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.
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.
It can happen in that direction, but it’s a very simplified model.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Most people who have fear of heights don’t often fall in a way that hurts them.
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.
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.
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.”
I corrected the first sentence.
The sentence is true for both.
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.
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.
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?
How about naming the sections after important people the way we commonly name our streets and public places after people?
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.