zmgsabst

Humans still successfully compete in chess status because other humans like watching humans compete.

I suspect it will be similar.

There’s a less cynical take:

We create new hobbies and niches because human scale arenas are important for us psychologically — so we branch culture to accommodate the necessary number of role performance arenas.

Everybody is playing status games, but we’re avoiding Calhoun-style behavioral sinks by not all playing the same game at the same table.

The language construct is exactly that if-then-else, you’re just making the intended inference.

A ? B : C => !B -> C

This is where Bayes bites in practice: we can know that impatient and long-minded behaviors are correlated to outcomes, ie p(quit | impatient), without the outcome meaningfully informing which case we have, ie p(impatient | quit).

That’s because people are complicated and do things for many reasons, so people quitting when we cut their pay might not tell us they’re impatient.

I suspect the intent is what you say, but I don’t think the outcome is.

If you chart money in your pocket per unit time, it takes a dip around 18 months where your average pay is less than your first month’s pay. (When I was there, using RSU numbers for that time.) Guess when average quitting time was?

HR swore it wasn’t on purpose and I was somehow measuring pay “wrong” by looking at money in my pocket over time; but knowing their HR, I’m sure the valleys in transition from signing bonus to vesting are intentional.

Also food safety.

For example, community supported agriculture programs cross traditional political boundaries.

What do you mean?

You seem to think I’ve said something very technical, while I’ve merely pointed out a well-known effect of Lorentz invariance and interferometry: you can’t detect an “aether” signal coincident with the detector, because the detector is distorted synchronously.

Michelson-Morley was never going to work because it relied on the assumption matter wasn’t subject to aether wind — which turned out to be wrong, as matter is subject to relativistic effects and fields unify. You needed that independence to generate the differential the interferometry amplified.

By contrast, LIGO measures an effect far removed and not co-moving with the detector. So it works.

Also why LIGO works but Michelson-Morley failed: you can use the ruler distortion as a signal, with some caveats.

In LIGO, we detect the far away distortions propagating through our rulers and the differential effect of those waves.

But Michelson-Morley failed because the ruler distorted synchronously with the signal we tried to measure — since we mistakenly believed EM and matter were different fields.

> measuring the expansion of space using a ruler that inhabits the same space

We do that, routinely: that’s how we do cosmology.

Also to move up the first step of the ladder: if you can reliably intercept (eg) a dozen missiles, then an adversary must launch more than that.

But a few dozen launches removes pretenses like “limited strikes”, which may allow for easier on-ramps. Missile defense can ensure the first step is a full step.

Obama used race (and in particular, neo-Marxist theories like intersectionality and equity) to displace conversation about class with conversation about race. At exactly the moment class-unity was driving meaningful capital reform in the fallout of the 2008 GFC.

There were numerous memes at the time pointing out the shift in the language of NYT et al from discussing class issues to racial grievances. Clear as day in Google’s metrics of media terms.

That shift in focus is what broke Occupy Wall St as a class movement — and was adopted by Wall St to appoint commissars of that ideology in exchange. Woke.

The Obama -> Bernie -> Trump pipeline is a cohort of working Millennials, ie, the proletariat who have lost faith in Democrat politics serving capital and racial tribes rather than the working class. So they elected someone with the right platform they believed would break the system — following the rigging of the 2016 primary. They’re one of the relatively small (1-2%) but engaged cohorts that switch teams, eg, when the election comes down to under 1% difference, which way they vote matters — and they generally vote anti-establishment, with increasing aggression.

Democrats have completed failed to perceive that reality and engaged in name calling instead — eg, the multiple replies calling me a racist to slander me and poison the well for debate.

I usually don’t reply because there’s no point making serious discussions to people who have already made up their mind, eg, sibling replies.

US was less racist in 2008 and more united around class solidarity.

Yes — because there are many non-equivalent statements that are easier to prove.

So the Lean proves something and the question is whether that something is actually what we care about — or something similar, but ultimately not the question.

I’m genuinely curious:

Which part are you struggling to take as in good faith?

I’m sure it’s not your preferred narrative of the times, but we both knew that before I answered; so what is it that strikes you as in bad faith rather than my genuine interpretation of events?

Bad random in games is also a problem, eg, reversing the poker seed.