= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Emile comments on The Importance of Self-Doubt - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (726)
Wait, did you really mean "no, the page has always redirected there" instead of "no, the page does not, in fact, redirect there"?
"A page that is extremely similar to X" implies "a page that is not X", assuming normal use of the English language. The rapture of the nerds page has always led to the technological singularity page, and the technological singularity page is not a page that is not the technological singularity page.
Reading the relevant comment with the strictest possible definitions of all the terms, it's technically correct, but the way that the comment is structured implies an interpretation other than the one that is true, and it could easily have been structured in a way that wouldn't imply such an interpretation.
Huh. Put like that, I guess I understand now, but it seems as though your refutation could also have been more clear on that point. Thanks for the disentangling!
The pages are subtly different - in the way I described in detail in my original comment. Count the words in the first sentence - the one starting: "A technological singularity is..." to see the difference.
My guess is that a Wikipedia "redirect" allows for a prefix header to be prepended, which would explain the difference.
All four versions of the page - redirect and not, secure and not - start with the same two sentences for me: "A technological singularity is a hypothetical event. It will occur if technological progress becomes so rapid and the growth of super-human intelligence so great that the future (after the singularity) becomes qualitatively different and harder to predict."
I suspect you have a cache issue.
That seems likely. I used http://hidemyass.com/proxy/ - and it gives a more consistent picture.
Much time could have been saved had you copied and pasted the two diverging sentences rather than asking people to count the words. For indeed there was a recent change in the page, and if this was the source of the difference, then had you provided the exact sentences then the cause could have been determined quickly, avoiding a lot of back and forth.
Copying and pasting from a comparison, the slightly earlier version is:
The slightly more recent version is:
The rest of the earlier sentence was split off into separate sentences.
Not that I am necessarily one to talk but much time could have been saved if nobody argued about such an irrelevant technicality. ;)
It was the key and only evidence in an accusation of lying, which is a pretty damn serious accusation that should neither be taken lightly nor made lightly. The evidence was small but the role it played in the accusation made it important. If your point is that the accuser should have held their tongue so to speak, you may be right. But they didn't, and so the question took on importance.
Yes, responding to accusations of lying is important. Making them, not so much. :)
*nods* *edits ancestral comment*