gerikson

The targets are informed, via a grammatically invalid sentence.

Sam Kriss (author of the ‘Laurentius Clung’ piece) has posted a critique. I don’t think it’s good, but I do think it’s representative of a view that I ever encounter in the wild but haven’t really seen written up.

FWIW the search term 'Laurentius Clung' gets no hits on LW, so I'm to assume everyone there also is Extremely Online on Xitter and instantly knows the reference.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3GbM9hmyJqn4LNXrG/yams-s-shortform?commentId=MzkAjd8EWqosiePMf

This was a good read. I also read the post/story/essay that got the rats upset and it's good too.

https://samkriss.substack.com/p/the-law-that-can-be-named-is-not

Yud's sputtering reaction can be read here among the comments here

https://xcancel.com/captgouda24/status/1946398995556819149

Remember FizzBuzz? That was originally a simple filter exercise some person recruiting programmers came up with to weed out everyone with multi-year CS degrees but zero actual programming experience.

The argument would be stronger (not strong, but stronger) if he could point to an existing numbering system that is little-endian and somehow show it's better

The guy who thinks it's important to communicate clearly (https://awful.systems/comment/7904956) wants to flip the number order around

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KXr8ys8PYppKXgGWj/english-writes-numbers-backwards

I'll consider that when the Yanks abandon middle-endian date formatting.

Edit it's now tagged as "Humor" on LW. Cowards. Own your cranks.

So here's a poster on LessWrong, ostensibly the space to discuss how to prevent people from dying of stuff like disease and starvation, "running the numbers" on a Lancet analysis of the USAID shutdown and, having not been able to replicate its claims of millions of dead thereof, basically concludes it's not so bad?

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qgSEbLfZpH2Yvrdzm/i-tried-reproducing-that-lancet-study-about-usaid-cuts-so

No mention of the performative cruelty of the shutdown, the paltry sums involved compared to other gov expenditures, nor the blow it deals to American soft power. But hey, building Patriot missiles and then not sending them to Ukraine is probably net positive for human suffering, just run the numbers the right way!

Edit ah it's the dude who tried to prove that most Catholic cardinals are gay because heredity, I think I highlighted that post previously here. Definitely a high-sneer vein to mine.

Enjoy this LW answer about "myths that encapsulate eternal truths". No. 3 will surprise you!

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nB79uLT4uRWYAKrxK/what-are-some-good-examples-of-myths-that-encapsulates?commentId=qv8ySAWsDxYmPawZX

No replies and somehow that screen name just screams "troll" to me.

Not that I really care, git can go DIAF as far as I'm concerned.

janitorai - which seems to be a hosting site for creepy AI chats - is blocking all UK visitors due to the OSA

https://blog.janitorai.com/posts/3/

I'm torn here, the OSA seems to me to be massive overreach but perhaps shielding limeys from AI is wroth it

Guys, how about we made the coming computer god a fan of Robert Nozick, what could go wrong?

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/us8ss79mWCgTcSKoK/a-night-watchman-asi-as-a-first-step-toward-a-great-future

Vegemite?

I'll get my coat.

Here's an example of normal people using Bayes correctly (rationally assigning probabilities and acting on them) while rats Just Don't Get Why Normies Don't Freak Out:

For quite a while, I've been quite confused why (sweet nonexistent God, whyyyyy) so many people intuitively believe that any risk of a genocide of some ethnicity is unacceptable while being… at best lukewarm against the idea of humanity going extinct.

(Dude then goes on to try to game-theorize this, I didn't bother to poke holes in it)

The thing is, genocides have happened, and people around the world are perfectly happy to advocate for it in diverse situations. Probability wise, the risk of genocide somewhere is very close to 1, while the risk of "omnicide" is much closer to zero. If you want to advocate for eliminating something, working to eliminating the risk of genocide is much more rational than working to eliminate the risk of everyone dying.

At least on commenter gets it:

Most people distinguish between intentional acts and shit that happens.

(source)

Edit never read the comments (again). The commenter referenced above obviously didn't feel like a pithy one liner adhered to the LW ethos, and instead added an addendum wondering why people were more upset about police brutality killing people than traffic fatalities. Nice "save", dipshit.