Why?
VAuroch
Karma: 1,671
That would make it a terrible at being a medium of exchange or a store of value, though, wouldn’t it? No one knows how much it’s worth, and you have to acquire some, pass it off, and then (on their side) turn it into currency every time you use it.
Will only matters for green lanterns.
Inside View much?
If you can’t succeed without first getting mass adoption, then you can’t succeed. See the ‘success’ of Medium, and how it required losing everything they set out to do.
If Arbital has failed, Arbital has failed. Building neoTumblr and hoping to turn it into Arbital later won’t make it fail any less, it will just produce neoTumblr.
Arbital has vague positive affect from being an attempt to solve a big problem in a potentially really impactful way.
Yet Another Blogging Platform, without the special features envisioned originally, is not solving a big problem (or actually any problem), and has a maximum plausible impact of “makes you a bunch of money and you donate that somewhere”. Re-using the name is a self-serving attempt to redirect the positive affect from the ambitious, failed, altruistic project to the mundane, new, purely-capitalistic project.
Why aren’t you just admitting defeat and going on to build something different?
It seems disingenuous to call this new project Arbital.
I agree with Christian. Did Arbital ever even come out of closed beta? My impression was that it did not, and you still needed to be whitelisted to have the chance to contribute.
Absolutely, would move immediately. Inconveniently I am currently at the “impoverished App Academy student” level.
If this set of criteria classify Leverage as a cult, they are probably correct to do so; they’re seen as cultish already and I don’t think anyone outside Leverage would be too surprised. There are startups that would be classified as such as well; for many that is accurate.
What LW lingo did he use? I didn’t see it.
Also, I know at least one person who wasn’t born when the Jonestown cult panic ended and got into (and thankfully out of) a cult very much like the one described.
From Funereal-disease on tumblr, in a previous discussion: It is usually better to talk about “spiritual abuse” rather than “being a cult”. It emphasizes that the techniques of successful cults are techniques of successful abusers, and is better at being something that happens to a greater or lesser degree; cult is more binary.
I might prefer “social abuse” or “community abuse” to make clear that non-religious forms are possible.
Eh, more the first than the second. Obedience to authority is something you can demonstrate by showing up and obeying; conscientiousness is mostly demonstrated when you do things while no one is watching and they are the things you’d do if someone was watching.
I expect to find that random methods, which approach Bayes’s Theorem in the limit of infinite computing resources but are different in finite cases, are superior for finite computing resources. Enough special cases of this are found to have speedups and nicer properties that a general-case proof seems to be true in the same way that P != NP seems to be true (though with lower confidence).
If you want the group to acquire a collective reputation among other people, a uniform is useful. If Boy Scouts never chose a uniform, it would have been very hard for them to get their reputation for above-average conscientiousness and obedience to authority.
If you want to get a reputation as being good at solving problems (which Ougi’s group may), it is useful to have a shared appearance.
Why are almost all fire trucks red? They would work just as well if they were blue and yellow polka dots. But they are uniform because they are recognizable.The same with the blue-white-red lights on a police car and the sirens.
A nurse’s uniform tells you that this is probably a nurse, even in contexts where the scrubs are not useful. A monk’s or priest’s robes tell you that this is a religious person who might give you religious advice. The act of picking a uniform for a group lets you begin to associate some properties of that group with the people in it, at a glance.
For an explicit derivation of why this is fair:
Say that you believe the event is likely with probability p, and your betting partner tells you that it will fail with probability q. Then I am going to modify my estimate by c before I tell it to the other person. So my expected value is:
p*(q^2-(1-(p+c))^2) - (1-p)((p+c)^2 - (1-q)^2)
Naturally I want to find the local maximum for variation in c, for a fixed value of p and assuming q is out of my control. So we take the derivative with respect to c. Using Wolfram Alpha shows this is −2c. So the only local maxima possible are telling someone 0, telling them 1, or telling them the true value of p.
How are qualia different from experiences? If experiences are no different, why use ‘qualia’ rather than ‘experiences’?
I, also, still do not know what you’re talking about. I expect to have experiences in the future. I do not really expect them to contain qualia, but I’m not sure what that would mean in your terms. Please describe the difference I should expect in terms of things I can verify or falsify internally.
I don’t think I’ve ever used a text that didn’t. “We have” is “we have as a theorem/premise”. In most cases this is an unimportant distinction to make, so you could be forgiven for not noticing, if no one ever mentioned why they were using a weird syntactic construction like that rather than plain English.
And yes, rereading the argument that does seem to be where it falls down. Though tbh, you should probably have checked your own assumptions before assuming that the question was wrong as stated.