to perform the last-ditch operation to save my life!”
If you’re curious: My default self-view for a long time was basically “the continuity that led to me is me, and any forks or future copies/simulations aren’t me”, which tended toward a somewhat selfish view where I always viewed the hypothetical most in-control version (call it “CBH Alpha”) as myself. If a copy of me was created; “I” was simply whichever one I wanted to be (generally, the one responsible for choosing to create the new instance or doing the thing that the pre-fork copy wanted to be doing). It took me a while to realize how much sense that didn’t make; I always am the continuity that led to me, and am therefore whatever instance of CBH that you can hypothesize, and therefore I can’t pick and choose for myself. If anything that identifies itself as CBH can exist after any discontinuity from CBH Alpha, I am (and need to optimize for) all those selves.
This doesn’t mean I’m not OK with the idea of something like a transporter that causes me to cease to exist at one point and begin again at another point; the new instance still identifies as me, and therefore is me and I need to optimize for him. The old instance no longer exists and doesn’t need to be optimized for. On the other hand, this does mean I’m not OK with the idea of a machine that duplicates myself for the purpose of the duplicate dying, unless it’s literally a matter of saving any instance of myself; I would optimize for the benefit of all of me, not just for the one who pushed the button.
I’m not yet sure how I’d feel about a “transporter” which offered the option of destroying the original, but didn’t have to. The utility of such a thing is obviously so high I would use it, and I’d probably default to destroying the original just because I don’t feel like I’m such a wonderful benefit to the world that there needs to be more of me (so long as there’s at least one), but when I reframe the question from “why would I want to not be transported (i.e. to go on experiencing life here instead of wherever I was being sent)” to “why would I want to have fewer experiences than I could (i.e. only experience the destination of the transporter, instead of simultaneously experiencing both), I feel like I’d want to keep the original. If we alter the scenario just slightly, such that the duplicate is created as a fork and the fork is then optionally destroyed, I don’t think I would ever choose destruction except if it was a scenario along the lines of “painless disintegration or death by torture” and the torture wasn’t going to last long (no rescue opportunity) but I’d still experience a lot of pain.
These ideas largely came about from various fiction I’ve read in the last few years. Some examples that come to mind:
“Explorers” by Alicorn (http://alicorn.elcenia.com/stories/explorers.shtml ; her fiction first led me to discover LW, though this story is more recent than that)
Cory Doctorow’s short story To Go Boldly (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061562351/downandoutint-20)
The “Gavs” of Schlock Mercenary (big spoilers for a major plot arc if I talk about it in a lot of detail; just go read http://www.schlockmercenary.com/)
… and that doesn’t even get into the sexual-vs.-romantic issue. My girlfriend is cis and bisexual, but only andro-romantic (hetero). She identifies as bi, for purposes of broad categorization such as surveys like this, but has no interest in dating other women even though she is sexually attracted to them.
In other words, yes, the better way to ask such a question would be something along the lines of “which gender(s) are you romantically attracted to?” and “which gender(s) are you sexually attracted to?” as different questions.
Voldemort has an absolute truth oracle, or at least a sufficiently good approximation thereof, available too him. If Harry needs his wand to teach V one of his secrets, make him say so in Parseltongue. If H does demand his wand, make him state whether he intends to use it for anything but demonstrating a secret.
The wonderful thing here is that this gives all kinds of opportunities for V to screw up without realizing he’s screwing up. PT is a secret for which H needs his wand. H is, in a sense, demonstrating PT. Unless V was very careful about making H state his exact and full intentions, we could have had a plausible reason for H to have his wand. There’s really no plausible reason for V to just let him have it, though; disarming him (there’s even a spell which does exactly that, and one would hope his followers know it...) costs nothing but a small amount of time, and gains V potential defense against “a power he knows not”… the existence of such things being the whole reason V didn’t just have H killed immediately!
Nicer clothes. This one depends a lot on how style-conscious you and your usual environs are, of course, and probably a lot of people here don’t need to be told this. On the other hand, I’m sure there are also people here like I was a few years ago, when I not only didn’t care about style or fashion, I also basically just wore whatever was most cheap and comfortable in any given scenario. That was a mistake.
I found that having some respectably-nice-but-not-too-formal clothes can be a big plus in an environment where everybody expects a t-shirt with jeans/shorts. Think collared button-down shirt and slacks, with some nicer-than-everyday shoes. You don’t need many sets of such clothes—the idea is to have something nice to wear when you expect it to be noticed, not necessarily to overhaul your whole wardrobe—but for things like a party that a friend is throwing where you know there will be people who you haven’t met, it’s worth the investment. This is especially true if you’re looking for a new relationship.
It may take some work, if you’re not used to it, to figure out the right balance of formality and style. That’s OK. In my social circles it is often very easy to be the best-dressed guy in the room. A suit is too much. A coat and tie is too much. A $30 shirt and a $40 pair of slacks, plus some nice-ish shoes, will go a long way.
Direct reply to the discussion post: I would hope so, but at this point none of the top links on any search engine I tried lead here for “AI box”. Yudkowsky.net is on the first page, and there are a few LW posts, but they are nothing like the clearly-explanatory links (Wikipedia and RationalWiki) that make up the first results. Obviously, those links can be followed to reach LW, but the connection is pretty weak.
The search results for “Roko’s Basilisk” are both better and worse. LessWrong is prominently mentioned in them, often right in the page title and/or URL, but none of them speak particularly well of the site (Wikipedia’s entry—which I hadn’t seen since back when it was just a redirect to EY—prominently mentions two items in LW’s history: its founding and the Basilisk. That’s probably the least unfavorable description of the Basilisk too, but that doesn’t make it good. None of the results actually link here directly.
ANECDOTE TIME: I’m a fairly new member of LW; I’ve been reading LW-related stuff for over a year now but only created my account here recently. I had never heard of Roko’s Basilisk, which indicates two things to me: 1) The subject is well-suppressed here, to such a degree that I didn’t even realize it was taboo. I had to learn that from RationalWiki. 2) I obtained my knowledge about LW pretty exclusively from stuff that (current) LW members had posted or linked to about the site (as opposed to, say, reading RationalWiki which is a site I was aware of but hold in low regard).
My view on the whole subject is, quite simply, that we as aspiring rationalists need to acknowledge the past error and explain the Basilisk right here, not on Reddit or XKCD’s forums or RW/WP edit wars or anything like that. Put it in our own wiki. Put lots of links out to the other comments on it. Explain, where necessary, why those other comments are wrong… but prominently explain where LW (and yes, EY in particular) were wrong. Refute the argument of FAI engaging in acausal blackmail. Steelman the terror and defeat it anyhow. Do this on our own turf, with input from the community, and link to it when somebody externally brings up the subject! So long as LW remains Basilisk-free, people will claim we are unwilling to address the issue.
Top-level comment to say yep, took the survey! Well, except for the digit length by tool-aided measurement. However, I did do a rough measurement (which I chose to not record on the survey) by manually aligning the creases on both hands (first to verify corresponding finger lengths, then to compare D2:D4) I determined my digit ratio to be in excess of 1.00 and possibly as high as 1.02, which would make me very unusual (especially for a cis male). Then again, my height already makes me that.
Also, this is the first thread in which I’ve commented on LW! My actual first comment (with more stuff about the survey) is here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/l5k/2014_less_wrong_censussurvey/bihv EDIT: Feedback that I posted in that other comment, which it was pointed out really belongs here: Part Four’s “Moral Views” section could have used links (LW, WP, wherever) for those of us who aren’t sure about the selection of moral philosophies. It is a question I had been exploring, but mostly just in a “judge each as they are presented to me” approach and I had not encountered all of them before. Also, the WP articles for some of them do not contrast them with the others, so suggested alternate sources would be welcome.
EDIT2: Did somebody go on a downvote-rampage? Every comment in this section of the thread seems to have been downvoted at least once. Is there some rule of “you’re not supposed to get more than 12 free karma out of this thread” or something that I missed? (Bearing in mind that I’m a newbie, I did not expect this behavior and would generally appreciate knowing why something I post is downvoted.)