Ah! Might I recommend Tengwar Artano instead? It uses the same glyphs, but includes many modern “smart font” features, such as ligatures, automatic under/overbar widths, and improved diacritic placement. (And perhaps most usefully, and my primary motivation for reëncoding it, it’s easy to use it with XeLaTeX.)
Also, you probably want to use the Quenya mode mode for Namárië.
They do the same thing with “child pornography”: that’s mostly teenagers sexting. And a girl was convicted for it too, charged with distributing child pornography of herself: link.
Or just capitalize the “C”.
“Would you destroy a better world to save this one?”
From Ada Palmer’s Terra Ignota, that might be an interesting reframing of this wager: you are destroying (the chance of) a better world, more than twice as good as this one, to guarantee the survival of this one.
If you want a non-Twitter attribution link, you could use the collection of his “greatest poasts”: Internet Archive. This one’s on page 67.
Fisher, The arrangement of field experiments, Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture (1926):
If one in twenty does not seem high enough odds, we may, if we prefer it, draw the line at one in fifty (the 2 per cent. point), or one in a hundred (the 1 per cent. point). Personally, the writer prefers to set a low standard of significance at the 5 per cent. point, and ignore entirely all results which fail to reach this level. A scientific fact should be regarded as experimentally established only if a properly designed experiment rarely fails to give this level of significance.
This is why. Relevant smbc.
Is this a Lisp-to-Python transpiler?
Is this development unexpected enough to worth remarking upon? This is just Conquest’s Second Law.
Without looking it up, I’d bet there are plenty of people who get added to this list by mistake, and can’t get themselves removed, like the people who got put on the US’s no-fly list, or get declared dead.
My tennis coach in high school yelled at me for prefacing line calls with “I think …” and I have taken that lesson to heart. Since then, I try to only say that if I’m extremely unsure about what I’m claiming.
has no moral implications whatsoever
I do in fact believe morality to be entirely orthogonal to “consensus” or what “many other people” want, and since you call this “selfishness,” I shall return the favor and call your view, for all that you frame it as “coordination” or “scalable morality,” abject bootlicking.
A roaming bandit’s “do what I tell you and you get to live” could be thought of a kind of contract, I suppose, but I wouldn’t consider myself bound by it if I could get away with breaching it. I consider the stationary bandits’ “social contracts” not to be meaningfully different. One clue to how they’re similar is how the more powerful party can go, à la Vader, “Here is a New Deal. Pray I don’t renew it any further.” Unilaterally reneging on such a contract when you are the weaker party would certainly be unwise, for the same reason trying to stand between a lynch mob and its intended victim would be—simple self-preservation—but I condemn the suggestion that it would be immoral.
If everyone does this, we lose civilization.
I see what you call “civilization,” and I’m against it. I vaguely recall reading of a medieval Christian belief that if everyone stopped sinning for a day, Christ would return and restore the Kingdom of Heaven. This reminds me of that: would be nice, but it ain’t gonna happen.
societal/governmental/democratic authority.
There is a certain type of person who would look at the mountains of skulls that Genghis Khan piled up and before judging it evil, ask whether it was a state acting or a group of individuals.
Fuck that. States/governments, “democratic” or otherwise, have absolutely no privileged moral status, and to hell with any norm that suggests otherwise, and to hell with any “civilization” that promotes such a norm.
What the state can do is wield violence far more effectively than you, so if you want to level a city, say, Beijing or Moscow, yeah, you should get the US military to do it instead of trying to do it yourself. And it can wield violence against you if you defy its will, so it’s a bad idea to do so publicly, but for purely pragmatic reasons, not moral ones.
If you could do whole-brain emulation for dolphins, you should be able to generate enough data for unsupervised learning that way.
I don’t understand the problem you’re trying to solve.
If you just like the aesthetic of cash transactions and want to see more of them, you could just mandate all brick-and-mortar retail stores only accept cash.
If you want to save people the hassle of doing tax paperwork, and offload that to banks, that’s also easy: just mandate that banks offer for free the service of filing taxes for all their customers. If you have accounts with multiple banks, they can coördinate.
If you want to stop high-frequency trading, just ban it.
One consideration is the government wouldn’t want to encourage (harder-to-tax) cash transactions.
J. D. Vance’s (may he live forever) tweets about AI safety and open source (from March 3, 2024), replying to Vinod Khosla’s advocacy for more centralized control:
There are undoubtedly risks related to AI. One of the biggest:
A partisan group of crazy people use AI to infect every part of the information economy with left wing bias. Gemini can’t produce accurate history. ChatGPT promotes genocidal concepts.
The solution is open source
and link
If Vinod really believes AI is as dangerous as a nuclear weapon, why does ChatGPT have such an insane political bias? If you wanted to promote bipartisan efforts to regulate for safety, it’s entirely counterproductive.
Any moderate or conservative who goes along with this obvious effort to entrench insane left-wing businesses is a useful idiot.
I’m not handing out favors to industrial-scale DEI bullshit because tech people are complaining about safety.
He also said in a Senate Hearing about AI (around 1:28:25 in the video. See transcript):
You know, very often, CEOs, especially of larger technology companies that I think already have advantaged positions in AI, will come and talk about the terrible safety dangers of this new technology and how Congress needs to jump up and regulate as quickly as possible. And I can’t help but worry that if we do something under duress from the current incumbents, it’s gonna be to the advantage of those incumbents and not to the advantage of the American consumer.
I don’t see any reason to structure this agreement as an open-ended compact other states can join instead of a bilateral agreement between just California and Texas as proposed.
(The same reasoning applied to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would have its membership closed as soon as they reach a majority in electoral votes, and then completely disregard the votes of any state that didn’t sign on, voting in whoever gets the most votes in member states.)
This is a little like the case of the Haruhi Problem, where a significant advance regarding the number of superpermutations was made by an anonymous poster on 4chan. In that case, the ephemerality of the post was a reasonable concern, and the solution was someone reposted the proof on ArXiv OEIS (with “Anonymous 4chan Poster” as the first author), and then cited that.
Here, you have a fixed url, so you could just follow the established conventions for citing webpages. I don’t think you need any special justification for it, nor do you need to treat this as anything other than “merely another online website” (you don’t think it’s “snobbish or discriminatory” to pretend it’s something more because you count yourself among its users?).
Why pretend, and not actually throw a stone? Or is this meant as a feint in case you can’t find one lying within reach?
“Medicine” is itself an example of the “noncentral fallacy” you criticize: it includes great things like surgery and trauma medicine, vaccination, treatments based on actual understanding of biology like insulin, and miscellaneous drugs that are claimed to do useful things for mysterious reasons. While there are certainly effective things in that last category, like antibiotics and painkillers, the “epistemics” of the field strike me as pretty shit: if quinine were proposed as a treatment for malaria today, I expect the medical establishment to say things like “that’s tree bark juice. You are not a squirrel.”
The local flavor of quackery where I grew up was Ayurveda, and my view of the herbal remedies suggested by its practitioners is they’re no worse than what they called “allopathy”: try the thing, and if it works, it works.