I mean, if you’re talking specifically in context about people with vaginas instead of women then using the gendered term does exclude both women without vaginas and men with them who are probably a relevant group in that context. But seriously how often does that come up for you? How often is the most important part of the woman you’re referring to her anatomy?

And while “females” is probably just as accurate in most contexts it’s also been poisoned with incel vibes at this point and it’s gonna be some time before it can be salvaged for general use outside of specific biological contexts without sounding like you’re about to unload a whole lot of baggage into the thread instead of getting therapy.

Not gonna lie, “enforcing the line between ketchup and tomato sauce” isn’t the sort of thing I’d expect the government to be into, but I guess I’m not mad about it?

Gotta be cheaper than buying new planes which would also have new engines. Generally there needs to be a pretty substantial increase in capability before it’s worth retiring an existing platform, especially in a logistics role where you don’t get as much benefit from the bleeding edge because nobody’s supposed to be shooting at you in the first place.

I think the missing piece here is that B-52 isn’t just a pretty good cargo hauler, it’s a pretty good cargo hauler that we don’t need to buy a whole new airframe to get. Think of it less as “we’re commissioning these B-52s” and more as “hey look we found a way to use all these B-52s we already had” only this just keeps working forever.

On one hand giving these people the veneer of science is actively going to undermine public confidence in “science” as a whole and directly make the world a worse place.

On the other hand, money.

Ironically the trolley problem meme here is a great example of the objection: the same set up that puts him in the position to pull the lever also requires that people be tied to the track.

They definitely use actual numbers to try and push their agenda. It’s a classic case of constructing a category. Like how we’re the highest paying company in the industry of high technology, textile workers, teenagers, and dead people. Look at how much good EA-backed interventions like malaria nets are doing! Clearly this means EA-backed programs to make sure Sam Altman develops a computer god before his evil twin Alt Sam-man is also such a good use of resources that you’re basically a murderer if you don’t give.

Lemme just grab my programming screwdriver.

One fascinating aspect of the Trump and Musk stories is that the capitalists are less sociopathically driven by money than previously assumed and this is actually much worse!

I mean, I feel like the core problem with billionaire philanthropy isn’t that they aren’t effective enough at choosing causes; they’re supporting exactly what they want to, whether it’s saving lives and improving conditions in poor countries or making more classical music happen in rich countries. Rather the problem is that that much money can be thrown around by a single individual at all without public oversight. Like, EAs have a point in that philanthropic activities can mobilize a world-changing amount of resources. But then they do the libertarian thing of assuming that this is a necessary and inevitable fact of the world that must be worked around rather than considering the circumstances that created that ability and the degree to which the existence of billionaires 4q requires African kids to die of malaria.

It’s the Bayesian version of Zeno’s paradox. Before one can update their beliefs, one must have evidence of an alternative proposition. But no one piece of evidence is worth meaningfully changing your worldview and actions. In order to be so it would need to be supported. But then that supporting evidence would itself need to be supported. And so on ad infinitum.

Also I feel like the logic he based that on was just dumb. Like, some writer out of the last several centuries is going to be the best for whatever given metric. We shouldn’t be surprised that any particular individual is the best any more than another. If anything the fact that people still talk about him after the centuries is probably the strongest argument in favor of his writing that you could make.

But of course Sam’s real goal was to justify the weird rationalist talking point that reading is overrated because podcasts exist or something.

This dude learned at miminum the word “stochastic” from LW.

This is an interesting companion to that other essay castigating Rationalist prose, Elizabeth Sandifer’s The Beigeness. The current LW style indulges in straight-up obscurantism and technobabble, which is probably better at hiding how dumb the underlying argument is and cloaking unsupported assertions as meaningful arguments. It also doesn’t require you to be as widely-read as our favorite philosophy major turned psychiatrist turned cryptoreactionary, since you’re not switching contexts every time it starts becoming apparent that you’re arguing for something dumb and/or racist.

Hang on I’ve got to reread this whole thing in a skeletor voice now.

I mean, I suspect that when he says he wants someone else’s genes he probably means Elon’s, so they probably wouldn’t actually disagree over much. Because he’s successful and success is determined by genes and therefore he has the best ones, you see.

Hat tip to the commenter over there who says point-blank “this is just eugenics.”

Also gotta love the Rat community treating very contentious assumptions like settled fact, particularly re: heritability.

In the pseudoarchaeology space you see a lot of equivocation between digital circuit configurations (e.g. the paths on a main board) and the designs of various ancient sites, particularly in Central America. In the crank version this is a sign that the Aztecs had digital technology and computers of some kind. In reality I think it’s neat to see the same design patterns crop up for trying to route non-overlapping paths for foot traffic as for routing non-overlapping paths for electrons.

There’s a whole lot of ontological confusion going on here, and I want to make sure I’m not going too far in the opposite direction. Information, in the mathematical Shannon-ian sense, basically refers specifically to identifying one out of a possible set of values. In that sense, no underlying physical state could be said to hold “more” information than any other, right? Like, depending on the encoding a given amount of information can use a different amount of space on a channel (TRUE vs T vs 1), but just changing which arrangement of bits is currently in use doesn’t increase or decrease the total amount of information in the channel. I’m sure there’s some interesting physics to be done about our ability to meaningfully read or write to a given amount of space (something something quantum something something) but the idea of information somehow existing independently rather than being projected into the probability distribution of states in the underlying physical world is basically trying to find the physical properties of the Platonic forms or find the mass of the human soul.

No V0ldek, you are the small shell script. And then V0ldek was a zombie process.