Hmm, this sounds like an awfully contrarian take to me.
Said Achmiz
Karma: 15,300
I think “packaged bread and other bakery products” this is referring to stuff like Wonder bread, which contains a whole bunch of stuff[1] beyond the proverbial “flour, water, yeast, salt” that goes into homemade or artisanal-bakery bread.
- ↩︎
Soybean oil, high fructose corn syrup, various preservatives, etc.
- ↩︎
This seems solvable by using multiple recordings and averaging, yes?
Also, if the transcription to sheet-music form is accurate w.r.t. the recording, and the recording is acceptable w.r.t. the intended notes, then the transcription ought to be close enough to the intended notes. Or am I misunderstanding?
Yes, I meant specifically the Bay Area scene, since that’s the only part of the LW community that’s accused of excluding e/acc-ers.
In that case, I request that you edit your post to clarify this, please.
Hmm… I suppose that depends on what you mean by “the scene”. If you’re including only the Bay Area “scene” in that phrase, then I’m familiar with it only by hearsay. If you mean the broader LW-and-adjacent community, then my familiarity is certainly greater (I’ve been around for well over a decade, and have periodic contact with various happenings here in NYC).
I don’t know, man. Like… yeah, “not the typical LW party”, but that’s a bit of an understatement, don’t you think? (What makes it an “LW party” at all? Is it literally just “the host of this party is sort of socially adjacent to some LW people”? Surely not everything done by anyone who is connected in any way to LW, is “an LW thing”?)
So, honestly, yeah, I think it says approximately nothing about “the scene”.
Uh… does that really count as an event in “the LW scene”?
… are you sure this post isn’t an April 1st joke?
I understand it’s common to exclude e/acc people from events.
Is… this actually true??
Could you (or someone else) summarize the other stuff, in the context of my question? I mean, I read it, there’s various things in there, but I’m not sure which of it is supposed to be a definition of “making space for” an idea.
So, basically, allowing the ideas in question to be discussed on one’s blog/forum/whatever, instead of banning people for discussing them?
What does it mean to “make space for” some idea(s)?
I agree that this investigation was worthwhile and important.
But is it a case of “lying to interview subjects”? That is what we’re talking about, after all. Did Bly even interview anyone, in the course of her investigation?
Undercover investigative journalism has some interesting ethical conundrums of its own, but it’s not clear what it has to do with interviews, or lying to the subjects thereof…
I was actually looking for specific examples, precisely so that we could test our intuitions, rather than just stating our intuitions. Do you happen to have any particular ones in mind?
If you ban lying to subjects, a swath of important news becomes impossible to cover.
What would be some examples of this?
Can the process not be automated? Like, sheet music specifies notes, right? And notes are frequencies. And frequencies can be determined by examining a recording by means of appropriate hardware/software (very easily, in the case of digital recordings, I should think). Right? So, is there not some software or something that can do this?
What exactly does the process of generating sheet music involve? Like, how does sheet music happen, in general?
I’m afraid I don’t understand what the “attempted telekinesis” post is talking about…
The “curse of the counterfactual” post, I also don’t really understand. It’s about a… therapy technique? For people who are fixated on certain events in their past?
It seems like this whole discussion is based on using words like “faith” in weird ways, and making statements that sound profound but are actually trivial or tautological (like “the world is exactly as it is”).
Maybe it would help to ask this directly: is “faith” here being used in anything at all like the ordinary sense of the word? (Or, any of the ordinary senses of the word?) Or is this a case of “we’re talking about a weird new concept, but we’re going to use a commonplace word for it”?
So… are you just saying that reality exists, and is not merely shaped by our perceptions?
This is one of the bedrock ideas of LW-style rationality, isn’t it? And what does it have to do with “faith”…?
What would it mean for this to be false?
This is a very poor conclusion to draw from the Rootclaim debate. If you have not yet read Gwern’s commentary on the debate, I suggest that you do so. In short, the correct conclusion here is that the debate was a very poor format for evaluating questions like this, and that the “obsessive autists” in question cannot be relied on. (This is especially so because in this case, there absolutely was a financial stake—$100,000 of financial stake, to be precise!)