Posts
Comments
To be clear, are we talking about non-disclosure agreements, or non-*disparagement* agreements?
I would say they are, in the worst instances a kind of sazen, and in the best instances recognizably enough jargon that they dodge the illusion of transparency being double. Similarly, the word "sazen" is not centrally sazen, because nobody's going to look at it and go "oh I think I know what that means".
Alternate theory for what FOG means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Support_Activity#Field_Operations_Group
Given I'm not sure why you'd put a gyroscope on a gun, we're not that high tech.
The explicit argument I would make here is, the post makes some reference to the author being Buddhist, and therefore less likely to say things they can't verify. Or even things believed true that would cause drama. And then elaborates that the post will do both these things anyway, because there is a "conflict of interest" between speaking divisively against Aella, and speaking(?) divisively against those Jōshin seeks to warn away.
It is my understanding that whatever value one assigns to whisper networks, cancellations, and so on, "devout buddhist" is a social role that practically defines itself as foregoing that value in favor of inner peace, and that this contradiction is what Duncan found perhaps worthy of scorn. (The particular one-word comment has been correctly downvoted as having no place on LessWrong, at least according to a discourse norms pledge Duncan himself authored and various other of his posts.) In Jōshin's shoes of having committed to X and finding ￢X to have profound importance to the safety of those around me, I would either try to fob off the publishing of the accusations onto someone else more comfortable with X to keep somewhat to the letter of the pledges, or lay out a stronger case for reneging on X in a separate post.
At minimum, any "so normally I avoid doing this even when it seems like a good idea, but" normnotes ought to go in something like a footnote, not up-front to emphasize that because something was a significant update for you it ought to be a more significant update to the reader. Certainly for audiences already not sharing your priors, such attempted emphasis as we see falls flat.
I am an interested party ^-^
Think carefully about what this advice is trying to imply.
Using NLP-style nested loops, i.e. performing what is basically a stack overflow on the brain's frame-of-reference counter? Wicked.
Except we're not allowed to use anyone else's source code, so the test could just as easily be simplified to "if opponent source contains integer 1415926535, cooperate"(for a randomly chosen 1415926535).
Granular synthesis is pretty fun.
I am not sure how much evidence there is for Extreme Programming. But if it works, I wonder how much its rules can be translated to areas beyond programming. (Or maybe it already exists. Maybe "two minds work better than one" was already know for millenia, only for IT people it remains a surprising and controversial topic.) Could we somehow abstract the coding details away, and call it Extreme Doing?
It's controverisal, and application to other industries more so, but efforts to target some of the low-hanging fruit are underway.
"unavailable": what gives?
Woo has been renamed to pitches, noting for posterity. Easy enough to google; then again so is gur onfvyvfx yet everyone treats it as a big secret.
And this is why we (barely) have checkpointing. If you close you web browser, and launch a saved copy from five minutes ago, is the session a different one?
This in turn reminds me of a wonderful platformer, Company of Myself
Return a "divide by zero"-type error, or send your Turing machine up in smoke trying.
It has been deleted to prevent edit war.