srinivgp

Some people certainly can simply enjoy spending time with people not of their assumed cluster of traits. But that's not what's going on with trans women. They aren't doing some sort of "going overboard when you'd be perfectly happy with less" or whatever you're asking. Is it really so hard to believe trans women? Brains do _all sorts_ of things that seem weird if your own brain doesn't do it. Aphantasia, synesthesia, plurality, autism all come to mind immediately.

https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Like-State-Condition-Paperback...

The alternative is to do the thing that doesn't scale, because all the purported ways of scaling are worse than that.

Um. A hammer that can build 100 houses a second would be incredibly valuable, both solving and causing some very important problems. So good analogy from my perspective I suppose, but I don't think it supports your conclusion?

Salespeople don't want to join an org without performance-based compensation. We can ask why, but that brute fact is enough to explain why sales positions tend to have performance-based compensation.

"people only use about 2% of the volume of their house at any given time"

Did you not read the last clause?

lastly, it happens to be true

which are far less intelligible

they seem fine to me

maybe you're just used to it, and i'm used to the other it, and mine requires fewer distinct glyphs

resent

Fine, step one, work on why you'd resent that.

It contextualized, of course.

<= 2019: 4.5-5.5 == 2023: ~5.5 (between: significantly higher, also COVID, probably not a coincidence)

If you play games you can't play games without missing a ton of really good games. There are _a ton_ of really good games.

Only if they actually tried to think. Otherwise they don't get automatic passes for believing random things just because I am not 100% guaranteed to end up believing a correct thing.

In a very real sense, so do you.

Not easier. More awesome.

Things going bad is bad. Dying is bad. Etc etc.

Sometimes on net things are good because of other effects like "ah, promising new competitor gets a chance to shine!" but if you could have _both_, you absolutely _would_. A company going bad is a _cost paid_ for new blood, not an _added benefit_.

It's not good that you have 100 fewer hours when you spend 100 hours creating something awesome. It's bad that you have 100 fewer hours. If you could create the same awesome thing and still have those 100 hours to do something else, that'd be fantastic.

All other things being equal, I would far rather Intel be awesome than not. If it turns out the world is such that all other things can't be equal, it might be worth having Intel not be awesome in favor of other benefits, but I'm never going to be _happy_ about Intel not being awesome.

IF a company goes bad, it's great that new companies eat their lunch.

It's bad for a company to go bad.

It's bad for a company to lock out competition.

Pretty much every direction is a local improvement given _some_ starting point, but if you broaden your overall search, the "more self-deception" direction is gonna be worse.

If we prevented all suicides there would be _well more than ample_ precedent of people trying to commit _and being stopped from_ committing suicide and later hating everyone for keeping them in hell.

You can't ignore downsides just 'cause you see upsides.

'cause humans beat apes

and if you plunked down 20,000 humans onto a world with 10 billion apes, humans would beat apes

call it a slippery slope if you want, the fallacy is when you take it too far, not inherently any time you extrapolate anything whatsoever

I had this problem. It crippled me. One or more of the following solved it:

- just time plus regression to the mean

- talking with a therapist, for a while

- being hit with a completely different enormous life stress, allowing me to say "fuck it" to all other anxieties

While it was ongoing, my coping mechanisms were:

- ditch social interaction in favor of putting myself near the problem for hours at a time with nothing else to do until I made reluctant incremental progress

I do not recommend that coping mechanism for anything except that which you need to literally survive.

When it was very bad, the following was not helpful:

- breaking into small chunks; fear-avoidance can be about starting, but in my case it was literally about producing any results visible to anyone else

we’ll need to identify important people with both a high degree of importance but with a low degree of tech literacy, i.e. your average white, male C-level executive

From this, you think the author is suggesting that white male users are more technically illiterate than other individuals? Your detectors are tuned for too much recall.

It is not flawed. The subject is under study, continually. The debunking comes from https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2016976118 where yes, many measures of happiness seem to increase linearly as log(income) increases. That means diminishing marginal utility of money, but it does not mean there's a cap - the relationship seems to continue at all income levels.

The main reason to believe the famous previous research was in good faith and could still miss this result is because the previous research used a measure of happiness which itself capped out, and so _could not detect_ changes in happiness after a certain level. If your instruments can't register any changes above some amount, it is no wonder your results level off and stop at that amount.

This new research could be wrong, of course. But there's no mis-summary here.

There are many potential right reasons. One wrong reason might be "I heard it from a Facebook group founded to spread the word that GMOs were created to make a pliable citizenry".

The paper you linked to says, in its summary section, "For the general public, evidence shows that physical distancing of more than 1 m is highly effective and that face masks are associated with protection, even in non-health-care settings, with either disposable surgical masks or reusable 12–16-layer cotton ones, although much of this evidence was on mask use within households and among contacts of cases."

But I assume you mean that the meta analysis didn't claim masks were useless, those three underlying papers did? I'm not sure what those three were, though, maybe I missed it. I found all the papers used but there were like a dozen in the non-health-care setting.

It's pretty conclusive. It's been conclusive for years and years, before COVID-19. There's no question at all that masks reduce infectiousness through the extremely obvious method of preventing some virus particles from going from one person to another, and also no question at all that probability of infection depends on number of virus particles around, and that viruses in general produce worse symptoms when the initial viral load is higher (and masks reduce the initial viral load via the extraordinarily obvious physical mechanism).

You will find literally zero papers credibly claiming otherwise.

You will find many papers claiming that masks do not reduce the risk to zero. That's obvious and also irrelevant in light of the above.

You will find papers claiming that random cloth masks do not negligibly reduce the risk when you're immersed in a high-virus-density environment for hours on end. Not as obvious, but also irrelevant in light of the above.

If you think you know of a paper that contradicts the above, send it our way please.

It does not. It maximizes log-wealth. Maximizing expected wealth gives a strategy which results in $0 a lot of the time but much much more than Kelly occasionally, achieving a higher average wealth. Kelly gives that up, getting far less expectation of actual wealth, but far more expectation of log-wealth (which is -inf at $0 so avoids the $0 results). If you don't believe this, pick any one scenario and actually do the math, take the limits, etc.

A good night's sleep is better than antibiotics.

Well stop. You're the one encouraging this bad behavior.

Absolutely not a distinction without a difference. "Less than 10%" implies, in the vernacular, that they didn't have confidence stating another round bound. That almost certainly it is greater than 1%, probably greater than 2%, and there's a good chance it's greater than 5%. That's how folks read numbers like this. And then they will correctly conclude they should not listen to the CDC because the CDC's numbers seem made up.

If you need more nuance to avoid miscommunicating but you do not give it, you have miscommunicated.

How many of those are quite aware that if they don't choose, they're on the chopping block? So far I've known exactly two people who actually want to return to the office more than just like once in a while for fun, regardless of what they tell their boss. And one shouldn't count much because she also is going to retire shortly. I'm pretty sure I'm an outlier but not a "no really it's 60%" outlier.

I hear people say this so much and it's so incredibly not true for me but I dunno if I'm different, they're all full of it, or both.