I agree with that prediction, but that seems a given, with how Scott has called his supporters to action with emailing the NYT. Such a coordination is gonna draw the attention regardless.
ataftoti
Karma: 59
Since hating on the mainstream media is itself mainstream now....would it be a net benefit for SSC to pass this story (about NYT doxxing) to some of NYT’s competitors/new media? Just brainstorming, not suggesting this as potential course of retaliation/threat, since it could backfire if it causes NYT to double down when feeling attacked.
Also a confounder that was only mentioned briefly in the original post: it also seems like human population in general is concentrated on this climate zone. Can we statistically isolate population density from this analysis?
This video didn’t shift my priors that much. The impressive thing in the video is speed and precision, which is trivial for machines, let alone AI. Speed and precision is already there, it just needs to be hooked on to some qualitative breakthrough in application.
(although that adjustment has been tempered by the suspicion, confirmed by a couple of comments on this post, that people who object to things such as rituals etc. often simply don’t speak up)
For epistemology’s sake I’ll speak up so you may be more confident in the suspicion...
I find these rituals, as described, to be completely uninteresting as social activities, and have a visceral negative reaction to imagining people doing this, even semi-seriously. “Group self-hacking for cohesion and bonding” is the...sort-of good way to put it I guess, because I would rather describe it as “optimistically wielding double-edged daggers forged from the Dark Arts”.
Yes, I should have had a single-sentence summary. I will add that now.
I did mention that the part I’m recommending starts at 54:00. Perhaps I should also add that from that point on the presentation of the model lasts only for 4 minutes?
801 people (73.5%) were atheist and not spiritual, 108 (9.9%) were atheist and spiritual
I’m curious as to how people interpreted this. Does the latter mean that one believes in the supernatural but without a god figure, e.g. buddism, new age? This question looked confusing to me at first glance.
People who believed in high existential risk were more likely to believe in global warming, more likely to believe they had a higher IQ than average, and more likely to believe in aliens (I found that same result last time, and it puzzled me then too.)
Why does it puzzle you?
No one showed up. Reporting for the record.
Does that mean I’ll see you here this Friday?
I’ve just added another Ontario meetup: anyone in Oakville?
From the first episode of Dexter, season 6:
Batista: ”...it’s all about faith...”
Dexter: “Mmm...”
Batista: “It’s something you feel, not something you can explain. It’s very hard to put into words.”Dexter smiles politely, while thinking to himself: Because it makes no sense.
Wouldn’t a comparison between control-then-piracetam days with control-then-control days tell us a bit more about how effective piracetam is, accounting for possible fatigue?
Do make the top-level post please. I think there is use in the making Mafia more well-known in demographics such as the one we have here.
It sounds like online Mafia is a totally different and much better game than what I’ve played at various icebreaker functions, camps, and times when there’s a substitute teacher
In my experience the outcome of face-to-face mafia can be even more dependent on the players’ skill, once you get past the newbie phase. Not just because newbies can’t read others well, but I think they are also less readable due to undeveloped meta and making vastly suboptimal plays that regular scumhunting techniques do not read well. Once there is some standard in the players’ moves and some meta is available, one can read much more accurately in face-to-face games than online due to factors such as tone, moments of hesitation, and body language.
And thus for a given single game, I would rather play mafia face-to-face with groups of regular players than online, though I would prefer playing online to face-to-face with a whole group of newbies.
I was scum in none of the games.
Sure, link to it.
I just had 4 games with the same 5 players (setup is 4 town 1 scum) that all ended in scum victory. Random lynching should yield only 53% chance of scum victory. 0.53^4 seems low enough that this is likely a case of better than random.
The players in this case were new to the game with the exception of myself (and after the first couple games I was constantly night killed). I was going to say that this seems to suggest that scum is stronger in newbie games, but then I realized I have no data to draw this comparison with. :-(
I want to read some games of mafia players who browse this site. Do you mind pointing me to some of your games?
Please attempt and see if you have better results than I did. And if you succeed come back and tell us all about it!
:-)
The last time I played Mafia people ended up crying
And what about the times before that?
Playing mafia has never undermined real social relationships in my experience, and I’ve introduced this game to perhaps 20 people in real life, with at least 2 completely non-overlapping groups.
Also, I doubt face-to-face mafia should be considered a game that especially exercises rationality. It seems to me that you get thrown a huge fuckton of cognitive biases with no time to combat them.
(again, my original question should specify “forum based mafia games”...let me edit that now...)
If it happens before the publication, it wouldn’t be retaliation, but more like a commitment to retaliate. If there’s people making a fuss about the reporter’s current intention to publish, it’s a pretty clear signal what would happen if they follow through.
If it gets them to change their minds in time before the publication, that seems like the best outcome.