Cartesian boundary is, while intellectually seen through, not experientially seen through most of the time.
It was a good exemplar of simulacra levels when I went to google for risk models of eating take out food and I literally could not tell what, if any information any of the results were actually communicating.
Type error: consider Aristotle’s 4 causes. If I ask you a why question about one kind of cause and you give me an explanation about another kind of cause there has been a type error.
Degrees of freedom: if there are more degrees of freedom in your explanation than in the thing you are attempting to explain then you can always get the answer you want. Consider astrology. A good explanation has fewer degrees of freedom than the thing it is explaining and thus creates compression and prediction power, i.e. it eliminates more possible worlds whereas bad explanations leave you with the same number of possible worlds as you started with.
This sounds like a confused mix of knightian uncertainty and variance in confidence interval.
Some api features mandated so that third parties can create services that allow you to interact with the network more on your own terms, like rss.
> there is less incentive to automate if labor is cheaper.
this is a major hypothesis about the plague being a contributor to the industrial revolution.
Would love to see similar for public goods games as there are so many simulations based off of them.
Very tempting to meme the graph of relations into the kabbalah tree of life diagram.
+1 on the sprawling mess. What I have personally found useful is figuring out what is going on in terms of mental heuristics when some causal explanations seem ‘better’ than others. Which involves type errors and degrees of freedom.
> right after you double text people often stop responding.
could be the upstream thing that caused you to double text is the cause, but that just means that the feeling of wanting to double text is an equally good indicator.
> One friend described herself as constantly dating jerks because of her childhood issues, but it was cheaper to believer she subconsciously preferred aloof and unavailable men.
This “but” is nonsensical. Try “My friend has childhood issues that cause her to only semi consciously prefer aloof and unavailable men.”
As for the rest, potential apophenia on raw numbers of plausible candidates. being around more candidates makes you get less target focused, sure, but it also gives you many more lottery tickets on every other dimension whether legible, illegible, optimized or no.
Edit: this comment sounds more critical than intended. I enjoyed the writeup and am glad you posted it.
+1 most books are bad
That works if things are conscious and X is well defined enough that that is actionable.
All universal claims have, at least, non-central objections (have fun with that one ;)
Most communities I’ve participated in seem to have property X. Underrated hypothesis: I am entangled with property X along the relevant dimensions and am self sorting into such communities and have a warped view of ‘all communities’ as a result.
Novel and obviously some good ideas/directions. Thanks.
being much larger it often makes sense to pay more attention to the state by state breakdown for comparison to, say, EU countries.
if by some malicious people you’re including people at the NYT who view controversy as a good thing as a proxy for clicks, yes.
I think this is especially great for rapid development of technical jargon in nascent fields.