Curious if this is more of a “do this when currently experiencing the conflict” or more of a “you can wait until some more convenient time”? (Ignoring that in practice the latter might often be “put off indefinitely”.)
Like, do you recommend pausing netflix and delaying the run to do this? (Might be easier than pausing netflix to go for a run.) Or do you think most people will be able to access the relevant parts of themselves some time later?
Can you give examples of situations where “charity” has been used in ways that have the negative kinds of effects you’re worried about?
This comment comes to mind:
But do you think he actually said [Y]?
I don’t think he said it clearly, and I don’t think he said anything else clearly. Believe it or not, what I am doing is charitable interpretation...I am trying to make sense of what he said. If he thinks [X], that would imply “[X], so [Y]”, because that makes more sense than “[X], so don’t [Y]”. So I think that is what he is probably saying.
31 people died trying to climb this mountain before its first successful ascent. Imagine being climber number 32 and thinking “Well I know this mountain has a 100% fatality rate, but why not, let’s give it a go!”
As a nitpick, this assumes no one survived a failed attempt. From a quick glance at Wikipedia they did, so the fatality rate was less than 100%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanga_Parbat
I take it you mean “if the password manager doesn’t fill it in, that’s a sign you’re on the wrong site”? The password manager I use on my personal laptop isn’t integrated with my browser, so that wouldn’t have helped in my case, but yeah.
(I don’t use an integrated one partly because I’ve never properly looked into browser extensions. I don’t know what’s available and I haven’t thought about the tradeoffs.)
For the record, I don’t think there’s nothing wrong with what SMTM did in the thread.
To clarify, was this double negative intended?
having a lot of stuff in your stomach is clearly pretty important
A question I have here is, why not try for low calories per litre instead of (or as well as) low calories per gram?
Some thoughts on that:
The relevant thing would be density after chewing, not density on the plate. Maybe there’s not much variance in that. (If so, maybe “swallow your food without chewing” is an unrealized life hack for losing weight, with the caveat that it increases your risk of choking and dying.)
Maybe your stomach will break down less-dense contents faster? A very naive model says that if you compress something, its surface area decreases so there’s less for acid to react with but the same mass. So it’ll take longer to fully dissolve in an acid bath, but take up less volume initially. I don’t know which will take up more litre-seconds in total, or if that’s the right question to think about. Plus at some point things leave the stomach and I don’t know what triggers that.
How does this whole thing work with fluids? Presumably they leave your stomach quite fast, so per-calorie they should contribute less to satiety than solids?
The only reason why “overeating caused this huge fat mass to grow inside my body” sounds more plausible than “overeating caused this huge tumor to grow inside my body” is that the former theory follows the Sin Theory of Obesity
I think the first sounds more plausible because the story “humans store caloric excess as fat in times of plenty and burn it off in times of scarcity” is the kind of thing that we should have as a hypothesis-under-consideration before we look at the link between calorie intake and body mass. Whereas “humans store caloric excess as cancer” (or as fetuses) isn’t. And if that story is true, then “eating lots of caloric excess causes lots of fat to be stored” isn’t automatically true, but again it’s definitely something we should have under consideration.
So if your line here is meant to be taken a priori—that is, if you’re saying “even without actually looking at the link between caloric intake and body mass, there’s no reason to believe overeating-causes-fat any more than you’d believe overeating-causes-cancer”, then it seems just wrong.
Maybe you meant it a posteriori? Something like “okay but overeating studies show that eating lots of caloric excess doesn’t by default cause lots of fat to be stored, so you no longer have a plausible explanation”?
But then at least two other reasons come to mind for why overeating-causes-fat might still seem more plausible than overeating-causes-cancer. One is that someone might not believe that studies show what you think they show. Another is that someone might just be bad at propagating updates. Currently, these both seem more likely to me than your “sin theory” theory.
I’m just saying that if you apply the do operator on calorie intake and raise it by 20% then you’d get an increase in mean body mass that’s about as big as what we’ve seen.
This is “assuming there’s no link “increased calorie intake → increased energy expenditure”″, right? I think one of the things Eliezer is saying is that there seems to have been such a link in the past and now there isn’t / it’s much weaker.
An interesting thing here is, I often don’t have my browser remember passwords. On my work laptop that’s company policy (but we use lastpass), on my personal laptop it’s a possibly-overly-paranoid (and inconsistently applied) defense against someone with access to my laptop (or e.g. to a backup of my files).
So I wasn’t surprised when the github login form didn’t autofill my password. (Even though I think github actually is saved.) If I had been surprised, I wonder if I’d have noticed.
This might be an example of “things which are in theory more secure might be less secure in practice”.
A Google search landed me on api dot em tee arr dot pub (not linking to avoid improving rankings), which seems to be a github phising site. And I fell for it and logged in :(
Luckily I have 2fa enabled and don’t reuse that password. And they didn’t present me with a 2fa box (I guess they could have done if they’d passed my password on pretending to be me?), they just said there was an API error or something. So probably not a problem?
I’ve changed password. I wonder if it’s possible to see whether anyone tries to log in. And I wonder if there’s anything useful I can do. There’s a “send feedback on this info” on Google which I used, dunno if anyone will see it.
(it wasn’t the first search result, it was after two results on github and “images”. I opened it in a new tab out of curiosity, then didn’t notice when I was in that tab instead of a github tab.)
I’m curious what it is about these toothbrushes that makes you prefer the cheap one?
Off the top of my head, a few possibilities that seem plausible to me:
If they don’t take the same type of head, the heads that fit the expensive toothbrushes might be more expensive and/or lower quality themselves.
The expensive ones might do annoying things like beep to tell you it’s been two minutes of brushing.
The cheap one might be a better shape or weight.
The expensive ones might be more complicated in ways that make them likely to break sooner.
...or in ways that make them harder to use.
They might have different charging methods, and you prefer to method for the cheap one.
Or the cheap one has better battery life.
The expensive ones might have Bluetooth, which you might disprefer even apart from its effects on e.g. battery life.
I note that the questions “should you have to pay them” and “should you do a chargeback” (more usefully, “what happens if you do a chargeback”) are very different.
If you were using “you shouldn’t have to pay them” as shorthand for something like ”...and the credit card company will agree, and doing a chargeback will end well for you”, it seems worth making that explicit.
And if you weren’t using it as shorthand for something like that, that seems worth being explicit about too.
<3
Very very few people upvote things they disagree with, even on LW, and most of the time they do, they leave a disambiguating comment (I’ve seen Rob and philh and Daystar do this, for instance).
I was surprised by this because I don’t remember doing it. After a quick look:
I didn’t find any instances where I said I upvoted something I disagreed with.
But I did find two comments that I upvoted (without saying so) despite disagreeing, because I’d asked what someone thought and they’d answered and I didn’t want to punish that.
I feel like I have more often given “verbal upvotes” for things I disagree with, things like “I’m glad you said this but”, without actually voting? I don’t vote very much for whatever reason.
So I don’t really want to get into this, my note was about the structure of the argument rather than factual claims about the world. But...
I think I feel motte-and-baileyed? When I read your original comment with the term “feel persecuted” I’m like “eh, dunno, sounds plausible I guess?”. When I read it trying to substitute in the definition you give I’m like ”...mm, skeptical”.
Like I get that jargon sometimes just has that effect, I’m not currently saying you shouldn’t use that term with that meaning. But that’s my reaction.
(If you do want a different hook to use, it sounds like “feel persecuted, and also be clinically depressed” is tongue-in-cheek kinda close to what you describe? Though bringing in the concept of “depression”, and especially “clinical” depression, may not help see things clearly either.)
There is more I’d like to say here.
Something I wanted to say was: in Shekinah’s followup post, she does use the word rape to describe the experience. For example, she says explicitly “This incident of sexual assault meets the federal definition of “rape”″. And in reply to a commenter saying “What you’re describing is unambiguously rape”, she says “I straightforwardly agree”.
I was hesitant to say this initially, because although it’s already linked in this comment section, I didn’t know for sure if Alex had read it. If he had not, then by saying the above, I’d essentially be directing a rapist’s attention back towards his victim, which seems like a bad thing to do in general. I have since been in communication with Shekinah, and she has given me the okay to say it.
She also tells me that in private conversation with Alex, before he blocked her, she made him aware that she considers it rape. She has given me the okay to share this, too.
This egregore wants everyone to feel persecuted. … Do the rationalists feel persecuted / victimized? Oh yeah. … So they haven’t successfully seen through this one.
Note that this doesn’t follow. It might be, for example, that the egregore causes (some) people to feel persecuted by causing them to be persecuted.
(Admittedly I’m not sure I know what it means to “see through” an egregore. Like, if you “see through” capitalism, you… recognize capitalism as an egregore that demands etc.? You recognize that there may be other ways to organize a society, though you may or may not think any of those other ways are preferable all things considered? You want fewer things that you don’t need?
But presumably, “seeing through” it doesn’t extract you from your capitalist society, if you live in one; you still need a job to get money, and you still need money to purchase goods and services, and so on. And if you don’t live in a capitalist society but a capitalist society is coming to take your land and separate you from your children, “seeing through” capitalism doesn’t protect you from that either.
And so presumably, “seeing through” an egregore that wants you to feel persecuted, doesn’t make you not-persecuted. It might make you not-feel-persecuted if you’re in-fact not persecuted.)
Instead of saying “using this term to mean X is a discourtesy”, one could try “please don’t use this term to mean X, and please encourage your readers not to use it to mean X, and to encourage their readers and so on”.
This will now be a barbecue, since the last one went well. No need to bring anything.