Posts
Comments
This must've hurt like a fucking bitch.
The biggest difficulty with rally sims is that you don't know whether you are going uphill or downhill. In circuit racing, it's pretty much flat, or you can memorize the course very easily, and they loop around. So you don't have much problem with just visual input. The incline information isn't something that you can easily express easily with visual information alone, that's why you need an actual sim rig that helps with the G force a bit to give you additional information. The only other way to get it right is to repeat the same course, which defeats the whole purpose of talking about incline information since you just improve through practice and repetition.
Them leaving out the exact details of what went on with their groups make the whole discussion sketchy. Maybe they just want to keep the conversation to themselves. If that's the case, why are they posting on LW?
I don't know of any rationalist who is addicted to food. It's not like eating more would make you healthier or increase your mental capacity even temporarily, maybe if they follow certain strict diet but I doubt that's the case for them.
OK I admit that's a bit too absolute. I wasn't using the word science to distinguish stuff that don't follow the scientific method. I'm not sure what to call those. Maybe just human knowledge? I was mainly trying to distinguish pure knowledge that isn't used to make something tangible vs the method of using those knowledge/science to achieve/make something.
I agree that the author seems to be quite knowledgeable in the subject he has written. He might have a history background. I'm not very familiar with Chinese history myself other than popular stories that most people have heard. He basically gave an overall view of the Chinese belief system and how it has evolved in different periods of Chinese history and their roles in those societies, mostly regarding how people of different status use them differently. He didn't really mention the schools of thought other than Confucianism in passing. He's clearly focused on mysticism rather than things like Buddhism, Taoism, Mohism, etc.
I wanted to talk about how old literature give a different type of perspective on that subject looking back at older history (i.e. historical historian perspective) than how modern scholars might view it now, but that comment got marked as spam for some reason.
Some of the stuff don't really make much sense semantically. I wouldn't be surprised if it's actually AI generated content. At first I suspected it might be a copy and paste from baidu. Most of it makes sense but there are a few phrases and words scattered throughout that just doesn't make any sense why they are there, like 大草. Maybe it's one of those GPT-3 stuff and someone is just having fun on here. The text sounds too scholarly, not something you'd see a normal person write, but then you see phrases like 写累了……先这样吧，我后面在这个基础上再修改, which sounds like someone wrote the English version first and passed it through Google translate and tack onto the end of the wall of text just to make it sound like a human wrote it. 非常谢谢 is just hilariously bad. There are also very conversational phrases that sound normal and seems like someone wrote that in the form of an actual human conversation. Who knows, people like to play games on here. I don't know why they didn't bother removing the weird parentheses or other weird punctuation you usually get from GPT-3. It's not actually hard to simulate this type of linguistic incompetence by hand, but given how hard the author tries, I think he just doesn't really understand Chinese very much. He didn't remove the weird punctuation because he had no idea wtf was going on. I'm not doubting the competence of the original author that GPT-3 extracted the text from as I was mostly talking about the original author above regarding the actual content.
When everyone knows everyone else it's more like Facebook than say Reddit. I don't know why so many real life organizations are basing their discussions on these open forums online. Maybe they want to attract more people to think about certain problems. Maybe they want to spread their jeans. Either way, normal academic research don't involving knocking on people's doors and ask them if they are interested in doing such and such research. To a less extreme degree, they don't even ask their family and friends to join their research circle. When you befriend your coworkers in the corporate world, things can get real messy real quick, depending on to what extent they are involved/interfering with your life outside of work. Maybe that's why they are distinguishing themselves from your typical workplace.
The English translation is extremely bad if you are talking about the authenticity of the content being translated. The Chinese version contain terms that most Chinese wouldn't even know and have to look up, let alone written in pinyin form that has no corresponding English translations. The English version was too disjointed for me to understand anything.
It would help if they actually listed and gave examples of exactly what kind of mental manipulation they were doing to people other than telling them to take drugs. These comments seem to dance around the exactly details of what happened and only talk about the group dynamics between people as a result of these mysterious actions/events.
Progress means expanding the collective knowledge on know-hows. Before you didn't know how to make something, now you know how to make something based on years of research that build on existing knowledge. In academia, there is a distinct separation of science and applied science. Progress is a combination of those two. Math is pure science; a lot of it isn't really directly applicable in the real world. As other fields expand similarly, those knowledge get borrowed in their applied science department. The applied science is always built on top of science. Without science we would have nothing, but without applied science, we wouldn't have any progress. Science can be verified to various degrees while applied science placing a confidence level on those verification. Consequences may vary and the applications can be good/bad/neutral depending on which context and aptitude you apply.
This is merely hypothesizing the chain of causality. You can never be certain of what action leads to what outcome, but you can definitely put a probability on each branching path. Anything that hasn't happened yet in reality is theoretical. I'm not sure why you are so certain some outcomes would come out 100% while others you merely consider them as fabricated options.