ozymandias271:

thinking about the latest SSC post:

I suspect Scott is massively overestimating the strength of the bubble effect because his personal bubble is pretty strong, e.g., my high school was primarily Republican, my longest relationship was with someone Red Tribe as hell, my mom’s side of the family votes Democrat but are rural Southern whites, I have been defeated in arguments by creationists (in meatspace) multiple times, etc. Similarly: for the past eight or nine years all my social groups have been Whitelandia: population White People. White people are pretty socially segregated from POC, but I think if I generalized from my own experience (white people with the occasional token Asian or Hispanic) I would massively overestimate how socially segregated white people are. 

I also think he is identifying two natural kinds— poor conservative rural whites and upper-middle-class/rich progressive urban whites— and assuming that they are the entire country. Like… my high school was super-Republican, but all the kids were rich. They didn’t act like the Blue Tribe or the Red Tribe. There was, as I recall, a lot of interest in drinking and Call of Duty. (In the interests of honesty: the smart kids all converted to Blue or Grey Tribe somewhere around junior year.)

Conversely my dad grew up poor and his political opinions haven’t changed? I suspect his family fell in the category Working-Class Union Members, who go Democrat. But working-class union members are less prominent nowadays. 

Scott did admit to being USA-centered in that post, but I think it might be interesting to look across the Atlantic for this sort of thing.

In my experience, this sort of political tribalism doesn’t work all that well in Belgium since at some point every party is going to have to cooperate with every other party.

Although in the vain of similar but different we have the Wallonia-Flanders thing.

slashmarks:

For the record, if you have a question about a subject you think I know a lot about, or that I talk about a lot, you are absolutely welcome to ask me.

I can’t promise I’ll answer, especially if it’s an upsetting topic, and I may not know the answer. But I can promise I will not go off on a capslock rage at you for asking me and publicly shame you for being stupid and entitled for asking a reasonable question.

(via another-normal-anomaly)

ilvos01:

Just finished what’s been updated of HPMOR.  It’s really quite amazing, what Yudkowski’s written, and is a superb example of what fiction can be.

It’s coming to its ending soon, or so I hear, and I’m excited to read it. The author has touched on some topics that are very near and dear to my heart, and I sincerely hope he does good by them.

I mostly reblog this to tell you it’s YudkowskY. Don’t worry, plenty of people (including myself) have made the mistake.

But yeah, HPMOR is great.

And about the thing with Hermione…

It’s my opinion that good fiction elicits emotions. Sometimes the emotions feel good, like: fun, faith in humanity, believe in a better future, hope… Sometimes the emotions feel bad, like disgust with society, shock, sadness…

Both of them are a sign of good writing.

Tags: HPMOR

ozymandias271:

chroniclesofrettek:

ozymandias271:

god there’s a lot of obnoxious signalling in this thread

yes, dear, you are very contrarian, you do not have ANY ingroup, you hate EVERYONE, I am very proud of you, would you like a parade

I’m really glad to finally have an ingroup, I used to not have one.

me too :D

Yeah, having an in-group is definitely one of the best things that happened to me in the past few years.

Tags: Less Wrong

pablostanley:

A simple guide to know what the hell you are.

I think this is a good graphic if you’re having an internet discussion about god and got bogged down at discussing words.
It’s less useful if your belief in god(s) boils down to: “I assign a marginal probability to the existence of a deity, with the exception of possibly the programmer who made this universe in case we’re living in a simulation.”
In other words, it’s a good way to get bogged down in discussing the difference between “knowing” and “believing.”

pablostanley:

A simple guide to know what the hell you are.

I think this is a good graphic if you’re having an internet discussion about god and got bogged down at discussing words.

It’s less useful if your belief in god(s) boils down to: “I assign a marginal probability to the existence of a deity, with the exception of possibly the programmer who made this universe in case we’re living in a simulation.”

In other words, it’s a good way to get bogged down in discussing the difference between “knowing” and “believing.”

(via bishiesparkleflash)

Damn, I’m starting to hate Coil.

mitoticcephalopod said: Could I be on the aspiring rationalist list please?

Of course you could.

You’re on it now.

Anonymous said: Hi, this is Lavender Bubble Tea who sometimes comments on SSC. I don't have a tumblr myself and I didn't send that specific anon to Ozy asking to join the lw wrong tumblr skype group, but joining has been on my mind and I am wondering is and how I can join

hot-gay-rationalist:

Sure, but uh… it’s not ideal that you message me on anon tumblr. I can only publish asks, and I’m not about to publish my email/Skype name, nor ask you to do the same, either of which is needed for me to add you to the group :P

They can add me to Skype. I don’t mind publishing my skype username: mathias.zaman

somervta:

earth-song:

Vitrelladonella Richardi

We have just confirmed with Senior Scientist Bruce H. Robison, from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, that the translucent octopus discovered in the DeepSee Submersible last week (April 10 2012) was in fact a very rare deep water pelagic octopus know as Vitrelladonella richardi.
While there is no confirmed common name for the octopus Dr. Robison believes that they are found primarily in tropical and subtropical waters around the world and are very rarely seen. This is largely because they tend to be a deep water octopus and the DeepSee just happened to catch this little guy (80cm/2.6ft) shallower than usual at 180m/590ft. While Dr. Robison points out that not much is known about these translucent octopus he did tell us this:

"They are wonderfully transparent and the body parts that they can’t make transparent (like the eyes and digestive gland) are elongate and sort of teardrop-shaped, so that when the animal is horizontal they cast a minimal shadow against the lighted waters above." - Dr. Bruce H Robison

Nothing can match the excitement of encountering such an incredible creature in the submarine. While at Cocos Island guests and crew all gathered around watching the footage of the octopus in awe. Check out the video below showing the octopus as well as the other highlights from the DeepSee dives during the Argo April 4-14th trip. 
The ability to work hand in hand with leading scientists like Dr. Robison, whose research at the Monterey Bay Aquarium is focused on the biology and ecology of deep-sea animals, is the backbone of the DeepSee’s operation. 

As a guest aboard the DeepSee you have the unique opportunity to be a part of the discovery and exploration process because the sub’s video camera records each and every sub dive. This footage is sent to the research station in our San Jose office where scientists from the University of Costa Rica analyze the footage. Don’t miss a chance to be part of a scientific discovery and an incredible deep sea adventure. Make sure to book a ride in the DeepSee on your next trip to Cocos Island.

p. sure everyone just tags ozymandias271 on reflex whenever they see an octopus…

I actually don’t. Should I be doing that?

Comment I made on Less Wrong - a thing I’m struggling with atm

theunitofcaring:

loki-zen:

It’s really difficult to ‘shut up and multiply’ in some cases.

I mean, I’m going to get personal here because it feels like the best way to articulate my problems with mathematical utilitarianism. But right now, I don’t produce anything like what I cost my society (in terms of socialized medicine, and support I receive from my parents).

I feel very strongly that I shouldn’t value myself more than a random African. But there are charities that claim I could save at least one life with what I spend on prescription fees every month. In terms of pure utilitarianism, unless I’m certain that I’m going to produce a lot more in the future and give some of that away, I probably ought to persuade my parents to give the help they give me with the rent to effective charities, borrow a bunch of money and give that to effective charities, then give the money I spend on my meds to effective charities until I basically kill myself.

That doesn’t feel right, but it’s what I get from shutting up and multiplying.

So a few things:

The ‘shut up and multiply’ ethic came out of situations where people were valuing their own sense of satisfaction or of purity or of not-responsibility over actual human lives:

…a team of researchers who evaluated the effectiveness of a certain project, calculating the cost per life saved, and recommended to the government that the project be implemented because it was cost-effective.  The governmental agency rejected the report because, they said, you couldn’t put a dollar value on human life.  After rejecting the report, the agency decided not to implement the measure.

When you are in a situation where you can choose between ‘doing the thing that feels intuitively nice’ and ‘doing the thing that saves human lives’, shut up and multiply.

When you are in a situation where you are not sure if your existence is the most optimal thing ever, and you wonder if you deserve to stay alive, this is the wrong ethos to be applying. I’m not sure what the right ethos is, but the one that speaks to me personally is HJPEV’s stubborn determination to save every single person, to value every single life, to figure out a tradeoff that’s actually just straight-up winning. If the rules require terrible sacrifices from us, that’s not because the universe enforces a balance of pain and joy in equal measure. It’s because we haven’t figured out how to win yet, and you don’t get rationality points for courageously accepting the painful balance of things.

"This is an unacceptable tradeoff and so I’m going to tear apart the fabric of the universe so no one has to make it" is a perfectly appropriate response to a world where someone wonders if they should stop paying for their medication to make sure children in other countries don’t die needless and terrible deaths from malaria. 

The vast majority of things are non-optimal, and ‘change them all over to the most optimal possible use of resources!’ is an understandable thought when you first confront how horrifyingly suboptimal things are. But it’s not actually strategic. This is the same principle that makes people say ‘effective altruists hate cathedrals and symphonies’, when in reality there are a thousand things we could direct to more efficient works before we touch our first symphony, and a thousand cathedrals and symphonies we can dismantle before there’s any cause to touch your medication. 

And by then we’d have solved the problem of global poverty - which would go away if the average American gave 5% of their income - and there’d be no cause to ask that of you at all. 

The utilitarian justifications for all this are meta-level and I can provide them if requested, but: Effective altruism does not demand you throw your health and happiness into a bottomless pit of suffering. Effective altruism does not demand you have the emotional experiences, or even make the decisions, consonant with valuing everyone in the world equally. Effective altruism doesn’t ask you to give money you don’t have. At its heart, effective altruism is a bunch of people who want the world to suck less, who want people to have more choices and fewer limitations, who want no one ever to do the calculations and think ‘on the net, I’m a burden on the system’, because that system won’t matter and those people do. 

The essential message of ‘shut up and multiply’ is ‘every life has value beyond measure’, not a weapon to make some people feel like burdens, or to make anyone wonder if they’ve done enough to justify their existence.

(via wrapscallion)

earth-song:

Vitrelladonella Richardi

We have just confirmed with Senior Scientist Bruce H. Robison, from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, that the translucent octopus discovered in the DeepSee Submersible last week (April 10 2012) was in fact a very rare deep water pelagic octopus know as Vitrelladonella richardi.
While there is no confirmed common name for the octopus Dr. Robison believes that they are found primarily in tropical and subtropical waters around the world and are very rarely seen. This is largely because they tend to be a deep water octopus and the DeepSee just happened to catch this little guy (80cm/2.6ft) shallower than usual at 180m/590ft. While Dr. Robison points out that not much is known about these translucent octopus he did tell us this:

"They are wonderfully transparent and the body parts that they can’t make transparent (like the eyes and digestive gland) are elongate and sort of teardrop-shaped, so that when the animal is horizontal they cast a minimal shadow against the lighted waters above." - Dr. Bruce H Robison

Nothing can match the excitement of encountering such an incredible creature in the submarine. While at Cocos Island guests and crew all gathered around watching the footage of the octopus in awe. Check out the video below showing the octopus as well as the other highlights from the DeepSee dives during the Argo April 4-14th trip. 
The ability to work hand in hand with leading scientists like Dr. Robison, whose research at the Monterey Bay Aquarium is focused on the biology and ecology of deep-sea animals, is the backbone of the DeepSee’s operation. 

As a guest aboard the DeepSee you have the unique opportunity to be a part of the discovery and exploration process because the sub’s video camera records each and every sub dive. This footage is sent to the research station in our San Jose office where scientists from the University of Costa Rica analyze the footage. Don’t miss a chance to be part of a scientific discovery and an incredible deep sea adventure. Make sure to book a ride in the DeepSee on your next trip to Cocos Island.

(via ilovecephalopods)

landofwindandskyscrapers said: Puns make the world go round

I see a lot of puns (my old “internet home” had a thing for them), but I don’t enjoy them very often. I suspect part of it may be because English isn’t my first language, so I have less “feel” for puns. I can’t make a good pun to save my life (in English, that is).

And the Petrus/Petra thing isn’t really a pun, come to think about it. At least no more than Remus Lupin is.

Is losing something right after you said how much it sucks weak evidence in favor of animism?

aneyrieofowls:

kacsa:

beben-eleben:

Japanese Food Porn

the bear all tucked in!!!

So cute!!

This is not okay. How can I be expected to eat something like this? It would be like ripping a teddy bear apart. You don’t just do that.

(via sonatagreen)

Tags: Food Cute

zemedelphos:

vagabondaesthetics:

thefemaletyrant:


generalbriefing:


So….I totally never thought about this. I’m sure very few of you have. I don’t know about you, but I’m a bit disturbed…


Wow. Food for thought. I’m sure there’s an answer though.


Their names were translated/Anglicized after going from Greek to English.
The names of the Apostles are of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew origins. The Hebrew, Aramaic and “Greek” named Apostles were:  Shim’on = Simon (Hebrew origin).  Y’hochanan = John (Hebrew origin).  Mattithyahu = Matthew (Hebrew origin).  Ya’aqov = James (Hebrew origin meaning Jacob).  Bar-Tôlmay = Bartholomew (Aramaic, which is related to Hebrew).  Judah = Jude / Saint Jude (not to be confused with Judas Iscariot, Hebrew origin).  Yehuda = Judas Iscariot (Hebrew origin, Betrayed Yeshua/Yehosua the Messiah).  Cephas / Kephas = Peter (Hebrew / Aramaic origin meaning “Rock”).  Tau’ma = Thomas (Aramaic origin).  Andrew = Andrew (Greek origin. Is the brother of Cephas / Kephas).  Phillip = Phillip (Greek origin).  You will note that there are only 11 names, that is because there were 2 Apostles named Ya’aqov (James), which brings the total to 12 apostles.
Link 

To expand on this, Jesus’s name is Anglicized in this way as well. We get Jesus from the Latin form of the Greek “Ἰησοῦς”(Iēsous), which is derived from the Herbrew “ישוע”(Yeshu’a, which meant “YHWH is Salvaion”, YHWH, or Yahweh being the name of God). When another form of that name, ” יְהוֹשֻׁעַ”(Yeoshu’a) was allowed to Anglicize through a different set of corruptions, it entered the English Language through Reformist Protestants as the name “Joshua”.Yes. Jesus’s actual name is Joshua.


So wait, they completely changed Cephas’s name, just so the pun would still work in Latin?

zemedelphos:

vagabondaesthetics:

thefemaletyrant:

generalbriefing:

So….I totally never thought about this. I’m sure very few of you have. I don’t know about you, but I’m a bit disturbed…

Wow. Food for thought. I’m sure there’s an answer though.

Their names were translated/Anglicized after going from Greek to English.

The names of the Apostles are of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew origins. The Hebrew, Aramaic and “Greek” named Apostles were:

Shim’on = Simon (Hebrew origin).

Y’hochanan = John (Hebrew origin).

Mattithyahu = Matthew (Hebrew origin).

Ya’aqov = James (Hebrew origin meaning Jacob).

Bar-Tôlmay = Bartholomew (Aramaic, which is related to Hebrew).

Judah = Jude / Saint Jude (not to be confused with Judas Iscariot, Hebrew origin).

Yehuda = Judas Iscariot (Hebrew origin, Betrayed Yeshua/Yehosua the Messiah).

Cephas / Kephas = Peter (Hebrew / Aramaic origin meaning “Rock”).

Tau’ma = Thomas (Aramaic origin).

Andrew = Andrew (Greek origin. Is the brother of Cephas / Kephas).

Phillip = Phillip (Greek origin).

You will note that there are only 11 names, that is because there were 2 Apostles named Ya’aqov (James), which brings the total to 12 apostles.

Link 

To expand on this, Jesus’s name is Anglicized in this way as well. We get Jesus from the Latin form of the Greek “Ἰησοῦς”(Iēsous), which is derived from the Herbrew “ישוע”(Yeshu’a, which meant “YHWH is Salvaion”, YHWH, or Yahweh being the name of God). When another form of that name, ” יְהוֹשֻׁעַ”(Yeoshu’a) was allowed to Anglicize through a different set of corruptions, it entered the English Language through Reformist Protestants as the name “Joshua”.

Yes. Jesus’s actual name is Joshua.

So wait, they completely changed Cephas’s name, just so the pun would still work in Latin?

(Source: stfueverything, via bishiesparkleflash)