That is an intentional organizational design with the clear effect of pressuring people into staying and committing harder.
it’s an involuntary organizational reflex meant to protect a beloved centralizing ego from the injury of abandonment.
kbear
Karma: 706
mindlessly copying others
what a harmful lie. they don’t learn “do these actions”, but rather “think these thoughts (which lead to these actions)”. quite the opposite of mindless.
me and my friends’ll be picking up all the free $5 bills you and your enemies spite each other with.
long reflection = i want that. please. please let me have that. you have given a name to a thing that i have deeply, deeply wanted for longer than i can remember.
long self-correction = hello, human resources?
org-mode mania
i see. so if the union obtains monopoly pricing power (according to some definition), it should be broken up then?
I don’t think researchers in math/TCS will be made obsolete, but I think it will instead no longer make sense to work on any low-hanging, or even medium-hanging (you know what I mean) fruit. We’ll be needed for problems where actual novel approaches are needed.
those lower fruits give the shorter mathematicians the nutrients they need to grow!
wrote a sibling :)
i suspect we are having similar outcomes here, but that i’m noticing “hey, this is better than the last one: its ideas are sometimes interesting to consider” while you’re noticing more “ehh, it still doesn’t get it”.
certainly my best results come from isolating a specific problem, and asking the model to summarize the problem back to me. unclear whether this is more useful than a diary! well, except in the critical sense that i am not motivated to use a diary.
i find that past a fairly low amount of complexity, the model starts forgetting rules, or ignoring/inventing context.
(as for the downvotes: i mean, if you’re sitting at +X agreement, i should be at -X, no?)
to be clear, my bar for ‘impressed’ is pretty low, having tried previous models for these things.
i got good results from fable by asking the model to come up with a system that described a few mechanics, and then look for missing mechanics within that system. i was pleased with the system it developed, and found a few of its proposals inspiring, though not usable verbatim.
i’ve been very impressed with fable for these use cases.
the details of what the people-on-the-ground want/need and the realpolitik matter a bunch.
i guess this is what i’m trying to understand.
as a meta point, i get the impression that you think i’m being obtuse for rhetorical reasons. but i promise you: i’m just obtuse!
like, based on this comment, it seems like you think i’m going “today i will lump these two obviously different things together, he he he” (i guess because i want to lose some arguments on the internet :) ). but from my perspective, i can’t tell the difference! everyone’s telling me that there’s a clear distinction between labor unions and fishery contracts, but no one is telling me what that difference is. i’m confused!
thanks. that all seems reasonable.
regarding labor unions, do you think the government should regulate their formation, since they involve price-fixing collusion?
The youngest children choose whatever looks like the biggest amount of juice. They seem to believe that the juice becomes “more” when it is poured from one glass to another.
from watching video of these studies, i reached a different interpretation. specifically, i believe that group 1 is best modeled as playing a language game with the facilitator.
the facilitator places the lumps of identical clay, and asks which is more. the child indicates that they are the same. one piece of clay is flattened, and the facilitator asks again which is more. the child now indicates the flattened clay.
what’s interesting to me, here, is that the child’s focus is on the facilitator, and not on the clay.
my best understanding is that the child is uncertain about the meaning of the word ‘more’ in the context. it’s a bit of an odd question the facilitator is asking, right? and perhaps the child is thinking “well, maybe ‘more’ means ‘bigger’?” or some unverbal equivalent. (note that, if the facilitator did ask “now, which one is bigger?”, then the flattened clay would be a natural choice, even for an adult.)
(i think this is actually in accordance with the overall essay, which essay i found very interesting!)
it occurs to me that we might not be in disagreement at all. could you clarify that the claim this comment is making is that “free-market loving libertarians” specifically are against collusion, including collective bargaining as unions?
if this is rather a personal political opinion, then i will say that you may very well be right! i simply do not understand the issue enough to have an opinion either way. my initial claim was narrowly about what a principled libertarian would say, and not at all intended on behalf of any specific policy.
could you point to one that’s not essentially “agree to a reasonable division in an ultimatum-like game”, or help me understand how such an agreement is not essentially what a labor union is doing?
can’t you say the same about the fishery? the people who would be harmed are the people who are demanding fish from the lake. if it’s a big enough problem for them, then they’ll be willing to get up earlier and fish for longer.
the collective bargaining is the way that the future harm is brought into the present.
since the harm is in the future, it’s at remove. someone else’s problem. an externality!
the situation would be different if it was easy to scale up and down the number of laborers just by inputting more money. but it’s not—it takes investment of time through training. for example, air traffic controllers require six years of study.
i feel like the dockworkers, or whoever, will argue that unless they bargain collectively, they’ll end up selling their labor for less than the cost of living. this will have the negative externality that there won’t be any dockworkers (or at least no one will apprentice to become a dockworker).
note that this is empirically verified, for example with air traffic controllers: they are legally prohibited from striking, and now nobody wants to be an ATC. we pay this cost in lives!
on a skim, the proposal is for the fishers to voluntarily hire an enforcer / voluntarily agree to certain contracts regarding the deployment of fishing boats. i agree that this is neither a central authority, nor privatization. but isn’t it exactly a union?
the suppliers of a good/labor voluntarily agree to certain provisions on the production of said good/labor for their own long-term benefit.
(i really appreciate the resource, and will give it a closer look!)
how do the proverbial fishers avoid overfishing, except by colluding to limit supply?
(i’m not trying to be obtuse here—genuinely curious whether there’s a neat principle by which these can be distinguished!)
strong upvoted