Weird characters in the Sequences
When the sequences were copied from Overcoming Bias to Less Wrong, it looks like something went very wrong with the character encoding. I found the following sequences of HTML entities in words in the sequences:
’ê d?tre
Å« M?lamadhyamaka
ĂŚ Ph?drus
— arbitrator?i window?and
ĂŞ b?te m?me
… over?and
รก H?jek
ĂƒÂź G?nther
ĂŠ fianc?e proteg?s d?formation d?colletage am?ricaine d?sir
ĂƒÂŻ na?ve na?vely
ō sh?nen
ö Schr?dinger L?b
ยง ?ion
ĂƒÂś Schr?dinger H?lldobler
Ăź D?sseldorf G?nther
– ? Church? miracles?in Church?Turing
’ doesn?t he?s what?s let?s twin?s aren?t I?ll they?d ?s you?ve else?s EY?s Whate?er punish?d There?s Caledonian?s isn?t harm?s attack?d I?m that?s Google?s arguer?s Pascal?s don?t shouldn?t can?t form?d controll?d Schiller?s object?s They?re whatever?s everybody?s That?s Tetlock?s S?il it?s one?s didn?t Don?t Aslan?s we?ve We?ve Superman?s clamour?d America?s Everybody?s people?s you?d It?s state?s Harvey?s Let?s there?s Einstein?s won?t
ĂĄ Alm?si Zolt?n
ĂŤ pre?mpting re?valuate
≠ ?
è l?se m?ne accurs?d
รฐ Ver?andi
→ high?low low?high
’ doesn?t
ā k?rik Siddh?rtha
รถ Sj?berg G?delian L?b Schr?dinger G?gel G?del co?rdinate W?hler K?nigsberg P?lzl
ĂŻ na?vet
  I?understood ? I?was
Ăś Schr?dinger
ĂŽ pla?t
úñ N?ez
Ĺ‚ Ceg?owski
— PEOPLE?and smarter?supporting to?at problem?and probability?then valid?to opportunity?of time?in true?I view?wishing Kyi?and ones?such crudely?model stupid?which that?larger aside?from Ironically?but intelligence?such flower?but medicine?as
‐ side?effect galactic?scale
´ can?t Biko?s aren?t you?de didn?t don?t it?s
≠ P?NP
窶馬 basically?ot
Ĺ‘ Erd?s
EDIT: รถ translated into Windows codepage 874 is C3 B6!
Speaking of weird characters in the sequences, I’ve always wondered who “the one”, eg here, might be. Is it Neo from the Matrix by any chance?
It’s a parable’y way of saying “someone” and “the same someone as earlier”?
Indeed. Usually a stereotypical “person who doesn’t ‘get it’.”
I’ve always thought that one of the ultimate LW insults would be: “you’re so ‘the one’.”
I really didn’t get that impression. Read it just as neutral affectation.
It’s usually Eliezer’s foil; a person espousing the incorrect view he’s arguing against.