The intellectual mistake of once-and-for-allism | Hacker News Reader

The intellectual mistake of once-and-for-allism

marginalrevolution.bulletin.com

16 pointselsewhen10 comments

Another area where tech is different from the rest of life.

I pretty much choose everything based on whether it makes a problem class permanently solved.

I'm not going to take time out of my day to practice bash commands and stay efficient with them, I'm not going to use stuff like DD that takes care and attention whenever I use if, and I'm not going to use a library that only does one file format instead of the whole range of relevant ones.

Covid may be a complex issue that you can't effectively abstract away, but flashing an SD card sure is!

Isn't it OK to think that some of those questions are just boring or the "answers" won't affect our actions anyway? We've got limited attention we can give to issues and choose to focus on something else we can affect. Ok, so we're living in a simulation... do something about it!

Now, if you're saying, "I'm going to spend all my resources to build a 500 year roof on my house so that nobody has to worry about that again", that has definite consequences on your other decisions going forward.

We have to make decisions on what we bother thinking about, and delegate the rest to others we trust. This in theory is politicians, and it is surprisingly convenient that the politicians who agree with some of our issues happen to agree with all of them! What we think about issues can't at all be influenced by the "team" we're on.

What is bulletin.com? What I understand to be the original post is here [0]. Why is there a repost and why link to it over the source?

[0] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/06/th...

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/06/bu...

It's a lot of words to say that we don't like to continuously analyze tidbits of data over very long periods of time on topics we don't care about very much.

Can anyone explain what they mean by "Bayesian detachment"? I'm assuming they're describing Bayesian trees with large gaps of priors compelling the need for something to fill those gaps, but it's a phrasing I've never heard before.

I believe it means being in a state of mind where you ignore new data and and don't update beliefs because you are sick of contemplating some issue.

That's what the article is about, but I'm asking about the specific phrase, as it's used in the article.

Looks like the author has settled that issue once and for all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com