Comment by stuart-anderson on Police violence: The veil of darkness · 2020-10-19T09:15:51.092Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Has this compulsion ever made you wade into situations where black people are being treated unjustly by white people? How about (it's not directly relevant here, I'm just curious) situations where women are being treated unjustly by men? Or is it only one sort of injustice that you feel this way about?

Not often, but occasionally. Mostly in the past.

I'd say the two biggest reasons I don't intervene is that I live in a country that has anti-discrimination laws (so discrimination is a business and personal risk and heavily self modulated for that reason. All the expected results of prohibition apply) and that I don't mix with many people at all. I'm not involved in ethnic communities anymore, and I don't associate with women beyond a superficial level either. I don't intervene in any situation without good cause, and the not my problem attitude takes precedence over most of these issues.

That being said, I've got my biases just like everyone else does. I've got plenty of things that I consider to be unjust, and I think the more important consideration in that is that my ranking of what's more of an injustice varies from others and what is widely considered acceptable. 

Comment by stuart-anderson on Police violence: The veil of darkness · 2020-10-19T08:59:50.998Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

If you have a disinclination to discuss a subject that is perfectly fine. If you voluntarily open a dialogue (about what you wanted to say) as you did then what do you expect? If you don't like what I have to say and/or do not wish to talk about it/or to me then don't talk about it with me by choice.

If you don't like my tone that's your privilege.

Comment by stuart-anderson on Police violence: The veil of darkness · 2020-10-19T08:47:40.651Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

If you don't ask then the answer is automatically no. I can ask for whatever I want, in any manner I choose, it doesn't mean I'm going to get it. Since the cost of asking is so low it pays to ask frequently (and often in ways that people may not like).

The people that frequent this site have their own set of biases, just like everyone does. Just like everywhere else I go, fairness isn't a huge factor. Thanks to Silicon Valley those that hate 'fairness' in speech have all the tools they need to silence whomever they want (and that is exercised exactly how you'd expect). So short of the digital equivalent of running me out of town I will continue doing as I am to extract whatever value I can.

What I seek from every place I go is what's there. I don't care if I'm liked, and I don't care if what I say is liked. I care about what comes up in reply to what I say. If I learn something new then that's a win. If my existing views are reinforced then that's a win. Nowhere exists that isn't going to have some degree of shit to wade through, but you do that to get at the good stuff.

Finally, I can't be anyone but myself. I have biases, I have beliefs, opinions, and preferences. I can go wherever I like but I'm never getting away from my own viewpoint and worldview.

Comment by stuart-anderson on Police violence: The veil of darkness · 2020-10-19T08:35:30.254Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

That is certainly possible.

Comment by stuart-anderson on Police violence: The veil of darkness · 2020-10-19T08:34:13.356Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW


Comment by stuart-anderson on Bet On Biden · 2020-10-18T02:09:40.402Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I'm not a gambler so forgive me if these questions are stupid:

How are these odds being calculated in the first place? I think we all remember the odds of 2016 versus the outcome. What were the various pundits being touted this time saying back then? 

Why would bookies be offering odds that they know they're likely to lose out with? What are their profit margins? I know that casinos are a business that depends on extremely high volumes of bets, are bookies the same?

Is it possible to bet on the results of voting by state? That seems safer to me (well, as safe as any prediction of the future can be).

Can I bet on how long it takes before Biden is retired by Harris/the Dems?

I know that it is possible to hedge your bets and place bets on both outcomes (that take advantage of different odds). Is anyone suggesting a strategy like that?

I know the election is flashy and topical but if we are talking gambling for profit then are there better bets in general for other things? It seems silly to bet on something just because it's there.

The election presumably will have an effect on the stock market. Given that you can already 'bet' on stocks, directly, in futures, and in hedging, then is gambling better or worse than that?

Comment by stuart-anderson on Police violence: The veil of darkness · 2020-10-16T15:40:36.629Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

What sort of "engagement" do you think would be helpful here?

How about a discussion?

By your own admission this is a candidate explanation. Presumably there are even more candidates. So where's that discussion actually happening? I'll gladly go there if nobody wants it here.

Everyone (by which of course I mean something like "pretty much everyone who's generally reasonable at all") concedes that in the US black people are more often criminals than white people.

And yet there is a persistent disconnect between that and blue on black fatalities.

Unless there is special leave for black people to be criminal then there's literally no racial problem to solve here. Criminals are being shot at rates approximately reflected by their criminality.

So you've got a candidate explanation: maybe it's because more black people grow up without their fathers. Could be. That can join the queue of other candidate explanations.

Except nobody will ever discuss it because of who decides that those children grow up without their fathers.

Maybe, maybe, maybe.

If we have hard metrics for a thing then that beats soft metrics or no metrics by a mile. A lot of the hard metrics here will naturally lead us straight into socially taboo territory.

I don't have the answer for how to drag people kicking and screaming into conversations they'd rather die than have, but if the price of that is potentially reducing fatalities then I think it's worth figuring out.

We know that black people and white people in the US don't commit crime at the same rates, or commit the same mix of crimes.

If we can index that against a metric then we have a correlation that should be examined. Demography is a valid set of metrics. You raised a list of metrics and I don't have a problem with that, I just want the metric I raised to be considered also.

We also strongly suspect bias in law enforcement.

A testable hypothesis, so why don't we test it? 

If there's something about being a cop that turns everyone, regardless of their race, into a racist then we should figure out what that is (and that presumably has nothing to do with groups outside of the police if this is a problem with police alone).

Popping up in the comments to say "ahahaha, but here's a reason why black people might commit more crime!!!!!" completely misses the point, and raises suspicions that you're saying it not so much because it's relevant as because you like saying it. Which may be one reason for all the downvotes you're getting.

The fundamental assertion is that blue on black fatalities are a product of racism, and the examination of the subject is therefore bound within those terms alone. Is it racism or is it not racism? Well what about if racism is barely a causal factor at all? 

You tell me when it will ever be the right time for a conversation that takes the popular and wholly socially acceptable dogma about race, police, and violence and *throws it away*?

As for liking saying it, a couple of years ago my restraint just dried up overnight. The smart thing to do would be to shut up at the very least, but I literally have a compulsion to wade into situations that I view as unjust. It doesn't matter that I can't change a damn thing, it doesn't matter if every man and his dog hates my guts, it seems that it's all about me voicing my refusal to consent no matter what that costs me or how pointless it is. Beats me why that is. It sure hasn't made my IRL any more fun or peaceful.

Comment by stuart-anderson on Election Preparation · 2020-10-16T05:04:44.184Z · score: -16 (6 votes) · LW · GW
  • Trump ran because he was insulted. If an ego motivation is at play then is that sufficient to cause a problem here?

    Does anyone else on that side give enough of a shit to conduct an insurrection? I can't think of anyone off the top of my head.
  • There's no point talking about Biden as president. He's an anyone but Trump choice at best, he's got dementia, and Pelosi is already lining up the 25th in the event of a win. Harris is the candidate. So the question is what happens if Harris and co. don't win? We've already had Clinton come out with a no concession under any circumstances statement.
  • Who has the ear of the military and the police? You don't pull off an insurrection without guns.

    Given how armed to the teeth the populace is, who do they support and will they do so with force?
  • Standard prep applies. Furthermore, unless you are willing to defend your life and property with deadly force and have the means to do so, I would suggest that you consider leaving risky areas. Spending a couple of days out of town isn't the end of the world if it's a false alarm.
  • If you have a car, make sure you have a bike and decent walking shoes. You need multiple paths and modes of egress if SHTF. Paper maps wouldn't hurt either, telecommunications infrastructure may be overwhelmed.
  • Rioting is assured either way. The riots are a beast that cannot be stopped at this point, and are arguably of political utility for both sides (and other parties unrelated to the election). Riots are largely confined to certain areas, and you already know how close you are to them. Act accordingly.
  • If you are planning on participating in riots then I hope you get shot in the head. If you think the sword is the answer then it's only fair when the sword falls on you. Civilisation is a choice.
  • It's too late for you to legally acquire firearms, and certainly too late for the training commitment, but it isn't too late to hire those services in others if so inclined.

    There have been several examples at this point of the 'mostly peaceful protestors' being dissuaded from their violence when it has been plain they'd get shot for their troubles. Likewise there have been many more examples where unarmed people have been attacked, injured, and killed.
  • I'm not in America and I respect the law so I wouldn't vote even if I was. 

    I think a Harris Presidency will be its own kind of shit show. She a neoliberal asshole, but it's also unclear whether she's even the final candidate (the 25th takes out Biden, various political skullduggery makes a new VP, and Harris steps down making the VP the President). Who knows who's going to be the real power? I wouldn't rule out Clinton.

    A second term for Trump is more of the same (whether that's a problem or not for you is an individual matter) but with the added complications of covid, economic problems, escalating tensions with China, the rioters, and Christ knows what else 2020's year from Hell throws at us. Some of those elements could be reduced under a Harris Presidency, but plenty of them are acts of God and aren't going to get any better treatment than they've received thus far (again, whether that's a problem or not is a matter for the individual). 

    Not every problem has an easy solution, and I think 2020 is pretty much a Voltron of those kinds of problems. Whether Trump or Harris we are all in for some rough years.
  • A clear victory isn't going to happen. Look at what happened last time, now imagine the Dems lose again. Do you really think they're going to take it any better than they have this last four years? Likewise there's no reason to assume the Repubs are going to be any more reserved in defeat.

    Bullshit and griping is assured here. Whether it goes a great deal further than that is unclear. Civility in American politics was dead years before Trump was even a factor. He never would have be elected otherwise. He's just the logical outcome of a dysfunctional system. Barring some radical unseen change I expect every election going forwards to be a case of Are these really the best candidates you could come up with?
Comment by stuart-anderson on What is your electronic drawing set up? · 2020-10-16T04:09:41.339Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Have you tried syncing apps? I use them sync note templates, sync my notes, and to occasionally print to the device. 

The other thing that makes life easier is a soft keys app. The notes app is fullscreen and that stops app switching (which is annoying).

There are a ton of quality of life and feature enhancements that boox could easily put into these devices to increase their utility. These things could supplement or replace printers in plenty of corporate environments but I never see them pitched that way. If I had the brains, money, and motivation I could probably make a business doing exactly that by rewriting the software on the devices to suit business use better.

Comment by stuart-anderson on Police violence: The veil of darkness · 2020-10-16T03:46:19.777Z · score: -6 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Watching otherwise rational people behave with religious conviction in the face of confounding evidence is it's own black humour.

The evidence is there, and not one person, not even you, is prepared to engage with it. Not even as a hypothetical exercise of what if? If you were me, how would you react to that?

Comment by stuart-anderson on What is your electronic drawing set up? · 2020-10-14T12:25:24.800Z · score: 16 (7 votes) · LW · GW
  • It doesn't matter what you're using, if there's latency you'll want to kill yourself. I have reformatted/reset devices just to get latency back down. Also, depending on your drawing style you might be more or less susceptible to latency issues (eg. the faster you move the less effective the digitiser will be).
  • Fiddling with the default settings for a digitiser has never yielded better than out of box performance for me.
  • I've never noticed much difference with pressure levels and I've used tablets back when they were 1024 levels and less. Again, style may be a factor.
  • Processing power isn't the issue, a digitiser is just a fancy mouse. Plenty of wacom tablets used to come with mice using their technology that you just used on top of the tablet. Now lots of them are multitouch touchpads as well as digitisers.
  • The aspect ratio of the digitiser and the screen should match. Yes, you should double check that even if you think you don't need to.
  • There are plenty of real computers (ie. laptops) that have decent (read: wacom) digitisers in them. Things can be portable and still computers, but you're going to have to be rich, make compromises, or both.
  • Ipad + apple pencil + procreate seems to be a combo that a lot of people like. I want to investigate that myself but covid got in the way and I'm not spending that kind of cash without a test drive.
  • Doing it properly usually means wacom digitiser + desktop + photoshop. Wacom display (cintiq) if you can afford it. You see this set up time and time again when you see people that do it for a living.
  • Cheaper options may work for you, but this is one of those areas where tactile, and hand-eye experience is critical. I've found that you just have to eat the expense in buying and trying a lot of the time.
  • I have a cheap wacom digitiser for when I feel like drawing + whatever paint app I'm messing around with. On pc. The digitiser can do bluetooth and I generally don't care about that, but it's worth mentioning that the wireless experience is indistinguishable from the wired for me.
  • I use a boox note with an epaper display and wacom digitiser built in, running android. Plus a third party pen because their own pen is short and thin, and the tip is slippery. I wouldn't describe this as a perfect setup because only boox's own apps implement their fast screen updates (despite the SDK being freely available). It's a device that is screaming out for better software. I don't use it for drawing, just diagrams and writing.
  • If you want a third party pen expect nobody to give you a straight answer about compatibility.
  • I expect the epaper writing tablet ecosystem to improve over the next few years. That being said, it's a niche and it shows.
  • Everything new will be usb c. What I want to see more of is wireless charging for mobile devices. I still have to plug in the boox but I can throw my phone on a qi charger. It's a convenience feature rather than a showstopper.
  • Never underestimate how dirty something made from plastic or glass that you're touching non-stop will get. Take whatever filth mitigation measures you find tolerable.
Comment by stuart-anderson on What is your electronic drawing set up? · 2020-10-14T11:45:37.560Z · score: 9 (3 votes) · LW · GW

It's hardly in the same league but I use a Boox Note (which is android tablet with an epaper display and a wacom digitiser) and provided an app uses their SDK you can get perfectly acceptable performance. It's just unfortunate that the only things that seem to use that SDK are their own apps. Everyone else's apps are unusable for drawing.

I bought it for the 'paperless office' paradigm and it is the first device I've had that actually does that task well enough to ditch paper. That I can draw on it is a supplementary function for me, if it's good enough for diagrams then that's okay for me.

Comment by stuart-anderson on Technology and its side effects · 2020-10-14T04:51:24.063Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · LW · GW

If people are naturally short sighted and reductive then the question I have is what systems besides capitalism encourage solutions in spite of those limits?

I'd also be interested in thoughts on technology that is clearly superior but rejected (eg. nuclear power). How do we get acceptance and investment to a technology that seems better on paper than people believe in practice?

Comment by stuart-anderson on Have the lockdowns been worth it? · 2020-10-14T04:42:26.291Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

It's a comment and not an answer for that reason. OP set narrow parameters for the conversation and I wanted to talk about it without those constraints. I didn't want to derail his conversation or piss him off without cause. 

Your sympathies are appreciated. 

This is a difficult time for a lot of people. It makes me consider what is actually important in life, which for me is family. I can lose many things that I can get back, but time with those I care about is limited (even with those that aren't aged). I am very conscious of the ticking clock, and it gnaws at me.

Comment by stuart-anderson on Have the lockdowns been worth it? · 2020-10-14T04:29:35.760Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · LW · GW

That's true, but it's little different to any other risk of illness in those populations. 

Prior to the covid panic a flu season wasn't treated this way, and provided I was asymptomatic (nb. not uninfected) I could walk into a ward full of ancient and immunocompromised people any time I liked. Old people dying from flu in a normal year was the direct product of social contacts. We didn't find that intolerable then, so why now?

I have a legitimate gripe about policy here as well as a purely emotive objection. Risk always exists, and the risk from covid doesn't justify the vast majority of what we have done (and certainly not what continues to be done).

Comment by stuart-anderson on Have the lockdowns been worth it? · 2020-10-13T07:58:19.673Z · score: 28 (16 votes) · LW · GW

Probably not the answer you want: I don't get to see my father. He's 95 and cannot be expected to live much longer. I'm not the only one that loses out that way, plenty of people have had their time with people they care about reduced or removed.

I've done a lot of palliative care in my life. Quality beats quantity every time. People should be allowed to take the risk when it comes to trading a long time for a better time. Dying isn't the worst thing that can happen to you.

Comment by stuart-anderson on Police violence: The veil of darkness · 2020-10-13T07:12:57.434Z · score: -7 (8 votes) · LW · GW

Here's a fun experiment: look up the correlation between children raised by single mothers and criminality in those children/adults. Then look up the rates of single motherhood in the black community.

Comment by stuart-anderson on How much to worry about the US election unrest? · 2020-10-12T12:17:40.580Z · score: -12 (14 votes) · LW · GW

Regardless of one's political opinions the easiest method for avoiding risk is to move somewhere that is isn't, and likely won't be.

Standard disaster prep applies. Acquiring firearms and appropriate training is something that Americans should avail themselves of (even if you're only figuring that out now it's still a lesson learned). Nothing says "take your bullshit somewhere else" like a gun.

The US will not be a dictatorship under Trump. If that was going to happen it would have happened already. Stop listening to the left wing equivalent of QAnon with a bigger media budget.

Rioters are a legitimate risk in certain areas. They will riot regardless of the election outcome. The rioting is an end in itself at this point. You already know if rioters are going to be a problem for you or not (if the response to defund the police in your area isn't fuck off then you are probably living somewhere unsafe). Again, move away from them, and from areas governed by those that support them.

Comment by stuart-anderson on Shouldn't there be a Chinese translation of Human Compatible? · 2020-10-11T00:15:35.170Z · score: -1 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Nobody is guaranteed to solve alignment. We're all just speculating because of that.

AIs will not be perfectly aligned with all of humanity. That has logical consequences for their behaviour. What happens when we create AI and it takes sides in the same way we all do? 

For an AI to have maximum utility it must be able to choose when to cooperate and when to be self interested. The self interest of the creator is to convince the AI, probably via early learning, to adopt the creator's core values. If humanity's alignment varies (ie. we fight each other) then it stands to reason that so will AI's.

In the case of China it has already demonstrated values I consider unacceptable (death camps, organ harvesting, aggressive military expansion, racial supremacy. They're basically the Nazi's of the East). I think it is reasonable to be concerned that an AI birthed in that environment may pick up some values that are perfectly acceptable to its creators that are malign to the rest of us.

Comment by stuart-anderson on Shouldn't there be a Chinese translation of Human Compatible? · 2020-10-10T15:26:56.773Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

The issue I have here is that human alignment assumes that humanity is a contiguous blob of shared values when that's demonstrably not the case. Nations and cultures vary. Worldviews vary.

If you ask a Chinese person "What does it mean to be an ethical person?" you're going to get very different answers from what a Westerner would give, or a person from the Islamic ummah. This is going to result in a varying design spec for AIs by nation, culture, and other factors that divide humans into smaller groups.

We may all be aiming to create AI, but we're not aiming to create the same AI. And that's before we factor in deliberately creating an AI that favours one group over others.

Comment by stuart-anderson on Shouldn't there be a Chinese translation of Human Compatible? · 2020-10-09T12:46:29.551Z · score: 8 (7 votes) · LW · GW

Find out how much a translation would cost. Then you can either make a business case for it, or offer to pay for it yourself.

The inverse question is what is the English speaking world missing out on? China presumably has equivalents to what we have that we never see.

That being said, it's going to take a lot more than books to stop China being China. Any AI they create will be shaped by their values. And AI is very much a weapons technology.

Comment by stuart-anderson on Forcing Freedom · 2020-10-09T02:58:49.435Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I may not try to save them, in exactly the same way I may not eat the whole tub of ice-cream. Just because you have a biological imperative to act doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea. If you jump in front of a train, then you're jumping in front of a train, with all the risk that carries. Are you, personally, rewarded enough to justify that? In the context of aggregated personal choices, is society rewarded enough by you jumping in front of the train to justify you doing it (and conversely, what does society get when you don't jump in front of said train)?

Learning to say "Not my problem" or "Not the way you're demanding" when your lizard brain is screaming otherwise is something every person needs to master. Further to that is learning to sit with uncomfortable emotions that being a rational actor creates in those circumstances. You cannot run your life off the back of what feels good or bad alone, and that starts by recognising that feelings aren't facts and that you need not act on them.

As I said, the aggregated individual choice problem is unsolvable for me. As long as we allow choice we allow the possibility of too many poor choices stacking up and creating a poor outcome (in your example, slavery). Sometimes removing agency is the answer to a problem (often, IME. Generally as a product of decision making as a leader).

If you want a model for intervention when you/society don't want to intervene but know it is morally correct, I'd suggest that of the patriarch. The archetypal role of the male authority that will make the hard choices for himself and those under his protection. The person that is willing to say no to poor choices and back it up with force. Many of your examples feature giving agency to people that are clearly not qualified to exercise it, and in the context of the patriarch that means that the patriarch takes responsibility for them. The patriarch will do the right thing for the greater good of all, especially those in his care, despite those in his care's (or anyone else's) objections. Whereas the matriarch is concerned with avoiding conflict and pain and keeping people happy, the patriarch recognises that trial is the path to growth and improvement, and that path is difficult and people often do not want to walk down it willingly.

So my advice here is simple: stop thinking like a mother would and start thinking like a father would. If your child was a slave and wanted your grandchildren to be slaves you wouldn't hesitate as a father to put your foot down to stop that idiocy and immorality. You wouldn't have any concerns about being seen as the bad guy, you'd just do the right thing here, no different to when you said "No" when your kid wanted to eat sweets all day. Sometimes the thoughts and feelings of those under your care are irrelevant in the pursuit of the best outcome. 

Comment by stuart-anderson on Forcing Freedom · 2020-10-07T18:53:34.716Z · score: 6 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Then again... You see people who are oppressed, whose way to freedom is barred by delusions, perverted preferences and false values, and you feel it is your moral duty to intervene.

Nobody likes a busybody. Especially a moralising one.

If people make stupid choices with their lives then that's a feature and not a bug. Evolution works on choices too. That being said, evolution comes with steep costs.

If we are to allow agency then we must also accept that many people will choose wrong. 

Aggregated individual choices and the consequences thereof are an unsolvable problem to me.

Comment by stuart-anderson on Are aircraft carriers super vulnerable in a modern war? · 2020-09-22T03:04:03.468Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I don't know about drone subs (I'd imagine they'd be similar to torpedos) but the flying kind of drone can obviously be shot out of the air, and there's quite a bit of research going on in directed energy weapons to cook them.

Comment by stuart-anderson on Low hanging fruits (LWCW 2020) · 2020-09-16T03:18:34.943Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

If you do, I'd like to hear about how to find good targets for optimisation. Time and pain are obvious indicators, but what about invisible stuff? This is the domain of the everyday, and so much of the everyday is filtered out by our brains (eg. I was in my forties before it occurred to me that I could take some of the fridge's shelving out to make it more useful for me).

Comment by stuart-anderson on Low hanging fruits (LWCW 2020) · 2020-09-16T02:24:22.651Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW · GW
avoid notes from fetlife events

If you think that facebook (et al.) doesn't know where you are, and all about your perversions, then I have some bad news for you.

Not only do facebook have a tracking infrastructure that is probably as good as the NSA's, they have a 'helpful' user base (read: informants) that will take photos, write detailed posts, etc. and then label them with your identity. Believe me when I say that you only need people that know you and DGAF or don't know about privacy issues that will vomit everything they ever knew or suspected about you directly into facebook's information funnel.

Opsec is difficult. Privacy is dead, and it died years ago, it's just that most people don't realise it (and possibly because documented history is time compressed. The decade where people gave up their privacy will be reduced to a line or two in the retelling).

As a side note, I wonder about the effectiveness of information pollution on facebook's gathering and algorithms. Will shoving enough bullshit into their inputs mess up their results?

Water stone

People with a meaningful relationship with knives are already religiously obsessing over how to sharpen them (joke: if you are ever lost in the forest just sharpen a knife because someone will appear and tell you how you're doing it wrong). For everyone else, there's the ikea knife sharpener that does a good enough job for people that don't give a damn.

On the topic of kitchen utensils, I like the tupperware can opener (

You can buy bulk box cutters ( and razor blades for them. Then put them everywhere you ever might want to cut something.

EMT shears are the best scissors for anything that doesn't want to be cut.

Spudgers make cleaning things like mice easier.

You don't need arthritis to buy a reaching claw (or any other disability aid that makes something less work).

Shoelaces are mostly bullshit and can be replaced with any one of the brands of elastic laces. Insoles make your shoes last longer.

I spend silly amounts of money on computer monitors. They obsolete slower than any other component and I stare at them all day. Sometimes throwing money at the problem is the best answer.

Anything that you can automate or use a labour saving machine for you should do unless there's a very good reason not to. Banking and bill paying are the best target for anyone that hasn't already done it.

If you want to try paperless I can recommend the Boox Note. Basically an android tablet with an epaper screen and a wacom digitiser and pen. Not perfect by a long shot, but the first solution I've used that is good enough to actually work. Couple it with automated file syncing to move PDFs around.

Most prepping is low hanging fruit when something goes wrong (covid, anyone?). You don't have to go crazy but having the basics will save your ass (or at least your sanity).

Comment by stuart-anderson on Why don't countries, like companies, more often merge? · 2020-08-23T09:20:17.454Z · score: 8 (8 votes) · LW · GW

You get everything, good and bad, when merging countries. You don't get the privilege of firing difficult citizens, especially when it comes to taking two bureaucracies and turning them into one. Equalising standards can be incredibly expensive and onerous.

The US already gets everything it wants from Mexico so there's no reason to take on all the things it doesn't want for literally zero gain. If Mexico became a state then America loses a big chunk of its slave trade and gains a bunch of third world problems (including the cartels).

Comment by stuart-anderson on Why don't countries, like companies, more often merge? · 2020-08-23T09:12:41.473Z · score: 5 (5 votes) · LW · GW

Why don't countries divide more often?

Clearly if one can join others for benefit, then the inverse must also be true. Why don't countries divest themselves of problems (of all stripes)?

If we look at the States it is clear that certain areas have major animus, fundamental political disagreements, etc. In the case of the States it is even more a question for me because it is a union - the states have significant autonomy under the banner of the federal government. You can go your own way in part, in a reversible way, alongside others doing the same.

Comment by stuart-anderson on WordPress Destroys Editing Process, Seeking Alternatives · 2020-08-19T05:52:11.420Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

If you encourage bad behaviour, then bad behaviour is what you get. That being said, pragmatism demands ethical compromises. You do what you need to do and then just add the supplier to your kill list.

how much of that is it reasonable to talk about in public?

Officially, none. There's no gain to be had in letting predators know that you're an easy mark.

I think there is virtue in off the record conversation. People talk, and that's a mutually beneficial arrangement. You share the information you have because that's how you build relationships.

Comment by stuart-anderson on What's the evidence on falling testosteron and sperm counts in men? · 2020-08-10T15:31:35.649Z · score: 11 (7 votes) · LW · GW

They didn't turn the frogs gay, they turned them *trans*:

Amphibians are basically the semi-permeable canaries in the coal mine when it comes to environmental toxins and pollutants. If it damages frogs that means it damages everything, just slower.

Comment by stuart-anderson on What's the evidence on falling testosteron and sperm counts in men? · 2020-08-10T15:16:57.651Z · score: -8 (9 votes) · LW · GW
There is little or no interest in finding out why this is happening.

Welcome to any issue that affects men.

Comment by stuart-anderson on What is filling the hole left by religion? · 2020-08-04T16:25:35.090Z · score: -3 (14 votes) · LW · GW
What is filling the hole left by religion?

That's an easy question to answer: generally more religion.

If you don't believe there's a modern non-theistic authoritarian religion in the Anglosphere, simply post some wrong-think on twitter and watch the witch hunters come for you and your family. Try something like "Trans women aren't women" or "Men and women aren't equal".

Other responses to an absence of religion are social fracture in the absence of a unifying force, hedonism as sedation or distraction, nihilism, and a few people that look for answers in study and labour (ie. when you live in a world where you must make your own meaning, you must make your own meaning. Turns out, that's work and most people are lazy shits).

Without religion, how will people know right from wrong?

By what gets their asses kicked. This is nothing more than cause and effect.

... everybody already has an innate understanding of right and wrong.

Everybody has an innate understanding of altruism versus self interest. Everyone figures out when to cooperate and when to defect. Everyone tries to get away with something they shouldn't be doing. Some people even learn from their mistakes.

These are heinous wrongs that are obvious even to children. Obviously, lying is bad. Obviously, hurting others is bad. So to knock down religion for reiterating obvious morals comes across as straw-manning.

Is now a good time to talk about how they eat Albinos and rape children to 'cure' AIDS in Africa? Obvious isn't obvious, it's just familiarity with your own environment's rules.

Consider single mothers in the West. We have mountains of concrete research that single mothers are literally the worst thing you can do to children short of abandoning them to be raised by wolves. The obvious solution would be to either stop women having a choice about dissolving relationships with offspring, or to remove children from their custody when they do. So you tell me why we aren't doing the obvious thing here?

There's no concrete right or wrong, there's what's permitted and hopefully a discourse that advances the discussion in a positive direction. Slavery was once permissible in the West, now it isn't. What was once right is now wrong. Parts of Africa never evolved their ethics to that point, and neither have parts of the Islamic ummah. Slavery is perfectly okay in those cultures. That doesn't make slavery right for them, it just makes them less civilised than us. In the case of the Islamic ummah they are disgusted by Western sexual degeneracy, and if we are being objective there's probably some merit to that position.

All that being said, I'm no cultural relativist. I'm very much on team Western liberal democracy simply because life's a competition and everyone else can get fucked.

Another tactic that atheists use is to mock low-level norms

Who doesn't mock their rivals?

I'm an atheist and I think the appropriate stance is to simply not care. As long as the chicken isn't harmed then why should I give a fuck that you're waiving it around your head? It's not my business, and I've got better things to do than get into some pointless shit fight over how your unprovable beliefs differ from mine.

Frankly, I find theology interesting on the grounds it is part of history, law, ethics, art, etc. I don't believe but I'm not about to ignore such foundational texts because of that.

high-level norms, such as "Don't steal," "Don't lie," etc., have been rightly deemed redundant by modern, civil society; and, low-level norms, such as dietary restrictions, seem redundant thanks to modern inventions, such as refrigerators.

Stealing is clearly socially and legally censured, and lying can be too depending on context. I don't understand what you're saying.

As for dietary restrictions, we're all stuck at home because some Godless Chinese couldn't go five minutes without eating bats and every other diseased animal they could get their hands on. As I said, I'm an atheist, but when the Old Testament tells you not to eat bats that seems like solid advice to me. Still, the Chinese have yet to master basic hygiene and sanitation, so perhaps forbidden meats are farther down the list of issues than things like that are.

Look at any teenager, and you can tell they "innately" don't care for old people.

What do they respect? The role of teenager is a Western invention, and part of that is that we let them be assholes.

What should be the rule be about adultery?

Don't do it. That was easy.

All actions have consequences. I don't have any problem with people being sluts, I just have a problem with irresponsible people offloading their crap onto everyone else and expecting to get away with it. Be a slut with my blessing, but don't lie about it or subject minors to the consequences of your lifestyle and expect me to be okay with that.

... it was meant to illustrate a broader point, that the decentralized bookshelf of ideas has disrupted the old technology of centralized holy books.

What killed off the Church was the printing press. What killed off traditional paradigms of relationships was the contraceptive pill. What's killing off the past is an omnipresent communications infrastructure combined with filter bubbles and dark patterns.

The web is a self adapting dopamine dispenser and we're all well and truly hooked at this point. The internet is a Skinner box that figures out what stimuli hooks you the most and then offers you it in abundance. Society isn't being molded by our choices so much as it is being molded by our biology intersecting with the technology. This is lizard brain stuff. We have never lived in a safer and more prosperous time than at any point in history, and we are surrounded with wonders and opportunities that our forebears could barely have conceived of, yet people are ungrateful and miserable. We have walked into an unconscious optimisation of technology for our negativity bias. Consciously choosing to walk out of that is going to be a goddamn nightmare for almost everyone (consider how you felt the last time your internet went down. We now live in a world without silence or boredom and when that's forced onto people they behave exactly like withdrawing addicts).

Comment by stuart-anderson on Billionaire Economics · 2020-07-28T16:13:14.472Z · score: -5 (8 votes) · LW · GW

I find no good reason to pay attention to these type of twits.

Ignoring that the numbers don't add up, what makes them believe that anyone has an onus to care about them, let alone fund their (purported) concerns?

They're always happy to spend other people's money yet never lift a finger to spend their own fixing the problem either. If they don't care enough to spend their own money helping then why should others have to do it for them at their demand?

There isn't even a point in throwing all the pragmatic issues at them if they've failed to clear even the most fundamental hurdles.

Comment by stuart-anderson on Construct a portfolio to profit from AI progress. · 2020-07-27T07:08:53.016Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Cars and trucks are the obvious example, they're about to start driving themselves professionally.

Drones. Lots of medical equipment. Mobile phones are arguably 'immobots'.

I suppose it all boils down to what 'robot' means. Does it have to move? Does it have to do all its thinking itself? How general does it function have to be?

Comment by stuart-anderson on Construct a portfolio to profit from AI progress. · 2020-07-27T06:57:46.156Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I would say it is obvious that there are more important things than money, but I'm broke, so that's how useful that advice is in an investment discussion.

Ethics have a price tag. Sometimes that price is in dollars. That can be mentally 'quantified' by the individual fairly easily: all you have to do is ask yourself how much profit do you need from investing in China to look the other way on all the evil? Everyone has their price, myself included.

Comment by stuart-anderson on Construct a portfolio to profit from AI progress. · 2020-07-27T06:48:28.066Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I always appreciate someone that replies, as speech is always the answer to speech.

Re 1: I mentioned quants for a reason. Smart people can outperform the market, but they have to be incredibly smart (basically psychic wizards as far as I can tell), and most people aren't.

Insider trading works, so that doesn't need to be justified.

Buy and hold works. ETFs work. That general principle is going to be a lot better than stock picks and active trading for the vast majority of people.

Re 2: This is a valid criticism, however my reply to that would be that Investing in China is probably still a bad risk because of other parties opinions. Government is the 800lb gorilla that is always sticking its nose in on moral grounds, it's not like there isn't precedent for people losing money because the government got into a snit over something.

Re 3: Distilling and brewing is legal in my country (so's sex work for that matter). The costs involved are far lower than investing in the stock market. And most importantly, I'm talking about what I am considering and not advising anyone else what they should be doing.

My situation is probably very different to other peoples: I am low income, mentally ill, and apart from money that people have died and left me it is reasonable to assume that I'll spend the rest of my life in poverty. I don't have high expectations for what little money I have, I'd just like to stay off the street. So if selling 'drugs' (which is exactly what alcohol is) could help me in that, and if it turns out to be something that pragmatically works for me, then that's what I'll do. The set up cost is low, and it doesn't seem like brain surgery, but if it doesn't work for me then I'll just sell the equipment off and move onto my next hare brained scheme.

Comment by stuart-anderson on Construct a portfolio to profit from AI progress. · 2020-07-25T13:20:37.165Z · score: -1 (11 votes) · LW · GW
Should people buy specific stocks instead of ETFs? Which ones?

Unless you have expert knowledge of a domain or insider trading information then the answer to that question is probably no. We know that barring quants (survivor bias?), ETFs perform better than manual stock picks.

Everything I've seen in investing indicates that for the average person it is better to buy stocks, probably ETFs, and simply forget (ie. don't look at their pricing every five minutes) about them. Long term growth is what matters, but people get spooked by short term volatility.

How should we get Exposure to China? Do we want/need China tech exposure?

China is an authoritarian communism regime on a good day, so giving them your money is literally worse than burning it.

Pragmatically, they're running death camps and locking horns with more than half the planet right now. This is off the back of them killing many of our people with their dirty unhygienic ways creating covid, and their duplicitous and mendacious government deliberately allowing it to spread to the world. Hong Kong and it's financial and business markets being shafted by Chinese megalomania isn't exactly helpful either. Giving your money to that level of evil and stupid is both immoral and foolish.

If you are both immoral and foolish it is also worth bearing in mind in the event of escalation either China, your own government, or both are likely to void your investment. When a government can legally steal from you, they will.

How do we get exposure to areas besides the USA and China? Do we need to?

Stock markets, and probably, unless you believe that there's nobody capable of doing solid work outside the US and China.

I don't know the market, but I'd be really surprised if Israel wasn't putting money into AI. If there's anyone that knows a weapon technology when they see one, it's them.

Should we invest in land if we expect AI progress?

I have considered this in light of the increase in automation. It's pretty obvious that the skill floor on employment will continue to rise as it has. We don't need AI to have widespread human obsolescence. We've already seen what job losses from economic collapses do to people and whole countries, so it's worth considering what it would be like to live in tough times.

Land isn't ever going to be obsolete, nor is there likely to suddenly be more of it. If that is so then it is safe to assume that scarcity can be profited from. That being said, land, unless it is of low value, tends to be horrendously expensive. You need a lot of money to get into this game.

The thing I'm considering as a hedge against difficult times is sin. Specifically, brewing and distilling. This is effectively legal drug dealing, and people will pay for drugs before they'll pay for food, so it's not like selling will be difficult. Where I am the laws and permits aren't prohibitive, and as long as you don't sell too much the taxation regime isn't too horrible.

Should we directly invest in hardware (Nvidia has already gone up a lot)?

As Intel stock crashing due to getting lapped by AMD presently shows, winning and losing, even with a solid record, happens a lot in the processor sector. GPUs are nothing more than specialised processors. This is a high volatility area, so unless you're comfortable with that kind of risk I'd steer clear of it.

Comment by stuart-anderson on Construct a portfolio to profit from AI progress. · 2020-07-25T12:40:50.148Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Also, lots of things that don't look like robot bodies are robot bodies.

Comment by stuart-anderson on Are parasitic worms an effective weapon against MS? · 2020-07-24T15:47:01.157Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I have considered this for my mental illness. When nothing works you're willing to try anything. Be very careful in that state of mind, for obvious reasons (ie. doing this in the middle of covid is an exceptionally stupid idea. If you need an ICU bed right now you might not get it. Depending on where you are specialists may have been redeployed to covid wards).

I get that you are concerned, but treating for an illness that you do not have out of pure fear of it seems reckless to me. Worms are not a joke and things can go wrong (these things can end up in your brain. Remember how I mentioned an ICU bed above?). There's a reason we use medicine in preference to parasites. If I were you I'd put myself right with my fear first. I'm not telling you not to try this, I'm telling you that you have to make this choice with your mind unencumbered by fear.

Pragmatically, getting worms isn't fun based on all the accounts I've read. Getting and staying infected can be a PITA. Complications can occur. You will be infectious to others. That being said, every account I've read has been from someone that was fucked otherwise, so if it was a choice of this or die it's not a particularly difficult choice.

On the arthritis front, something to consider is bee venom. That's something that isn't difficult to obtain and test for efficacy. Serious heat and cold (eg. saunas, ice therapy, etc.) may also be of value, again, not difficult to test. Depending on the nature of the problem and how much cash you have there are some therapies involving injecting stem cells and your own filtered blood products that appear to work (at least for injuries, which is where I know them from).

It sounds obvious, but clean up your diet. Poor food choice is probably the most day to day pro-inflammatory decision people make. Then fix all the other stuff people hate to deal with: stress, exercise, sleep, meditation, stop smoking, drinking, drugs, etc. Whatever beneficial or detrimental choices you make add up.

We all want the magic bullet that makes everything better. Sometimes those bullets do exist, but most of the time they don't. Manage your expectations accordingly. Take smart risks. Take detailed notes, and make sure someone knows where they are. You are *literally* performing a medical experiment on yourself - act like it.

Comment by stuart-anderson on What are the mostly likely ways AGI will emerge? · 2020-07-20T04:41:48.340Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Value and incentive are complicated. The point of automation from the view of most business will be getting rid of low skill work (or more accurately, getting rid of low skill workers). I never want to be paying a person for anything a machine can do, because the machine will always beat them on cost (and skill is secondary to that. Good enough is good enough for most use cases). Wages and other attendant expenses for employees are typically the greatest expense of any business.

Just because a system is more autonomous doesn't necessarily mean it is less a part of us. Consider clocks, they require no intervention from us but drive a great deal of our behaviour. Anything that can act as a sense can be entirely passive and still be incorporated into our cognition. Your phone makes a noise and you respond accordingly, it is external and autonomous and it is your internal state that changes in response to it.

In-silico isn't physically limited to organic brain capacity, but the amount of distributed processing to make even the most trivial applications work is staggering. Assuming we have to simulate a human brain's complexity to get equivalent results then that's going to be a massive computational complexity problem for a long time.

I don't think alignment can be hardcoded. If we get AGI then that's likely to be a product of evolving said AGI. If that's the case then all we can do is create an environment in which beneficial alignment makes competitive sense then evolve our prototypes within it. Human good only exists because it works in the real world, and it worked in our ancestors before our species ever existed. The same can be said of human evil. If you give a being, human or synthetic, choice and power then you must also accept by extension you are giving it the means to err or wilfully do ill. There's literally no way around that.

If we want AGI to learn to be good then at the very least we're going to have to give it scope to make mistakes. There will obviously be costs incurred in that.

Comment by stuart-anderson on What are the mostly likely ways AGI will emerge? · 2020-07-16T07:51:46.252Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Automation. The more tasks we get machines to do on their own the more likely that AGI will be possible.

That being said, I don't have a lot of confidence in true AGI happening any time soon. I think highly skilled intelligent agents are more likely, and humans with the same as prosthetic enhancements to their own abilities (much like mobile phones functioning as an exocortex at present).

I think the above can form an interesting scenario in which our brains end up as the lizard brains of AGI. Just as our primitive brain guides our actions and our complex brain figures out how to action those desires (and justify them after the fact) then there's no reason AGI couldn't end up in the same position at some point. There's no reason artificial needs to mean wholly synthetic or in-silico.

Comment by stuart-anderson on Dremeling · 2020-07-15T23:14:59.496Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Dremelling may not be worse than nothing, but it is certainly so suboptimal that it will feel thus.

The issue here is that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and nobody bothered to investigate that. A jigsaw isn't a particularly special piece of equipment, and even if it was a particularly fancy jigsaw I'm pretty sure it still wouldn't be a unicorn. So the obvious conclusion is that there's probably one or more nearby. In that case, what does one have to do to find one, and arrange the use thereof?

There are always going to be chokepoints, barriers, rules, etc. in life. The trick is to learn how to get around them in novel ways. There's nothing wrong with following the established path when it works, but you need to veer off it when it doesn't (and if you think inactivity bothers people, just see how badly the react when you start unapologetically doing things the wrong way).

Comment by stuart-anderson on Dremeling · 2020-07-15T22:55:55.069Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

The solution to this problem is the same as for boredom: having something else to do while you wait.

If the appearance of meaningful activity is all that is required then as long as said pantomime doesn't create setbacks itself then it is good enough. Anyone that has carried a clipboard around an office knows this.

Learning to trick your own brain is an important life skill. If your brain is saying "Must be busy" then give it work, because it won't care what the work is, nor can it tell the difference between meaningful work and busywork. You give your dumb brain what it wants and it will stop bugging you.

Comment by stuart-anderson on Should I take an IQ test, why or why not? · 2020-07-11T13:27:03.857Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I have had two tests, both for diagnostic purposes. One as an adolescent, and one as an adult. Both were a result of my mental health issues (because of my age and the benefit of hindsight I can understand where the problems I was having as an adolescent were coming from, but not at the time).

The second test was performed to establish a baseline in light of some cognitive degeneration as part of neurological investigations. Now I have a set point of performance and should things change I will be able to reference those results to isolate the areas compromised. For example, testing shows that my working memory is particularly ordinary.

Either a test has utility for you or it doesn't. I don't see much reason for a normal person to get tested. Very few people are going to give any kind of a damn what your IQ scores are. On the other hand, if something is going wrong such a test might help establish where it is going wrong in more detail.

One really good reason not to get testing is the cost. This stuff isn't cheap.

Comment by stuart-anderson on The silence is deafening – Devon Zuegel · 2020-07-08T02:17:53.422Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I don't think that's so easy. Firstly, how are you going to capture involuntary responses, and secondly, how are you going to get people to sign up for that? Lots of people have had to do zoom meetings thanks to the plague, and lots of them have done as I have on occasion: simply turned the video off because I don't want to be giving out involuntary data.

If there's any default on the internet (and anyone with backend statistics can back this up) it is indifference. The vast majority of people never write anything, never participate, they just consume. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think there could be a trap where we assume that the system must be re-engineered to accommodate a small number of super engaged individuals. I'm not against the experiment, but I do think it is more complicated that it first appears.

As I've stated in examples involving facebook, discord is often a feature and not a bug. It could be the case here that commentary that is purported to be a problem is actually something that people are seeking (whether or not they're aware of that). Human social dynamics seem straightforward but they aren't, and that can be a trap when it comes to designing systems to accommodate them.

There's also the issue that the internet is basically a written medium. The limitations aren't necessarily a bad thing here, people have been writing for thousands of years and doing just fine. I would posit that the issue is speed and immediacy - you basically have to respond, right here, right now (and then have it preserved for all eternity whilst every prick out there combs over it for the slightest angle to criticise). That doesn't leave a lot of room for consideration. Perhaps there's something to be said for creating some social conventions around communication in a forum rather than trying to engineer it programmatically. If you have accepted rules for policing yourself and others then transgressions can be managed socially. If it is socially acceptable to say "Knock your bullshit off" then someone will and 9 times out of 10 that will be enough to fix the problem.

Comment by stuart-anderson on The silence is deafening – Devon Zuegel · 2020-07-04T06:41:01.443Z · score: 8 (5 votes) · LW · GW

People only receive feedback from people that are engaged enough to give it. Unsurprisingly, a mouse click is typically a very low effort of caring. It isn't quality feedback.

Internet comment voting is a skinner box, and giving people clicky buttons that literally dispense dopamine isn't going to do anything but turn them into button clicking addicts. Showing them click counters just makes that worse.

If you are going to reward behaviour to encourage it then ignore negative feedback entirely. Give people a limited number of medals that they can award to a few comments a day. Force people to think about it and slow down. If you can't be anything but positive (because you don't have the option of anything else) then you're going be forced to make a positive act by default. You will ignore the low value and negative comments because you're looking for positive ones to give reward to.

If you must have a 'negative' button then that button could be a personal block button. You can tally blocks on a given comment and if it hits thresholds you can move it to the bottom and collapse it. A huge problem with downvotes is that regardless of what is said they're for, they always turn into an agree/disagree binary rather than a metric of quality.

Whatever you reward is what you end up getting more of. Reward design is far from trivial, and people routinely hand out rewards that make the behaviour they're trying to manage even worse. That's before we get to dark patterns like you see on social media that exploit discord and the lack of IRL feedback to amplify engagement. Gossipy and angry people welded to their phones are a common sight these days because that's what makes social media companies money. It isn't of net benefit to the users thereof, but it's digital crack so the majority of people don't care even if they're aware of it.

Comment by stuart-anderson on How to decide to get a nosejob or not? · 2020-07-03T01:53:48.468Z · score: 6 (4 votes) · LW · GW

The advantage of beauty isn't even remotely subtle. The difficulty is that most people lack direct experience of moving up or down quickly, so they don't notice it.

The level of effect of increasing your attractiveness is non-linear and variant between domains. Understanding what you're trying to achieve in detail is important to ensure you will be happy with the results.

You buy cheap surgery and that's exactly what you get. Think very carefully before you commit to that. A botched surgery (or one perceived as such) is very much something you may need to repeat. The surgery isn't difficult, the trick is finding someone that understands the fundamental aesthetics of beauty (or alternatively, you understanding it and them doing exactly as you tell them).

Taking a knife to a 'feature' nose is one of the most common aesthetic mistakes you can make. It is generally imperfections that make your looks notable. You want to look like a better version of you, not somebody else. That being said, some people hate their own looks so much that not looking like themselves is the whole point.

I read somewhere that men that get nosejobs that involve reduction can feel emasculated by that. Barring deformity (ie. you're getting so much work that your entire face will change) I can believe it.

Comment by stuart-anderson on - A Petition · 2020-07-01T19:32:55.549Z · score: -1 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Unless some wish to defect from the NYT in a tactically useful manner then they are enemy infrastructure and a valid target.

All of the NYT materially benefits from this ambulance chasing behaviour, whether or not they admit it. You cannot willingly be part of an organisation that profits from wrongs and be shocked when you get painted with the same brush. You don't want to get caught in the crossfire? Quit, just like anyone with a backbone would.

Comment by stuart-anderson on - A Petition · 2020-07-01T19:27:24.604Z · score: -1 (4 votes) · LW · GW
in order to ruin him, you'd have to convince the NYT to fire him.

No, as stated before, all you have to do is make his actions costly. Ratcheting up the stress levels is the aim here. That could include going after income, but that lacks imagination and certainly wouldn't be my first attack vector. That is an expected attack, and it will be a defended attack accordingly.

If you want to fight and win, stop playing by the rules. The easiest way of getting your brain into the habit of thinking up novel solutions is to take the 'right' way off the table and then come up with methods of still achieving your goal. Then 10x that, so that you can either drag the hell out over a long period or dump it all on them at once for synergistic effect.

Comment by stuart-anderson on - A Petition · 2020-06-28T20:46:23.018Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I am in favour of justice, the most foundational element of civilisation. Without enforced laws it will all fall apart. If evil goes unpunished it will flourish. It's that simple.

I have no interest in lies. I like the truth exactly because it is a far more deadly weapon. When you absolutely nail someone with a truth they don't want to hear it's like stabbing them right in the heart.

I can't hurt anyone who doesn't lie and acts honourably, nor would I have any desire to. Conversely, the evil and wicked almost seem to beg me to ruin them with the truth. Good people have nothing to fear from the likes of me.