I didn’t make it. Was it worth the cost of a plane ticket, in your estimation, and based on what you (don’t) know about me? :)
Kenny
Karma: 710
I got one of these, based on this post, and think it’s great.
Sadly, O2 industries is apparently dead. From their home page just a few minutes ago:
Notice on Store Closure
After a court-appointed receivership and effective immediately, O2 Industries Inc. has ceased operations and will no longer be selling the O2 Curve and all O2 Curve related accessories including filters. Any orders placed after July 30, 2021 that have not yet been fulfilled have been canceled and refunded.
Even more sadly, they also broke links to their support info.
I just asked a question about how to clean the respirator (NOT the filters):
I didn’t have any problems once I found the right ‘seat’ to have it on my face.
[Question] ‘Good enough’ way to clean an O2 Curve respirator?
I was wondering why I have an event on my Google Calendar calendar named “Reservation at The Forks”!
I don’t live anywhere near Winnipeg and don’t have any plans to visit. Maybe LessWrong users were somehow automatically RSVP-ed?
My understanding is that the larger point, apart from any comparison between the AZ and Pfizer vaccines, is the “blood clot question” seemed to ignore the general population baseline. I interpreted Zvi’s point about the new study as being evidence that there’s no extra risk from the vaccines above the baseline risk.
Arnold Kling has written a bit about ‘causal density’, which seems pretty relevant.
Care to express some kind of numerical confidence and a timeline?
the general alleviation of poverty and famines, the presence of “hyper-processed” foods like Oreos are certainly part of the reason and are largely ignored
Ignored by this paper or this post? The blog posts the paper is supposedly based on explicitly considers it tho this post doesn’t mention it. Other commenters do mention this.
But more widely, I’ve seen those reasons mentioned very frequently.
Maybe you think these are largely ignored because they have been investigated and they didn’t (and don’t) seem promising?
I’m pretty skeptical that this analysis applies to the specific example you mentioned – or not particularly strongly anyways.
But I didn’t interpret your original comment as, or even notice the possibility of it, directly linking the ‘doing something you want’ with ‘seizing more power’. aphyer’s comment helpfully clarified that.
That is better! I didn’t think that the original comment directly linked the ‘doing something you want’ with ‘seizing power’ – that makes a lot more sense to me.
This line of thinking is why I can’t fully endorse (otherwise entirely reasonable) exhortations by others for yet other people to ‘NOT think for themselves’ (about everything, or anything). I mostly think it’s fine for some people (e.g. statistically) to decide to ‘think for themselves’ about anything.
And there’s an interesting ‘fractal tree’ among the ‘combinatorially explosive’ set of possibilities all along the spectrum between ‘thinking for oneself’ (about everything) and ‘repeating the teacher’s password’.
Interestingly, specifically for your examples with software, this is a rather common behavior – so much so that the opposite advice is very common, i.e. to not fall prey to ‘Not Invented Here syndrome’. As usual, you should often consider reversing any advice you find (or are given)!
I agree with so many of your other points – this is a great post!
That’s one of my favorite demonstrations! It was easy enough to know that this is true, but seeing it with one’s own eyes is shocking, or at least was for me.
Meh – there seems to me to be a lot of ambiguity about what ‘applauding’ is, or what purposes it serves (or is intended to serve), but still, I’m confused why you wrote:
don’t applaud when a growing potential tyrant does what you want
instead of just:
never applaud a growing potential tyrant
Certainly the rule isn’t:
only applaud when a growing potential tyrant does what you do NOT want
As for your reply:
If a potential tyrant did something like relinquishing power, then by definition they wouldn’t be growing.
Okay – but a “potential tyrant” could be growing at some point and then, after relinquishing (some) power, either no longer growing, or growing slower, or even shrinking. I don’t understand why a ‘by definition’ argument clarifies this.
But still – why even bother to posit a rule about ‘applauding’ the actions of a potential tyrant at all? What’s your theory about the efficacy of such a rule? What’s the point? And why qualify such a rule to only those occasions when the potential tyrant “does what you want”?
2/ Strangely, 1) does not seem to have led policy/opinion makers to shift their bets on other horses or mellow their speech. Actually, pro-vaccination speakers have greatly radicalized this year, now advocating more and more openly shaming and punishment of unvaccinated people.
That looks something like Evaporative Cooling of Group Beliefs if the cult was so powerful it could punish dissenders. And I’m honestly frightened by that.
I agree that this is a Sad own-goal – politicizing the vaccination efforts – but that’s because I’m convinced that the vaccines are pretty effective.
But I don’t think it’s actually ‘strange’ that this happened; Sad, yes, but not strange (or thus unexpected).
don’t applaud when a growing potential tyrant does what you want
So, don’t “applaud” anything a “growing potential tyrant does”, beyond maybe something demonstrating that they’re not (or no longer) interested in ‘growing their tyranny’?
I don’t think it helps classifying everybody concerned about covid vaccines as anti-vaxers. Maybe we need a better term.
The better phrase would be ‘people with concerns about COVID vaccines’. (Hopefully these people would also have specific, and reasonable, concerns too.)
‘Anti-vax’ seems to reasonably cover people skeptical of, or hostile to, vaccination generally.
we have no hindsight on its long-term side effects
That’s going to be true of any new vaccine too, which isn’t helpful for deciding whether to create or use any new vaccine. (But we do have “hindsight” on every other vaccine.)
it does not offer as strong a protection as expected from a typical vaccine
We could play some reference class tennis with this one as I don’t think we’ve ever had a vaccine for a virus similar to this one. And it seems arguably reasonable to consider the ‘flu vaccine’ as ‘typical’ and that (those) seem to offer even less protection than these.
the potential market has never been this huge, thus increasing the incentive for foul play.
What do you mean by this exactly? That the “potential market” possibly includes everyone? That doesn’t seem to be that different than for other vaccinations, tho maybe you do have a point given that we’re all in the middle of a global pandemic, whereas more ‘typical vaccinations’ only have a ‘market’ for some narrow age cohort.
This is not a typical get-1-shot-go-carefree-for-10-years vaccine.
Yes, this, sadly, seems to be very much the case.
I do not consent to companies collecting data about me. In a nice society, the discussion should end here.
I’m assuming your first sentence isn’t literally true.
Your second sentence makes me think that you think no one else should be allowed to enter into a relationship with a company/organization that does ‘collect data about them’, which seems excessively restrictive to me. I don’t consent to you imposing your ideas about “nice society” on me!
(I sympathize with this and your other comments on this post, but I hope I don’t come across as hostile. I think you might have very strong feelings about this. My own are much weaker. But I am curious about the details of some of the things you describe in these comments.)
How was the meetup?
Sadly, I wasn’t able to fly there to attend :)