It looks to me like the (spoilers for coordinates)
strange frequency distributions seen in non-longitude coordinates is a lot like what you get from a normal distribution minus another normal distribution, with lower standard deviation, scaled down so that its max is equal to the first’s max. I feel like I’ve seen this … vibe, I guess, from curves, when I have said “this looks like a mixture of a normal distribution and something else” and then tried to subtract out the normal part.
Yeah climate change has two pretty consistent trends: average heat slowly rising, and variance of phenomena definitely higher. More extremes on a variety of axes.
End with something shocking and unexpected.
When I was trying to make this work well for actually writing a full story, I tried very hard to make ChatGPT not do this. To write anything longer than one output, you really don’t want it to end every. single. thing. with a bang, and by default it really wants to.
Be honest: if, before you read this you were asked ‘what was the worst thing about 1998’, would you have said ‘El Nino’?
The only thing I associate with the year 1998, when I was 15 years old and living in Florida, is the phrase “the fires of ’98”, referring to a particularly severe fire season, with memories of driving across interstate highways with limited visibility due to smoke.
I just Googled it and it has a Wikipedia page apparently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Florida_wildfires
I feel like alkjash’s characterization of “correctness” is just not at all what the material I read was pointing towards.
The Sequences’ emphasis on Bayes rule
Maybe I’m misremembering. But for me, the core Thing this part of the Sequences imparted was “intelligence, beliefs, information, etc—it’s not arbitrary. It’s lawful. It has structure. Here, take a look. Get a feel for what it means for those sorts of things to ‘have structure, be lawful’. Bake it into your patterns of thought, that feeling.”
If a bunch of people are instead taking away as the core Thing “you can do explicit calculations to update your beliefs” I would feel pretty sad about that, I think?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_Nothing_Project
Our household gives and gets quite a bit from “bonk” (BNK (Buy Nothing Kirkland)), as we call it. Many people in my circles are in local Buy Nothing groups on Facebook. Not just in Washington. I think the reason “nobody has built a killer app” for Buy Nothing is because (a) Facebook groups serve the purpose well enough, and (b) getting a lot of people onto an app is always hard.
Have you tried getting feedback rather than getting feedback from high-status people?
“Do you have any tips on how to hug better?”
Yes, I do.
Report:
~”Not that I’m complaining, but why the hug?”
“Two reasons. One, I wanted to hug you. Two, I read a thing from Logan that included tips on how to hug.”
”Well it was a very good hug.”
I used: making sure to “be present” plus attending to whether I am avoiding things because when her arthritis is flaring, they might cause pain, even though right now her arthritis is not flaring. Hugging is common, but something about this hug did cause her to ask why, on this hug, specifically, when ordinarily she does not ask why, ’cause it’s just a hug. Maybe it was longer than normal or maybe it was a better hug than normal but she asked before I said anything about Logan Tips (TM).
I would not guess this. I would guess instead that the majority of the population has a few “symptoms”. Probably we’re in a moderate dimensional space, e.g. 12, and there is a large cluster of people near one end of all 12 spectrums (no/few symptoms), and another, smaller cluster near the other end of all 12 spectrums (many/severe symptoms) but even though we see those two clusters it’s far more common to see “0% on 10, 20% on 1, 80% on 1″ than “0% on all”. See curse of dimensionality, probability concentrating in a shell around the individual dimension modes, etc.
i would hate pity answers like “not everyone needs to be smart”
the great majority of people who aren’t “smart” also aren’t “stupid”
and if you understood that without having to think about it much, I’m gonna guess you’re one of the great majority
that wouldn’t mean you’re automatically “not stupid” enough to accomplish whatever you want to be “not stupid” enough to accomplish, of course, and trying to increase your cognitive capacity can still be good and helpful and etc, but if you are accidentally thinking “anyone scoring under about 108 on an IQ test is stupid”, then managing to discard that bias might be helpful in its own right
One of the most valuable things I’ve contributed to my workplace is the institution of a set of 3 lightning talks every two weeks. Our data science team is about 30 people and we have a special Slack react that indicates “I want to hear about this in a lightning talk” and the organization is thus (usually) as easy as searching for all posts/comments with the react without the “I’ve already processed this lightning talk request”, DMing the relevant person, and slotting them into the queue.
I wonder if there’s some mutation of this plan that would be valuable for LW. Maybe even to create Dialogues? The really valuable part of the tech is that anyone can look at a snippet that someone else wrote, realize they think they’d like to hear more on that and (thus) probably a lot of people would, and add it to an organizer’s todo list with very little effort.
I would participate. Likely as A, but I’m fine with B if there are people worse-enough. I’m 1100 on chess.com, playing occasional 10 minute games for fun. Tend to be available Th/Fr/Sa/Su evenings Pacific, fine with very long durations.
Yeah I don’t know how much time any of these would take compared to what was already done. Like is this 20% more work, or 100% more, or 500% more?
But good point: I listened to about a quarter, upped the speed to 1.5x, and stopped after about a half. When I decided to write feedback, I also decided I should listen to the rest, and did, but would not have otherwise. And, oddly enough, I think I may have been more likely to listen to the whole thing if I didn’t have visuals, because I would have played it while gardening or whatever. :D
Did you previously know that
these things are quite common—if you just google for severance package standard terms, you’ll find non-disparagement clauses in them
? I mean I agree(d, for a long time prior to any of all this) that these clauses are terrible for the ecosystem. But it feels like this should be like a vegan learning their associate eats meat and has just noticed that maybe that’s problematic?
I think this is how your mind should have changed:
large update that companies in general are antagonists on a personal level (if you didn’t already know this)
small update that Wave is bad to work with, insofar as it’s a company, mostly screened off by other info you have about it
very small update that Lincoln is bad to work with
with a huge update that they are incredibly good to work with on this specific dimension if “does make me think about whether some changes should be made” results in changes way before the wider ecosystem implements them
moderate update that Lincoln isn’t actively prioritizing noticing and rooting out all bad epistemic practice, among the many things they could be prioritizing, when it goes against “common wisdom” and feels costly, which means if you know of other common wisdom things you think are bad, maybe they implement those
Things I think would have improved this a lot, for me:
a visual indicator of who was “speaking”; this could be as simple as a light gray box around the “speaker”
significantly larger “inflection” in the voice. More dynamic range. More variance in loudness and pitch. I don’t know how easy or hard this is to tune with the tools used, but the voices all felt much flatter than my brain wanted them to sound
more visual going on in general; a scrolling transcipt on the right, maybe
It depends.
Chance of a bet paying out? Value them the same.
Amount of information you gained, where you value transferring that learning to other questions, designs, etc? 90% --> 100% is way better.
In a domain where you know you have plenty of uncertainty? 90% --> 100% is a huge red flag that something just went very wrong. ;)
(Note that there are people who do not enjoy board games. Actively do not enjoy. Dislike, even. This is fine—not every meetup appeals to every person. But also beware of treating these people as if they are just an ignorant shell around an inner person who would definitely enjoy board games if only they [x]. Some of them really are, some really aren’t. Yes, even though “board games” is such a broad category. Yes, even though they seem to enjoy [other thing] which seems so similar. Etc.)
The newest versions come with ways to generate random rules. This brings the floor of the experience way up but also brings the ceiling down somewhat. “Oops I guess the rule I made was terrible” was a big problem with the original and newcomers.
I do my best to minimize switches from work to non-work “modes”. When I am done with work for the day, I usually give myself a half hour to chill before switching to non-work.
I do not feel a need to talk about work. But some work anecdotes are still good for personal life, of course, and I do not censor them.
I actually feel… more intensely not like myself now, at work, than I used to, in some sense, because back in the major depression days I tried to feel as little as possible. Now I notice a lot more often when I’m doing things that “aren’t me”. So like previously I was closer to Gordon’s mask description (in fact I described my fake-self as my “shell”) and there was no active tension between shell-actions and identity, just passive drain from using the shell. Whereas now it feels a lot more like “I am always me, but compromise that in certain ways at work”.
I began by looking at what the coordinates must mean and what the selection bias implied about geography and (obviously) got hard stuck.