Mattasher

This is a complete misunderstanding of the corporate and human motivation. Corporations are run by people, specifically by rich people who spend their time in elite circles with a set of acceptable cultural and political beliefs. Everyone in the US knows what those are, and what happens to people who are seen as supportive of "deplorables".

CEOs also, like all humans, don't want angry hoards of very online people (blue checkmarks) screaming at them, and have shown time and time again they are willing to bend to the mob to make the screaming stop.

The wealth each "person" has after N rounds is equal to N trials where the expectation is zero each time, and the rounds are independent, at least according to the setup described in the title and first paragraph.

It should. I suspect this sim is done wrong. If each round is independent and variance is constant the CLT should dominate.

If we start with those numbers and a null hyp that both the control and the "experimental" group have a mean of 10, then the chance that of finding 4 or more extra killings than in the "experimental" group is about 21%. So even assuming no p-hacking, your p-value is meaningless.

R-code:

  sum( (rpois(10000,10) - rpois(10000,10) ) > 3)

For years I've tried to explain to people that working in tech, especially over time, is like having a job as a beer taster while living above a bar and hanging out with your drinking buddies all evening at that same bar, where an attractive bartender puts cocktails in front of you all night for free, all while trying not to become an alcoholic.

Any addict who said their plan for sobering up was to live like this would be told they are going to fail with 100% certainty.

This is a funny way to frame mass indefinite home detention, filthy quarantine centers, and the many, many reports of people not having enough to eat, and deaths from lack of access to medical care.

Did you know that only residents with official permission to be in Shanghai are getting food? What do you think is happening to everyone else?

The merits of putting 16 million people under indefinite house arrest in tiny apartments, depriving them of fresh air, exercise, real social interaction, medical care, access to food, etc?

I'm not sure if you understand just how deeply sociopathic and disturbed you come across.

Copenhagen looks like a lovely city but from what I can tell it's almost impossible to purchase real estate there.

We moved from Toronto to Florida at the beginning of last year. Could not be happier with the decision. The US used to be much more of a monolith, now there are huge differences between the states.

All of Canada is still in a mass hysteria that will continue for years.

I noticed this as well in Toronto. If you tell people it's the end of the world, and create that impression by shutting everything down so it looks like zombie apocalypse out there, people's time preferences shorten, their anxiety and aggression spike.

Toronto also suspended lots of low-level law enforcement like parking tickets, reinforcing an atmosphere of living outside normal rules.

1. We moved from Ontario to Florida

2. My podcast The Filter was pick up on terrestrial radio as well (KeysTalk FM)

3. I filmed the first season of a TV show featuring long-form conversations, see https://www.pbs.org/show/mattasher-show/

4. My wife is pregnant

2021 was an extraordinary year.

Brandy Schillache wrote a great book about these experiments and full body transpants for humans. Check out:

Mr. Humble & Dr. Butcher

I interviewed her for The Filter also recommend :)

https://mattasher.com/2021/07/25/ep-37-brandy-schillace-on-h...

This is the wrong way to do the math (setting aside that your numbers are wrong and other arguments).

The right way would be to compare number of people vaccinated to prevent one person falling so ill they require monoclonals. Since this >> 1, the financial calculations aren't so straightforward.

This is correct and very frustrating! For a deep dive into this issue check out:

https://statisticsblog.com/2011/11/23/monte-hall-revisited/

Front-running domains was a huge issue with registrars. Not sure sure if it still is. Registries were allowed a grace period to hold names without paying the ICANN fee, if they later released them, the idea being they might have been bought with a bad credit card etc so the registry would just let them go. No harm no foul, right?

If you like this, you may be interested in my episode about Cargo Cults, and the value of letting go of causality completely:

https://mattasher.com/2020/04/29/the-filter-podcast-episode-...

"New Zealand To Begin a Three-Day Lockdown after a Single Case is Reported." Headline from The New York Times 5 days ago.

I'm willing to believe this is fake news from the NYT, or that the situation has changed, but others are reporting it as well.

Maybe you remember way back at the very beginning that it was "two weeks to slow the spread"?

The narrative has always been we‘ll be back to normal in X weeks if we are all good little boys and girls and do what we‘re told. Unless of course some other really good reason to lockdown arises, like that single case in NZ.

I was there at the end of 2020. Almost no one wore masks in Stockholm, even coming out of the subway less than 1%.

Sweden "went back to normal" a long time ago. Their Covid deaths rate is near zero. The "it's bad so we need to x" reflex, where x is any of masking mandates, social distancing, or especially take kids out of school, is anti-science and anti-human.

I agree with your last statement, but I think you are mixing cause and effect. Crypto is exploding because our system is already corroded. Starting with the creation of the Fed, and tracing through endless money printing and complex financial instruments which let well-connected companies and politicians create paper wealth out of nothing, we've decoupled money from value.

Savings pay no interest, manual labor doesn't scale, but rent seeking and financial games get many people riches in no time.

What are the incentives in this kind of a system, and where are the safe harbors for storing value? And if you can't in value creation, your safest bet may be to gamble.

People seem to think that if they approve of a goal, actions taking in the name of that goal can't be totalitarian, or fascist, or bad in any way.

Every authoritarian measure in history was justified by something that sounded like good intentions. That you agree with a stated goal is orthogonal to whether a measure is totalitarian.

If you find this conversation interesting you might want to check out this Ep of The Filter: Our Glorious Future as Amish or Termites.

See https://open.spotify.com/episode/6uSd3fSZz3gg6idbdUyvKB

For those looking for a deep (audio) dive into the details of panpsychism, I interviewed author and researcher Tam Hunt about the subject last year:

https://mattasher.com/2020/07/19/episode-11-tam-hunt-on-cons...

I had a great discussion about Class with author Sandra Tsing Loh:

https://mattasher.com/2020/09/01/ep-18-sandra-tsing-loh-on-a...

Sandra wrote what is imo the definitive book review of Class.

This may be true when viewed at the micro level, but it's highly debatable at a zoomed out level.

Put it this way, is it in Facebooks best business interests to be viewed as endorsing every single thing it hosts?

Note that the more they pick and choose who to deplatform, the more the ones left will get their implicit seal of approval.

See https://beforetheban.com/

It surprises me that people still think big tech and social media companies are acting in a free market independent of political considerations. You have high-ranking politicians threatening them on a regular basis and demanding they censor specific users. Not to mention many have contracts with the government and back doors of communication.

Those functions exist. They are culture and adulthood.

I'm not being glib here. I'm not a crack addict because as an adult I can recognize even trying that drug is a really bad idea, and because I exist in a culture where doing crack is not encouraged, to say the least.

Put another way, almost free speech works great for those with power, and badly for everyone else.

When people advocate censorship of any kind, they're really saying, "I have the correct views held by the establishment, so I'm not worried about it."