Posts
Comments
Superficially, human minds look like they are way too diverse for that to cause human extinction by accident. If new ideas toast some specific human subgroup, other subgroups will not be equally affected.
Why do you feel so strongly about using so much eye contact in normal conversations? I sometimes make eye contact and sometimes don't and that seems fine.
I agree with your sentiment that being very uncomfortable with eye contact is probably an indication of some other psychological thing you could work on, but it sounds like you maybe feel more strongly about it than that.
I played General Anderson and also wrote that note. My feeling is that this year seemed more "game-like" and less "ritual-like" than past years, but the "game" part suffered for the reasons I mentioned above, and the combination to me felt awkward. Choosing to emphasize either the "game" nature or the "ritual" nature seems to have some pros and cons. Since participating in the game inevitably made me curious about the choices involved, I will be interested to hear the LW team's opinion on this in the retrospective.
A new promising game was just released, Maxwell's Puzzling Demon. It looks like it goes deep with clever puzzles.
This post was difficult to take seriously when I read it but the "clown attack" idea very much stuck with me.
I think you should go to college if it sounds pleasant and fulfilling to go to one of the colleges you could go to (as Saul stated colleges have many fancy amenities) and you are OK with sacrificing:
- The cost of the preparatory work you need to do to be admitted at that college.
- The cost of the tuition itself.
- 4+ years of your career and adult life.
in order to do something pleasant and fulfilling. You should also go to college if you don't have any plan to get a job you like without a college degree, but you do have a plan to do it with a college degree, since it's very important to get a job you like. Although, given that college is a huge investment, maybe you should have made that plan, or be making it.
If you aren't looking forward to spending 4 more years in school a lot, and you could get a reasonable job without going to college, I think it would be crazy to go to college.
I don't think most people are likely to be confused about which of these groups they are in. If Saul is confused I apologize but I think he must be a rare case.
The other arguments Saul made in his opening statement about why you might want to go to college seem very weak to me:
- It's a strong Chesterton's fence.
- This is an argument for why a fully generic high school student who knows nothing should go to college. It's not an argument for why it's good to get a college degree.
- Defaults are for what a person with no information should do without thinking. Everyone at 16 has a huge amount of information about themselves, their dreams, their abilities, how they relate to school, how they relate to others, what the contemporaneous world is like. The default is not responsive to any of that. It's completely inappropriate to be applying some super-general policy about norms and conformity when considering some giant extremely specific high-stakes offer that is only about your own life. This is what I disagree with the most in this dialogue.
- General upkeeping of norms/institutions is good.
- No it's not. If it's not in someone's self-interest to get a college degree, there's no way it's in the social interest for there to be a norm of everyone getting college degrees.
- Some people may be totally unproductive and/or be a drain on society (e.g. crime) if they don't go.
- That's a reason to not be a career criminal, not a reason to get a college degree.
- By the way, it's pretty unproductive to go to college for 4 years while someone else pays for your room, board, and entertainment.
- I don't believe there are a substantial number of people who are incapable of being productive after 12 years of high school, but then if you send them to college for 4 years, now they can be productive. That doesn't make sense. The way you would train a very low-skill person to be productive is by training them on a specific job, not sending them to college.
Do you believe the result about priming people with a $1500 bill and a $150 bill? That pattern matches perfectly to an infinite list of priming research that failed to replicate, so by default I would assume it is probably wrong.
The one about people scoring better after harvest makes a lot more sense since, like, it's a real difference and not some priming thing, so I am not as skeptical about that.
It kind of weirds me out that this post has such a high karma score. It's a fun read, and maybe it will help some Wikipedia admins get their house in order, but I don't like "we good guys are being wronged by the bad outsider" content on LessWrong. No offense to Trace who is a great writer and clearly worked hard putting all this together.
It seems like this is a place where "controversial" and "taboo" diverge in meaning. The politician would notice that the sentence was about a taboo topic and bounce off, but that's probably totally unconnected to whether or not it would be controversial among people who know anything about genetics or intelligence and are actually expressing a belief. For example, they would bounce off regardless of whether the number in the sentence was 1%, 50%, or 90%.
I thought the sequels were far better than the first book. But I have seen people with the opposite opinion.
How did you like your trip in the end?
It definitely depends. I think there are lots of people for which there are lots of domains of information for which they are highly trustworthy in realtime conversation. For example, if I am working as a programmer, and I talk to my smart, productive coworker and ask him some normal questions about the system he built recently, I expect him to be highly confident and well calibrated on what he knows. Or if I talk to my friend with a physics PhD and ask him some question like what makes there be friction, I expect him to be highly confident and well calibrated. Certainly he isn't likely to say something confident and then I look on Wikipedia and he was totally wrong.
In general I take more seriously what people say if
- They are a person who has a source of information that could be good about the thing they are saying.
- They are a person who is capable of saying they don't know instead of bullshitting me, when they don't know. And in general they respect the value of expressing uncertainty.
- The thing they are saying could be something that is easier to actually know and understand and remember, instead of super hard. For example, maybe it is part of a kind of consistent gears-level model of some domain, so if they forgot or got it mixed up, they may notice their error.
I hope you don't feel dumb! What could be smarter than sitting around thinking up good ideas, writing about them, and getting a bunch of people to work together to figure out what to make of them? It seems like the most smart possible behavior!
It seems like the students think that eliminating the distractions wouldn't improve how much they learn in class. That sounds ridiculous to me, but public school classrooms are a weird environment that already aren't really set up well to teach anyone anything, so maybe it could be true. Is it credible?
As a non-physicist I kind of had the idea that the reason I was taught Newtonian mechanics in high school was that it was assumed I wasn't going to have the time, motivation, or brainpower to learn some kind of fancy, real university version of it, so the alternate idea that it's useful for intuition-building of the concepts is novel and interesting to me.
Learning piano I have been pretty skeptical about the importance of learning to read sheet music fluently. All piano players culturally seem to insist that it's very important, but my sense is that it's some kind of weird bias. If you tell piano players that you should hear it in your head and play it expressively, they will start saying stuff about, what if you don't already know what it's supposed to sound like, how will you figure it out, and they don't like "I will go listen to it" as an answer.
So far, I am not very fluent at reading, so maybe I just don't get it yet.
Why is it bad to have wealth inequality by age? Basically everyone gets to be every age, so there's nothing "unfair" about it.
I still don't get why you are even considering finishing the degree, even though you clearly tried to explain it to me. Taking eight college classes is a lot of work actually? "Why not" doesn't really seem to cover it. How is doing a "terrible" commute several times per week for two semesters and spending many hours per week a low cost?
You sort of imply that someone is judging you for not having the degree but you didn't give any examples of actually being judged.
If you really really want to prove to yourself that you can do it, or if you really want to learn more math (I agree that taking college courses seems like a fine way to learn more math) then I understand, but based on your post it's not clear to me.
That just sounds great, thanks.
How's the childcare situation looking? Last I heard it wasn't clear and the organizers were seeing how much interest there was in it.
This isn't quite what you asked for, but I did feel a related switch.
When I was a kid, I thought that probably people in positions of power were smart people working towards smart goals under difficult constraints that made their actions sometimes look foolish to me, who knew little. Then there was a specific moment in my early 20s, when the political topic of the day was the design of Obamacare, and so if you followed the news, you would see all the day-to-day arguments between legislators and policy analysts about what would go in the legislation and why. And the things they said about it were so transparently stupid and so irredeemably ridiculous, that it completely cured me of the idea that they were the thing I said up above. It was clear to me that it was just a bunch of people who weren't really experts on the economics of healthcare or anything, and they weren't even aspiring to be experts. They were just doing and saying whatever sort of superficially seemed like it would further their career.
So now I definitely have no internal dissonance about trusting myself to make decisions about what work to do, because I don't take seriously the idea that someone else would be making any better decision, unless it's some specific person that I have specific evidence about.
I am surprised by this, for example. Can you give examples of some of your controversial takes on any issues? I am wondering if you just do not have very controversial takes.
Controversial is obviously relative to the audience, but I have lots of opinionated beliefs that might make various audiences mad at me. Some different flavors include
- I am roughly a total utilitarian, which involves lots of beliefs about what actions are moral that all kinds of people might strongly disagree with. For example, I don't agree that inequality is intrinsically bad.
- I roughly agree with (my understanding of) Zack Davis's arguments about the superiority of cluster-of-traits-based definitions of gender words, rather than self-ID based definitions, which I am sure would make many trans people mad.
- I think it's ridiculous for suicide to be illegal and marginal efforts to increase the availability of suicide seem great.
- I frequently criticize my coworkers' ideas of what to work on as being bad or not worth doing.
Stuff like correlation between IQ and ethnicity is a bit more controversial, but my takes are usually much more controversial than that. I often wonder what would have happened if the US had wiped out USSR’s main cities post WW2 and established global hegemony (wipe out any nation that doesn’t submit, maintain nuclear monopoly). I have genuine respect and admiration for people like hitler or the unabomber, more than for a lot of the people I see around me, despite disagreeing with their object level opinions (I’m not a nazi or an anarchoprimitivist).
I am not very knowledgeable about or interested in history or social science, so I have less strong opinions about things like this, and don't talk about them very often. For example, my opinion about IQ and ethnicity is that the obvious group differences seem to obviously suggest some kind of genetic difference, but I know psychologists have some complicated statistical argument for why that may not be the case, so therefore I don't know.
I note, however, that I can't think of the last time before now that I have ever been in a conversation where it seemed like my views on IQ and ethnic groups were relevant, so I don't have a problem with pissing people off by expressing them. Is this different for you? How do you end up in discussions about it with people who will then be offended when you say your opinion? Is it some kind of thing where you participate in social media conversations about it which then broadcast your opinions to basically random people? (I don't use any platform like that.)
Do you expect to ever become at all famous in your life?
Definitely not. It sounds very annoying. I am not altruistic enough to want to do something that involves being substantially famous.
I can send a list of examples of people whose lives have been ruined by this. Do you claim I am misjudging the probability this happens to me personally?
Probably, if it's a big consideration to you. I think it seems like a tail risk that isn't very substantial, unless your life depends on the approval of others in a somewhat atypical way. (Perhaps it does, if your life involves being famous.)
Do you have actual experience in bio security? I doubt most people in EA circles or even many academics would provide you with any of the funding or connections required to work in bio security if this is your current stance on the matter.
No, I just quoted this because it was the example you gave. I know little about biosecurity and I don't intend my remarks to extend to "infohazard" kinds of information. Perhaps you know things about the biosecurity nonprofit world that I don't. However, I know something about the kinds of things that some EA grantmakers like SFF consider, and I don't see why being the kind of person who speaks their mind about controversial beliefs would make them less likely to fund you.
I am 37 and I am a partially retired programmer after a ~20 year career. I basically try to maximize clarity while obeying normal politeness norms, prioritizing clarity and honesty over politeness where the topic is important (e.g. delivering actionable criticism or bad news.) I would say that during my career I received very strong evidence that this is an effective communication style for working well with others. For example, I have had numerous coworkers spontaneously tell me that they respected my straightforwardness, and seek out my feedback on what they were thinking. I have also had coworkers who were hurt by my criticism, but the balance seems clear to me.
I certainly have no "hot takes which I feel uncomfortable sharing with people around me", nor would I ever "assume...whatever they [I] tell anyone could eventually end up being broadcasted by a famous person on the internet", which sounds pathologically anxious. I don't start random arguments with random people unbidden, because that's impolite, but I would not consider concealing my beliefs about something true and important.
My comparative advantage in the world is my ability to make and fix practical things. If I aspired to be a professional persuader, or a political operator in a large organization, and I was talented at persuasion and manipulation, maybe I would behave differently. But I wouldn't behave differently if I were to "run a research nonprofit working on biosecurity" for example.
I think most people who regularly conceal or lie about their beliefs are doing so because of emotional anxiety and conflict avoidance that is not based on a sober judgment of the consequences. If they reflected on the fact that they know well who in their lives is straightforward and trustworthy, and who is an untrustworthy bullshitter, then they would realize that it's a huge benefit to join the first category, and typically disproportionate to any risk. I have the good fortune to naturally be not very socially anxious, leading me to a better path.
Lucas Watson, who co-wrote Hanano Puzzle 2, just published an exceptional new game, I Wanna Lockpick, which I would put in your tier 1.
One thing which I really enjoyed about it is that it uses its mechanics to build interesting puzzles in all of the different puzzle categories above, and mixes them freely, so it feels like there is a nice variety of kinds of thinking involved.
Thanks, I didn't realize that this PC fan idea had made air purifiers so much better since I bought my Coway, so this post made me buy one of the Luggable kits. I'll share this info with others.
I disagree with the summarization suggestion for the same reason that I disagree with many of the items -- I don't have (much of) the problem they are trying to solve, so why would I expend effort to attack a problem I don't have?
The most obvious is "carrying extra batteries for my phone." My phone never runs out of battery; I should not carry batteries that I will never use. Similarly: I don't have a problem with losing things, such that I need extra. (If I had extra, I would plausibly give them away to save physical space!) I don't find myself wishing I remembered more of my thoughts, such that I should take the effort to capture and retain them. And I don't feel the need to remember more than I already do about the stuff that I read, so that makes me not inclined to take time away from the rest of my life and spend it remembering more things.
Are you really saying you think everything on this list is "obviously" beneficial? I probably only agree with half the stuff on the list. For example, I certainly disagree that I should "summarize things that I read" (?) or that I should have a "good mentor" by emailing people to request that they mentor me.
I specifically think it's well within the human norm, i.e. that most of the things I read are written by a person who has done worse things, or who would do worse things given equal power. I have done worse things, in my opinion. There's just not a blog post about them right now.
Speaking for myself, I don't agree with any of it. From what I have read, I don't agree that the author's personal issues demonstrate "some amount of poison in them" outside the human norm, or in some way that would make me automatically skeptical of anything they said "entwined with soulcrafting." And I certainly don't agree that a reader "should be aware" of nonspecific problems that an author has which aren't even clearly relevant to something they wrote. I would give the exact opposite advice -- to try to focus on the ideas first before involving preconceptions about the author's biases.
If you wanted other people to consider this remark, you shouldn't have deleted whatever discussion you had that prompted it, so that we could go look.
Yes, I basically am not considering that because I am not aware of the arguments for why that's a likely kind of risk (vs. the risk of simple annihilation, which I understand the basic arguments for.) If you think the future will be super miserable rather than simply nonexistent, then I understand why you might not have a kid.
I don't agree with that. I'm a parent of a 4-year-old who takes AI risk seriously. I think childhood is great in and of itself, and if the fate of my kid is to live until 20 and then experience some unthinkable AI apocalypse, that was 20 more good years of life than he would have had if I didn't do anything. If that's the deal of life it's a pretty good deal and I don't think there's any reason to be particularly anguished about it on your kid's behalf.
Thanks for the post. Your intuition as someone who has observed lots of similar arguments and the people involved in them seems like it should be worth something.
Personally as a non-involved party following this drama the thing I updated the most about so far was the emotional harm apparently done by Ben's original post. Kat's descriptions of how stressed out it made her were very striking and unexpected to me. Your post corroborates that it's common to take extreme emotional damage from accusations like this.
I am sure that LW has other people like me who are natural psychological outliers on "low emotional affect" or maybe "low agreeableness" who wouldn't necessarily intuit that it would be a super big deal for someone to publish a big public post accusing you of being an asshole. Now I understand that it's a bigger deal than I thought, and I am more open to norms that are more subtle than "honestly write whatever you think."
I am skeptical of the gender angle, but I think it's being underdiscussed that, based on the balance of evidence so far, the person with the biggest, most effective machine gun is $5000 to the richer and still anonymous, whereas the people hit by their bullets are busy pointing fingers at each other. Alice's alleged actions trashing Nonlinear (and 20-some former people???) seem IMO much worse than anything Lightcone or Nonlinear is being even accused of.
(Not that this is a totally foregone conclusion - I noticed that Nonlinear didn't provide any direct evidence on the claim that Alice was a known serial liar outside of this saga.)
Are little kids welcome?
I just had a surprisingly annoying version of a very mundane bug. I was working in Javascript and I had some code that read some parameters from the URL and then did a bunch of math. I had translated the math directly from a different codebase so I was absolutely sure it should be right; yet I was getting the wrong answer. I console.logged the inputs and intermediate values and was totally flummoxed because all the inputs looked clearly right, until at some point a totally nonsense value was produced from one equation.
Of course, the inputs and intermediate values were strings that I forgot to parse into Javascript numbers, so everything looked perfect until finally it plugged them into my equation, which silently did string operations instead of numeric operations, producing an apparently absurd result. But it took a good 20 minutes of me plus my coworker staring at these 20 lines of code and the log outputs until I figured it out.
I think the most basic and true explanation is that the companies we are thinking about started out with unusually high-quality products, which is why they came to our notice. Over time, the conditions that enabled them to do especially good work change and their ability tends to regress to the mean. So then the product gets worse.
Related ideas:
-
High-quality product design is not very legible to companies and it's hard for them to select for it in their hiring or incentive structure.
-
Companies want to grow for economy-of-scale reasons, but the larger a company is the more challenging it is to organize it to do good work.
-
Of course, doing nothing at all seems ridiculous, particularly so for companies whose investors all invested on the premise of dramatic growth.
-
In many cases, a company probably originally designed a product that they themselves liked, and they happened to be representative enough of a potential market that they became successful and their product was well-liked. Then the next step is to try to design for a mass market that is typically unlike themselves (since companies are usually made up of a kind of specific homogeneous employee base.) That's much harder and they may guess wrong about what that mass market will like.
I have no inside information. My guess is #5 with a side of 1, 6, and "the letter wasn't legally binding anyway so who cares."
I think that the lesson here is that if your company says "Work here for the principles in this charter. We also pay a shitload of money" then you are going to get a lot of employees who like getting paid a shitload of money regardless of the charter, because those are much more common in the population than people who believe the principles in the charter and don't care about money.
Interesting. I agree, I didn't even notice that Bb3 would be attacking a4, I was just thinking of it as a way to control the d-file. I hadn't really thought about how good that position would be if white just did "not much."
I also hadn't really thought about exactly how much better black was after the final position in the Qxb5 line (with Bxd5 exd5), it was just clear to me black was better and the position was personally appealing to me (it looks kind of one-sided, where white has no particular counterplay and black can sit around maneuvering all day to try to pick up a pawn.) Very difficult for me to guess whether it should be objectively winning or not.
Fun exercise, thanks for making it!
I'm 2100 USCF. I looked at the first position for a few minutes and read the AI reasoning. My assessment:
- For myself, I thought 1...Qxb5 was natural and strong, considering 2. Nxb5 c6 3. Nc3 or Na3 with black control over b3 and c4, and 2. axb5 looks odd after Nc5. Black's minor pieces look superior in both cases.
- I thought that it was strange that neither AI mentioned 1...Qxb5 2. Nxb5.
- I thought that 1...Qc5 with the plan of c6 looked kind of artificial. I thought a better structure for the black queenside would be with the pawns on dark squares, providing an outpost for the knight on c5, and the long diagonal completely vacated.
- AI A's refutation of Qxb5 was total nonsense, as AI B pointed out. The final position is obviously better for black.
In the end, I would play Qxb5 and feel confident Black is doing well. I can't refute Qc5 though, I think it's probably sort of OK too. But if only one is a good move then I think it's Qxb5.
I don't feel this pressure. I just decline to answer when I don't have a very substantial opinion. I do notice myself sort of judging the people who voted on things where clearly the facts are barely in, though, which is maybe an unfortunate dynamic, since others may reasonably interpret it as "feel free to take your best guess."
I think "theory B" (DAE + EA) is likely true, but it also seems like he was independently considerably incompetent. The anecdotes about his mismanagement at Alameda and FTX (e.g. total lack of accounting, repeated expensive security breaches, taking objectively dumb risks, not sleeping, alienating the whole Alameda team by being so untrustworthy) weren't clever utilitarian coinflip gambits that he got unlucky on, or selfish defections that he was trying to get away with. They were just dumb mistakes.
My guess is that a number of those mistakes largely came from a kind of overapplication of startup culture (move fast, break things, grow at all costs, minimize bureaucracy, ask forgiveness rather than permission) way past the point where it made sense. Until the end he was acting like he was running a ten-person company that had to 100x or die, even though he was actually running a medium-sized popular company with a perfectly workable business model. (Maybe he justified this to himself by thinking of it like he had to win even bigger to save the world with his money, or something, I don't know.)
Since he was very inexperienced and terrible at taking advice, I don't think there's anything shocking about him being really bad at being in charge of a company moving a lot of money, regardless of how smart he was.
I work at Manifold, I don't know if this is true but I can easily generate some arguments against:
- Manifold's business model is shaky and Manifold may well not exist in 3 years.
- Manifold's codebase is also shaky and would not survive Manifold-the-company dying right now.
- Manifold is quite short on engineering labor.
- It seems to me that Manifold and LW have quite different values (Manifold has a typical startup focus on prioritizing growth at all costs) and so I expect many subtle misalignments in a substantial integration.
Personally for these reasons I am more eager to see features developed in the LW codebase than the Manifold codebase.
I tried Adderall and Ritalin each just for one day and it was totally clear to me based on that that I wasn't interested in taking them on a regular basis.
FWIW, I went from ~40/hrs week full-time programming to ~15/hrs week part-time programming after having a kid, and it's not obvious to me that I get less total work done. Certainly not twice less. But I would never have said I worked hard, so I could have predicted as much.
Never mind bettors -- part of my project for improving the world is, I want people like Casey to look at a prediction market and be like, "Oh, a prediction market. I take this probability seriously, because if it was obviously wrong, someone could come in and make money by fixing it, and then it would be right." If he doesn't understand that line of argument, then indeed, why is Casey ever going to take the probability any more seriously than a Twitter poll?
I feel like right now he might have the vibe of that argument, even if he doesn't actually understand it? But I think you have to really comprehend the argument before you will take the prediction market more seriously than your own uninformed feeling about the topic, or your colleague's opinion, or one research paper you skimmed.
I work at Manifold. I think it's notable that these two experienced tech journalists have had lots of repeated exposure to the idea of prediction markets, but it sounds like they only sort of figured out the basic concept?
-
In the discussion on insider trading, nobody mentions the extremely obvious point, which is that the prediction market is trying to incentivize the people with private information (maybe "insider" information, or maybe just something they haven't said out loud) to publicize what they know. If Casey actually cares about whether Linda Yaccarino will be the CEO of X next year, he should be excited by the idea that some guy at Twitter will come and insider trade in his market. But they never said anything like this -- they just said that maybe the market was supposed to very generally aggregate the wisdom of crowds.
-
It also sounds like they don't really understand why it would aggregate the wisdom of crowds better than, for example, a poll. Casey was like "well, when people have a Twitter poll, then partisans stuff the ballot box", implying that a similar result would be likely to happen with a prediction market on who will be the next Speaker, ignoring the obvious point that it costs a bunch of money to "stuff the ballot box" on a prediction market that isn't a self-fulfilling prophecy.
-
Perhaps relatedly, it sounded like Kevin and/or Casey had absolutely no clue how a prediction market actually works, numerically. At the end when they were making the market, Casey wasn't like "OK, bet it to 25%, since I think that's the chance." Instead Kevin was like "OK, I'll bet 100 mana," and then they were like "Huh, how about that, now it says 10%. Oops, I bet 100 more and now it says 8%." It seems like they are totally missing the core concept that the point of the prediction market is trying to specifically incentivize you to move the market to the probability you believe, which is like the first thing I ever learned about prediction markets in my life?
In the end, their feelings about prediction markets seemed totally vague and vibes-based. On the one hand, the wisdom of crowds has good vibes. On the other hand, insider trading and crypto/transactionalization of everyday things have bad vibes. On the gripping hand, gambling with play money is cute and harmless. Therefore, prediction markets are a land of contrasts.
My takeaway is that prediction markets are harder to understand than I think and I am not sure what to do about that.
I am mostly like Bob (although I don't make up stuff about burnout), but I think calling myself a utilitarian is totally reasonable. By my understanding, utilitarianism is an answer to the question "what is moral behavior." It doesn't imply that I want to always decide to do the most moral behavior.
I think the existence of Bob is obviously good. Bob is in, like, the 90th percentile of human moral behavior, and if other people improved their behavior, Bob is also the kind of person who would reciprocally improve his own. If Alice wants to go around personally nagging everyone to be more altruistic, then that's her prerogative, and if it really works, I am even for it. But firstly, I don't see any reason to single out Bob, and secondly, I doubt it works very well.
I apologize for derailing the N(D|D)A discussion, but it's kind of crazy to me that you think that Nonlinear (based on the content of this post?) has crossed a line such that you wouldn't work with them, by a large margin? Why not? That post you linked is about working with murderers, not working with business owners who seemingly took advantage of their employees for a few months, or who made a trigger-happy legal threat!
Compared to (for example) any random YC company with no reputation to speak of, I didn't see anything in this post that made it look like working with them would either be more likely to be regrettable for you, or more likely to be harmful to others, so what's the problem?
Yes, that's what I was thinking. To me the lawsuit threat is totally beyond the pale.