HN user

jabgrabdthrow

154 karma

IAmA shithead AMA

Posts3
Comments149
View on HN

My theory: It’s a touchy subject. It has not been inhibitory up to this point (mid late 2010s) to divide things into things that follow laws, and things that are complex intersections of many systems of social power and where each individuals personal epistemology must be considered in the context of a holistic analysis that is not loaded with preconceptions about values we acquired during socialization and now that you can process fifty exabytes of data did you even think about what if your programs aren’t accurate representations of reality, sheesh this is why engineers shouldn’t make public policy

Case in point: other comment links to Pearl’s book. He has been writing about general causality for decades, but his latest book shows he realized there is a desperate need to communicate the basics to people who like the modes of thinking that cause them to avoid trusting mathematical “solutions”

Founders should be willing to take less pay and their biggest motivator should be their name in lights, not traction

Do you think you contributed to the conversation or that anyone might have been missing part of the picture but you pointing out that black swans are a literal thing that are not uncommon unlike fairies that don’t exist or “black swans” (like “bull runs”) that are by definition extremely rare?

I once said “there’s no such thing as a bull run” in some context with a group of friends. Do you think you would have chimed in to say that there’s a big one in Madrid every year?

No, he’s describing redistribution (some people get a bigger payout proportional to what they paid in). You can have solvent pyramid shaped schemes, and SS isn’t even pyramid shaped except incidentally.

I suspect that we would see that we need as many categories as there are children to get anything predictive.

Making a category to predict human behavior generally hurts those who are “miscategorized” much more than it helps those who are accurately categorized (there aren’t really “positive stereotypes” that jump into active-decision processes like with negative stereotypes).

Therefore, we should not try to predict behavior by making even fuzzy-categories other than one-child-per-category, since this may literally hurt children, especially systemically underprivileged and underrepresented children.

It’s important to control your own decision factors against your local collection of “known non-causations”!

Wait a second, when did the discussion narrow to standardized test scores? I only read the article and did not follow through with sources, it seemed to imply “success” was measured more broadly, by their end socioeconomic status.

Reminds me of how I grew up wishing I could eat cereal and watch TV - at all.

It’s good to know that it’s my parents’ active decisions to shape how I think, and not something I can’t control like my innate willpower, which led me to be so successful.

Maybe conspiracy theory is a bad example because they’re true often enough to not be like fairies or black swans at all.

Domestic mass surveillance is a debunked conspiracy theory, remember

It’s the military and it’s tax money. “Manually transferred” or “unsupported” or “doesn’t meet proper accounting standards” doesn’t debunk “can’t account for”, it directly supports that point!