Cushman

I’m still so confused. You’re talking about the article I posted a link to? Did you think I hadn’t read it?

Edit: I guess I’ll try to respond in good faith, even though I don’t totally understand why you’re asking me about this. If you click through to the Foreign Policy article, you’ll see Bruce Schneier listed as the first author before Ottenheimer.

But really, I’m not trying to imply whatever it is you’re inferring. By all means, draw whatever conclusions you like from Schneier’s authorship!

This is a peculiarly conspiratorial response to my comment, and I don’t think I’m equipped to respond to it. Did you mean to direct this to me?

I upvoted this due to mass flagging of articles on this topic, but I don’t believe this article is high-quality.

I would prefer this one were removed and replaced with Schneier’s article at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43035977, currently at 150 upvotes.

I don’t understand you. What do you mean by this?

This is amusing. So… if one plans to publish their baroque opinions on English grammar… one should really know that conversational “y’all” is prescriptively a high status marker in the academy.

I picked up the habit in Massachusetts, in the mid 2000s, from an Ivy League humanities professor who also expressed support for a student debt strike. He used it very deliberately, in an effort to un-train our public school–addled brains from the inanity that we were somehow smarter than others for having fewer words in hand. In my bones, the thought of not using it as appropriate feels uneducated.

Using “y’all” in conversation shows incredible confidence, a way to flex command of formal language in an informal setting. It’s often used with emphasis. It leverages the listener’s discomfort, saying: I know precisely which register I’m speaking in. It’s an “elite” thing to do.

What you’ll never hear is one of these people using “y’all” as a formal address— especially as a singular, as in the rote “Y’all been served?” for a dining party of any number. There are a number of reasons for that, but number one is simple: It’s a high status signal.

Edit to add: Maybe importantly, this doesn’t extend to the casual use of “all y’all” . I think the colloquial academic equivalent would be “you [emphasized pause] all”. If you weren’t familiar you’d probably transcribe it as “you all”, but it’s closer to “you, all”. Looking at it now, I think that’s “intentional abuse” of the formal variant for intensifying, with just enough stress to make it visibly intentional?

But I should be clear I haven’t studied this dialect at all, I just learned to speak it :)

It’s not super clear there, but those are examples of a pre-Gettier type of argument that originally motivated strengthening, and externalizing, the J in JTB knowledge— just like you’re doing!

Gettier’s contribution — the examples with Smith — sharpens it to a point by making the “knowledge” a logical proposition — in one example a conjunction, in one a disjunction — such that we can assert that Smith’s belief in the premise is justified, while allowing the premise to be false in the world.

It’s a fun dilemma: the horns are, you can give up justification as sufficient, or you can give up logical entailment of justification.

But it’s also a bit quaint, these days. To your typical 21st century epistemologist, that’s just not a very terrifying dilemma.

One can even keep buying original recipe JTB, as long as one is willing to bite the bullet that we can flip the “knowledge” bit by changing superficially irrelevant states of the world. And hey, why not?

If you ever change machine or do pair programming or whatever where you are not using your highly-tweaked config, and you are essentially a frustrated jibbering wreck and barely more competent than a 3 year old using a computer for the first time

I was once pairing on the lead’s laptop and switched the keyboard to Dvorak. This was back in 2010 or so, when the input menu wouldn’t show on the lock screen by default. The lead could not type Dvorak, and of course I did not know their password. I remember that moment of silent contemplation keenly…

That’s to say, yes, and the sensation of being a frustrated jibbering wreck can be contagious :')

As an also low ACE person with high ACE loved ones, I super encourage this!

With the serious caveat that ACE score isn’t a great predictor for individuals: if your siblings have ACEs >=3, it’s entirely plausible that that trauma explains none, some, or all of the differences you’re referring to.

(If, like me, you grew up thinking socioeconomic status was the gold star predictor of cohort health, the past couple of decades of research here are pretty shocking!)

ACE 1, so I’m qualified to respond :)

An important thing for you and I to keep in mind is that we aren’t just talking about psychology.

ACEs cause (or exacerbate) depression, anxiety, and so on; they also cause (or exacerbate) cancer, heart disease, autoimmune disorders, and so on.

It’s obviously a lot of work to disentangle causation from secondary health impacts of mental illness, but to our shame there is more than enough data, and the work has been done. An appreciable fraction of the damage done by ACEs is physical and irreversible after adolescence.

I think this is important for us to remember because it’s easy for us to say, oh, they must need some extra support. And yeah, they do. But it’s too little, too late. They — the children — need us to stop the ACEs from happening.

Editing in a caveat I remembered elsewhere: of course the scores don’t cause these things, and of course the individual variance is huge. As a diagnostic criterion, ACE is useful as a screener and that’s about it. As a statistic, it’s revealed a pandemic.

Ouch! Fair cop since we’re nitpicking, but I was trying to be cute about that — the joke started out more like “you’re technically crossing the line to scab as a strikebreaker”. I’m aware that it still doesn’t make sense unless there’s a sympathy action by the strikebreakers’ union, unfunny and unhelpful in the first place, thanks for the correction :)

Edit: Ah shoot not again. What I meant to say was “scabbing as an agent provocateur”. Sorry, I’ll quit while I’m ahead!

It’s not a shift in usage, it’s a term of art. Informally it could mean just crossing the line to enter the business, but unless you live in a turn-of-the-century company town, no one in the union is expecting anything related to that by default.

In labor, “respecting the picket line” is a moral action for union members (or scabs) which by definition couldn’t apply to a spontaneous self-directed consumer boycott.

Not to put to fine a point on it: if you show up to someone else’s labor action claiming solidarity, and then independently decide to pivot the action to a totally different set of economic incentives, you are — almost literally! — a scab.

This is known as a minor fall, I assume

Since turnabout is fair play, it’s worth noting this is mostly false; if you google “minor fall music theory” you’ll only find references to Cohen.

In (conventional western) analysis, a “fall” wouldn't be something mechanical, it would always imply a contextual interpretation.

So it’s a valid reading of the text to say it means something about the chord structure, but — from a purely musical theoretical perspective — just as valid to read it as a reference to the flattening of the minor degree of the scale, or something else entirely.

It’s really a lovely song :)

Gently: The snark you’re getting is undeserved, but you are doing the “but why male models?” thing. You gotta make a left turn here :)

Let’s reset: Hey, did Sandia use a thermonuclear secondary in a product logo? Did they actually? Despite all the reasons they wouldn’t? If they did, why? Was it a mistake or on purpose? Neither one quite makes sense.

Those are interesting questions! But there’s no alleged secrets leak, and there’s nothing else that’s interesting about that specific picture. You could say it’s implied somehow, but in that case you really got got by anti-clickbait. “Did Sandia use a thermonuclear secondary in a product logo?” is the whole riddle, and the answer is the whole blog post.

Surprisingly, yes! 90hz would be considered the minimum here.

As a general statement, no, vision isn’t as time-sensitive as hearing, so the timing requirements aren’t as precise. But when it comes to head and hand tracking, the brain’s also doing predictive sensor fusion, and even “unnoticeably” small delays can be disorienting or nauseating. (Ocular fixation is the most sensitive, but hand-eye coordination is also pretty important to the brain!)

The important number in VR is “motion-to-photon” latency. Over 20ms starts to be noticeable to most people; 50ms starts to make most people uncomfortable. That’s the total budget for sensor fusion, simulation, rendering, and display, and that’s just for the bare-minimum experience that doesn’t make people immediately ill.

You can do a lot with prediction and late updates in screen space, which is what makes VR possible at all on current hardware— but it’s hard to make up for having sensor data delayed by possibly 150% of the total time budget :)

Your understanding is correct, more or less[0], but there are two parts to strategy: an inexpert counter is likely to be distracted, and to make errors from perfect play. They’re also likely to lose the count, and make errors in bet sizing. The net of those is worse than a non-counter playing perfectly, whose edge is slightly negative but who still stands a decent chance of making money on a given day.

But note that’s a reason for casinos not to overtly discourage counting; they’ll still happily ban a player who is apparently counting well rather than roll the dice on whether they’re counting “well enough”.

[0] Sibling points out that counters will make specific deviations from “naive” perfect play depending on the count, but that’s to push earnings up a bit on an already positive edge. There’s also the element of camouflage, where a really strong counter might deviate in ways that don’t hurt their earnings but make their play look less “counter-y”.

Ah, I believe I understand now. No, I’m afraid this risk is not insurable.

Any insurer would have to guarantee some share of the 1.05x EV per toss, call that share itself X. The insurer would keep the remainder of the EV as premium, call that Y.

X and Y are both positive so it seems at first like you should be able to underwrite this. However, the math will not work out unless you change the dynamics of the model in some way.

The fundamental problem is that this is a model for a sequence of N events, and X (and therefore Y) are exponential functions of N. After some finite N, it’s only the insurer’s most recent guarantee that matters to the total payoffs. No previous events are consequential; the brute force of exponential math says the exponent alone dominates.

So we can just think in terms of x^N. At some point the insurer must pay out x^N in losses from the previous x^(N-1) in gains.

In other words, regardless of the premium charged, or the number of individuals whose risk is pooled, this individual’s status as an insurer doesn’t give them any special exemption from exponential reality that prevents individuals in general from remaining solvent in the limit of this model.

(I haven’t totally worked through the outcome table for the author’s proposed solution— I’d encourage you to do that if you think the solution might be flawed. But this does indeed seem to be a situation where any individual who attempts to capture the EV will fail, and only unconditional sharing can succeed.)

Hmm, I’m still not following exactly what you’re pointing out. What’s the model you mentioned about variance in dice rolls? I assumed we were talking about the coin flip model where all individual payoffs go to zero with probability 1, so no one has any expected income to pay an insurance premium out of.

The article is pretty pointedly about wealth redistribution, i.e. pooling of windfalls rather than of risk, but I don’t think that was lost on anyone... are you talking about a different model where there’s some sort of insurable situation?

Indifferent to risk, or seeking of risk, or having any other computable utility function on any other measurable that we’d have to accept as equally valid if we want to convince any non-economist that we aren’t just using utility as a weasely word for money :)

That’s not even snark, humans preferring both of higher risk and lower payoff is a canonical psycho-economic result. And even the question of whether the concept of a rational utility maximizer is well-founded is the exact subject of this very fine article!

It should make sense by now that if you lose, and play again, you can expect to lose again, despite still having a positive EV on the toss.

Too late to edit but I feel like I should highlight this more, because it looks like the place something would be swept under the rug:

Yes, the individual who wins two flips in a row is still ahead even if they lose the next two flips. If they win the first four, they can afford to lose three more.

And if they win the first five, they can afford to lose… still only three. Five to four no longer breaks even.

That’s the thing that, if it doesn’t seem intuitive, is a meaningful insight. “This +EV dynamics is not ergodic” means:

In the limit, a) the individual who wins every single coin flip can afford to pay the losses of everyone else and profit, and b) no other individual breaks even.

Can you say more about that? I can see the loose analogy to socializing risk, but I’d usually think of the concept of insurance along the lines of “many small winners pay for a few big losers”; this looks to me more like “a few big winners pay for many small losers”.

So, first, you're right to be skeptical. The basic claim is this:

"Expected value (a mathematical object belonging to the very rigorous field of probability theory) is often used by economists in a non-rigorous way."

The covert implication is something along the lines of, economists do this deliberately to gain the benefit of rigor that the empirical performance of economic theory hasn't earned. You should definitely interpret that first as a political argument, motivated by a metaphysical argument, motivated by a mathematical argument.

And you're right to hear some alarm bells, because that's certainly a controversial claim.

But it's not an outlandish claim. The field of psycho-economics is basically the study of the many ways that people observably, empirically don't make economic decisions on the basis of EV maximization, so what more need be said?

And there are plenty of other metaphysical arguments that you probably accept in principle. Pascal's Wager, and the converse Pascal's Mugging, clearly show that EV maximization at least has to "break down at high energy levels", to borrow a metaphor.

So, this thought experiment is one of those, but it's actually a pretty elegant one:

In a series of two coin flips you have four outcomes, so your expected value is a quarter of (0.6 x 0.6) + (0.6 x 1.5) + (1.5 x 0.6) + (1.5 x 1.5) = about 4.4 over four = about 110% of your stake. So this is a winning gamble, so EV maximization predicts you will take it.

However: more than half of that EV, (1.5 x 1.5)/4 = 56% out of that 110%, comes from the relatively rare event in which you win two coin flips in a row.

The other three outcomes have to share the remaining 54% EV between them. It should make sense by now that if you lose, and play again, you can expect to lose again, despite still having a positive EV on the toss.

So the essential question the author is asking, the thing that makes this metaphysically controversial but not mathematically so, is this:

Assuming there's no mechanism to actually share the EV, how much should those three out of four parallel-universe versions of you who individually lose, and collectively have to come up with the cash to pay out 2x winnings, care about the one out of four of you who's taking those 2x winnings home?

And the political question is: Does more than 1/4 of you still think EV is a good basis for decision making absent a mechanism to actually share the EV?

They respond to them more quickly, they're willing to explain misconceptions, and so on. They just don't think it's because of communication style.

Dropping a follow-up comment for future data scientists:

Take a closer look at this one! Possible outlier. Check out how the root thread hasn’t really risen to the top of the list — that usually means a lot of people didn’t like the form of it, or disagreed with its self-referential opinion.

And but so also check out your sentiment scores on this thread— the grandparent is overtly a bit snide, not in a mean spirited way, but just really not agreeing with the root’s thesis that this advice leads to more productive engagement. Make sure you scored that correctly!

Then, what does your sentiment analysis have to say about the engagement here as compared to other threads? I have a prediction, obviously, and if I’m still around I’d love to read the paper :)

I will genuinely reflect on this

And I genuinely appreciate that. Your care does shine through in those words. To me, you don’t need to say more… I don’t desire to be agreed with more than I desire peace for your life.

You’ve said you don’t seek “connection” at the office, and without knowing exactly what that means to you, I can’t assume that you’re seeking it here either. So, take this as you will:

You made me feel listened to. To me, that’s enough. Thank you.

(And yes, I’d probably put an emoji here if I could, chosen to emphasize gentleness and compassion. Likely a leaf, a sprig, or one of the non-romantic flowers. To me, this all feels so heavy without it, and lightening the words would undercut them.

Maybe a sparkle… idk. I wouldn’t normally think about it, but it seems important to say out loud, here.

When you read this, maybe you can picture a little flower, just meant to help you believe that I really do care how what I’ve said makes you feel.)

I perceive them as setting the expectation that I will reciprocate similarly.

You know, this might be challenging to hear... I think there is such an expectation. And along the lines of what 'ketzo said above, I kind of think it's a categorically good expectation.

The only thing you might be missing, not because you're not socially sensitive, but just because it's non-native communication to you, is that those people genuinely care. The expectation isn't that you'll respond with a cheery reply-- it's that you'll respond with care.

What I might put on the table for you is, what if you think about it as replying in kind, rather than in form? If someone says something cheerily nice to you, you don't have to say "omg thank you!! :D". You can just say "Thank you.", from the heart, however you say it when you really mean it.

And yeah, some people will still take that as you being unkind. And if you mean it, that means they're the socially insensitive ones. They're the ones who don't really care! You don't owe them anything more.

But... I think you might be surprised at how many people really are willing to meet you exactly where you are, as long as you really do care.

Yes, this is exactly how I approach professional communication. My emails sent to different stakeholders vary wildly in style.

If you’re invested in getting something out of a conversational partner, it’s obviously best to write in a way that sounds like a thought they, themselves, could have had— in fact, are having. And contra 'ketzo’s original point, I deeply appreciate that so many we-have-to-say-mostly male tech stakeholders purposely don’t massage their language that much, and thereby make their brains that much easier to hijack.

I bring my effusively positive personality to HN largely because I don’t have any real motive or theory of change, other than possibly making it a slightly more comfortable environment for people who will read my comments precisely as written.

Oh, I’m so curious if this comment sounds more sincere to the reader :)

Yeah, I totally get that. And I absolutely knew going in that suggesting you write exactly the same thing I wrote in that exact comment couldn’t help but sound condescending.

But in complete honesty, hedging around it any more than that would have felt insincere to me. And in exchange I got sincere feedback! So really, I’m just doing things your way, and I’ve seen the benefit of it :)

With that said, for your future reference: if you hadn’t said “Interesting!” first, I wouldn’t be engaging charitably right now— I’d be debating whether to engage at all. Based on the next sentence I’m guessing you meant it more as a way to call my sincerity bluff, but I’m telling you it fucking works. Might be an idea to keep around?

To your parenthetical: One other thing to keep in mind is that those employees (I’ve been one) have to talk to terse, grumpy people all day long, and even if it’s not reciprocated, that can be a way to carve out a little moment of real human kindness. I’d keep some weight on the possibility that, sometimes, for a moment, they do just genuinely hope you have a good rest of the day.

I know there’s probably no way I can now convince you that I genuinely hope you have a good rest of the day, so, uh… take care?

As a data point, the last email we got from our closing attorney was a single sentence ending in a period. Much like this one.

The same message ending in an exclamation point would have been substantially less nerve-wracking :grimacing:

That’s a good perspective to bring!

One question, though: do you think it would make the rest of your comment materially worse communication if you added just one excessively positive but non-load-bearing sentence at the beginning? Maybe something like “That’s a good perspective to bring!”

Maybe that’s not the way you communicate most sincerely, the way it is for me and others. Maybe I sound insincere to you right now, in which case, please do say so!

But all else being equal, if you knew that that single change would make me and others materially more receptive to the rest of your comment, would you consider just… doing it anyways, out of pure self-interest?

Just food for thought :)

Thanks for your feedback! I’m not sure I’m following, but it’s always interesting to hear perspectives from people with different life experiences. Take care :)

Gently: Could we please not? :)

This is a young person who’s new to the community. That’s where communities come from!

Without other comment, this meta thread is pushing the author’s personal statement below the fold. As the grown-ass adults in the room, we can have our judgments, but we should try to make a little space, too.