Weird characters in the Sequences
post by Paul Crowley (ciphergoth) · 2010-11-18T08:27:20.737Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 5 commentsContents
5 comments
When the sequences were copied from Overcoming Bias to Less Wrong, it looks like something went very wrong with the character encoding. I found the following sequences of HTML entities in words in the sequences:
’ê d?tre
Å« M?lamadhyamaka
ĂŚ Ph?drus
— arbitrator?i window?and
ĂŞ b?te m?me
… over?and
รก H?jek
ĂƒÂź G?nther
ĂŠ fianc?e proteg?s d?formation d?colletage am?ricaine d?sir
ĂƒÂŻ na?ve na?vely
ō sh?nen
ö Schr?dinger L?b
ยง ?ion
ĂƒÂś Schr?dinger H?lldobler
Ăź D?sseldorf G?nther
– ? Church? miracles?in Church?Turing
’ doesn?t he?s what?s let?s twin?s aren?t I?ll they?d ?s you?ve else?s EY?s Whate?er punish?d There?s Caledonian?s isn?t harm?s attack?d I?m that?s Google?s arguer?s Pascal?s don?t shouldn?t can?t form?d controll?d Schiller?s object?s They?re whatever?s everybody?s That?s Tetlock?s S?il it?s one?s didn?t Don?t Aslan?s we?ve We?ve Superman?s clamour?d America?s Everybody?s people?s you?d It?s state?s Harvey?s Let?s there?s Einstein?s won?t
ĂĄ Alm?si Zolt?n
ĂŤ pre?mpting re?valuate
≠ ?
è l?se m?ne accurs?d
รฐ Ver?andi
→ high?low low?high
’ doesn?t
ā k?rik Siddh?rtha
รถ Sj?berg G?delian L?b Schr?dinger G?gel G?del co?rdinate W?hler K?nigsberg P?lzl
ĂŻ na?vet
  I?understood ? I?was
Ăś Schr?dinger
ĂŽ pla?t
úñ N?ez
Ĺ‚ Ceg?owski
— PEOPLE?and smarter?supporting to?at problem?and probability?then valid?to opportunity?of time?in true?I view?wishing Kyi?and ones?such crudely?model stupid?which that?larger aside?from Ironically?but intelligence?such flower?but medicine?as
‐ side?effect galactic?scale
´ can?t Biko?s aren?t you?de didn?t don?t it?s
≠ P?NP
窶馬 basically?ot
Ĺ‘ Erd?s
5 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by jmmcd · 2010-11-18T13:37:10.838Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Speaking of weird characters in the sequences, I've always wondered who "the one", eg here, might be. Is it Neo from the Matrix by any chance?
Replies from: Risto_Saarelma↑ comment by Risto_Saarelma · 2010-11-18T14:38:46.246Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's a parable'y way of saying "someone" and "the same someone as earlier"?
Replies from: komponisto↑ comment by komponisto · 2010-11-18T18:31:21.252Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Indeed. Usually a stereotypical "person who doesn't 'get it'."
I've always thought that one of the ultimate LW insults would be: "you're so 'the one'."
Replies from: Risto_Saarelma↑ comment by Risto_Saarelma · 2010-11-18T18:37:27.505Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I really didn't get that impression. Read it just as neutral affectation.
Replies from: komponisto↑ comment by komponisto · 2010-11-18T18:39:41.476Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's usually Eliezer's foil; a person espousing the incorrect view he's arguing against.