I’m looking forward to it.
There are three mistakes. One is the one you worry about, that levels 3 and 4 will be seen as evil and dark arts and avoided, preventing effectiveness. You can’t just hit ignore.
The second is to fail to understand level 4 and even level 3 and treat them as much less alien than they are with respect to levels 1 and 2.
The third is to gaze into the abyss and let it gaze too far into you, and lose your grip on reality. Elon and Steve and Walt are pretty special. It’s something to aspire to.
Balancing all the messages is hard. And right now, I am worried mostly about the first one.
No, just no. You are being misled. Lots of people were sick in March and almost none of them caught it again in July. We know it’s a minimum of 4 months.
I have talked about this many times in my posts so I won’t say more here.
Congrats to Robin. He represented his side well. Looks like the crowd shifted substantially towards him after the debate.
I do not think I did as good a job, and in particular did not think to prepare concrete examples where legal blackmail would do harm, and had trouble thinking of good ones in the moment. Of course, now, it’s easy to think of a list.
Part of that, ironically, is that I was afraid of my statements in a public form implicitly endorsing or admitting to something that could be used against me later.
Looks like the meeting got cut off by the host?
Yeah, the free version isn’t dragon, you need to pay $10/month, will think about whether it’s worth a note up top.
On the fire alarm, it’s a metaphor, agreed we’re using it slightly differently, if there’s a consensus this is a problem I can reword.
I don’t think the criticism of post 2 here is on point at all. Elizabeth is making the claim that if everyone shifted from thinking dollars most reliable to thinking euros, that this would be self-fulfilling and have big impacts. This seems right, regardless of why this happened. The response seems wrong in four ways.
One, I don’t think that there needs to be an overarching reason. It’s not crazy that a propaganda campaign (someone ‘talking their book’ on a large enough level) combined with large bets could cause a cascade effect in worlds where that wouldn’t have otherwise happened.
Two, it’s the currency and not the stock market that matters here. Stock market is a different thing. Not central but worth noting.
Three, the currency markets are exactly the thing Elizabeth is talking about—anticipated future prices, which are a function of supply and demand. A lot of the demand for dollars is the expectation that people will demand dollars because business with others is done in dollars, etc. Hitting the tipping point would cause a cascade. The idea that markets are about some ‘fundamentals’ and causation is one-directional simply isn’t right. Expectations are huge.
Four, even if in this particular example we are not close to a switch, that would only mean it’s a bad example. The principle certainly holds. E.g. it is easy to imagine worlds in which there was a ‘flippening’ and ETH took over the BTC role as primary method of cryptocurrency payment some time in 2018, without anything fundamental changing. There’s no reason to think that would have become undone—likely the opposite, and if ETH had passed BTC it would have pulled further away over time.
General inquiry as to level of appetite for this type of criticism, and whether doing such for recent posts would be a positive or negative for those writing.
(Not as a ‘should this have been written?’ but more as a ‘should I/others consider writing more similar posts?’
Sounds like mostly low sample size?
I’ve noticed there seems to be a policy of not deleting typo threads after they’ve completed their missions, not sure why that’s the case—when I ask for deletion after the fix it doesn’t happen.
So we can test AB-blood populations for antibodies and compare that to the general population, and you’ll know quickly if this theory is right or not?
Agreed that this is how most people seem to effectively act, so you need to find a rule to tell them that 80/20s things as best one can. It’s unfortunate that this is *wildly* worse than having a gears model, but dunno what can be done about that.
What’s the practical implication if true? Presumably it implies things like “You’re type A so you go to the type O butcher’s shop, or have an office meeting with a Type O colleague, and everyone is safe?” Does that mean that type A people become more valuable because there are less of them and they match easier? What about type B? Are ABs worse than As or are they now superstars? Etc.
Does this mean that blood relatives are in general more likely to infect within-household than friends or spouses, since their types match more often? Any implications? Etc.
I assume China is at least doing a cost-benefit—it’s risky and expensive to do the vaccinations, and it’s not a great source of information on whether it works, so the benefits at that scale are mostly because you think it will likely work. I agree that it’s much less evidence than if e.g. Germany were doing it!
I dunno if seeing sports played to empty stadiums signals much of a return to normality. I agree that sports shutting down was a big wake-up call, and helped a lot, but I think every game will have a definite air of ‘things are not normal’ when they pan to empty fan sections, see the sidelines full of masks and distancing, and talk about which teams have had testing concerns. It might even model good behavior.