You seem to have left out the fact that Robin Hanson is a renowned economics expert and likely has more skill in deciding when to sell stocks than his spouse.
frontier64
Karma: 531
Your son has been arrested and the news media has all reported that your son confessed to you, you told a priest friend of yours, and that priest/retired Sheriff went to the authorities which is what led to your son’s arrest. But this is a lie and the FBI is setting your son up as a patsy.
Do you either:
A) Give an unrecorded statement to an unknown source for a conspiracy-minded conservative journalist/podcaster and do nothing else besides that; or
B) Sing from the rooftops and to every single possible news outlet you can find that your son is being setup in order to free him.
To answer your question succinctly: I don’t see or not see a rifle. The video is not clear enough to tell. And I think we should draw zero consequences from that.
I think trying to deeply analyze a grainy video to confirm or deny the existence of a rifle is a fool’s errand when there’s so much other evidence available. It’s silly for the FBI to claim it’s definitively a rifle, and it’s silly to claim that not being able to see a rifle in that quality of video cuts against guilt.
There’s a ton of other evidence, finding the rifle near the scene of the shooting in the woods, the other surveillance where a rifle is much more visible, the texts, the confession, etc.
Tyler Robinson is Rudy Guede. The evidence points towards him. Is it vaguely possible that the FBI has manufactured a ton of evidence and has convinced many civilians, including Robinson’s own father and his boyfriend to lie, but that is a mere possibility and definitely not reasonable.
Who knows if it would have been better or worse if we preemptively nuked the USSR and all nations attempting to develop nuclear weapons? We might have entered a millenia of absolute peace enforced by imperial rule of a benevolent despot. We might have destroyed the world and eradicated the human race. This type of what-if is unknowable with our current simulation abilities.
We might not have ever had to even use the nukes if we merely made the true threat that we would nuke any country attempting to develop nuclear weapons or caught spying on American nuclear secrets. Japan was willing to take any deal short of absolute surrender to merely avoid fire-bombing. One can imagine that other countries with considerably less Bushido would fold to lesser demands such as “don’t develop your own nukes or spy on America.”
We have never seen a world in which one country had absolute technological and military superiority over all the others. I don’t think with our current level of technology we can tell with a high degree of certainty if the world under US Total Domination would be a better or worse place. I would bet that if the US was more purely despotic and less benevolent it’d at least be better for the average US citizen. Instead of worrying about debt and global trade, the US could have merely demanded other countries export their goods for free to America and focus domestic production mainly on the construction of nukes and nuke delivery systems.
Did you intend to copy-paste the same text twice?
I really don’t see where we go from “prevent USSR from developing nukes” to “completely destroy even all above-ground buildings”. This argument seems like a clear case of moving goalposts. Clearly destroying a large portion of a country’s government, research scientists, and manufacturing base would halt or destroy all progress on nukes even if the large majority of homes remain undestroyed. Also, destroying a country’s military capability would lead to a much easier takeover. In Vietnam the US suffered more to internal politics and poor military policy decisions leading to no clear goal and no victory condition. If we preemptively nuked the USSR and then sent in the troops to hold the ground and slowly convert the Eastern Bloc into a US state that almost certainly would have worked.
I feel like a post that was seriously trying to make the case that rationalism is a cult would be significantly longer and more thought out. This post provides a random definition of a set, claims that set = cult, and then makes the true assertion that rationalism is in that set.
What do you mean when you say “Compensation Impact: Low”?
There is no hider-expansionary dichotomy like you describe here. Hiding just means that the civilization is not exposing itself to outside threats by other more advanced civilizations, and is not detectable at our current level of technology. Hiding civilizations can expand, with whatever limitations the necessity of hiding requires.
The Dark Forest theory only tries to explain why our human civilization does not see obvious evidence of other intelligent civilizations.
How does AI being good at some tasks and worse at others make the graph you posted not a good tool at explaining FOOM or increasing AI capabilities?
I’m not saying it isn’t a problem at all. I think I explicitly acknowledged that there is a problem where I said “the majority of the downside.” But it is a problem that the free market can resolve. The free market can’t resolve the doctor problem because the government literally requires the worthless undergrad degree to allow someone to practice medicine or else they’ll be jailed.
Employers who poorly select employees will most likely be out-competed by employers who make better decisions when selecting employees. We already see this in hiring for software engineers where many employers will accept a bachelors degree or other experience which demonstrates coding skill.
And for software engineering, at least when I went to school, you still had to be able to program at least a little bit to get a degree.
The majority of the downside from credentialism comes from fields where it’s literally illegal to work if you don’t have the right college degree
Instead of doing this why not just, not require credentialism? Let the free market regulate doctors. Eliminate laws which put onerous credential requirements on professions where there’s high demand and low supply.
Putting a finite value on both an infinite lifespan of infinite pleasure and an infinite lifespan of torture allows people to avoid difficult decisions in utility maximization such as Pascal’s Mugging.
Maybe this is why so many people seem to naively express that they don’t actually want to live forever because they would get lonely and all their friends would die and etc. They’re actually enacting a smart strategy which provides protection from edge case situations. This strategy also benefits from having a low cost of analysis.
Sorry to necro, but the sailor didn’t give anybody any new information with respect to eye colors that they didn’t have already. Each person A-E knew that there were 4 other people minimum with blue eyes and they also knew that each other person knew there was at least a minimum of 3 people with blue eyes.
Everyone suddenly gaining the common knowledge that at least one of them has blue eyes is not actually new knowledge at all.
ETA: I envision a story where they realize that if Enuli never takes the Sparkroot again and is no longer a genius logician they can save themselves that way.
[I’m not completely sure EDT can’t do better than this, so corrections with even more elaborate schemes encouraged]
I blindfold myself, weigh two random boxes, then weigh the other two random boxes. I pick the box pair which weighs the least then randomly select between those two. If no weight difference then select randomly. This should net you the maximum amount of $301 if the hosts naively compete against each other as you describe in your scenario (i.e. competing against each other by putting more money in boxes just to arrive at the same 25% equilibrium without any sort of cooperation between them).
Hosts are incentivized to put the maximum amount of money in each other box because if only one Host is putting money in the other boxes they guarantee themselves to be in that least heavy pair (total weight of $202 in pairs without their box and $102 in the pair with their box). If 3 of the Hosts are putting money in the other boxes but 1 Host isn’t, he’s screwing himself because his box will never be the least heavy pair (total weight of $502 in the pair with their box and only $402 in the pair with the other two boxes).
I think a lot of such people can be “cured” by high certainty of being caught, not by severity of punishment
This stems from a misunderstanding of how the career-criminal mind works. They don’t really care about being caught. They remember how out of the last 40 or so times they walked into Walmart and left with ~$100 in unpaid merchandise they only got caught half the time and the other half of the time they got let off with time served of 10-20 days. Either they get away with it or they gotta wait a couple weeks before they get to try again. Not a big deal either way.
So much of the crime plaguing modern America is open and obvious and even caught on camera. It’s just that the criminal justice system refuses to punish repeat petty offenders.
What punishment do you think someone who has been convicted of stealing 15 times before should get on his 16th conviction?
I’ve reviewed many of these cases and it typically means the prosecutors changed from a tough-on-crime prosecutor to a restorative justice prosecutor who’s looking to get a nice media headline. The convicted man is still obviously guilty, but because they found one piece of evidence that cuts against guilt, but is in no way exonerating, they decide to let the convicted rapist/murderer/etc. go free.
Best example is the Central Park 5. If any aspiring-bayesian take a look at that case they’ll realize very quickly that the 5 people convicted definitely held down a woman while she was being raped. Yet for some reason they are now lauded as innocent men wrongly convicted.
I’ll let you operationalize it and give you 3 to 1 odds.
edit: My main point is that a lot of people who are otherwise very smart have no idea how the criminal justice system works. They think our prisons are overflowing with people convicted of non-violent drug offenses when nothing could be further from the truth. Our prisons are overflowing with robbers, stabbers, rapists, arsonists, burglars, and murderers. That’s because the media and activist groups lie and misrepresent the truth. We wouldn’t ever have to execute a non-violent drug dealer to free up prison space.
I would say this clearly falls outside my bet as I said “solely for sale of Marijuana” and this news release says, “were each sentenced today to 30 months in prison” and “pleaded guilty in November 2023 to conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana and conspiracy to commit money laundering”
So really a no-brainer. Unless I can look at their sentencing agreement and it says they got time-served on the conspiracy to commit money laundering and their sentence to 30 months is solely for the conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana count.
It seems like you’ve done some research on this topic now. Do you want to take me up on my bet?
edit: Also your article is for a 30 months sentence which started back in November 2023. I’d also bet that those defendants are either released right now or are very close to it.
I’m not talking about the dad telling Robinson to turn himself in. I’m talking about police reporting that the father said Robinson confessed. That is a massive distinction and the fact that Candace Owens continues to focus on the ‘told him to turn himself in’ while ignoring the whole part about the dad reportedly saying his son confessed makes me distrust her reporting on this issue.
Also, I am a criminal attorney. I would have the father sign and swear to an affidavit attesting to the truth, and then circulate that to the news media and immediately file it with the Court as part of a bond motion. I would also have Robinson’s father testify at a bond hearing if possible. This is a routine practice of criminal defense attorneys. While this is an unusual situation, if Robinson truly was being setup by the FBI I would expect the next thing to happen is that he be killed in custody because the case clearly won’t stick if they’re making it up this bad.