This post is about seeing constraints in planning/agents/environments and how to wield those constraints effectively to achieve your goals.
There is a huge literature on this type of agenda setting. I think for the most part one person achieving their goals will depend a lot on how well others, with competing and possibly incompatible goal, recognize the situation and formulate their own strategies.
Agree with most of what is said. I would also point to educational alternatives like the Khan Academy.
Regarding ” If the systems are as a corrupt as you think they are, they should destroy themselves on their own in any case.” I am wondering if that is saying we will not see stable systems that are inherently corrupt (no stable equilibrium with corruption) or “that level” is not stable—but I didn’t see anything that suggest some excessively large level of corruption.
I think I would be more concerned about corrupt practices driving out possible innovations and perhaps limiting growth (but here not sure as I see China’s economy and polity as largely corrupt but they seem to be growing fine and are as stable as the USA or EU I would suggest)
Interesting article on Quanta. https://www.quantamagazine.org/new-hybrid-species-remix-old-genes-creatively-20190910/
Not quite sure where this would fit into your views. A numbers of years back I came across an article about snails. Those that lived below of certain depth of water were unisex—self replicating. The same species of snail, when living in shallower waters displayed male and female and reproduction required the exchange of genetic materials as you mentioned.
The theory on why that was observed was at a certain depth the snails were not confronted with a lot of the diseases they faced in the shallower waters. Sharing the genetic code improved their ability to fight the diseases, IIRC.
I do not see that it is my position to suggest or argue that you be anything. I would suggest the “burden of proof” why X does y will always belong with X.
If atheism is the faith position you want to defend or challenge with your power of specifics that is fine with me. It would be engaging shminux’s suggestion rather than sidestepping it.
I am not defending or refuting anything here but will point out that atheism is a statement about something not existing. Proving something does not exist is a highly problematic exercise.
I’m finding this post difficult. The main reason I think is that the most focuses on controlling the temperature change rather than focusing on the results of temperature change and identifying the resulting problem.
Both provided links are nearly mute on that question, providing a short paragraph without further discussion or support.
The impact of global warming is far greater than just increasing temperatures. Warming modifies rainfall patterns, amplifies coastal erosion, lengthens the growing season in some regions, melts ice caps and glaciers, and alters the ranges of some infectious diseases. Some of these changes are already occurring.
A couple of degrees change in the average yearly temperature is far from a minor event. When Earth”s temperature was 5°C lower, the sea level was 120m lower and all of Northern Europe and Canada were covered by a gigantic ice cap (one could hike from Vermont to Greenland). Furthermore, average temperatures do not tell the whole story. As average temperatures increase, the likelihood of extreme temperature events might increase as well.
A change of a couple of degrees over the surface of the Earth first causes the oceans to absorb the extra heat. In the process, they expand (raising the sea level) and cause increased evaporation, which leads to perturbed air and water currents. This yields an increased likelihood of extreme weather events, such as drought, hurricanes or floods. This is already observed as e.g. coral reefs are starting to die.
Longer term effects are harder to quantify as a temperature change this sudden has never been witnessed in the past. To get an rough idea, this map shows what the world will look like 4° warmer while this article shows how sensitive birds and bees are to climate change. Furthermore, higher temperatures and more extreme weather causes crops to fail which will force refugees to flee inhabitable regions.That’s ultimately bad for the economy.
The NASA statement seem, in most cases ambiguous. Changing rain patterns may be good, may be bad and the assessment probably depends on where you are. Lengthening growing seasons seems like a good thing—we can feed more people, food maybe gets cheaper to produce and so cheaper to buy? I would like to know more about the affects of coastal erosion—I don’t believe it is one sided and always detrimental.
Tomorrow offers more but also includes more “weasel” terms—might be, hard to quantify....
Additionally, another NASA link (found when looking for how temperatures are estimated for the past when we don’t have recorded data) indicated 65 million years back temperatures were 10 − 15 degrees C higher. Life certainly seems to have been flourishing back them.
So, what specifics should be be looking at here. Seems like we’re jumping on the “stop the warming” train without considering the benefits to warming and then considering the better approach might well be to accept higher temperatures (so it doesn’t matter the cause really) and develop the technologies that are consistent with the evolving environment. Or more likely, some middle ground—there are lots of reasons to limit emissions unrelated to temperature rising.
I just don’t get why I really need to care about the average temperature as the main focus of either problem or solution. This is much more complicated than that and all the specifics here seem to cast as much shadow as light.
Politics and policy more often than now works to internalize rewards and externalize cost for a relevant block or special interest.
I would like to see shminux challenge addressed here. Let’s pick another faith based case—or even the atheist position (which I would argue is just as much about faith as the religious persons). I agree with the position that rationality leads not to no belief (in god or some other position) but an agnostic position.
I think you use “value” in a confusing manner. If value is the nominal price then value increases or decreases only if total income increases or decreases. If value is used in the sense I think you generally mean, then that is a largely (overwhelmingly largely IMO) subjective judgement and it’s not clear if buying the car or making the donation a superior outcome.
Additionally, I think the conclusion, seems to needs something said about what the new restaurant owner and workers are doing. If we’re in a zero-sum game then it really should be a wash. If, as generally accepted, markets tend to be positive sum games then we have a case of a smaller share of a larger pie (that is some of the employees will now eat at the first restaurant where as they could not before as they were unemployed, or making less money).
The other observation is about network effects. It used to be that businesses, particularly restaurants type businesses I think, used think they needed to be away from other restaurants. It was a form of spacial competition for demand. But that view has fallen to reality. We we that proximity to other competitors is not that bad and can actually increase total demand for all on the supply side. That seems to be driven by network type effects. Think about the dinning/club districts in cities, shopping mall and their food courts.
Of course there are limits but the simple model of competition don’t really seem to capture the real dynamics of market competition.
I wonder if part of messiness might stem from confusing various domains and ranges. For example, for human, we have a complex of wants—some are driven very much by physiological factors, some by cultural factor and some by individual factors (including things like what I did yesterday or 5 hours ago). We might call these our preference domain.
Then we need some function mapping the preferences into the range of behaviors that are observable. Assuming that there is something approximating a function here (caveat—not a math guy here so maybe that is misused/loaded here). From that we have some hope for deducing the behavior back to the preference.
However, we should not consider the above three sources as coming from the same domain, or mapping to the same range. Confusion may come in from both the fuzziness (I’m implicitly agreeing with the general cannot infer preferences from behavior that well as a general proposition) of the “correct” function as well as a confusion of associating a behavior to one of the three ranges, and then attempting to deduce the preference.
If I see A doing x and ascribe x to the physiological range and then attempt to deduce the preference (in the physiological domain) when x is actually in the individual range for A I will probably see a lot of errors. But maybe not 100% error.
I do think there is something to the we’re all human so can recognize a lot of meaning in action from others—but things like culture (as mentioned) does influence performance here. So, what is an acceptable accuracy rate? Is the goal mathematical certainty or something else?
Not invested either, but I thought its view of the future where, in general, people moved from owning transportation capital (cars) to one of an on demand use of transportation service seems to have some sense to it. Coupled with the move toward rental of personal assets while not used, like the AirBnB model it looks a bit better too (perhaps as a transition state...?)
That does seem to depend on more than merely the technical and financial aspect. I suspect there is also the whole cultural and social (and probably the legal liability and insurance aspects for the autonomous car) part that will need to shift to support that type of market shift.
Not sure if this is a move in the similar direction but one of the big car rental companies just launched (or will) a new service for longer term rental. Basically you can pay a monthly fee and drive most of the cars they offer. The market here seemed to be those that might want a difference car every few weeks (BMW this month, Audi next, any maybe Lexus a bit later...). In the back of my mind I cannot help be see some time of signaling motivation here and wonder just how long that lasts if everyone can do it—all the different cars you are seen driving no long signals any really type of status. Still, there are clearly some functional aspects that make it appealing over having to own multiple vehicles.
I find that I struggle with the rhetoric of the argument. Shouldn’t the goal be to illuminate facts and truths rather than merely proving the other side wrong? Specifics certainly allow the illumination of truths (and so getting less wrong in our decisions and actions). However, it almost reads like the goal is to use specificity as some rhetorical tool in much the same way statistics can be misused to color the lens and mislead.
I’m sure that is not your goal so assume one of the hidden assumptions here could be put in the title. One additional word: The Power to Demolish BAD Arguments might set a better tone at the start.
True, it would be a very awkward mechanism to allow the front wheel to be turned.
Clearly an example of what Said was pointing out!
Edit—after some though driving home yesterday it occurred that I was in error in agreeing with the “cannot steer” claim. My error was imposing the image of the rear drive chain arrangement as the only way to drive the front wheel. That is not the case and it seem a few others besides Ericf and I fell into that error in mindset.
I did understand that. I find that my ability to read Korean is improving with my ability to understand the spoken language and my vocabulary improved faster than with just flash cards.
Might be me but my thinking was still along the lines of forming more connections to the meaning and so making it more efficient learning of the vocabulary.
I do like that suggestion about trying to remove the English word and just try to associate the foreign word with the concept/thing.
not sure if this would help or not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbvaITy3oeQ
Basically someone talking about how to use Anki effectively based on his own experiences and what he found he was doing wrong.
It might be not so great as it’s about learning medical terms for med school so not quite a new language.
Not sure if you’ve seen Quizlet before or not. I like that tools it offers. If you have not already looked at that you might take a look. Not sure how easy it would be but Quizlet also allows sharing decks with others so if you have anyone you are learning with—or are in any online groups for learning German that might provide some options to help.
It sounds like you’ve already homed in on one of the big items—relevance and context to you personally.
One last thing, do you speak the word aloud? If not maybe try. That will engage other parts of your brain and so perhaps create more links to the meaning and a stronger memory of the word and meaning.
Last edit… Do you listen to any German language music or watch German language movies/shows?
Hmm, never thought about it but an all wheel drive bike sounds like it might be useful—maybe as off road/mountain bike. (Said by the guy who has ridden the bike he bough at least 5 years ago about 5 time now....)
Along the same lines as TurnTrout, I was wondering about the abstraction versus specific situation. I am not asking that any share anything they would not be comfortable with. However, I do think abstraction from oneself in the analysis can just be another one of the protection mechanisms that can be used to allow us to appear to be making progress while while still avoiding the underlying truth driving our behaviors.
That said, I think Sara offers some very good items to consider.
Okay, this next bit is not directly related but seems implicit in the posting, and other posts I’ve read here. Does the LW community tend to see the human mind and “person” as a collection of entities/personalities/agents/thinking processes? Or am I jumping to some completely absurd conclusion on that?
Yes, I think that helped.
Very relevant to this post:
“Don’t over think things.” versus “If it seems clear and obvious, you don’t really understand it.”
Thinking of the skin in the game and asymmetric justice example, I wonder if one aspect might be considering why the saying came about. Skin in the game seems to be something about *others* we interact with on something. We’re happy to join in to play under those terms, perhaps some incentive to trust the other will also make an effort. The asymmetric justice aspect is more about how we might behave to a large extent independent of what the others are doing.
We might also want to say both are saying the same thing, but illustrating a different facet. If no one has any skin in the game how would mistakes be punished? The incentives for all having skin in the game is about getting people to join (play with the others) while the asymmetric justice incentive notes the cost of that buy-in to get a game played.
Not all all sure how far that get though. It is a very interesting thought you’ve given.
I wonder if casting the approach as a prudent application of Occam’s Razor might make it a bit less needful of defense.
If one can simplify things by treating to arguably different things the same and thereby shed light and gain a better understanding of either or both that seems useful.