Coding day in and out on LessWrong 2.0. You can reach me at habryka@lesswrong.com
habryka(Oliver Habryka)
Karma: 19,846
Nah, seems to be a browser-specific bug. I expect we will fix it next week, after Thanksgiving.
Seems… hard and a bit overwhelming. My current guess is we are unlikely to do that, just because at least in my mental eye it feels like it would make the comment section quite cluttered.
Yeah, agree that the small comment count is too faint in dark mode.
Huh, toggling works fine for me. Maybe this was fixed in the last 12 hours?
I don’t like to have to scroll my screen horizontally to read the comment. (I notice there’s a lot of perfectly good unused white space on the left side; comments would probably fit horizontally if you pushed everything to the left!)
Yeah, this is pretty annoying. We spent a decent amount of time trying to make it so that the whole page shifts to the left when you open a comment, but it ended up feeling too janky. We might still make it work later on.
The current layout is optimized for 1440px wide screen size, which is the most common width that people use the site with, but we can probably make it work for people who are more zoomed in or have smaller screens after a bit more work.
Sometimes when you mouse over the side-comment icon, it tries to scroll the page to make the comment readable. This is very surprising and makes me lose my place.
Hmm, this seems likely a bug. What browser and OS are you using?
Hovering over the icon makes the comment appear briefly. If I then want to scroll in order to read the comment, there seems to be no way to ‘stay hovered’—I have to click and toggle it, to make the comment stick around so I can actually read it. (This plus being forced to scroll the screen makes the hover feature kind of useless.)
The way I’ve found it most comfortable to engage with the side comments was to hover, read the first few lines, author and karma, then click to pin the comment open and then read the rest. This… is of course harder if you are on a smaller screen and can’t even get that basic information without scrolling first. As a bandaid (though this isn’t great), the hover-area over the comment icon actually extends horizontally all the way to the right of the screen, so you should be able to start hovering, then scroll to the right, and then decide to click (though if you decide to not click and hover away, your scroll position is janked in a disorienting way, which is also pretty annoying, IMO).
I think overall we probably should find some way to make the post move further to the left. The big problem with this (which you can’t see on this post) is the Table of Contents which actually takes up most of the available space on the left when it is present, and making both the side comments appear and the ToC appear is actually pretty hard and we don’t have a ton of extra space to work with.
Yep, this is the intended way of opening the comments. Hover, read the first few lines to see whether you’re interested, then click to pin and fully read it, including the rest of the discussion.
Yeah, I also find this kind of annoying. The “intended” way of using it is to click on the comment icon which “pins” the comment open and then you can do with your mouse whatever you want. We played around with a few different ways of leaving it open, but all of them had more frustrating interactions than the current one.
Hmm, I feel like the revision would have to be in Scott’s comment. I was just responding to the names that Scott mentioned, and I think everything I am saying here is still accurate.
I think this is likely wrong. I agree that there is a plausible story here, but given the case that Sam seems to have lied multiple times in confirmed contexts (for example when saying that FTX has never touched customer deposits), and people’s experiences at early Alameda, I think it is pretty likely that Sam was lying quite frequently, and had done various smaller instances of fraud.
I don’t think the whole FTX thing was a ponzi scheme, and as far as I can tell FTX the platform itself (if it hadn’t burned all of its trust in the last 3 weeks), would have been worth $1-3B in an honest evaluation of what was going on.
But I also expect that when Sam used customer deposits he was well-aware that he was committing fraud, and others in the company were too. And he was also aware that there was a chance that things could blow up in the way it did. I do believe that they had fucked up their accounting in a way that caused Sam to fail to orient to the situation effectively, but all of this was many months after they had already committed major crimes and trust violations after touching customer funds as a custodian.
At least for income the effect seems robust into the tails, where IIRC each standard deviation added a fixed amount of expected income in basically the complete dataset.
Thanks! I guess one way to motivate our argument is that if the information-processing capabilities of humans were below the diminishing returns point, then we would have expect that individual humans with much greater than average information-processing capabilities to have distinct advantage in jobs such as CEOs and leaders. This doesn’t seem to be the case.
I don’t understand, this seems clearly the case to me. Higher IQ seems to result in substantially higher performance in approximately all domains of life, and I strongly expect the population of successful CEOs to have many standard deviations above average IQ.
This seems great, thank you!
We’ve been trying to reproduce this bug for a while. Do you by any chance have any series of steps that reliably produces it?
Yeah, I am sorry. Like, I don’t think I currently have the energy to try to communicate all the subtle things that feel wrong to me about this, but it adds up to something I quite dislike.
I wish I had a more crystallized quick summary that I expect to cross the inferential distance quickly, but I don’t currently.
I still get a strong feeling of group think every time I see the title of the post, and feel a strong sense of something invading into my thought-space in a way that feels toxic to me. For some reason this feels even stronger in the Twitter post you made:
I don’t know, I just feel like this is some kind of call-to-action that is trying to bypass my epistemic defenses.
I think the title is the biggest problem here:
We must be very clear: fraud in the service of effective altruism is unacceptable
There is no “I think” here, no “I believe”. At least to me it feels very much like a warcry instead of a statement about the world.
to make clear that we don’t support fraud in the service of effective altruism.
This is also a call to action to change some kind of collective belief. I agree that you might have meant “we individually don’t support fraud”, but the “in the service of effective altruism” gives me a sense of this being a reference to a collective belief of effective altruism.
I do agree you have overall been pretty clear, and I appreciate the degree to which you ground things in your personal beliefs, but I do think the title as well as the central call to action of the post goes against that.
I agree that there is value in common-knowledge building, but there is a difference between doing something that feels social-miasma or simulacrum-level 3 shaped where you assert that “WE ALL AGREE THAT X” vs. you argue that something is a good idea, and you currently believe lots of other people believe the same.
I think coordinating against dishonest practices is important, but I don’t think in order to do that we have to move away from just making primarily factual statements or describing your own belief state, and have to invent some kind of group-level belief.
Don’t know, I literally never talked to one during my studies. My guess is they would advise against it, but be pretty clear that it’s ultimately up to you.
I did a bit of a weird thing because I started university while I was still in high-school, but I had many friends who never attended a single lecture, and maybe did like 15% of the homework, and nobody cared and they didn’t seem to feel bad about it.
For context, at Berkeley (where I actually finished my undergrad) more than half of my classes had mandatory labs, and maybe 30% of my grade was determined by homework grades in almost all classes, so it was a very different experience.
But Rational Animations already has many animations?