Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[silverspawn]

Lol magnus played a move that's only 'good' according to stockfish.

and I think that's about as much time as I'll spend viewing live.

[Awaclus]

Adults with children, especially with a lot of children, are more likely to have a lower IQ and a lower level of education than adults with few or no children. This, of course, doesn't mean they vote worse, it just means they vote stupidly, which I can't use as an argument because I don't believe stupid votes are a problem. But it certainly makes it less likely that they would be some of those truly exceptional geniuses who can actually make good decisions for other people. However, what I can use as an argument is that adults with a ton of children are more likely to be members of certain religious groups that oppose contraception, which creates ideological bias in the voting pool and therefore worse votes.

This line of thinking is really no different from Republican attempts to suppress the vote of people of color. "We don't like how group XY votes, so let's exclude them from the vote as much as we can."

Any solid democratic system needs to be independent from the concrete social situation as that is always subject to change. This is essentially a "veil of ignorance" argument; you want to design the system without any knowledge how what any particular group's biases will be.

It is very different from Republican attempts to suppress the POC vote. Namely, they're removing people from the voting pool in order to create bias, I'm preventing extra votes in order to avoid bias. I do think people with lots of children should still be allowed to have one vote like everyone else.

[silverspawn]

How human words can be wrong, 29/37

You try to establish membership in an empirical cluster "by definition".  You wouldn't feel the need to say, "Hinduism, by definition, is a religion!" because, well, of course Hinduism is a religion.  It's not just a religion "by definition", it's, like, an actual religion.  Atheism does not resemble the central members of the "religion" cluster, so if it wasn't for the fact that atheism is a religion by definition, you might go around thinking that atheism wasn't a religion.  That's why you've got to crush all opposition by pointing out that "Atheism is a religion" is true by definition, because it isn't true any other way.  (Arguing "By Definition".)

[silverspawn]

Q. Why did the Bayesian reasoner cross the road?

A. You need more information to answer this question.

[silverspawn]

I still work for this editing company on the side, and they have the "Assistive Edits", where I get to edit an already edited manuscript.

My reaction has always been "this editor is ridiculous; they've only edited tiny things like a word here or there. Sometimes a lot of tiny things, but still; this is obviously missing most  of the point; you have to make substantial changes to make something sound better"

Turns out "Assistive Edits" doesn't mean "some editor edits it, and then you edit it again", it means "we let some Machine Learning algorithm make changes to this text, now you do the real work". Which makes a lot more sense and is actually a good idea.

Still largely blame the company though; their introductory materials are an epic clusterfuck. If you just structured them better, this wouldn't have happened. It's like a 200 page document where at some point they tell you what assistive edit means.

[silverspawn]

Typical symptom of shitty communication: the description of this job reads

"Parts of the document are excluded from editing. Check and reject any pre-edit changes made to these parts (those with username: Editor03).
@Editor,Do NOT change color of the font or remove highlights."

However, they don't tell me WHICH parts are excluded from editing, so what the hell?

I THINK what happened here is that the first line of the quote is a system-generated message that is generated when the client chooses to give special instructions about what not to change. But it's super misleading here because no part of the document is excluded from editing! It's just that I'm not supposed to change the color. And I'm clearly not supposed to reject edits by "Editor03" (the neural net).

[silverspawn]

which makes me notice that calling the neural net "Editor03" is also stupid

[silverspawn]

Also another thing that drives me up the walls. And this is not unique to this company; a lot of sites have started doing this

Previously, if you choose customer support, you may have to choose whatever topic fits best and then you get to write a message that some human being reads

But now they replace that with a more complicated chat bot that leads you through a fixed series of categories and spits out pre-programmed answers. usually, this isn't even anything sophisticated but literally just traversing a memorized tree structure.

Just show me the fucking tree as a FAQ you patronizing fucks

and of course the thing you want isn't there 90% of the time, and the chat bot doesn't offer an "other" option

seriously fuck you

[silverspawn]

also want to punch the person who decided to include a wait time for the chat bot to present you the next menu of prepared items. Do you seriously think this makes me feel like I'm talking to a human?

[silverspawn]

And now I gotta type the query into a tiny chatbox yes good job new system well done

[silverspawn]

like the thing that's so patronizing is that if the answer were in the preprogrammed tree, then I wouldn't ask because I'd already know it because I READ THE INTRODUCTORY MATERIALS. I'm asking because the answer ISN'T THERE.

[silverspawn]

ok well it turns out there was a section on parts-to-be-excluded on the job page, so my bad for missing that, but the broader point still stands.

[silverspawn]

And while I'm complaining, stop sending me emails every week about EXTREMELY CRITICAL SITUATIONS where I just HAVE to edit one of a list of documents that conspicuously usually disappear within a minute after the email. Things like EXTREMELY CRITICAL only works if you use it rarely

[silverspawn]

This goes to a larger point which is really the fault of consumers. I assume it just is the case that TELLING YOU TO SUBSCRIBE EVERY VIDEO and calling the situation EXTREMELY CRITICAL IN ALL CAPS  every week, and telling you that NOW IS THE CRITICAL MOMENT OF THE CAMPAIGN WHERE YOU HAVE TO DONATE leads to people doing it more.

If humanity did universally decide to penalize such behavior, immediately unsubscribe from everyone who annoys you about it, stop taking people seriously who tell you it's critical ever week, stop donating to campaigns which send you more than one email per month, everyone would do it, no-one would be worse off because it's a zero sum game anyway, and we would all be better off because there's less spam. It's a Pareto improvement.

But such is the nature of coordination problems. Everyone cooperating in a prisoner's dilemma is also a pareto improvement, that doesn't mean there is any way to make it happen. One should strive to internalize this fact because as usual, the annoyance comes largely from the feeling that it should be different. it can't really be different.

[silverspawn]

The company really had the audacity to write me a second email telling me to accept ANOTHER assignment after I (accidentally) apparently picked one of the EXTREMELY CRITICAL ones.

(Just noticed that the previous post was my 5000th post on the forum, oh well.)

[silverspawn]

Oh, apparently posts in this forum don't count

[silverspawn]

This was very sad to experience with Yang's campaign. In the beginning, he only wrote rarely, and they were genuinely interesting emails where he would talk about his experience on the campaign (usually without begging for donations). But then it took a turn, and by the end it was indistinguishable from emails from the Sanders campaign. (Who I must have donated 3$ to or something at some point.)

And like it's not Yang's fault if you have to do this, but it is a tragedy.

[silverspawn]

ok well it turns out there was a section on parts-to-be-excluded on the job page, so my bad for missing that, but the broader point still stands.

Which actually makes it more frustrating rather than less. As Dumbledore said, "It is a lot easier to forgive other people for being wrong than for being right". Also if you had made opening a query easier, there's a good chance I would have had the good will to double check you patronizing fucks

[silverspawn]

Much in the same way that offering an album on bandcamp for free makes me want to pay, whereas charging a dollar makes me want to get it for free

I won't pay because of effective altruism but the mechanism is there

[faust]

Adults with children, especially with a lot of children, are more likely to have a lower IQ and a lower level of education than adults with few or no children. This, of course, doesn't mean they vote worse, it just means they vote stupidly, which I can't use as an argument because I don't believe stupid votes are a problem. But it certainly makes it less likely that they would be some of those truly exceptional geniuses who can actually make good decisions for other people. However, what I can use as an argument is that adults with a ton of children are more likely to be members of certain religious groups that oppose contraception, which creates ideological bias in the voting pool and therefore worse votes.

This line of thinking is really no different from Republican attempts to suppress the vote of people of color. "We don't like how group XY votes, so let's exclude them from the vote as much as we can."

Any solid democratic system needs to be independent from the concrete social situation as that is always subject to change. This is essentially a "veil of ignorance" argument; you want to design the system without any knowledge how what any particular group's biases will be.

It is very different from Republican attempts to suppress the POC vote. Namely, they're removing people from the voting pool in order to create bias, I'm preventing extra votes in order to avoid bias. I do think people with lots of children should still be allowed to have one vote like everyone else.

All that is different there is their initial state, which shouldn't matter. Or are you saying that if PoC people weren't allowed to vote, it would be fine to keep it that way?

[silverspawn]

Lol magnus played a move that's only 'good' according to stockfish.

and I think that's about as much time as I'll spend viewing live.

I much prefer watching agadmator's reviews. Recommended for anyone who is looking for an excuse to waste more time in youtube.

[Awaclus]

Adults with children, especially with a lot of children, are more likely to have a lower IQ and a lower level of education than adults with few or no children. This, of course, doesn't mean they vote worse, it just means they vote stupidly, which I can't use as an argument because I don't believe stupid votes are a problem. But it certainly makes it less likely that they would be some of those truly exceptional geniuses who can actually make good decisions for other people. However, what I can use as an argument is that adults with a ton of children are more likely to be members of certain religious groups that oppose contraception, which creates ideological bias in the voting pool and therefore worse votes.

This line of thinking is really no different from Republican attempts to suppress the vote of people of color. "We don't like how group XY votes, so let's exclude them from the vote as much as we can."

Any solid democratic system needs to be independent from the concrete social situation as that is always subject to change. This is essentially a "veil of ignorance" argument; you want to design the system without any knowledge how what any particular group's biases will be.

It is very different from Republican attempts to suppress the POC vote. Namely, they're removing people from the voting pool in order to create bias, I'm preventing extra votes in order to avoid bias. I do think people with lots of children should still be allowed to have one vote like everyone else.

All that is different there is their initial state, which shouldn't matter. Or are you saying that if PoC people weren't allowed to vote, it would be fine to keep it that way?

No, but I am saying that back when PoC weren't allowed to vote, I would have opposed giving slave owners extra votes.

[silverspawn]

I so do not want to teach online, but it seems like it may be inevitable

[faust]

Adults with children, especially with a lot of children, are more likely to have a lower IQ and a lower level of education than adults with few or no children. This, of course, doesn't mean they vote worse, it just means they vote stupidly, which I can't use as an argument because I don't believe stupid votes are a problem. But it certainly makes it less likely that they would be some of those truly exceptional geniuses who can actually make good decisions for other people. However, what I can use as an argument is that adults with a ton of children are more likely to be members of certain religious groups that oppose contraception, which creates ideological bias in the voting pool and therefore worse votes.

This line of thinking is really no different from Republican attempts to suppress the vote of people of color. "We don't like how group XY votes, so let's exclude them from the vote as much as we can."

Any solid democratic system needs to be independent from the concrete social situation as that is always subject to change. This is essentially a "veil of ignorance" argument; you want to design the system without any knowledge how what any particular group's biases will be.

It is very different from Republican attempts to suppress the POC vote. Namely, they're removing people from the voting pool in order to create bias, I'm preventing extra votes in order to avoid bias. I do think people with lots of children should still be allowed to have one vote like everyone else.

All that is different there is their initial state, which shouldn't matter. Or are you saying that if PoC people weren't allowed to vote, it would be fine to keep it that way?

No, but I am saying that back when PoC weren't allowed to vote, I would have opposed giving slave owners extra votes.

Alright I guess, though I am not sure what that has to do with anything; noone proposed giving anyone "extra" votes.

[silverspawn]

arguably lowering the voting age to 0 is giving extra votes to parents