Well, now he has another reason not to change his mind. Seems unwise, even if he's right about everything.

1. What does "an action that harms another agent" mean? For instance, if I threaten to not give you a chicken unless you give me $5, does "I don't give you a chicken" count as "a course of action that harms another agent"? Or does it have to be an active course, rather than act of omission?

2. Is it still blackmail if it's "justified"? For instance, if you steal me car, and I threaten to call the police if you don't give it back, is that blackmail?

"Wanna see something cool?"

Music Thread

Music Thread

I finished reading 1Q84, by Haruki Murakami.

My first reaction upon finishing the book was, "Well, if his previous work wasn't enough to merit a Nobel Prize, this one isn't going to help."

Good things: Murakami is still the only currently living master of magical realism, and this could be his last major work. The most charitable interpretation of the book is that it is the culmination of all of his work on loneliness and alienation. It takes very traditional Western magical elements like the fae, doppleganger, and immaculate conception, and weaves them in with traditional Japanese cultural elements like NHK fee collectors, filial piety, and the hikikomori. The title's connection with Orwell's 1984 is subtle and mostly well-done.

Bad things: Too often do characters say or think that something that was clearly arranged by the author happened "by coincidence"; in general the writing is somewhat lazy. No explanation is given as to why, e.g., a policewoman in '84 would know who Marshall McLuhan is. Egregious abuse of Occam's razor (by name) in the third part to mask the author feeding the plot-so-far into the mind of a character he needlessly recycled from The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle.

Upvoted so hard.

Borges is pretty much my favorite writer of fiction. When I first read him, I frequently experienced a genuine sense of wonder that fiction hadn't ever evoked in me before (and hasn't really since, although Blindsight, Italo Calvino, The Book of the New Sun and some of Nabokov came close).

I recommend picking up his Collected Fictions. All his short stories, very well translated. Beautiful beautiful stuff.

Read "The Stars My Destination" by Alfred Bester and am torn between liking it and not. It was recommended as a 'must read' for anyone who liked HPMOR by someone on r/hpmor. It really has no rationality in it to speak of - the character spends more time punching his way through problems then out-thinking them. There's a couple cool sequences where the character pushes himself to learn in harsh environments, but that's about it. At several points through the book I was severely tempted to put it down and not finish but at other times I was quite caught up in it. It reminds me somewhat of Ayn Rand's works in that the author has decided their character is going to be really good at things and so spends a fair amount of time telling the reader how awesome their character is. It seems to have worked though, given that the version I read has a gushing intro from Neil Gaimman about how gripping and powerful the main character is. I wasn't convinced.

I reread "Dune" by Frank Herbert. It's even better than I remembered and has some fun rationalist themes (though without enough details in those themes to make it comparable to HPMOR). I tried reading the second book years ago and got tired half-way through. I might try again.

I also read some of Oscar Wilde. I was a little disappointed in "The Importance of Being Earnest", probably due to my having read P.G. Wodehouse who has pretty similar story lines. I was expecting by his reputation more cleverness in the story. That said, his writing is quite entertaining and I found myself laughing out loud several times.

when in the last couple thousand of years, if Jews had wanted to stone apostates to death, would they have been able to do it? The diasporan condition doesn't really allow it.

You sure about this? I don't know much about this topic, but I remember reading somewhere that 200 or more years ago Jews were often allowed to give punishment to their own people within diaspora. They couldn't stone a Christian/Muslim from the majority population, but they could stone (or otherwise kill, or otherwise severely punish) one of their own -- unless the given sinner already converted to Christianity/Islam and left their community. So converting to majority religion could be safe, but converting to atheism or some heresy within Judaism would not.

Speaking in long term terms, what is the mechanism by which societies secularize themselves, and are there ways to trigger it? For instance, the Jews too have a very explicit, canonic policy of stoning proselytizing apostates to death. When did they stop doing that, and why?