matryoshka-regress asked: So I knew which sequence article you were pointing at before I clicked. But I re-read part of it and got snagged on the phrase "anticipation-isomorphic." Do you think that EY's use of math "flavor" words qualifies as a dark art, or underhanded rhetorical strategy? Because there are much more concise and accessible phrases that he could have used. This is doubly concerning since the Sequences are supposed to do some rationalist proselytizing!
I’m not sure. It might just be that math concepts are the kind he understands (remember he was doing calculus at 13) and did not think much about how accessible the language might have been at the time.
But yes, good summaries and simplified versions would be good, I think scientiststhesis got a lot of that covered now.
I can assure you, this is how some people actually think.
i honestly think that “lazy” is mostly a false premise. i have yet to meet someone who was truly “lazy”
i’ve met people who were exhausted. ive met people who were apathetic. ive met people who were entitled.
how can “laziness” exist when it places all the responsibility on an individual l to participate or not participate in “work” which is a set of socially constructed behavior expectations?
A programmer is going out for a stroll one evening. His wife asks him to swing by the store and pick up a gallon of milk, and if they had eggs, to get a dozen. He returned with
twelvethirteen gallons of milk and said “They had eggs.”“True.”
People seem to think the utilitarian answer to the trolley problem is “autistic.”
This is unfair and oppressive. The autistic answer is the ask if the train will be harmed.
petition to turn “day of silence” into “day of screaming”
just talk about gay things all day
point out oppression whenever you see it
scream at homophobes until your throat goes raw
refuse to be silenced
make them fuckin listen to you
In fact, there is very little money in politics. In the 2008 US federal elections, presidential candidates raised nearly $2 billion. They spent more than $1 billion. Congressional campaigns spent another 1/3rd of a billion. Let’s round up: Assume candidates and PACs spend $2.5 billion total during every presidential election. That might seem like a huge sum, but it’s not. Consider that the federal government spent about $2.9 trillion in 2008. Campaign spending is less than 1/10th of a percent of the federal of the federal budget. Percentage-wise, that’s a tiny amount spent to control so much power and such a huge budget. (Note, also that the budget could be much bigger than it is. Candidates—and their corporate supporters—are not just competing to control the current federal budget, but also the potential budget.) Compare: In 2008, Nike had an operating budget of about $7 billion and global revenues of about $15 billion. Yet Nike spent about $2.5–3 billion worldwide on all advertising and marketing. In other words, total campaign spending in the US, during one of the most intense elections ever, is about equal to Nike’s marketing budget. If campaign spending really did buy laws and regulations, we would expect spending to be at least an order of magnitude higher.
I feel sort of vindicated that somebody else thinks this way.
My personal guess is that it turns out that it really doesn’t matter who wins most of the time for large organizations.