zahlman

19 ms·

571.
by zahlman 3mo ago
Simple as they are, there are some really aesthetically pleasing penguins on skateboards in there, including from less capable models. (In fact, I would say the Opus series got progressively worse at it over time.)
572.
by zahlman 3mo ago
Fidelity to the original is definitely not how humans would measure "art" in this context.
573.
by zahlman 3mo ago
Even if the models don't break through any particular "uglier than sin" barrier, with a bit more work, presumably the SVGs could become importable into an editor that would let a human apply taste and discretion. Seems to me
574.
by zahlman 3mo ago
To realize that, it would have to be true. But it isn't, so I can't.
575.
by zahlman 3mo ago
I gave an example elsewhere in the post and I was accused of dishonesty and strawmanning — even though it's obviously something that everyone in that community is expected to believe, because it's true (in the same way that 2 + 2
576.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> with politics that generally flow entirely predictably from those demographics. There is obviously no such thing. The clear purpose of the subthread the two of you are engaging in is clearly against HN guidelines.
577.
by zahlman 3mo ago
>> Rationalists are ideologically diverse [1] > That graph looks incredibly un-diverse. Which of age, childlessness, white skin, being male or US citizenship is an "ideology"?
578.
by zahlman 3mo ago
The original timecube.com died (domain registration expiration) in 2015 (shortly after its creator) and timecube.net is a reboot from 2023 (and I can find nothing tying it to the estate or anything like that).
579.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> I'd guess for questions asking X or Y they mean X, lean X, no preference, lean Y, and Y Yes; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale > but in what order? ... One such chart is simply titled "Global
580.
by zahlman 3mo ago
"couple of". The preposition is often omitted in casual speech.
581.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> There is nothing I could possibly say to convince you otherwise, in the same EXACT way I couldn't convince a scientologist that their thetan levels are nonsense. What on Earth are you talking about? What is the supposed nonsense t
582.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> Go back and reread yourself in this thread. I know perfectly well what I said in this thread and don't need to re-read it. It wasn't long. > You say "nuh-uh because Bayes' theorem is true"??? No, that isn&#x
583.
by zahlman 3mo ago
And my point is that according to the works that supposedly motivate them, they are explicitly not supposed to do that; furthermore, I'm not actually convinced that they are doing it on anything like the scale that critics allege
584.
by zahlman 3mo ago
I'm pretty sure the Angry Dishwasher Man has said it.
585.
by zahlman 3mo ago
I see what you're trying to accomplish here; but adopting the clickbait phrasing ironically is still using it, and it doesn't go over well on HN. Please rethink the submission title; you don't get a chance up front to demonst
586.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> I'm criticizing the design of the site (and to some extent the rules that were set up) So we agree (but the people you're talking about are not moderators ). Again: >Everyone involved would have loved to "explain thi
587.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> We probably understand this word very differently, because as far as I'm concerned, rationality (rational behavior) is essentially an exercise in behaving optimally, one that is thus strictly relative to some particular context. N
588.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> the people who wrote the mini-faq etc. claim it's because the people who built the site are wrong, as is every other non-personally-invested user of the site. Yes. Because it's clear that the people who built the site were
589.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> I literally cited you an example of such a gathering. Do you refute it or just deny that it exists? You did nothing to attempt to establish that the gathering was of the nature you ascribe to it, and I see nothing in the Reddit post to
590.
by zahlman 3mo ago
Yu Xin's past was exquisitely tragic Ages passed; now his works betray magic
591.
by zahlman 3mo ago
Is the video available not through a proprietary player? > After this the book was pulped and she had some sort of psychotic break during COVID and allied with ultra-right and COVID denialist loonies. That's quite an extreme shift c
592.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> It didn't take long before a strawman got pulled out of nowhere. It's not a strawman. It's a central example of what I had in mind when I used the word "axiom". > if one disagrees with the wild conjectures o
593.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> Which claim exactly did I make which you are refuting? Please actually quote it. When you said: > How about the 95% stop having gatherings where they all proclaim that their beliefs are true even if they don't seriously believe
594.
by zahlman 3mo ago
Asking "why are there so many rationalist cults?" (as the URL does) in this context is kind of like asking "why are there so many mathematical cranks?", and then holding forth that this somehow demonstrates a fundamental
595.
by zahlman 3mo ago
Because, as the incident with Damore amply demonstrated , trying to use common language to describe these concepts leads to enormous misunderstandings at best . (And sometimes people go out of their way to misinterpret you anyway.)
596.
by zahlman 3mo ago
And? The entire point is that true statements are true, and false statements are false, regardless of who does or doesn't utter them .
597.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> I suspect a 20 year old was behind it. Yudkowsky wrote them from 2006-2009, so he would have been in his late 20s. > because people are aware that the studies referenced in there turned out not to replicate The Sequences are about p
598.
by zahlman 3mo ago
It comes across to me that there's a lot of culture warring in it that's irrelevant to the task of actually figuring out what's true. Bringing up Damore and "sealioning" within a few paragraphs is more than enough t
599.
by zahlman 3mo ago
Okay, but those pieces don't establish your claim. You would need a Roko's basilisk-like concept that only 5% of the community agree with, and a "group meetup" or "conference" where "they all" (i.e.:
600.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> You do realize you sound exactly like a cult member right? If you say so. That doesn't change the fact that P(A|B) = P(B|A)P(A)/P(B).

More ›