ChristianKl

• ChristianKl 20 Mar 2019 10:43 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Richard_Kennaway's comment on: What so­cieties have ever had le­gal or ac­cepted black­mail?

  There are go­ing to be cases where an­other per­son re­veals the in­for­ma­tion or the black­mailer asks for more money then the vic­tim is open to pay and the deal doesn’t go over effec­tively.

• ChristianKl 20 Mar 2019 10:37 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: TAG's comment on: What so­cieties have ever had le­gal or ac­cepted black­mail?

  I think if you ask most US billion­aires about Lese Ma­jeste laws they could hon­estly say, that they don’t want them.

  As far as free speech goes, there’s a lot of own­er­ship con­cen­tra­tion of me­dia in a few elite hands and in gen­eral so­ciety is struc­tured in a way that it’s much harder to use speech to change power re­la­tion­ship then it’s true in other coun­tries. Pri­vate prop­erty rights are strongly pro­tected and it’s hard to change them via pub­lic opinion.

  If a Rus­sian oli­garch loses in the court of pub­lic opinion they end up in prison. Western equiv­a­lents have to worry less and that makes free speech a lot less threat­en­ing.

• ChristianKl 19 Mar 2019 15:20 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: rmoehn's comment on: A cog­ni­tive in­ter­ven­tion for wrist pain

  It can hap­pen in that di­rec­tion, but it’s a very sim­plified model.

• ChristianKl 19 Mar 2019 14:17 UTC

  5 points

  in reply to: ryan_b's comment on: What so­cieties have ever had le­gal or ac­cepted black­mail?

  Plenty of peo­ple write de­tailed dairies about im­por­tant events in their lives and those di­aries of­ten do en­ter the his­tor­i­cal record.

  Many peo­ple who deal with money have per­sonal ac­count­ing about their own fi­nan­cial flows.

  A black­mailed per­son might ask oth­ers for help to deal with the black­mail with re­sults in let­ters be­ing writ­ten.

• ChristianKl 19 Mar 2019 10:35 UTC

  3 points

  on: Has “poli­tics is the mind-kil­ler” been a mind-kil­ler?

  Peo­ple do go funny in the head when dis­cussing poli­tics. Peo­ple who would never ad­vo­cate for a med­i­cal treat­ment be­cause they know one per­son for whom that treat­ment was effec­tive are of­ten very fast to see it as a valid ar­gu­ment that a given poli­ti­cal policy is good be­cause they ob­served pos­i­tive out­comes in a sin­gle coun­try af­ter im­ple­ment­ing that policy.

  I quite re­cently heard from a Bay Area ex­pat that they con­sider both Eliezer and Scott to have been poli­ti­cally mind­kil­led in the last years. I don’t think Eliezer ate that hat he promised to eat.

  Think­ing ra­tio­nally in gen­eral is hard and it’s even more hard when state­ments are linked to tribal loy­al­ity. It’s worth­while to keep in mind that it’s quite easy to be­come mind­kil­led while dis­cussing poli­tics when one en­gages in dis­cussing poli­tics.

• ChristianKl 19 Mar 2019 8:41 UTC

  4 points

  on: Has “poli­tics is the mind-kil­ler” been a mind-kil­ler?

  The term dog whis­tle seems very com­monly mi­sused. Ac­cord­ing to the core mean­ing of the term, most peo­ple can’t rec­og­nize the dog whis­tles of groups to which they be­long.

  Wear­ing a MEGA hat isn’t a dog whis­tle, wear­ing Thor Steinar might be. If I meet some­one wear­ing Thor Steinar I likely won’t no­tice and as a re­sult there wouldn’t be mind kil­ling effects.

  The idea that you should treat cer­tain state­ments as dog whis­tles be­cause they are fre­quently made by peo­ple with cer­tain poli­ti­cal views and those state­ments should be treated as if the per­son is ar­gu­ing for some­one else, is an idea that’s mind-kil­ling.

• ChristianKl 18 Mar 2019 23:43 UTC

  2 points

  on: Ideas for a fact check­ing widget

  You haven’t made a pro­posal of how the sys­tem would work the­o­ret­i­cally, so we aren’t even at the prob­lem that needs soft­ware de­vel­op­ers.

  You didn’t say who’s sup­posed to spent the time to do to link to all the fact-check­ing web­sites and make the de­ci­sion about how what’s writ­ten in the ar­ti­cle cor­re­sponds to what’s writ­ten on the fact check­ing web­sites.

• ChristianKl 18 Mar 2019 23:31 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: ryan_b's comment on: What so­cieties have ever had le­gal or ac­cepted black­mail?

  That as­sumes that all peo­ple who en­gage in black­mail have perfect OpSec in the face of mak­ing en­e­mies. In the real world peo­ple screw up from time to time.

• ChristianKl 18 Mar 2019 17:16 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: Sherrinford's comment on: What so­cieties have ever had le­gal or ac­cepted black­mail?

  The gen­eral im­pres­sion you get from read­ing me­dia ar­ti­cles about the Na­tional En­quirer is that they quite fre­quently black­mail peo­ple and that black­mailing Be­zos wasn’t an ex­cep­tion. Yet, at the same time there doesn’t seem much en­force­ment.

• ChristianKl 18 Mar 2019 11:14 UTC

  5 points

  in reply to: TAG's comment on: What so­cieties have ever had le­gal or ac­cepted black­mail?

  Han­son’s ar­gu­ment was that black­mail ille­gal­ity is good for elites but not good for so­ciety as a whole. It’s not sur­pris­ing if the laws are struc­tured in a way that’s good for elites.

• ChristianKl 17 Mar 2019 0:13 UTC

  5 points

  in reply to: jessicata's comment on: Privacy

  Most peo­ple who have fear of heights don’t of­ten fall in a way that hurts them.

• ChristianKl 16 Mar 2019 9:59 UTC

  10 points

  in reply to: jessicata's comment on: Privacy

  Im­pli­ca­tion: it’s bad for peo­ple to have much more in­for­ma­tion about other peo­ple (gen­er­ally), be­cause they would re­ward/​pun­ish them based on that info, and such re­ward­ing/​pun­ish­ing would be un­just.

  I don’t think that’s a nec­es­sary im­pli­ca­tion. In a world where peo­ple live in fear of be­ing pun­ished they will be able to act in a way to avoid un­just pun­ish­ment. That world is still one where peo­ple suffer from liv­ing in fear.

• ChristianKl 16 Mar 2019 9:24 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: Charlie Steiner's comment on: A cog­ni­tive in­ter­ven­tion for wrist pain

  It’s not ei­ther-or. Stress makes the area more tense (both fas­cia and mus­cle), and then among other effects lymph fluid doesn’t flow as well which makes it harder with the body to deal with ex­ist­ing in­flam­ma­tion.

  In gen­eral du­al­ism is not a use­ful frame­work for un­der­stand­ing hu­mans.

• ChristianKl 16 Mar 2019 9:19 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: rmoehn's comment on: A cog­ni­tive in­ter­ven­tion for wrist pain

  Quick Googling sug­gests:

  Carpal Tun­nel Syn­drome is the #1 re­ported med­i­cal prob­lem, ac­count­ing for about 50% of all work-re­lated in­juries

  Presently, the costs to busi­nesses that em­ploy work­ers at high risk to de­velop Carpal Tun­nel Syn­drome and other Repet­i­tive Stress In­juries is stag­ger­ing. It is es­ti­mated that RSI “costs em­ploy­ers over $80 billion yearly.”

• ChristianKl 16 Mar 2019 9:01 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: rmoehn's comment on: A cog­ni­tive in­ter­ven­tion for wrist pain

  I cor­rected the first sen­tence.

  The sen­tence is true for both.

• ChristianKl 15 Mar 2019 22:05 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: Charlie Steiner's comment on: A cog­ni­tive in­ter­ven­tion for wrist pain

  While do­ing pain-con­trol di­rectly isn’t a use­ful long-term strat­egy that doesn’t mean that the same is true for a mind-body ap­proach that goes over how do deal with stress.

  I think, as one grows old, one gets a bet­ter sense that the hu­man body just breaks down some­times, and doesn’t re­pair it­self perfectly.

  And it re­pairs it­self a lot worse when it’s highly stressed.

• ChristianKl 13 Mar 2019 16:09 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: mr-hire's comment on: How to Un­der­stand and Miti­gate Risk

  How my own driv­ing skill differs from the av­er­age per­son feels to me a straight­for­ward known un­known. For rice prices there’s the known un­known whether and re­sult­ing global crop yield.

  For a busi­ness that sells crops it’s rea­son­able to buy op­tions to pro­tect against risk that come from the un­cer­tainty about fu­ture prices.

• ChristianKl 12 Mar 2019 14:43 UTC

  2 points

  on: How to Un­der­stand and Miti­gate Risk

  I’m sur­prised about the ex­am­ples you have for trans­par­ent risks. When it comes to drunk driv­ing, I have no idea how many driv­ing skills com­pare to the av­er­age per­son.

  Com­mod­ity mar­kets do oc­ca­sional move in price as well. https://​​www.in­dex­mundi.com/​​com­modi­ties/​​?com­mod­ity=rice&months=60 sug­gests that there were two months in the last 5 years where rice prices shifted by more then 10%.

  That’s very differ­ent then the risk of win­ning the lot­tery where you can ac­tu­ally calcu­late the odds pre­cisely. Taleb uses the term “lu­dic fal­lacy” for failing to dis­t­in­guish those two types of risk. Given that you do quote Taleb later on, have you made a con­scious de­ci­sion to re­ject his no­tion of the “lu­dic fal­lacy”? If so, wha’t your rea­son­ing for do­ing so?

• ChristianKl 12 Mar 2019 14:23 UTC

  0 points

  on: Re­nam­ing “Front­page”

  How about nam­ing the sec­tions af­ter im­por­tant peo­ple the way we com­monly name our streets and pub­lic places af­ter peo­ple?

• ChristianKl 12 Mar 2019 14:17 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: Rob Bensinger's comment on: Re­nam­ing “Front­page”

  I’m not a na­tive speaker but the term Bul­letin Board maps for my in­tu­tive sense to im­me­di­ately to vbul­letin.

  Meta seems to me much clearer then Web­site.