throwaw4ybio

Think of it more as short-selling Steven Pinker's work in the marketplace of ideas.

edit: I like this analogy the more I think about it. If I tell my friends I strongly disagree with Steven Pinker today and his "valuation" continues to fall, I can gain social credit. There is a risk involved in this, however, because sometime in the future science may gather strong confirmatory evidence that Steven Pinker was right all along, and I'll have to trade in an even greater amount of social capital (e.g. because I'm forced to admit I was wrong or go all defensive kook).

Sorry, following the increasingly bizarre news with cryptocurrency and GME is something I've been doing too much of lately.

>Pinker traces the origins of this dynamic all the way back to 1975 and the publication of E.O. Wilson’s “Sociobiology,” when Wilson and other biologists “would get shouted down” for expressing the view that genetic and other evolutionary considerations determine, in part, social organization.

Two things that might serve as food for thought:

1) I guarantee that know-it-all, newly-minted young adults getting mad at professors didn't start in 1975, though simultaneous social shifts (e.g. things like the anti-Vietnam-War movement) might have made it more socially acceptable for the youngins to speak up in those places.

2) People complaining about being oppressed on campus because of their ideas frequently seem to have the same weird idea. Whereas, no one goes and yells at Lee Smolin when he bags on string theory.

Cost of materials (e.g. sand) are going up, plus the "nuclear grade" upcharge. Add a 2x to 4x multiplier for "accidents" that require demolition and rework. :)

If you want nuclear to happen:

1) Disrupt the nuclear construction contracting process. Until fleet contractors like Bechtel et al are stopped from parasitizing the industry, it's going nowhete due to spiralling costs.

2) Lower the cost of reinforced concrete.

3) Close the fuel cycle.

3 is technically feasible, 2 isn't very sexy, but possible. 1 seems insurmountable.

If his goal is to change the publisher's mind, calling them "craven" is a terrible rhetorical tactic.

I agree, there are plenty of social scenarios that aren't congruent to iterated prisoner's dilemma.

E.g. if you implement tit-for-tat in your marriage, you're gonna have a bad time.

Would love to see a legit reply to this point. Usenet is there.

The trouble is that it is behind your security perimeter once it is on your home network. It can start discovering other devices, monitoring traffic, enumerating ports and services, etc.

They should be careful not to cross into Icarus territory.

I have to admit that this "last man" stuff rings of the "soyboy" rhetoric you hear in some corners of the web.

>If the system gets corrupted, a second group of scientists will emerge who claim to be the real deal. Let them battle it out and choose the smarter group for further funding.

Would this involve an application? Perhaps a committee?