I think as a meta level the relocated comment is still important.
People who are systematically oppressed, might have a different perspective than Jacob, who has been transiently hurt. For example, I have seen several different black people with an audience support contextual victim-hood, but the stance from white men is almost all in agreement with Jacob.
As someone with neither history, I won’t further speculate.
It’s a different process.
Indicates that a rain drop can attract “tens to hundreds” of particles (plus the one it nucleates around). Since rain clouds are about 5000 feet up, shower (or hose) water traveling 5-10 feet would be expected to grab 0-1 particle, depending on the ionization, which is also generated by the atmospheric generation method, which is not present in the “stream of municipal water separating into droplets”
Note: Vimes is thinking of the landed gentry when he is considering the “rich”—that would be the top 1%, not the tippy-top super-rich. Also, in a pseudo-medivial environment, the lifestyle inequality isn’t as extreme as today’s 50th % vs 1%.
What boots theory is saying is that the rich have assets that provide ongoing value, in addition to their income producing assets, and so even someone with only (modern numbers) $500,000 in assets (house, car, stuff, some investments) and a part time non-profit job that pays $25,000 a year is going to live a more comfortable life than someone in Vimes position of ~$1,000 in assets and $75,000 a year from his full-time watch commander job.
The “Please” doesn’t actually belong. I was importing the definition “I would be somewhat happier if …” into that word, but the cultural overtones cannot be escaped, and that puts the sentence anywhere on the Level Scale
Upon reflection, I see that any request necessarily has overtones at all levels, due to the possibility of alternative phrasings. (Please X; X; Hey you, X; X, or else; ^&*^% X &*^%%)
80% of US residents communicate at Level 1 80% of the time. “Please pass the potatoes,” “where are the lightbulbs,” “that will be $13.97,” etc. have no higher meaning, and make up the vast majority of mouth noises/text strings communicated between people.
The question of levels is limited to the 20% not related to immediate “molecules-impinging-on-my-body” things.
This seems like an actively harmful norm, and should be stopped.
If the existing karma total influences your vote strength at all, then the same post could end up with different final karma depending on the order people read/rate it. I think that is actively harmful to the goals of the karma system.
Ok. I don’t think that’s the central example of what people, including Zvi, are picturing when you say “legalize blackmail.” In fact, de-criminalizing that specific interaction, but leaving alone laws & norms against uncapped extraction, threats, etc. might find few opponents.
IANAL, but is it actually illegal for me to say “hey Bob, I have this NDA all written up, wherein I agree not to reveal [embarrassing but not criminal detail], and I have to pay you $100,000 if I ever do. How much will you pay me to sign it?”
Why? In what domain does unpacking the definition of “exists” lead to more clarity?
This looks a lot like saying “5 isn’t real, it’s just 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1”
“Electrons exist” means I anticipate other people acting in a way that matches how they would act if their observations matched my map of how electrons function.
Verbal shorthands are useful things.
Consider the scenarios:
Alec: Please come up with a good haiku
Bob: OK. gets out phone, types in notes for 10 minutes, visibly counting syllables on fingers
Cal: OK. sits quietly sipping a beverage for 10 minutes
Bob and Cal come up with the same haiku.
In this scenario, Cal is signalling slack. How praiseworthy that is is context dependent. If Alec was looking for someone to take this request seriously, Bob looks better. If Alec was looking for someone to do further work in the future, Cal looks better.
How confident are you that [proposed lessons] are (sufficiently) better in general, and not just better for your learning/communicatiin style?
Question: are you neurotyoical and/or have you had neurotypical people express the same concerns?
My understanding is that there is a default rule that covers 80% of “can you keep a secret” and exceptions in either direction are either explicitly defined (eg Boeing does annual proprietary information training) or the alternate norm is known by the group (gossiping teenagers)
There is an unstated assumption here that the words chosen map to some internal level of confidence. I don’t believe that is the case for most people. Saying something is “certain” vs “likely” vs “will happen” is driven more by the immediate external factors (eg did the previous speaker just use the word “certain”—even on a completely different topic?) than any long term internal consistent reflections of internal confidence.
It’s a stretch of the vocabulary, but Harvard and other elite institutions are a Schelling Point. Those with status send their kids there, because other people with status do so. Therefore, even if it were proven that the Harvatd education was equivalent to an average California State College, the nexus of networking opportunity would still give it significantly enhanced value.
Just a note that 1-self only works for people with:
Enough call-it-willpower (many people need an outside motivator to do hard things)
Enough general intelligence/knowledge to be able to generate ideas like “I could look this up by typing XYZ into google”
See my response below about unknown unknowns.
Suggestion: make it a wiki, not a forum.
That way there is no author associatable to any given idea, and bad ideas can be called out in place eg:
The Illuminati (note: there is no credible evidence that The Illuminati exist <link>) support the Democrat party (note: Democrat party is a disrespectful term used by the opponent of the United States Democratic Party) via sales of pot laced baked goods.
That’s orthogonal to my comment.
Sleeping pills help you sleep.
Buying overpriced insurance (lowers stress and thereby) helps you sleep.
Right, but they don’t update to that from a single data point (looking at the winning numbers and their ticket once), they seek out additional data until they have enough subjective evidence to update to the very, very, unlikely event (and they are able to do this because the event actually happened). Probably hundreds of people think they won any given lottery at first, but when they double-check, they discover that they did not.
Do not neglect the impacts of the obverse action. If you decline the interview, what impact will that have? Maybe the reporter will pick someone else to interview (so, are you a better or worse candidate than whoever their next contact is?), or just put “could not be reached for comment” (what impact does that have on the rest of the article?)