noqc

This is America, you can just call 345 feet a football field.

The form of government matters a lot, when evaluating its security apparatus. I feel a lot differently about the death penalty in America than in Iran too.

No, I really mean atheists that crave religion.

Same as it ever was, but with more of them, people are a little warier about their own, I think.

That's almost word for word what I said...

When I read the article in its entirety, I was pretty disappointed in its top-level introspection.

It seems to not be true, but I still maintain that it was obvious. Sometimes people don't pick the low-hanging fruit.

There are a lot of rationalists in this community. Pointing out that the entire thing is a cult attracts downvotes from people who wish to, for instance, avoid being identified with the offshoots.

Perhaps I will get downvoted to death again for saying so, but the obvious answer is because the name "rationalist" is structurally indistinguishable from the name "scientology" or "the illuminati". You attract people who are desperate for an authority to appeal to, but for whatever reason are no longer affiliated with the church of their youth. Even a rationalist movement which held nothing as dogma would attract people seeking dogma, and dogma would form.

The article begins by saying the rationalist community was "drawn together by AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky’s blog post series The Sequences". Obviously the article intends to make the case that this is a cult, but it's already done with the argument at this point.

probably add "in the negative", to that.

This system would make a lot more sense if the number of people you had to get to agree to a bill with a bunch of riders was more than 50%.

>I expect better science writing from them.

based on what?

> Musk is a clearly brilliant man

proof left as an exercise for the reader.

You are conflating civil law with international law. In a civil context, my right to self defense is very weak. If my neighbor is stockpiling weapons, and announcing his intention to kill me, I am obligated to trust the deterrent of the state. The state has the monopoly on force. I could easily be killed by this person, but they would be prosecuted by the state, and this system defends me quite well. It is only when my life is in active danger that I am allowed to take proactive measures. If the person shoots me in the leg and drops his gun and starts running away. I'm not allowed to pick it up and kill him in response. That's the state's job (There's no chance I would vote to convict this man if I was on a jury to be frank, but that's the principle).

This is very different from the interstate case. If a state shoots another state in the leg and runs away, the only way to establish a deterrent is to shoot back. There is no police force to do it for me. This is the main diffference between civil law and international law.

What point of mine do you think you are attacking? The parent comment said that these rights were being given up "in order to squash anti-war sentiment". This was wrong on two counts.

a) The rights were preserved, the assaulter walks free on account of the NYPD's misconduct. The rock throwers have zero cause to be upset, the law protected them from the police overreach successfully.

b) The student was not charged with "anti-war sentiment". He was charged with assault, for throwing rocks at people.

This is a deep misrepresentation of my core stance here. Claiming that you have the special sauce to finding the "Truth" is cult behavior. I'm saying neither that people, not groups of people suck.

In fact, my argument is roughly "Less wrong is a religion by analogy to the religions that it resembles, like Christianity".

Arguing "well by that logic Christianity is a religion", is unlikely to sway me.

Then you should read the article.

Terry is saying to stop bugging mathematicians for theorems about misinformation.

Breach of fiduciary duty is already extremely hard to prove when share prices are down. Mark has the added benefit of the doubt that arises from the fact that his incentives are fundamentally aligned with the company's incentives, given how much of his wealth is tied up in those shares.

Putting your phone in the fridge seems like a pretty crazy thing to do, but we do it sometimes. Plane crashes are very rare.

I don't fly a lot of planes, but I do know what muscle memory is like, and sometimes it misfires. Misfires are rare, but then, so are plane crashes.

The emergency fuel cutoff should not be a practiced maneuver.

You are right, I was remembering the description of turning the switches back on.

> one second delay

did the report say a one second delay or that the two switches were turned off at consecutive seconds? The latter is what I remembered, but I'll check again.

The murder suicide angle isn't particularly worthy of assumption yet. Have you ever put your phone in the fridge?

Pilots deactivate the fuel cutoff at the end of the final taxi to the gate. This makes flipping these switches a practiced maneuver, capable of being performed without conscious thought, regardless of whether they came with safety locks installed.

Brain farts are a real phenomenon, and an accidental fuel cutoff most closely resembles the transcript from within the cockpit.

The report is actually a little cagey about whether the locks were properly installed on these switches. Said locks are supposedly optional. Until I receive a more direct confirmation that the switches were installed with their full safety features, I will assume that it is more likely for the plane to have had improperly installed switches than not, given that the shutoff was the reason for the crash, and if they turn out to have been installed, I will assume that simple pilot error is responsible until a motive for murder is found. The pilots lives are under quite a lot of scrutiny, and I do not believe that a motive for murder is likely to be found.

You honestly have to be really trying to misunderstand me that hard.

What do you imagine the purpose of naming the movement "pro-life" to be?

All human epistemology is trying to be "less wrong", just like all cereal is "all natural". The rationalists aren't even the first to recognize the value of printing it on the box.

>Do you think someone who labels themselves as "Christian" inherently believes they are pure of soul and perfect, and sins less than non-Christians?

I have known a lot of Christians. I can answer with an unequivocal yes.

If the tax equals the externalized costs of burning carbon, and people continue to burn carbon, burning carbon is "good".

You can try to be rational without naming yourself a "rationalist".

If your name for your "ideology" is "better than yours", then yes, I consider this to be a superiority complex.

>Is your argument that LVT generates revenue therefore you can't criticize that it could suppress development in some cases?

No.